George Will, in the guise of offering Obama some advice for his speech tonight, provides a partial but alarming inventory of the shortcomings of Obama’s O-Bobma-the-Builder ™ (”Yes we can!”) political platform. I am not in Denver, so it is difficult for me to gauge with any precision the mood of the party faithful as the Democratic convention wobbles to its climax. There have, I know, been some paroxysms of enthusiasm, but that comes with the territory and, after all, Denver is famously the “mile-high city”: the air is thin, thin, in that part of Colorado, and a certain giddiness is the predictable result.
Personally, I think John McCain is going to win, and I’m not talking about a hanging-chad squeakeroo. No, I think it will be a blow-out for McCain. He won’t take the People’s Republic of Massachusetts, of course, or New York, Vermont, and the half a dozen other reliable left-liberal bastions of incipient socialism. But, absent some serious mis-steps on the part of the McCain campaign, Obama will, I predict, not only lose, but lose big.
This is not a popular opinion on the Right. (Though, curiously, it is a possibility that seems to be making unhappy inroads among Democrats.) Many of my friends have glumly accepted the prospect of Obama’s victory as an historical inevitability. I think they are precipitant. First of all, nothing is historically inevitable except the unpredictable. But, second, and more to the point, Obama is an extraordinarily weak candidate, a fact that the media’s love affair with him can only partially conceal. As of last night, Obama is officially the Democratic candidate for President. But the road has not been the smooth thoroughfare his acolytes would have us believe. Forget about the still-simmering dissatisfaction among Hillary’s girls. Think instead of what happened in the final weeks of the primary season. Obama lost 9 of the last 14 primaries. Why? George Will suggests that Obama’s poor showing “might have something to do with the fact that when he descends from the ether to practicalities, he reprises liberalism’s most shopworn nostrums.”
That sounds right to me, and the fact that Obama pronounces those nostrums in pulpit tones adds only a superficial patina of plausibility to his O-Bobma-the-Builder ™ “Yes-we-can!” message. (Can what? Change! Change what? Yes-we-can, yes-we-can, yes-we-can.) Maybe, to alter the childhood reference, it’s more like the Little Engine That Could, bringing toys and universal, taxpayer-funded health care to the poor children on the other side of the mountain.
But it is not only Obama’s general vapidness that is the problem. A O-Bobma-the-Builder ™ approach to politics may be OK, may even be considered cute, in a world that is reliably stable, prosperous, and secure. If, per impossible, Francis Fukuyama had been right that we had arrived at “the end of history,” an elysium in which all the important problems were solved and the chief difficulties politicians faced were figuring out novel ways to increase taxes, diminish individual initiative, and redistribute the country’s wealth. But we have not achieved that utopia, even though many are behaving as if we had. No, history is still very much with us. Ponder, if you doubt it, the issues that George Will instances:
Russia, a third-world nation with first-world missiles, is rampant; Iran is developing a missile inventory capable of delivering nuclear weapons the development of which will not be halted by Obama’s promised “aggressive personal diplomacy.” Yet Obama has vowed to “cut investments in unproven missile defense systems.” Steamboats, railroads, airplanes and vaccines were “unproven” until farsighted people made investments. Furthermore, as Reuel Marc Gerecht of the American Enterprise Institute notes, Democrats will eventually embrace missile defense in Europe because they “will have nowhere else to go short of pre-emptive strikes against Iran’s nuclear facilities.”
Obama, who might be the last person to learn that schools’ cognitive outputs are not simply functions of financial inputs, promises more money for teachers, who, as usual, are about 10 percent of the Democrats’ convention delegates and alternates. He waxes indignant about approximately 150,000 jobs sent overseas each year — less than 1 percent of the number of jobs normally lost and gained in the creative destruction of America’s dynamic economy. U.S. exports are fending off a recession while he complains about free trade. He deplores NAFTA, although since it was implemented in 1994 the U.S., Mexican and Canadian economies have grown 50 percent, 46 percent and 54 percent, respectively.
Recycling George McGovern’s 1972 “Demogrant” notion, Obama promises a $1,000 check for every family, financed by a “windfall profits” tax on oil companies. Obama is unintimidated by the rule against legislating about subjects one cannot define.
