I used to travel in the same activist circles as Obama, albeit in the Pacific Northwest. For instance, I often went folk dancing with Kathy Boudin in Corvallis, a Weather Underground colleague of Dorhn's who wasn't fortunate enough to have completely escaped incarceration. (When I knew her, she didn't answer to the name "Kathy Boudin," and I never actually saw her crack a smile.) [Note: I am mistaken in identifying Alice Metzinger as Kathy Boudin. She was Katherine Powers, who was equally guilty but who largely escaped consequences (other than her crushing guilt and self doubt.] I don't think there's any doubt that my former friends and associates are mostly supranationalist and anti-American, on pure principle. But I had my doubts even as I attended their meetings, often dominated by Marxists who had never bothered to actually read their own prophet.
And since that time I've noticed the proliferation of some powerful memes in higher education, and from there extending out into the larger society. These include the concept of "diversity," which is now mentioned about 10 times as often as "equality," and a hundred times as often as "liberty," although the sort of diversity referred to demands a shocking ideological uniformity. Moreover, acceptance of the concept of "social justice," which likewise has an inconsistent definition--a semantic trope merging two "positives" (society and justice) to obtain something not half as good but twice as obscure--has now become an article of faith in Schools of Education across the country (the legacy of people like William Ayers), as well as an ideological requirement for an undergrad or graduate degree in Social Work. Most "American Studies" programs, at the university level, wouldn't dream of hiring a professor who wasn't a supranationalist anti-American on pure principle.
So, my worries are the opposite of AL's. I fret that Obama might not be "unelectable... because he hasn't proved to me that he has had the same kind of naked lunch that I experienced when I emerged from my "Alinsky period." And since his association and support of the Marxisant left is so much more recent and vivid than mine it'd be difficult to convince me that his Presidency would not set those obscure values that are at the heart of anti-Americansm, at the very center of our leading institutions. Which is, after all, exactly what Moveon and its sugar daddy, George Soros, want. Even more worrisome, I have no doubt that once this is accomplished the tapestry of Exceptionalist America would unravel. Martin Lipset warned that it could happen, in A Double Edged Sword. We're not immune. What that would mean is unfathomable, but the quantity of Chinese cuisine would probably vastly increase as the quality declined.
Update: OK, my mistake. My former dance partner was not Kathy Boudin, but Katherine Powers... who participated in the murder of a police officer while in the commission of a bank robbery in Brighton in order to supply the Black Panthers. I knew her as Alice Metzinger.
Update 2: Ugh... I also know Power's lawyer Steven Black pretty well, although haven't seen him since the late 1980s. I can understand Barack's dilemma to some extent, but I think I've delineated my allegiances rather convincingly compared to him. And, I'd consider myself nuts to run for public office. Well, outside Oregon anyway.
"the quantity of Chinese cuisine would probably vastly increase as the quality declined."
I know you don't mean to trivilialize a real concern, and I don't either, but i love that as a metaphor for the whole, "from each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs" driving the Progressive Vision for America.
More chinese food, but it's all bad.
Another grave threat to America identified by Demosophist, a great and true cultural warrior of the Right.
Why do you hate America, Demosophist? Would you rather it were a homogenous white Christian society?
ARMED LIBERAL: Now is your chance to prove the sincerity of your support for Obama and Liberal values. Do tell us what you think of this idiocy.
Sepp:
Speaking only for myself, I think your idiocy peculiarity is at least as noteworthy as Demosophist's. Since it's often considered insulting to say "can't you read?", I'm left with saying "you evidently can't be bothered to read, or you can't see past your own presuppositions to engage what Demosophist actually wrote".
By the way, how do you like that anonymizer and those fake email addresses? Are those serving you well here?
Sepp:
AL and I aren't that far apart. He suggests that Obama needs to address his allegiences to the Marxisants directly. All I'm saying is that that's a tall order, given the facts. But it's his problem, and if he were to solve it he could conceivably obtain my vote. Interestingly, Shelby Steele makes the same criticism: that Obama is wearing a mask, and that unless he pulls it away he won't pass GO.
