A few things you ought to read while you’re recovering this morning.
Patterico has his magisterial year-end conservative critique of the Los Angeles Times up. You should read it.
As a non-right winger (I know, you’re shocked) I support virtually every point he makes. Why, you ask? because people are smart enough to see empty shilling for what it is, and the Times cheapens liberal positions and makes them less credible through its empty shilling.
It also ossifies liberalism and keeps it from changing to meet new social and political realities – thus weakening it further and making for an inflexible, unimaginative liberalism which has a harder and harder time being competitive in the marketplace of ideas.
The Times isn’t alone in this.
Over at MyDD, Matt Stoller is waxing wroth at Barack Obama for being sensible and smart.Obama said:
“I do agree that the Democrats have been intellectually lazy in failing to take the core ideals of the Democratic Party and adapting them to circumstances,” he says.
He says the Democrats should “take it big instead of making it small” as they speak about globalization, the need for a tough foreign policy and the importance of faith and family.
“It’s not just a matter of sticking in a quote from the Bible into a stock speech,” he says.
And was quoted in an Illinois paper as saying:
“I do agree that the Democrats have been intellectually lazy in failing to take the core ideals of the Democratic Party and adapting them to circumstances. … It’s not just a matter of sticking in a quote from the Bible into a stock speech.”
And Stoller then blogs:
Barack Obama is one of the true progressives in the Senate. His voting record, and his political priorities – Avian Flu and Genocide – suggest that he knows we’re all in it together.
So why does he have to reinforce right-wing ideas?
To Stoller – and the Times, it would appear – any statements that don’t lay rose petals on the path of the current Democratic Party are right wing talking points, heresy, and anathema.
Suicidal lemmings, meet the cliff.
It’s an election year, and while it’s possible that sense and sensibility will break out in the Democratic Party in the next ten months, if I had to make a prediction I’d say that we’ll get smacked in November, and can only hope that leads to people like Stoller looking at Obama and saying “OK, now I get it.”
Kind of the way one wakes up on Jan 1 with a hangover and a sour stomach and resolves to party a little less aggressively next year…
If even the liberals have come to believe that national security is some sort of inherent ‘right wing’ idea, then the Democratic party is doomed.
Time was that nation building and spreading democracy was the Liberal idea of how to effect national security. Had the Democratic party embrassed these goals and pointed out that in fact, Bush was just borrying from Wilson, FDR, Kennedy, and even Clinton’s playbook, they wouldn’t have such a problem with credibility right now. Instead, by rejecting the spread of Democracy as a liberal value, they’ve left the ‘left wing’ with no other apparent strategic approach to national security threats but negotiation and capitualation.
In short, the Democrats have – yet again – branded themselves as the party of weakness.
I don’t much like Obama. Frankly, he scares me abit. Like Hillary, he seems a very politically astute and capable individual, but in some fashion he’s almost too diplomatic for my taste. He reminds me of a boss I once had who was himself a skilled diplomat and manager. He always was friendly, understanding, empathetic, concerned, and respectful. Yet you knew, if you worked with him closely, that he was capable of pulling this off as a mere act. His mastery of false friendliness was so great, that even though you liked him, you were often left wondering whether the professed friendship wasn’t simply more of the act, that he simply acted this way because that is what good managers did.
Obama has said alot of nice sounding intelligent things. But he’s also hinted at enough things for me to think he’s no real moderate, but in fact an ambitious radical who realizes that presenting himself as a moderate is the best way to attain his radical ambitions. I fear for what he’d be like if he obtained real power.
On the other hand, such ‘acts’ prove hard to drop without lossing the leverage that comes with the support of the base.
I fully expect a Hillary-Obama ticket to win in ’08.
Obama a radical? If so, then your definition of radical is far different than mine. He seems like a middle-of-the-road Democrat to me, certainly more style than substance at this point. However, he has been much more forthright and honest about the party’s failings than so many of his colleagues, and for that I commend him.
I fear that “seems” is all too appropriate of a verb here. I would concur that he has been more style than substance thus far, which is not unusual in a politician, but he strikes me as an extremely calculating man even for a politician. Even his forthrightness and honesty strike me as a bit too polished. Nor has he ever said anything that suggests to me that he is in substance anything but among the most liberal Senators in the Senate, however reasonable in style and tone he may sound compared to the normally shrill strains we are accustomed to from that quarter.
There was a time during the presidency of a certain Democrat when National Security was considered a lefty thing. During that period the right wing papers of the time were full of leaks harming National Security. That President served from 1933 to 1945.
As to Obama – he was a hard core socialist during his rise in Chicago politics. Hard to say if he is doing the usual screw the base thing or has really changed his spots.
I do like what he is saying these days.