Obama thinks government is not getting a “reasonable share” of oil companies’ profits, which in 2007 were, as a percentage of revenues (8.3 percent), below those of U.S. manufacturing generally (8.9 percent). Exxon Mobil pays almost as much in corporate taxes to various governments as the bottom 50 percent of American earners pay in income taxes. Exxon Mobil does make $1,400 a second in profits — hear the sharp intakes of breath from liberals with pursed lips — but pays $4,000 a second in taxes and $15,000 a second in operating costs.
Obama’s rhetorical extravagances are inversely proportional to his details, as when he promises “nothing less than a complete transformation of our economy” in order to “end the age of oil.” The diminished enthusiasm of some voters hitherto receptive to his appeals might have something to do with the seepage of reality from his rhetoric. Voters understand that neither the “transformation” nor the “end” will or should occur. His dreamy certitude that “alternative” fuels will quickly become real alternatives is an energy policy akin to an old vaudeville joke: “If we had some eggs, we could have ham and eggs, if we had some ham.”
I think Will is right in his estimate of voters’ understanding. Which is why, frightening though I find O-Bobma-the-Builder’s ™ messianic socialism-by-another-name, I am reassured that, come election day, it will once again be consigned to those grumbling purlieus where move-on-dot-orgers rub shoulders with college professors and reporters from The New York Times, CNN, and other organs of puerile self-satisfaction.
PJM Home
The New Criterion
The Rape of the Masters: How Political Correctness Sabotages Art
Lives of the Mind: The Use and Abuse of Intelligence from Hegel to Wodehouse
Art’s Prospect: The Challenge of Tradition in an Age of Celebrity
Experiments Against Reality: The Fate of Culture in the Postmodern Age
Tenured Radicals, NEW, EXPANDED EDITION FALL 2008! How Politics has Corrupted our Higher Education
Counterpoints: 25 Years of The New Criterion on Culture and the Arts
The Long March: How the Cultural Revolution of the 1960s Changed America
Against the Idols of the Age
Lengthened Shadows: America and Its Institutions in the Twenty-First Century
The Survival of Culture: Permanent Values in a Virtual Age
Physics and Politics, by Walter Bagehot, edited with an
Introduction by Roger Kimball
Pajamas Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
The clause regarding "hate speech" has been deleted because readers criticized it as being too loosely defined. We agreed.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Pajamas Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pajamasmedia.com.
27 Comments
1. LSD:I agree.
A black candidate for President has a better chance in the GOP partly because the Democratic Party relies on identity politics with its exclusive loyalties. The candidate whose career has grown serving a specific community has to deal with the fact that the largest group of poor voters is white and those fielties that established him do not buy him votes in the general populace. Obama’s skill in campaigning has caused me to question this, but lately it seems that all McCain needs to worry about is pacing himself and staying sharp.
The last four terms have been won by moderate candidates, unlike McCain, Obama has had to move to the center. His lack of experience makes this shift even more suspect.
The strategy of trying to cash-in on the timetable for withdrawal from Iraq argument is not smart. The timetables are not being discussed because of Obama’s superior argument; they’re being discussed because Iraq is experiencing a revolution that would not have happenned without W’s brash act.
Aug 28, 2008 - 8:08 am 2. Jim:There’s a lot that’s right in this post, but there’s much more that’s wrong–and more than a little crazy.
Does Roger really believe that Obama and the contemporary Democratic Party support socialism? If he doesn’t, then he should stop using the label “socialist” to characterize Obama’s positions. If he does, then either he doesn’t know what socialism is or he’s crazy.
Roger’s smart–and has access to a good thesaurus. But intellectually he’s as sloppy as talk radio. Repeat after me, Mr. Kimball: believing that the federal government has a legitimate–if, of course, limited–role to play in regulating industry and preventing the worst sorts of economic inequality is not socialism.
Good lord! I can’t believe I just wasted a minute of life pointing out the obvious to Mr. Bowtie.
Aug 28, 2008 - 11:50 am 3. Anthropogenicagent:Obama should have read Shel Silverstein’s “The Little Blue Engine” OR better yet have someone read it to him from the floor of the R Convention
The Little Blue Engine
The little blue engine looked up at the hill.
His light was weak, his whistle was shrill.
