Friday, November 07, 2008
Magical thinking watch
Megan McArdle surveys the comically exaggerated expectations that at least some voters have for Barack Obama, and says that she doesn't "recall Republicans engaging in this kind of magical thinking in 2000." Neither do I, but George W. Bush would not have inspired that even before he became Chimpy McPretzelchoker. More tellingly, I do not recall it with the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980, which was a delightful relief from Jimmy Carter for those few of us who were both college students and conservative in those days, but not much more. The reason, I think, is that conservatives are conservative in no small part because they are not inclined to believe that social "change" is ipso facto great, and certainly not when it involves more state coercion. We just want to be left alone to do stuff, particularly profitable and productive stuff, and are naturally suspicious that any politician, Democrat or Republican, will screw up our opportunities. A true conservative's "magical thinking," then, is in believing that government will actually leave us the frack alone. But we can always dream.
11 Comments:
By 
Who Struck John, at
Fri Nov 07, 10:20:00 AM:
The real magical thinkers are the libertarians who believe that an Obama administration will be better to their interests than a Bush administration was. Somehow, I expect that won't be the case. With plans for enforced community service of the nation's students and for Card-Check, libertarians may discover buyer's remorse in a couple of years.
By 
, at
Fri Nov 07, 12:52:00 PM:
There is a deeper reality to all this. Many people were in deep psychic pain due to the election of GWB and his re-election in 2004.
For them, it was like having an 8 year migraine. Some of the side effects are what was called "BDS", etc.
Now, Obama is President-elect, and the pain is subsiding (for them). Psychological oppression is removed, and they are almost giddy with joy.
As a Republican who did not vote for Obama and who does not share their 'joy', I refuse to make myself miserable in some metaphysical way because someone I didn't vote for is President. Politics isn't all that important, as TH indicated, to conservatives who just want to lead their own lives.
However, soon enough, I'm sure that Obama will start to impinge on my life in some unpredictable ways.
-David
By , at
Fri Nov 07, 01:25:00 PM:
Obama’s new website, change dot gov, contains an unintentionally revealing juxtaposition of assertions: “'When you CHOOSE to serve, you are connected to that fundamental American ideal called the American Dream.' The Obama Administration will REQUIRE 50 hours of community service in middle school and high school and 100 hours of comunity service in college every year.”
Disregarding the Orwellian, nay Hitlerian, definition of "choice," Reid and Pelosi need to get to work on a repeal of the federal child labor laws.
By , at
Fri Nov 07, 02:30:00 PM:
You give Chimpy-O too much credit. His primary job, the work he was put in office to accomplish, is to destroy the middle class in America. Ayers, Soros and the neo-soviets and their owned media created and are using BDS to gain position. Once in power, there will be no choices and opportunities for reversal.
The domestic force is simply to place the "movement" officials in every phase of domestic life and to counter the shrinking military. Think of the National Socialists in Germany between the wars and you'll have a good idea of what Obama's pimps have in store for us.
By SR, at
Fri Nov 07, 02:45:00 PM:
Sorry anon 2:30, I don't get your post.
If by destroying the middle class (why anybody would want to do that is unfathomable to me) you mean that Karl Rove wanted to move people out of the middle class in an upward direction thereby creating a permanent Rep. majority, I'm with you.
By , at
Fri Nov 07, 03:12:00 PM:
I voted for Reagan as a college freshman in 1980. I vividly recall several of my black friends across the hall weeping with alarm as the returns came in. I thought at the time that they were overwrought and histrionic but could see that they were genuinely upset.
Twenty-eight years later, we are witnessing another historic election, albeit one for the worse, in my opinion. The wheel has turned for me. Reaganism is dead or at least dormant. And for that, now I am the one alarmed--well, more in a state of consternation--but unlike the friends from my youth, not too emotional about it.
Someone far wiser than I once remarked that major societal changes are encapsulated in the shifting meanings of certain words. "Virtue" was his favorite example. Consider the civilizational trajectory implied therein: It has gone from the Latin sense of manliness, to the seven virtues of Christanity, to Machiavelli's efficacious commingling of virture and vice, to Victorian chasity, down to our present technocratic and value-free use of the term.
The key word in our current political discourse is "passion". Considering its noble eytomology, today I believe it signifies little more than a sloppy goo of emotional self-justification.
Obviously I don't get Obama's vaunted charisma.
By , at
Fri Nov 07, 03:32:00 PM:
Thanks Pasquin for that tip that Obama proposes mandatory voluntary service from our youth. Wait until I tell my 16-year old.
As a former consitutional law professor, I thought Obama would know of the 13th amendment ....
"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime where of the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. "
Link
By Dawnfire82, at
Fri Nov 07, 05:55:00 PM:
Link: Me too, and I can already smell the wonderful irony as 'mandatory service' gets struck down, accordingly.
By JPMcT, at
Fri Nov 07, 07:55:00 PM:
I have personally witnessed several people who stated that they voted for Obama because of some expectation of a government check, coverage of their debt, mortgage or gas bills.
Meanwhile the Dow plummets as the redistributors align their portfolios for the new reality, much to the chagrin of the redistributees.
It will be interesting to see how long it takes for the buyer's remorse to set in when "the check" doesn't appear in their mailbox.
By Who Struck John, at
Fri Nov 07, 08:04:00 PM:
Pasquin and anon 3:32pm, yep it's mandatory service time. With 50 hours a year in middle school and high school, and 100 hours a year in college, students age 10 and below are looking at being sentenced to 400 hours of community service in high school and another 400 hours in college. That's more hours than many petty criminals are sentenced to.
The Left is moving from "rock the vote" to "frogmarch the vote".
By , at
Fri Nov 07, 10:00:00 PM:
> The reason, I think, is that
> conservatives are conservative
> in no small part because they
> are not inclined to believe that
> social "change" is ipso facto
> great, and certainly not when
> it involves more state coercion.
I agree with you, but there is one issue I cannot resolve. First, I am against forced change from above, a.k.a. social engineering*, for many reasons. Who gave the permission to the "experimenters"? And why do they treat us as guinea pigs? Some awful historical events come to my mind. Second. What happens, if the experiment goes bad? Can they "unfarook" the society?...
Having said that, there is one social change forced from above with which I agree: the civil rights and the enforcement of equality. I am specifically talking about the events in the US in the '50s and '60s.
I cannot resolve this contradiction. Maybe the only solution I see is that while there are a few cases where it works, in the most cases it fails, and in some cases it fails horribly. And for this fact, it is better not to do it at all. It is like playing a roulette where on can win a million dollars. But nobody said it was a russian roulette.
Vilmos
*About social engineering. I don't like this expression. Engineering is an exact science, when, if we know the initial state, and the rules (for example the laws of nature), and we apply them correctly, then we *KNOW* the outcome. We are not going to get side effects. (when we get, then we either failed to apply the rules, or our knowledge was simply inadequate).
On the other hand, social engineering is clearly not in this category. Societies are complex systems, and messing with one part can, and *WILL* potentially mess up other parts. We cannot just pull some levers and expect that nothing else will be affected. Based on this understanding, the phenomenon what is called "social engineering" would be better called "social experimenting". The way we call it in Hungarian. Because this is an experimental process. "Let's play with it and then watch what's going to happen." And if we screw up, well, crap happens. Oh, now I understand why this is called in English "social engineering" and not "social experimenting".
PS. Can we consider the birth of the American nation as a social experiment? After all, what Benjamin Franklin and the rest did?
