Monday, June 09, 2008
I wouldn't belong to any club...
This sort of phenomenon should be at least a little unsettling to people who want to view politics as this kind of wonderful deliberative process by which we all reason together, harnessing our collective wisdom to choose wise policies. There seems to be a stronger case for thinking that politics us makes us crazier together than we are seperately: E pluribus, unhinged.
This is part of Jane's law, I think. It has its "smug and arrogant" flipside in the cozy Obama cocooning evident all around Princeton. I listened (carefully, as I didn't open my mouth) to about 90 minutes of Obama discussion the other night, but didn't hear anyone actually endorse a single policy other than "talking directly to Ahmedinejad". Strangely enough, this was justified by the assertion that Ahmedinejad is weak within Iran (back when I got my degree this would have been a garden variety justification for *not* having direct talks). To be fair, opposition to our Iraq policy was implicit in the discussion.
Another weird effect of supporting Obama is that it seems to enhance the liberal 'get out of bigotry free' pass. I never heard so many assertions of ignorance and racism about the broad middle of the country as I did in 90 minutes of supposedly pro-Obama excitement. The man is enough of an enigma that he is truly defined by those who are supposedly against him.
Frankly, my vote is up for grabs. If I thought Obama would put aside all his silly trade rhetoric, take a realistic approach to Iraq and be ready to compromise on a tax policy that balances incentives and simplicity with fairness, I could vote for him. One of Bush's biggest failings is a lack of ability to inspire and persuade - citizen's and allies alike. I'd be pleased to see that ability wedded to a moderate pro-capitalist agenda.
If I can just keep the banal conventional wisdom of his establishment supporters from turning me away. My own greatest irrationality, when faced with any point of view reflexively presented at a Princeton or New York City dinner party, is to immediately and seriously entertain the exact opposite.
14 Comments:
By 
Dawnfire82, at
Mon Jun 09, 01:33:00 PM:
"I'd be pleased to see that ability wedded to a moderate pro-capitalist agenda."
And... you see this as a possibility with Obama?
Do tell.
By TigerHawk, at
Mon Jun 09, 01:51:00 PM:
I'm with Dawnfire82 - even allowing for his concrete proposals to raise taxes on capital gains, Obama has done nothing but bash business since I started paying attention to him. His proposals on corporate governance are nothing but a transparent attempt to manage public companies via CALPERs. If we take him at his word, he will make the lives of productive people even more miserable than they are already, if that is to be believed.
By 
, at
Mon Jun 09, 02:12:00 PM:
I am similary skeptical as dawnfire. Based on what I've seen so far, the subtle interplay of tax and economic policy seems beyond BHO. As do most of the other responsibilities of the job.
TH, btw, I hear Santa Fe Grill has been sold and that new owners will be taking over soon.
By , at
Mon Jun 09, 02:39:00 PM:
This thing about talking to the Iranians, especially Ahmadinejad, is actually pretty laughable.
Based on my dim understanding (that is, lacking an Ivy League education) based on readings in popular literature (such as "Guests of the Ayatolah" by Mark Bowden), the "leadership" and political responsibiiity in Iran is intentionally obscure. There is no clear line of responsibilities and authority in the Iranian government. BHO can talk to the Iranian nutjob all he wants, but at the end of the day, it might not make one bit of difference, except make the American president look foolish.
But then, I'm just a dumb yokel in flyover country, and this is probably thinly veiled rascism.
-David
By , at
Mon Jun 09, 03:47:00 PM:
Obama has one virtue, and that is his silky smooth tongue and its ability to inspire convulsions of joy within a significant segment of the populace.
Other than that, he'd be a seriously naive president. I have to question his judgment constantly. A president's top job is not to inspire his countrymen - it is to execute the laws of the country and to be our head of state in international relations. I see him as seriously lacking in both regards.
By D.E. Cloutier, at
Mon Jun 09, 04:18:00 PM:
If Obama is weak, he is Jimmy Carter. If Obama is strong, he is LBJ with "Great Society" dreams. Both Presidents flopped. Both Presidents put the country through a lot of agony. No thanks.
By Mystery Meat, at
Mon Jun 09, 04:51:00 PM:
Obama gave a speech today in North Carolina where he said:
No federal income tax on seniors with incomes less than 50k per year.
No reduction of social security benefits.
No raising of the retirement age.
Any social security shortfalls will the met by making "the rich" pay "their fair share."