He was tired and small, and the hill was tall,
And his face blushed red as he softly said,
“I think I can, I think I can, I think I can.”
So he started up with a chug and a strain,
And he puffed and pulled with might and main.
And slowly he climbed, a foot at a time,
And his engine coughed as he whispered soft,
“I think I can, I think I can, I think I can.”
With a squeak and a creak and a toot and a sigh,
With an extra hope and an extra try,
He would not stop — now he neared the top —
And strong and proud he cried out loud,
“I think I can, I think I can, I think I can!”
He was almost there, when — CRASH! SMASH! BASH!
He slid down and mashed into engine hash
On the rocks below… which goes to show
If the track is tough and the hill is rough,
THINKING you can just ain’t enough!
Shel Silverstein (1932-1999)
Aug 28, 2008 - 11:55 am 4. Just a Dude:I agree that McCain will win and probably comfortably.
But I find it interesting that talking about investing in our nation’s infrastructure, moving towards the sort of health care system that the rest of the developed world has, making the tax code more progressive, etc. are seen as pie in the sky but the neocon vision of the world is not.
McCain genuinely seems to believe in his us against the world philosophy, believe that entire regions can be remade in our image, believe that evil can be vanquished from the world, believe that the rest of the world will come to view us a knight in shining armor as we ride in to right all wrongs, etc. He seems to share the Bush view of a Manichean world in which the USA is the on the side of the angels.
And someone please tell me how McCain is going to increase the Bush welfare plan for the nation’s wealthiest people, increase defense spending, and balance the budget. Remember “Voodoo Economics”?
Aug 28, 2008 - 1:21 pm 5. Anna Keppa:Repeat after me, Jim:
Obama’s and Democrats’ policy of income re-distribution taking bazillions from the upper 50% of wage earners who pay 95% of the income taxes, and giving it to those on the lower 50% who pay the other 5% is socialism.
(If you can offer a philosophical reason as to why it is ethical and good to steal from one group and give to another, have at it.)
So are their dirigiste (and crackpot) policy proposals for ending the use of oil in ten years, for carbon taxes, for thwarting development of our own oil.
So is their proposed nationalized healthcare, something that has failed everywhere it’s been tried.
So is Barack’s proposed new national service that all young Americans would have to join.
Those things are NOT “limited” government, Jim, they are socialism.
Aug 28, 2008 - 1:41 pm 6. J.J. Sefton:Roger: Great column. I am hoping against hope (and change [hmm, good t-shirt slogan]) that you are right on the money. My gut is Obama and the Demographic party will lose but I do not want to jinx it. Too many other unknown variables like McCain’s veep selection or some other gaffe to take into account. But the wheels are coming off of O’s bus, crushing everyone he ever threw under it.
McCain has to keep hammering away with his latest round of spots – especially Ayers, and Oil and Pelosi’s 14 percenters.
Aug 28, 2008 - 1:42 pm 7. Sully:Roger Kimball makes good points in this essay even if he is a little over the top re socialism and the Democratic Party. A little over the top – it’s hard to see advocacy of windfall profits taxes as anything but socialist.
I think Democratic Party recognition of the relatively high probability of an Obama loss explains why he was put in the position of having to tap Biden as his running mate. I wrote about this on my blog yesterday.
Aug 28, 2008 - 1:46 pm 8. Jim:Anna Keppa:
Where to begin?
You wrote: “Obama’s and Democrats’ policy of income re-distribution taking bazillions from the upper 50% of wage earners who pay 95% of the income taxes, and giving it to those on the lower 50% who pay the other 5% is socialism.”
Whoa. First off, this is a wildly inaccurate description of the tax plan promoted by Obama and the Democratic party. Second, what you’re upset about, it appears, is progressive taxation. But progressive taxation isn’t socialism. Republicans, remember, believe in progressive taxation (except for the party’s few flat tax cranks). Are they socialists?
Look, Kimballites. Socialism means, at a minimum, government ownership of large, important chunks of the economy. No Democrats believe in any such thing. Why? Because the Democratic party is a capitalist party.
Then you wrote: “(If you can offer a philosophical reason as to why it is ethical and good to steal from one group and give to another, have at it.)”