In any case Republicans are reproducing and Democrats are not. Twenty five of the 26 states with the highest reproduction rates voted for Bush. If the Democrats dot start supporting real children as opposed to theoretical children they are in permanent decline.
Children are a sacrifice for the future. This the Dems are not willing to do.
Hedonism is a good thing and I fully support it. Just not at the expense of our future. My family has 4 children. Surprisingly our family tilts right.
BTW the left’s problems with capitalism are no surprise. Capitalism requires a sacrifice of the present for the sake of the future. Not a popular position on the left.
I wouldn’t count on him changing his spots. His record on the issues is pretty hard-core left including his vote against Chief Justice John Roberts and in favor of the filibustering appellate court nominees. The MSM and certain left-wing and left-of-center bloggers have pretty much given him the kid-gloves treatment in order to paint him as someone “reasonable” and “positive” but substance-wise, it’s pretty much an act.
“The MSM and certain left-wing and left-of-center bloggers have pretty much given him the kid-gloves treatment in order to paint him as someone “reasonable” and “positive” but substance-wise, it’s pretty much an act.”
That’s my impression as well. He seems to be trying to blend Leiberman style with left of Barbara Boxer substance. I’m reminded of the kid golves that the MSM treated Clinton with when he first became thier darling. I’m reminded of Clintons transformation into a moderate after the 1994 elections. The way the MSM coverage runs, Obama wasn’t so much elected as annoited and ordained.
Like I said. He scares me.
I guess celebrim is trying to illustrate that fear of the unknown (Obama) is worse than the known (Bush).
Just an unfortunate by-product of peddling in fear, I guess.
Andy: In the movie ‘Wrath of Khan’ there is momment in which Spock says of Khan that he’s exhibiting two dimensional thinking. Well, you are exhibiting one dimensional thinking. Just as Khan’s thinking was blinded by the familiarity of two dimensional maps of a planetary surface, you reveal in your words the blindness of one that only sees things along a single axis of belief.
By addressing me with nothing more than the unreflected upon axioms of that way of thinking, you reveal that you completely miss the point of Armed Liberal’s post. AL and myself may disagree on many things, but one thing we are in perfect agreement on is that its way past time that people started giving up the habits of that one dimensional thinking.
One dimensional thinking leads to polarization. Polarization leads to stagnation of thought. Stagnation of thought leads to war. AL sees in Obama what he believes to be a refreshing ‘third thought’ (what he calls being ‘sensible’) – something that lies off the tiresome and falicious axis and he rightfully castigates those that would reject all third ways as tools of the ‘opposition’. But I would argue that it is his hope that leads him to believe that Obama is anything other than a more than typically cunning and charismatic example of the old ways of thinking. Obama seems to me to think that third ways of thinking don’t offer anything of substance, just changes in the manner of presentation.
You say I fear unknowns. I do not. When a society becomes polarized, the most dangerous thing of all is an ambitious and charismatic man. Right now I see alot of people on both sides waiting for the coming of a prophet hero which will in thier minds sweep away the opposition and usher in a new age. They are fools. The last thing we need is something like that. I’m not sure if what we need is a man who stumbles over words, has a drooping face, and ears like a chimp, but history shows that sometimes that works out pretty well. The word is still out this time.
One thing I’m increasingly certain of though, the last thing America needs is more Democrats or more Republicans, or rather to put it more plainly, the last thing America needs is more people who think that either the Democrats or the Republicans represent a real solution to our problems.
Celebrim…
You might also remember from the same movie a scene where a tearful Chekhov tells Kirk that “they put creatures in our bodies!”
Not sure if there’s a point there but it’s one of of my favorite two lines from the movie (the other being Khan-Montalban-repeating with disbelief…”…admiral Kirk….ADMIRAL KIRK?…”).
At any rate, you have severely overinterpreted my comments. I was asserting (in an abbreviated manner that is clearly unfamiliar to one so verbose) that part of your fear of Obama might be based on presumptions rather than fact, because he’s relatively new to the political scene and I doubt whether you have enough information on his motives or actions or thoughts to pronounce final judgment on him yet. I also would think that preliminary judgements could be wrong for the same reasons.
Anyway, I don’t fear him at all, he seems like a real smart and likeable person who is genuinely interested in making a positive impact. Although I will also generally agree that the Democrat-Republical Political Axis is stagnant.
Andy: The intent of your abbreviated assertion was distorted by the fact that you made what I consider a facile comparison, with a tacked on ruetine pundit’s slur at the end of it.
Ever since it became clear that the press considered Barack Obama the next Bill Clinton, and that he would be groomed to follow the same well tended path by the DNC and the media, I’ve taken an intense interest in the man. As someone who seems more that a little bit likely to be at some point ‘Leader of the Free World’, I consider this only fitting.
