It would probably be helpful to infuse a little clarity where it might be lacking regarding the objections towards Sen. Obama’s recent “bitter” comments, for those who may misunderstand the substance of those objections that is. We who do object–or at least myself–do not do so to Sen. Obama’s contention that many small-town Americans are “bitter” or upset at economic hardship and suffering. Where this hardship exists, there is obviously bitterness and angst and we nor anyone else would deny this.
What is objectionable and frankly offensive is Sen. Obama’s belief that small-town Americans simply “cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations” for any reason. This fully de-legitimizes those beliefs and practices and reduces them to mere childish and irrational reaction to and epiphenomena of adverse circumstances. As Rich Lowry points out, this is an irrefutable refusal to meet people on their own terms and reveals an “assumption…that only liberal attitudes are normal and well-adjusted: If only these small-town people could earn more income, get an advanced degree, and move to a major metropolitan area, then they could shed their chrysalis of social conservatism.”
That is what is objectionable.
Thursday, April 17, 2008
Barack Obama, Teflon Man?
Phil Klein and Jim Geraghty considered yesterday whether Sen. Obama is Teflon Man, immune and impervious to any negative ramifications that would stand to be incurred by the politically erosive toll of controversies such as “Bittergate”, Rev. Wright, Tony Rezko, etc. It is an open question well worth the discourse, and I submit that we will not be in a position to answer it anytime soon, not until this perpetual contest between Sen. Clinton and Sen. Obama is decided that is.
Much of the available polling data tends to inform us that the aforementioned controversies have not had any substantial negative effect on Sen. Obama among Democratic primary voters. But this is only half the story, as the dynamics of a primary race—for both political parties—and a general election campaign are two beasts in complete disparity. Democratic primary voters are, speaking generally, decidedly more liberal than the great swath of voters in the general electorate. Their principles, perceptions, ideologies, and priorities are of a different form. Accordingly, they would tend not to take much offense towards Sen. Obama’s close association with Rev. Wright, an anti-American bigot, or Sen. Obama’s de-legitimization of millions of blue-collar Americans’ religious views and practices, their lifestyles, and political principles.
This might not be the case among the general electorate, of which only a minority slice is distinctly liberal. The rest is comprised of centrist Democrats (Reagan Democrats), independents, and Republicans. In consequence, what was not an issue in the Democratic primary may very well be a big issue in the general and a burdensome yoke hampering Sen. Obama’s candidacy. We will not know this until Sen. Obama actually becomes the Democratic nominee and the dynamics of a general election campaign between himself and Sen. McCain reveal themselves.
Along this train of thought, Mr. Geraghty questions whether Sen. Obama’s “bitter” comments are or possibly can be a “killer gaffe”. I doubt they can be, but I also don’t think that is the point. Demeaning millions of Americans is not a gaffe that once uttered dooms his chances, but along with Rev. Wright, Rezko, and his previous political record they can serve to create a general impression about Sen. Obama among Americans that is deleterious to his prospects in November. It might be one component piece among a general corpus which fosters a suspicion and conviction among independents and others that Sen. Obama is one who looks down upon those who are deeply or actively religious, are hawks on immigration, and/or who own and use guns.
If this becomes the case among enough voters, Sen. Obama will be at pains to win what has been thought to be a shoe-in victory for Democrats this November. As Michael Goodwin writes, “Already facing a racial barrier made worse by the incendiary comments of his pastor, the Rev. Wright, the notion that Obama is also a liberal elitist could prove fatal in swing states.” Time will tell if this becomes so, or if Sen. Obama is a man of Teflon and in time the forty-fourth President of the United States.
Much of the available polling data tends to inform us that the aforementioned controversies have not had any substantial negative effect on Sen. Obama among Democratic primary voters. But this is only half the story, as the dynamics of a primary race—for both political parties—and a general election campaign are two beasts in complete disparity. Democratic primary voters are, speaking generally, decidedly more liberal than the great swath of voters in the general electorate. Their principles, perceptions, ideologies, and priorities are of a different form. Accordingly, they would tend not to take much offense towards Sen. Obama’s close association with Rev. Wright, an anti-American bigot, or Sen. Obama’s de-legitimization of millions of blue-collar Americans’ religious views and practices, their lifestyles, and political principles.