Who’s stealing? If you think that progressive taxation is theft, well, I’m afraid that puts you in a very, very small group of cranks, the flat tax brigade.
Anyway, here’s the nickel defense of the progressive tax: Government serves everybody; so the burden of paying for it should be distributed as broadly as possible; a flat tax rate would put more of the burden on those with lower incomes; so go progressive.
Next you wrote: “So are their dirigiste (and crackpot) policy proposals for ending the use of oil in ten years, for carbon taxes, for thwarting development of our own oil.”
You make a good point about Gore’s loopy “ten years” comment. But last time I checked nothing like that was in the Democratic platform. And what’s “crackpot” about cap-and-trade? Do you even know what it is? And, look, the oil won’t last forever. So what’s so bad about aggresively pushing for alternatives? I guess you’d rather keep pumping money to the Saudis.
And then you wrote: “So is their proposed nationalized healthcare, something that has failed everywhere it’s been tried. ”
I’m not really sure what you mean by “nationalized healthcare”; Obama’s plan is nothing of the sort. (Anna, you really need to do your homework.) As for which healthcare systems work, look, I’m sorry, but our healthcare system just isn’t that great. Lots of other systems–the French system or the Japanese one, for instance–perform much better than ours and at less cost. All true, look it up.
Repeat after me Anna and Roger and the rest of you wingnuts: Obama and the Democrats are capitalists. Believing in a regulated market is not the same thing as believing that there shouldn’t be a market!
Sheesh!
Aug 28, 2008 - 2:30 pm 9. AML:Not so “little over the top” Sully. Take a look at the platform of the Socialist Party USA (http://www.sp-usa.org/ :
We demand the immediate withdrawal of the United States from the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA), and oppose the creation of a widened Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA).
We call for a steeply graduated income tax and a steeply graduated estate tax, and a maximum income of no more than ten times the minimum.
We call for the restoration of the capital gains tax and luxury tax on a progressive, graduated scale.
The Socialist Party calls for ending of the war and occupation in Iraq and Afghanistan and bringing all the troops home now!
Aug 28, 2008 - 2:34 pm 10. Fresh Air:Obama is a former Marxist and current socialist. His every instinct is demagoguery, fascistic belief in government solutions to personal problems, and aggressive redistribution of private wealth. He would be a total disaster for the economy, not to mention the economy of the future. How this complete non-entity got as far as he has with so little experience and knowledge, especially given his radical politics, is a story that will be told for years to come.
Aug 28, 2008 - 4:30 pm 11. TB:Jim: AML does a nice job of showing the complementarity between fundamental Democrat Party planks and the desires of the Socialist Party. And, yes, there are Republicans who go along with ‘progressive’ taxation – wrongly, in my opinion. But there’s more damning material on Obama himself. I’m not certain even the rank-and-file Democrat knows the extent of his commitments – not just to socialism, but to flat-out marxism.
In brief: his use of the term ‘hope’ is a technical term in his vocabulary. It is not the generalized sense of ‘hope’ that we all mean when we use the term on a daily basis. For him, ‘hope’ is a distinctive Christian term. He discusses that in his book, “The Audacity of Hope,” when he recounts his epiphany during Rev. Wright’s sermon of the same name.
Rev. Wright, in turn, was using ‘hope’ in it’s technical sense – and not for either the first or last time. The teaching, preaching, and rationale for Trinity United Church of Christ has been, from the beginning, the Black Liberation Theology of James Cone – as the church’s website states clearly and categorically.
James Cone speaks of ‘hope’ as the Christian virtue that keeps the faithful working as activists for the overthrow of American capitalism, the destruction of “white” power, and the replacement of both with a “black” collectivism. (See his 1969 and 1970 books.)
In the 1970 “A Theology of Black Liberation” Cone references the work of Jurgen Moltmann, the marxist Christian whose magnum opus was titled “The Theology of Hope.” Hmmm…
In “The Theology of Hope,” Moltman builds a rationale for, and interpretation of the Christian term ‘hope’ as the Christian virtue that keeps ‘true’ Christians advocating against the status quo in favor of an ill-defined but increasingly more egalitarian future.