The wiki entry on Obama says this about him:
“Regarded as a staunch liberal during his tenure in the legislature, he helped to author a state Earned Income Tax Credit that provided benefits to the working poor. He also worked for legislation that would cover residents who could not afford health insurance. Speaking up for leading gay and lesbian advocacy groups, he successfully helped pass bills to increase funding for AIDS prevention and care programs.
In 2000, he ran unsuccessfully in the Democratic primary for Illinois’ 1st Congressional district against incumbent Representative Bobby Rush. Rush received 61% of the vote, while Obama received 30%.
After the loss, Obama rededicated his efforts to the state Senate. He authored one of the most progressive death penalty reform laws in the nation, under the guidance of former U.S. Senator Paul Simon. He also pushed through legislation that would force insurance companies to cover routine mammograms.
Though known as a principled liberal, Obama was highly regarded for his ability to build coalitions and persuade opponents. He engineered the unanimous passage in the Senate of several pieces of progressive legislation, and in one instance, successfully convinced the Fraternal Order of Police and the National Rifle Association to endorse a bill they had previously opposed.”
Obama is as Socialist in his political outlook as anyone in the Senate. He’s explicitly a ‘big government’ Democrat – he doesn’t even pretend like most Republicans to be anything else. He’s not an immigrant – he was born an American – but because of his unusual life story neither is he what I would call culturally American (not that this is entirely a bad thing). But, he’s not a product of the American dream. He strikes me in some fashion as being even less American than the average Kenyan immigrant who came here for a better life. He’s a product of American post-war entitlement programs. He seems to believe that this is almost the totality of what America is all about, and says so. He seems to believe that socialism is what makes America great. I don’t disagree with everything that he does, but once you get past the lovely rhetoric and its careful we can have it all and both ways appeals to everyone, I don’t like where he seems to stand on just about everything.
At best, I see a ambitious political realist who will Clinton-like go where the winds of popular opinion take him. At worst, I see a clever charismatic socialist who will try to use his populist appeal and stirring use of the language to rewrite the unwritten American culture. I knew Clinton (or rather the older members of my family did). Everyone who knew the man knew he was primarily motivated by his own ego, and had been since High School. Everything Clinton did, he did for Clinton. Obama is no Clinton, or at least doesn’t appear to be – though its hard to tell through all the glowing unquestioning reporsts about him. He appears to be a real idealist. He made out well on the dole, and he doesn’t see why everyone else shouldn’t as well. For that matter, Obama is not a Kerry. Kerry was a pretentious faux intellectual, and anyone with an IQ over 120 ought to have been able to discern that. Obama is neither pretentious or false, but a real capable mind and likewise, anyone with an IQ over 120 ought to be able to discern that as well. Nor is Obama a politically tin eared, un-charismatic Gore.
Considering the following passionate defense of socialism which Obama offers up as a Commencement Address. http://www.knox.edu/x9803.xml Pretty words to be sure, but pretty words can lead to really ugly places. Obama very carefully and cleverly equates capitalism – indeed even private property ownership – with slavery. And he does it in such a way as to make it sound natural and American to reject capitalism as anti-American. In Obama’s world, freedom equals the government ownership of wages and property. How about that.
All of which adds up to a very dangerous fellow. [And in particular he’s everything missing that Hillary needs to win the Presidency – personal charisma and Southern state appeal.]
“At best, I see a ambitious political realist who will Clinton-like go where the winds of popular opinion take him.”
I’m sorry, celebrim, while I’m happy to follow your logic and thinking as laid out in the rest of your comments, this kind of assertion is right out of the recent Right Wing Republican political operatives play book…and it is both completely out of place in your post (which goes to great lengths to set forth the positions you assert Obama believes in…so you can tell me why you disagree with them) as well as being amazingly “two-dimensional” of you.
It kind of amazes me that someone as thoughtful and intelligent as you clearly are can so easily fall prey to this kind of propoganda group-think. Depressing too, actually.
Andy: I’m not sure I follow you.
As I outlined, I do not believe him to be that. I believe him to be sincere (in today’s society only politicians who are true believers proudly and openly state that they belong to the Democratic parties left wing), but as I also stated I believe him to be so polished in his demeanor and the coverage of him so uncritical that I do not trust my own appraisal. I do not actually know anyone who knows Obama personally, and this leaves me at a disadvantage. But if he’s not sincere, then the alternative is he’s not likely to say or do anything which upsets the centrist base too much – and that is for me the best possible case. Certainly he’s played it safe as a junior Senator (but he also hasn’t strayed from his ideology either). If he is only a political realist, and once he must win national appeal will gravitate to more centrist positions, then that for me is much better than if he turns out to be a socialist True Believer. What you call a denounciation straight from a GOP playbook, I call a softening of my critic.
