But the argument isn’t used that way here. Surprisingly, it is used to complain that wealth and technology have failed to realize these goals (as if they could have!)- namely, greater control, eliminating poverty, and greater “balance” . . . whatever that means. I haven’t seen the rest so it may be unfair to judge the whole based on this part, but this part of the argument works from assumptions that should be alien to anyone who recognizes the primacy of God and the the insufficiency and contingency of creation.

There is no apparent recognition that trusting in wealth or technology or any other human effort is based on false reasoning rooted in pride, blind to our role in creation and doomed to fail. There is no acknowledgment that our first responsibility is to God and that, fulfilling that, we will receive everything else besides. At least as far as this excerpt goes, I am surprised by the absence of God — explicit or implicit — in the argument.

On it’s own it seems to offer nothing more than a “we can/should all work together better to realize our hopes” pitch that you hear every election cycle. I hope the rest of the speech corrects this problem.