James Cone acknowledged that he had adopted that understanding of ‘hope.’ He then added his black anger, arguing that Christ is black, and God is only God if He is 100% supportive of the cause of black liberation. Any god that doesn’t fit that description must be killed. And anyone, of any skin color, who does not get on board with the black theological agenda of destroying existing white American culture and institutions, is “white.” And “white,” for Cone, is of the devil. “Whites” are both those with white skin and those, of any skin color, who accept the American social, political, and economic status quo.
Rev. Wright established his church on the theology, ideology, and politics of James Cone. That is what he has been teaching and preaching for his whole career. It is what attracted Obama to the church – as Obama acknowledged in “Dreams from My Father” (p. 284). And it was as a result of Obama’s epiphany in the midst of the sermon “Audacity of Hope” that he was finally able to embrace Christianity (”Audacity of Hope, p. 208) – at least, the white-hating, America-hating Black Liberation version.
By Obama’s own admission, that sermon was the pivotal moment in his adult life. It gave him not only a firmer sense of his cause, but the spiritual vigor to pursue it in the face of any and all opposition. He became, in the best way Cone could desire, committed to expending his life to pursue that limited vision of the Christian heaven on earth.
That vision is marxist, black liberationist, violent, anti-capitalist, anti-western democracy. It doesn’t matter where Obama starts – and he’s only starting with incremental change – what matters is that he has written about his philosophy and he has declared his intentions. He rejects liberal democracy and capitalism, and intends to do his part to replace it with a cradle-to-grave socialism. (Another word for ‘cradle-to-grave’ government involvement is ‘totalitarian.’ That’s what the term meant when originally coined as part of the ‘progressive’ movement.) The question is not whether Obama has told us what he believes and plans, it is whether we are listening.
Obama believes that his church’s understanding of God’s Will for the earth is now coming to pass, and that he is the sign and symbol that God’s redeeming activity is now engaged. That’s why he is comfortable creating his own ‘presidential seal’ – it’s what he meant when he said that McCain doesn’t know what he’s up against – it’s the mental field in his mind when he said, we are the one we’ve been waiting for. He seems himself in messianic terms, and believes his election is a foregone, God-ordained event, and he anticipates that his election is just the beginning of his work to bring about the Moltmann-Cone-Wright vision of a more ‘perfect’ America.
This argument is more thoroughly documented at: http://americassentinel.com/2008/08/19/barak-obama-and-the-audacity-of-hope/
Aug 28, 2008 - 5:02 pm 12. Dabubber Enigmas | Dabubbler.com:[...] end you need other people to continue to work to provide the enormous capital needed to prop it up. Politicians may have desires to hatch such a scheme on the American public, but this country still has no desire to emulate [...]
Aug 28, 2008 - 5:41 pm 13. Jim:Fresh Air:
You wrote: “Obama is a former Marxist and current socialist.”
If you really believe this, then you are, in the literal sense of the word, insane.
TB:
You wrote: “That vision is marxist, black liberationist, violent, anti-capitalist, anti-western democracy. It doesn’t matter where Obama starts – and he’s only starting with incremental change – what matters is that he has written about his philosophy and he has declared his intentions. He rejects liberal democracy and capitalism, and intends to do his part to replace it with a cradle-to-grave socialism.”
Same for you, TB. If you really believe that Obama’s vision for America is “marxist,” then you are, in the most literal sense of the word, insane.
Roger Kimball: Are you aware that your blog has become a haven for cranks–sorry, “cranks” is too kind–lunatics?
One last time, people. Barack Obama is a capitalist. He wants more government involvement in the economy than John McCain would like, but he is no socialist and certainly no marxist. Do any of you lunatics–I mean it, lunatics–even know what those words mean?
I will never come back to this crazy site. I leave you all to your madness.
Watch your backs, friends! I hear the fire department is a totalitarian plot to enslave honest Americans and that Medicare is really run by aliens by planet Xenon!
Aug 28, 2008 - 7:00 pm 14. Anna Keppa:jIM: “Look, Kimballites. Socialism means, at a minimum, government ownership of large, important chunks of the economy. No Democrats believe in any such thing. Why? Because the Democratic party is a capitalist party.”
Heh. Just what is “universal health care but EFFECTIVE ownership of 1/7 of the economy, as in Hillarycare?
And just what party do the following peeps belong, advocating nationalizing the oil industry?
