Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticCat
I think there is (or can be) a moral difference.
If we start from the assumption that both candidates are on the balance reasonably-equally qualified, I think there is a moral/ethical difference between
1) A white voter whose vote for the white candidate is prompted by the belief that a white will always make a better president than a black, or that he doesn't want to see a black president; and
2) A black voter whose vote for the black candidate is prompted not by the belief that a black will always make a better president than a white, but by the belief that the time is right to bring a perspective into the Oval Office that hasn't been there before and to move America a little further down the road.
It seems to me that the former is a refutation of the promise inherent in the Declaration of Independence ("that all men are created equal"), while the latter is an attempt to claim that promise.
|
You have to assume an awful lot of your premises to reach your conclusion. Hypothetically, that could be happening, but I think you are assuming that there's a logical and good thought process going on here. In many cases, that might be right. In others, not.
Your method here assumes away a lot of the premises which went into my hypo without hazarding to explain how, in the very simple example I gave, with nothing else added, voting for a man just because he is black isn't the analog of voting for a man just because he's white.
Look, yes, of course, some folks view this as maybe a confirmation of the American dream. But do you really want to ascribe such a complex and moral thought process to the folks in Harlem who were all for Obama's stance that we must stay the course in Iraq so that we can achieve final victory?
Threaded Mode