This might not be the case among the general electorate, of which only a minority slice is distinctly liberal. The rest is comprised of centrist Democrats (Reagan Democrats), independents, and Republicans. In consequence, what was not an issue in the Democratic primary may very well be a big issue in the general and a burdensome yoke hampering Sen. Obama’s candidacy. We will not know this until Sen. Obama actually becomes the Democratic nominee and the dynamics of a general election campaign between himself and Sen. McCain reveal themselves.
Along this train of thought, Mr. Geraghty questions whether Sen. Obama’s “bitter” comments are or possibly can be a “killer gaffe”. I doubt they can be, but I also don’t think that is the point. Demeaning millions of Americans is not a gaffe that once uttered dooms his chances, but along with Rev. Wright, Rezko, and his previous political record they can serve to create a general impression about Sen. Obama among Americans that is deleterious to his prospects in November. It might be one component piece among a general corpus which fosters a suspicion and conviction among independents and others that Sen. Obama is one who looks down upon those who are deeply or actively religious, are hawks on immigration, and/or who own and use guns.
If this becomes the case among enough voters, Sen. Obama will be at pains to win what has been thought to be a shoe-in victory for Democrats this November. As Michael Goodwin writes, “Already facing a racial barrier made worse by the incendiary comments of his pastor, the Rev. Wright, the notion that Obama is also a liberal elitist could prove fatal in swing states.” Time will tell if this becomes so, or if Sen. Obama is a man of Teflon and in time the forty-fourth President of the United States.
Monday, April 14, 2008
On Sen. Obama's "Bitter" Remarks
Sen. Obama’s recent comments regarding residents of small town Pennsylvania reveal and demonstrate a stereotype and misunderstanding of rural and heartland America that is endemic among the elite of the American left, of which Sen. Obama is himself a part. This segment has a common conception that much of blue collar and rural America is gun-toting, irrationally religious, isolationist, xenophobic, and intolerant “of people who aren’t like them” (i.e. homosexuals, blacks, you name it). This is a perception held in corners of academia, the national media, the urban intelligentsia, Hollywood and the entertainment industry, and among the permanent civil service elite in Washington and within many state governments. To wit, it is no accident Sen. Obama’s comments were made before an audience in San Francisco.
Possession of this worldview is compounded, in Sen. Obama’s case at least, by condescension and unseemly paternalism. Not only are these segments of America all of the aforementioned, but they are so because it’s their emotive and rash response to economic suffering. Small town America is irrational and extreme because things haven’t gone their way, and are embittered and blame others for their misfortune.
It is to Sen. Obama and enlightened liberals to remedy this through their pure enlightenment and cosmopolitan understanding. They are the good shepherds that will lead the American flock of sheep to greener pastures through progressive governance. If you don’t believe that you’re just bitter.
Possession of this worldview is compounded, in Sen. Obama’s case at least, by condescension and unseemly paternalism. Not only are these segments of America all of the aforementioned, but they are so because it’s their emotive and rash response to economic suffering. Small town America is irrational and extreme because things haven’t gone their way, and are embittered and blame others for their misfortune.
It is to Sen. Obama and enlightened liberals to remedy this through their pure enlightenment and cosmopolitan understanding. They are the good shepherds that will lead the American flock of sheep to greener pastures through progressive governance. If you don’t believe that you’re just bitter.
Wednesday, April 02, 2008
Shine Coming Off
Heretofore it has been conventional wisdom in conservative circles and within the political community in general that between Sen. Clinton and Sen. Obama, Sen. Clinton would be the weaker Democrat in the general election. This indeed may be true, and there is ample reason to believe that it is, but the events of the past month have begun to tarnish the validity of that theory.
Until recently Sen. Obama’s self-constructed and purveyed image as a transcendental candidate and beacon of hope and unity in an otherwise sordid political age had gone largely unmolested. But alas, reality has begun to set in. His claim to be an unideological and post-partisan leader was betrayed by revelations from National Journal that he is the most doctrinaire liberal in the U.S. Senate. His new politics has been accosted by, among other things, the commencement of the trial of his former fundraiser Tony Rezko. Most damaging of all, his message of unity and hope was slapped across the face with the publicity of many, shall we say, impolitic remarks by his pastor and mentor with whom he has had an intimate relationship for two decades.
The shine has begun to come off and new questions have begun to surface regarding his viability as a candidate in the fall, questions which only add to those which most national Democrats have apparently been too disinterested to ask, namely those concerning Sen. Obama’s unsettling degree of inexperience.