The third alternative here, would be that he’s actually a conservative in disguise but he mouth’s socialist platitudes to play to his disgruntled base and the metropolitan upper crust. That seems unlikely to say the least, and he’s never once voted for anything along conservative lines that I’m aware of. The fourth alterative here would be that he’s actually far more liberal than he dares say, and his rhetoric is actually a softening of his political beliefs, but there is little to suggest that he’s anything of an obscurist or that he has any personal philosphy that cannot be broadly explained in widely understood terms. And in any event, I would imagine that alternative really would be straight out of the ‘Republican Playbook’ (certainly its the standard line with Hillary), and you could rightly accuse me of fear mongering. The fifth alternative is that he’s a true eclectic moderate – but nothing in his record or in his actions after becoming a junior senator would suggest that. The sixth alternative is that he’s an eclectic radical, but then you’d expect him to be a bit more of a firebrand. I do not see how the two positions I outline are not the most likely, but you are welcome to entertain me with whatever alternative you can dream up.
I’m not sure how you consider this group think. If you are talking about my characterization of Clinton understand that as I said, I had reasons to characterize Clinton this way long before anyone outside of Arkansas had heard of him.
Folks, it’s likely that Obama is a leftie (so am I, recall) in his social/domestic policies. You may/may not like that – but if he’s a lefty that isn’t yoked to the lame Democratic positions we’re seeing, I may well be happy to support him and so will a lot of others.
Folks who disagree with his policies porobably won’t…
A.L.
“…if he’s a lefty that isn’t yoked to the lame Democratic positions we’re seeing”
That’s the thing. Exactly what constitutes a ‘lame Democratic position’ is somewhat in the eye of the beholder.
Look, if it makes you feel better to hope for this man, then I can’t stop you. But I’m sorry to say that your hope means no more to me than my fear does to you. I assume based on your prior statements that by ‘lame Democratic positions’ you mean the apparant lack of position and lack of seriousness taken by many in the DNC on the war in Iraq in particular and the War on Terror in general. Well, that’s fine and good. But Barack Obama is not the man you are looking for. He is as far as I can tell just merely a smart enough man to know how the DNC (for example Howard Dean) sounds in the ears of the American people, and clever enough to couch the exact same talking points in a way that makes him sound more reasonable and less shrill. It’s a change in style and not substance.
Read the following speech:
http://obama.senate.gov/speech/051122-moving_forward_in_iraq/index.html
1) What is Barack Obama’s position on the war in Iraq? In substance, how is this position different from most Democrat’s stated position on the war in Iraq? For example, rhetoric aside what is Obama recommending that differs substantially from the foreign policy speeches of John Kerry?
2) Senator Obama criticizes those on both sides of the aisle that would politicize the issue of the war in Iraq? What pains does Mr. Obama go to avoid making any of the accusations made by the ones he says he is criticizing? For example, while not directly endorsing such positions, does Senator Obama say anything that might give pause to a fan of Michael Moore, Cindy Sheehan, or George Galloway? In other words, is Mr. Obama’s position really all that nuanced? Is Mr. Obama’s position really coherent?
3) As someone who is at least nominally pro-war, do you think Mr. Obama correctly characterizes the pro-war positions?
You can answer these questions however you like. I see in the speech a bunch of vague statements to no purpose which is not political. You may see something else.
In the South, gentlemen practice the art of being insulting while at the same type appearing to be gracious and magnimous. You damn your foe by your faint praise, patronization, and innuendo while assuming a gentile and jovial air so that if your opponent responds in the spirit your remarks are meant he will seem crass. Whereever Obama is from, he’s a master of this technique.
For me, Obama’s speach can be summed up by an observation he makes during the bridge between his opening characterization and his thesis:
“This political war – a war of talking points and Sunday news shows and spin – is not one I’m interested in joining. It’s a divisive approach that only pushes us further from what the American people actually want – a pragmatic solution to the real war we’re facing in Iraq.
I do want to make the following observations, though…”
This is much like when someone opens a speech by saying, “I don’t want to cause offense…” When someone says that, you can be sure that in fact they do want to cause offense. If they really didn’t want to cause offense, they’d either say something else or keep their mouth shut. No, what people really mean when they say, “I don’t want to cause offense…”, is that they do not want you to think of them as the sort of person who goes arround being offensive. Even though, in fact, they are. Often times, this gambit works (especially if the listener hasn’t read Tolkein, who got a big chuckle out of people doing this).
What Obama says re the Dems is completely correct.
However that only shows that just because you’e a hyprocrite it doesn’t mean you can’t speak the truth sometimes.
He grew up in Hawaii, his mom’s family is from Kansas (IIRC), he’s spent much of his adult life in Illinois.