Maxine Waters
Maurice Hinchey
And just which party is always out to “get” the EEEEvil corporations, Big Oil Big Pharma, Big Food, Big Anything?
SNORK!
Aug 28, 2008 - 7:01 pm 15. Anna Keppa:Jim: poor you, reduced to offering a string of naked, unsupported assertions and calling your intellectual betters “insane”, yet THINKING you are making an argument.
Yes, you really should leave this site. You’re in waaaaaay over your head.
p.s. before you flounce off, Jim: Barack is a follower and admirer of Saul Alinksy, a Marxist agitator. Barack’s father was an avowed Marxist. “The Dreams” of his father wree marxist fantasies. His childhood mentor in Hawaii was a Marxist. His high school counsellor was a marxist. Barack’s relationship with terrorists Ayers and Dohrn is now being given an airing.
“[Obama’s socialist backing goes back at least to 1996, when he received the endorsement of the Chicago branch of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) for an Illinois state senate seat. Later, the Chicago DSA newsletter reported that Obama, as a state senator, showed up to eulogize Saul Mendelson, one of the “champions” of “Chicago’s democratic left” and a long-time socialist activist. )”
We need not continue, Jim: it would just be a case of making the rubble bounce.
Aug 28, 2008 - 7:21 pm 16. Grace:Jim,
*Awfully* nice for you to show up for 10 minutes, repeat the same lie three times, absolutely refuse to listen to the arguments against it, pronounce us all insane and then swish off. Parting is such sweet sorrow.
Well, now that it’s just us “cranks-no,sorry-lunatics” left, a couple thoughts about the all-but-endless acceptance speech I just watched:
* I expect people will take away from it what they want to take away, and in that way, maybe it was a good speech. I’ve heard commentators from left and right saying it was good or bad, or that Obama’s a genius or that he squandered an opportunity.
* Personally, I don’t know how they could’ve seen the same movie-length liberal blahblah that I did and still use words like ‘genius.’ Same ol’ same ol’. Republicans — baaaaad; little dreamy plans for ice cream castles — gooooood; George Bush and Dick Cheney — eeeeevil; single moms/wounded soldiers/unemployed factory workers/orphans who work in coal mines — Amerrrrica. Yay! The crowd goes wild! As Roger says, when are they going to do something about the thin atmosphere in Denver?
* On a happier note, it provided a little welcome comic relief to notice which lines were NOT met with thunderous applause. That would include:
– He said we need to abandon government programs that don’t work. …… (silence). I know what they’re thinking. “What? There are government programs that *don’t* work??”
– Saying, “I think we can all agree that we don’t think it’s acceptable for businesses to hire illegal immigrants.” …. (silence). “There ARE no illegal immigrants, Obama! We’re all brothers and sisters and Big Oil should be paying our taxes.”
I just heard a commentator that I usually trust predict that Obama will get a 10-point bounce from this. I suppose it’s possible — stranger things have happened. But it would still be incredible. And I don’t if it would be long-lasting. The speech seemed about as substantial as handful of candy corn.
Aug 28, 2008 - 9:19 pm 17. A credo for pessimistic conservatism « Vanitas Vanitatum:[...] used to know all this. Some — the infallibly sapient Roger Kimball, for example — still do. The smiley-faces are leading us to perdition. They must be shouted [...]
Aug 28, 2008 - 10:25 pm 18. redmanrt:The danger of Obama and politicians like him stems from the fact that the desire to return to Eden and the womb is built into us, even us conservatives. We struggle against this desire, the demothugs wallow in it. I agree with Mr. Kimball’s assessment of McCain’s chances in November, but the limited victory over the “desire” that will represent will be temporary, and will require engagement on our part.
Aug 29, 2008 - 2:27 am 19. ehunter:Thanks Rog, I think you are right.
Aug 29, 2008 - 8:10 pm 20. Skeptic:Obama is finished. But there are still unmined humorous possiblities here. The Dem convention’s Greek temple motif needs to be explored. What we have set in motion here is Ye Comedie Tragedie of Obamius Caesar. The curtain will lift on Obamius standing there with several large daggers sticking out of him. He will be completely oblivious of the fact as he smiles, waves and speechifies. The comic action will be of our hero and his supporters finding ever more ingenious ways of politely not mentioning the situation at hand.