The upshot of all of this is that it is clear that Sen. Obama is susceptible to a political fall of a kind greater than most candidates for President. He has billed himself as a figure that is tantamount to a political messiah, a lofty standard that is, at best, extremely difficult to live up to. Any stumbles, such as the multitude we have witnessed of late, and the whole facade could come crashing down. As Yuval Levin writes, for those voters who have flocked to him so far, “learning more about Obama will not only be disconcerting, it will be disillusioning, which is far worse. Obama’s trouble is not only that people know little about him, but also that much of what they know is not true.”
Sen. Obama has not built his candidacy on anything solid, such as a record or concrete principles and prescriptions, only on pleasant platitudes and catch phrases which are nothing more than empty bottles. Should Democrats nominate him they may very well be building their entire house on top of a vaporous myth, a myth which may very well evaporate in an election cycle they have no business losing. I by no means assert this is foreordained, only that it is a very real possibility.
Until recently Sen. Obama’s self-constructed and purveyed image as a transcendental candidate and beacon of hope and unity in an otherwise sordid political age had gone largely unmolested. But alas, reality has begun to set in. His claim to be an unideological and post-partisan leader was betrayed by revelations from National Journal that he is the most doctrinaire liberal in the U.S. Senate. His new politics has been accosted by, among other things, the commencement of the trial of his former fundraiser Tony Rezko. Most damaging of all, his message of unity and hope was slapped across the face with the publicity of many, shall we say, impolitic remarks by his pastor and mentor with whom he has had an intimate relationship for two decades.
The shine has begun to come off and new questions have begun to surface regarding his viability as a candidate in the fall, questions which only add to those which most national Democrats have apparently been too disinterested to ask, namely those concerning Sen. Obama’s unsettling degree of inexperience.
The upshot of all of this is that it is clear that Sen. Obama is susceptible to a political fall of a kind greater than most candidates for President. He has billed himself as a figure that is tantamount to a political messiah, a lofty standard that is, at best, extremely difficult to live up to. Any stumbles, such as the multitude we have witnessed of late, and the whole facade could come crashing down. As Yuval Levin writes, for those voters who have flocked to him so far, “learning more about Obama will not only be disconcerting, it will be disillusioning, which is far worse. Obama’s trouble is not only that people know little about him, but also that much of what they know is not true.”
Sen. Obama has not built his candidacy on anything solid, such as a record or concrete principles and prescriptions, only on pleasant platitudes and catch phrases which are nothing more than empty bottles. Should Democrats nominate him they may very well be building their entire house on top of a vaporous myth, a myth which may very well evaporate in an election cycle they have no business losing. I by no means assert this is foreordained, only that it is a very real possibility.
Tuesday, April 01, 2008
On Plato's Cave
With no commentary on the validity of Plato’s conception of human nature, his allegory of the cave is not a good metaphor for it. Plato uses the cave and its inhabitants to represent man’s natural state, yet nothing of or within the cave is or can be said to be remotely natural. Each of the men are prisoners, not free-dwelling residents thereof, bound in chains and artificially proscribed from moving in any manner. What they see and are subject to perceive is determined by their prison masters. All is controlled, nothing is natural or variable.
The individual who does leave the cave does not do so through his own fruition, but is chosen at random (presumably) and compelled to go towards the surface and the light of day. How then can this person, who has left the cave and seen the sun in its pure form (the representative of the good), represent that rare species of human endowed with the capacity for philosophy and the contemplative life when the only difference between him and his fellow captives is that he was compelled to ascend while the others remained bound in chains below? He is distinguished not by natural gift or superior cognitive capacity, but by fortune.
Instead of providing a compelling metaphor for his view of man, Plato unwittingly provides those with views opposite his own a compelling metaphor to describe the regime he (in his critics’ view) and the masters of totalitarian states would impose (and have imposed) on their servile peoples. To wit, those masses are confined in a state of imprisonment by the few, bound in bondage and proscribed from any sort of meaningful freedom and liberty. What they are allowed to see, know, experience, and perceive is strictly regulated and controlled by the masters at the top.
This is the formulation of the totalitarian state, and is it not the exact formulation of Plato’s cave? Therefore the image of the cave, which Plato utilizes to convey the natural state of man, can logically be said not to convey that true natural state to Plato’s critics, but only the artificial state Plato and his ilk would impose on man. Plato would have done well to have found a different metaphor.
