In the last few days there have been rumors flying around a ’seminar paper’ written by Obama in his Columbia days. According to the bloggers that have helped spread the story, in the paper, Obama wrote about the plight of the poor, the faults of the current economic system, and about taking another look at the founding fathers. The story garnered enough buzz and interest to make it all way up to Rush Limbaugh’s radio show. Since Mr. Limbaugh keeps his focus on the negative things about Obama, and anything democrat/liberal in general, it becomes clear that this ‘potential thesis’ wouldn’t been seen as good.
First of all, it was untrue. Rush Limbaugh was told in the middle of his show that it was a hoax, although he said it was believable. For my part, I am disappointed it was a hoax. From the little exert that was passed around.. I don’t see any destructive or negative ideas. Here’s what Obama didn’t actually write:
“… the Constitution allows for many things, but what it does not allow is the most revealing. The so-called Founders did not allow for economic freedom. While political freedom is supposedly a cornerstone of the document, the distribution of wealth is not even mentioned. While many believed that the new Constitution gave them liberty, it instead fitted them with the shackles of hypocrisy.”
I agree with those words.. and anyone who seeks out the real facts about our country and government would agree with those words. Our nation is stacked against the poor and the disenfranchised. Recently released report indicated that one out of every 6 Americans lives in poverty.. thats almost 50 million people. Is our Constitution really that perfect and amazing as we were taught in school, if it creates a country where 1 in every 6 individuals lives in poverty. Why not question it? Why not change it? If it is insufficient, isn’t it our responsibility to create a new system that does work?
Same question about the founding fathers.. why not question them. Remember, they were the smartest, most powerful men of their time. They stood to gain the most from American Indepence. They were the politicians. Would you trust our politicians to create a constitution today that will be adhered to for the next 200 years? Why trust a group of men that have been romanticized for 200 years.
Although Obama’s alleged Columbia thesis is a hoax, it’s a shame it was. However, perhaps we can use these words that were never written to evaluate our government and our constitution right now. Is it as good as the defenders and supporters believe? Should we treat it as a symbol of our contry, a symbol that cannot be changed or even eliminated? Or is it necessary, our duty, to see it as just a political document, a political guide, that needs to be changed time from time.
Just remember, the original Constitution allowed slavery and did not allow women to vote. Now, does that sound like a perfect document?
