[Peace-discuss] Not that Obama's any better

[C. G. Estabrook]

Of course the vagaries of "liberal" since its coinage as a political term in the 
Enlightenment are not random.  It's been modified to express political opinions 
and perhaps as often to obscure them.  So a study of the changes can I think be 
instructive.  (Raymond Williams' article in his study Keywords (1983) is a good 
place to start.)

And we obviously use "better" in different if related ways.  It certainly makes 
sense to describe some political policies as better or worse -- e.g., it would 
be better, had the US not invaded Iraq -- and not just a matter of taste, like 
preferring chocolate to vanilla.

I meant that Obama's recorded comments on Iran and Israel -- consistent from the 
time of his campaign for the Senate -- show little if any difference from 
Clinton's unguarded (and therefore probably quite honest) threat to obliterate 
Iran.  --CGE


Stuart Levy wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 09:38:54AM -0500, C. G. Estabrook wrote:
>> Liberals entertain the fantasy that reality is subject to their wills.
>>
>> Solipsism is a constant temptation to them.
> 
> I may regret this but will say...
> Hmm, on two counts:
> 
>    Haven't we just been arguing that "liberal" is
>    a term so widely (ab)used that it doesn't mean much?
> 
>    Would you want to claim that being "better" is a matter
>    of objective reality on which all observers must agree?