The individual who does leave the cave does not do so through his own fruition, but is chosen at random (presumably) and compelled to go towards the surface and the light of day. How then can this person, who has left the cave and seen the sun in its pure form (the representative of the good), represent that rare species of human endowed with the capacity for philosophy and the contemplative life when the only difference between him and his fellow captives is that he was compelled to ascend while the others remained bound in chains below? He is distinguished not by natural gift or superior cognitive capacity, but by fortune.
Instead of providing a compelling metaphor for his view of man, Plato unwittingly provides those with views opposite his own a compelling metaphor to describe the regime he (in his critics’ view) and the masters of totalitarian states would impose (and have imposed) on their servile peoples. To wit, those masses are confined in a state of imprisonment by the few, bound in bondage and proscribed from any sort of meaningful freedom and liberty. What they are allowed to see, know, experience, and perceive is strictly regulated and controlled by the masters at the top.
This is the formulation of the totalitarian state, and is it not the exact formulation of Plato’s cave? Therefore the image of the cave, which Plato utilizes to convey the natural state of man, can logically be said not to convey that true natural state to Plato’s critics, but only the artificial state Plato and his ilk would impose on man. Plato would have done well to have found a different metaphor.
Bush Redux?
By now each of us has heard the claim by the two Democratic candidates for President and other minions of the Democratic Party that Sen. McCain is running for a “third Bush term.” Of course this is nonsense. Sen. McCain was never one, for better or for worse, to toe the administration line and would not seek to perpetuate that line were he to become President.
The only reason his Democratic critics can allege that he is Bush redux–despite all those pesky matters of public record to the contrary–is because he, like President Bush, is determined to win in Iraq and stave off the devastating effects American defeat would incur.
But on second look, Sen. McCain and the Bush Administration have had two distinct positions on Iraq throughout the course of most of our involvement there, as David Brooks points out this morning. From nearly the moment that Saddam’s statue fell in Baghdad, Sen. McCain criticized the administration’s reconstruction strategy and advocated an infusion of American forces into Iraq to bring security to the country, the absolute requiem for a democratic process to develop. Only in January of last year did the Bush Administration abandon its own failed strategy and adopt that of Sen. McCain and other bright military minds in the country.
Sen. McCain never toed the administration’s line, and in fact it was the Bush Administration that eventually conformed itself to Sen. McCain’s line. Now Democrats would like to convince Americans that the opposite is true, seeking to penalize Sen. McCain for the fact that the Bush Administration eventually wised up and adopted his strategy.
Of course the irony in this is that it is now Democrats who support the old Bush/Rumsfeld strategy, preaching as gospel phased withdrawals of American troops with the simultaneous transfer of security responsibilities to Iraqi forces that are not yet ready to shoulder that entire burden themselves, the recipe for–as we have seen–al Qaeda terrorism and sectarian bloodshed.
In the end, as Mr. Brooks concludes, “Anybody who thinks McCain is merely continuing the Bush agenda is not paying attention.”
The only reason his Democratic critics can allege that he is Bush redux–despite all those pesky matters of public record to the contrary–is because he, like President Bush, is determined to win in Iraq and stave off the devastating effects American defeat would incur.
But on second look, Sen. McCain and the Bush Administration have had two distinct positions on Iraq throughout the course of most of our involvement there, as David Brooks points out this morning. From nearly the moment that Saddam’s statue fell in Baghdad, Sen. McCain criticized the administration’s reconstruction strategy and advocated an infusion of American forces into Iraq to bring security to the country, the absolute requiem for a democratic process to develop. Only in January of last year did the Bush Administration abandon its own failed strategy and adopt that of Sen. McCain and other bright military minds in the country.
Sen. McCain never toed the administration’s line, and in fact it was the Bush Administration that eventually conformed itself to Sen. McCain’s line. Now Democrats would like to convince Americans that the opposite is true, seeking to penalize Sen. McCain for the fact that the Bush Administration eventually wised up and adopted his strategy.
Of course the irony in this is that it is now Democrats who support the old Bush/Rumsfeld strategy, preaching as gospel phased withdrawals of American troops with the simultaneous transfer of security responsibilities to Iraqi forces that are not yet ready to shoulder that entire burden themselves, the recipe for–as we have seen–al Qaeda terrorism and sectarian bloodshed.
In the end, as Mr. Brooks concludes, “Anybody who thinks McCain is merely continuing the Bush agenda is not paying attention.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)