Tom Lehrer got it right (in his introduction to “the folk song army” song): it takes guts to stand up, like Obama, in a crowded hall and say that you’re FOR all those things everybody in the audience just HATES–like peace, and prosperity, and giving milk to babies, and so on.
This of course is not only Obama’s problem, but that of most politicians–McCain included. They fear to alienate voters; the point of such speeches, after all, is not to win anybody over, but merely to not lose any previous supporters by taking a stand about something. But I do believe Obama’s even more extreme on the empty rhetoric side than most.
Aug 30, 2008 - 3:24 am 21. Skeptic:I’ve learn from long experience to avoid trying to “teach” the other side, the one I disagree with, anything.
First, I might be wrong. (As G. K. Chesterton said, a fanatic isn’t someone who’s sure he’s right–we *all* are–but someone who cannot possibly imagine he could be wrong.) Second, most don’t listen to the other side anyway. Third, it only makes you look like a self-important twit to try and “prove” how much *smarter* and *more moral* and all-around *better* you are than everybody else on the other side, merely by holding the “correct” political opinion. (True, the left here had been more guilty than the right–one reason I’m a conservative–but there’s plenty of blame to go around on both sides.)
Fourth, and most important, since the discussion is merely about showing how smart you are as opposed to THEM, no real discussion of the issues exists, as people tend to pontificate on things they know nothing about.
Let’s take the middle east, for instance. Of all those who argue about the subject, “proving” how the other side is stupid and evil, can actually–oh, I don’t know–say “good morning” in Arabic? “May I have a cup of coffee” in Hebrew? Name three cities (apart from the Capitals) in Iraq, Israel, or Iran?
Or take the economy. How many who rant about either the “evil Bush tax cuts” or “creeping socialism” actually know, without looking it up, how much the tax cuts were to the nearest *100 billion*? Or what percentage of the economy is actually owned (or controlled indirectly, e.g., through military contracts) by the government–to the nearest *10%*?
…exactly.
Yes, it *is* fun to rant about things you know nothing about, but of which you’re dead certain nevertheless. Feels damn good, and God know I’ve been guilty of it myself. But take it from me, of long experience: it’s not worth the time and effort invested in it. As Epictetus–I think–said, experience *is* the best teacher, but unfortunately the tuition’s very high. I paid it in wasted time; don’t you do the same…
Aug 30, 2008 - 3:40 am 22. Roger’s Rules » Jean Valjean = Obama: Who knew?:[...] somewhere-over-the-rainbow-bama logo, his vacuous invocation of Change, his school-boy, Bob-the-Builder Latin motto? The brief answer is, No, it isn’t any sillier or more extreme. And the fact that Mr. Walsh [...]
Sep 14, 2008 - 6:27 am 23. Roger’s Rules » ” . . . a pro-Obama advocacy organization that every day attacks the McCain campaign”:[...] been clear to me since summer that, barring some extraordinary scandal, McCain was going to win, and win handsomely, but if I had any doubts they were dispelled by Obama’s politics-as-usual [...]
Sep 23, 2008 - 12:46 am 24. Roger’s Rules » America without apology:[...] McCain would win in November. Way back in ancient times, that is, toward the end of August, 2008, I said that “Personally, I think John McCain is going to win, and I’m not talking about a [...]
Oct 9, 2008 - 8:41 am 25. Roger’s Rules » Obama and the Eternal Return:[...] I do not despair. I’m on record saying that I thought McCain would win by a landslide. Of course, that was before the economy suddenly said good by to $3 trillion, a fact that bizarrely [...]
Oct 28, 2008 - 4:41 am 26. M. Douglas Wray - Blog Archive » So, so wrong (as usual):[...] Roger Kimball, Pajamas Media: [...]
Nov 5, 2008 - 10:58 pm 27. Jammer voor je, Roger Kimball. « Make My Blog:[...] vaak gevraagd of ik nog steeds denk dat John McCain in november de winnaar wordt. Eind augustus heb ik gezegd: ‘John McCain gaat winnen, en niet met de hakken over de sloot, nee op z’n [...]
Nov 18, 2008 - 5:22 am