This guy is an anti-capitalist, anti-growth, big government commie. How can you think that he is anything other than racial/class grievance-meister? Look at his friends- Rev. Wright, Bill Ayers, Bernardette Dohrn, Fr. Pflegger- commie rats and America haters all. Birds of a feather. Don't be fooled by the slick presentation.
By Escort81, at
Mon Jun 09, 09:27:00 PM:
Maybe what Mindles is really saying is that he wishes that the person who has been POTUS for the last 7+ years would have been endowed with Churchillian speaking skills, and was able to bring the country along with him in the battles in Afghanistan and Iraq. Who knows what kind of shape conservatism would be in with that kind of leader? Add to that being able to go in with bigger numbers in Iraq, a COIN plan from Day One, and a de-emphasis of WMDs as a casus belli and an emphasis of the failing sanctions regime and Oil-for-Food funny business, as well as some control over the drunken sailor spending on domestic programs via earmarks, and there might be conservative-moderate coalition majorities as far as the eye can see.
The bothersome thing for moderates isn't so much Obama himself, it's Obama in combination with significant Democratic majorities in the House and Senate. That would give the "democratic wing of the Democratic Party" a fair amount of running room, a HuffPo wet dream (perhaps the Daily Kossacks wouldn't necessarily be happy with that to the point of bliss). I think most moderates see Obama for what he is -- not an enlightened being of some sort, but as a smart academic guy who became an ambitious Chicago pol, playing the game smoothly but with sharp elbows, having many unsavory liaisons in Chicago politics, which is how the game is played the "Chicago Way." He's an excellent teleprompter speaker and a middling extemporaneous speaker. As I've posted previously, he would clearly be the most politically progressive modern Democrat since FDR to hold the office, should he win. Only Henry Wallace (who would have succeeded FDR in 1945, had he not been kicked off the ticket in 1944 after serving as VP) would have come close to Obama. I think that if the country elects him, it would represent the most significant leftward migration of the political center of the electorate in one presidential term since the Great Depression (1928 election vs. 1932 election), more so than the pre-and-post Watergate elections.
A few years ago, whenever I attended a party and met someone clearly afflicted with BDS, rather than getting into some intense discussion that would serve no useful purpose, I would say, "Well, the Republic was strong enough to withstand the Civil War, the Depression, and the Nixon presidency with Watergate, don't you think we'll be able to make it until 2009? I mean, you don't think they'll really suspend the 2008 elections just to stay in power, do you," which was usually enough to get them to take off their tin foil hats for the duration of the evening (except for the handful who had them glued on.) I would say the same thing here to a much more rational audience: that if Obama wins, as he is apparently favored to do as of today, I think that the Republic will still be standing in 2012.
By Dawnfire82, at
Mon Jun 09, 10:22:00 PM:
But that doesn't mean that it will be in good, or even decent, shape.
The best bet for recovery would be a Republican rally in 2010 in the Congressional elections. I suspect that the public wouldn't be able to stand more than 2 years of socialist government.
By , at
Mon Jun 09, 10:45:00 PM:
dawnfire, although I get your logic, that seems a bit Chamberlainish. Because he is so patently naive, if not simply uninformed, any setbacks will be followed by the inevitable "If only Barry had done A or B or C differently, he would have been successful" - not unlike Clinton's '94 comeuppance . A single victory would legitimize this brand of leftist rhetoric as worth consideration and that is a very slippery slope to travel I believe
By Purple Avenger, at
Mon Jun 09, 11:16:00 PM:
There is no clear line of responsibilities and authority in the Iranian government.
The Guardian Council is the real seat of power in Iran. Nothing happens without their approval.
By , at
Tue Jun 10, 06:23:00 AM:
"... I could vote for him..."
Let me get this straight: a non-practicing lawyer with no experience and no qualifications, who is wholly ignorant of world affairs and whose best friends and mentors are bigots is OK with you?
How exactly does that work?
C. Allen Johnson
By Andrew Hofer, at
Tue Jun 10, 06:36:00 PM:
I don't hold him accountable for vapid supporters, just as I expect (in vain) BDS sufferers to stop holding up right wing hoodlums as typical republicans.
It's a function of the other statist he's running against, obviously, how acceptable he might ultimately be.
Now *lawyer* -hmmm - you may have a point.
By Dawnfire82, at
Tue Jun 10, 07:56:00 PM:
Not supporters. Friends. Mentors. Allies. People with whom he shares drinks, raises money, and associates by choice.
Big difference.