Also, what exactly do you have against the Lipset thesis? After all, he served on the DLC with Clinton. Maybe it bothers you that not all Democrats are committed to anti-Americanism?
The problem for Obama is that "the character questions" matter more than the policy questions, at least for a "biography candidate" like him. Americans know that the pre-election policies presented by candidates are about as relevant as pre-war battle plans, and are likely to bear little resemblance to their final form even if they manage to get through Congress. The policies are interesting only as they indicate ideology and focus, not in their details.
Having a paper-thin political resume, and little legislative accomplishments to his name, Obama is running on pure biography and identity, and alleged "good judgment" - he often pitches his opposition to the Iraq War as an example of this. Given this, his associations and "mask slipping" quotes become huge: they speak to his character and judgment in choosing associates, and what he thinks is "reasonable" versus "beyond the pale" - as well as what he thinks of the country beyond the clubby academic world he clearly prefers.
If Obama were, say, 65, with a long list of legislative and executive accomplishments, and with guys like Wright and Ayers decades behind him, he could argue that he was an intellectually curious guy who courted diversity of opinion in his associates - and he could reasonably ask that people look at his record.
But, since there's no record to speak of, these associations are all that we have to judge the guy. And if he doesn't want to be judged on this stuff, he shouldn't run for President.
BTW, as I noted above, my dance partner wasn't Kathy Boudin, who served 22 years in prison, but Katherine Powers, who was on the lamb after having participated in a bank robbery that resulted in the death of a police officer. Hard to keep this straight, when there are so many pseudonyms involved. Here's the story.
Maybe not; maybe you're both playing the Concert Troll game. Honestly it's not clear what it is that you're trying to say here:
This is just another iteration of "Red Scare" or "Manchurian Candidate" type memes that are so baseless and paranoid. You really want to argue these points? How can I or anyone else possibly convince someone who thinks like this that they're wrong? Should I even try?
You know damn well that Obama cannot possibly say ANYTHING that will change your mind about this. You will never be able to hear what he says in a way that is not completely filtered through your evident prejudice and faux "concern".
But the primary question that I don't think you'll answer here is
Who will you turn to if Obama cannot satisfy your need for him to prostrate himself before the Alter of Right Wing Patriotism? Hillary? McBush? This is not a one-man, one-issue decision, you know.
Sepp:
Well, you might start by actually defining a few terms like "diversity" and "social justice."
I'm holding my breath...
Why do I need to define these terms? I'm not the one railing against them. I'm not the one who said:
Which is clearly a statement of complete and utter fabrication that I'm absolutely certain cannot in any way be justified.
Now, you can oppose politicians on whatever grounds you care to, of course, but let's not pretend it is for anything other than fear and prejudice if it is not, OK? Because you cannot possibly intend comments like this to provide evidence in support of such views?
And speaking of culture and diversity, I'm wondering what part of the country you're from and what your race and religious background is.
And will you answer my bolded question or not?
I admit to being slightly hyperbolic, but that's hardly the same as "utter fabrication." There are a few stalwarts hanging on in academe, but they're hardly more than 10% of the faculty, and they're highly concentrated in a few institutions. There are, however, a small number of programs bucking the trend, such as the Madison Program at Princeton, and Colgate's Institute for Philosophy, Politics, and Economics.
I asked first.
Yeah, that's what I figured...
What, prey tell, does my race, region, and ethnicity have to do with whether "diversit" and "social justice" are valid concepts? Is it sufficient that I have a niece whose ethnicity is exactly the same as Obama's? Why would her interests not be central to me?
I don't give a hoot where you come from, or what your "race" (a social construction anyway) happens to be. How about responding to my question?
As sure as there are concern trolls, there thus must be "concern troll" trolls.
If the hosts of this blog were visiting other blogs and acting in ways that ran counter to their actual beliefs, then you might have some traction on "concern troll". Since it is otherwise, I see our rude visitors as the trolls.
I don't see how playing this little game with you serves any other purpose than to divert attention away from the (purposeful?) vagueness of your own idea of what these terms mean, which in this post you have defined solely by the negative aspects you allege are associated with them in "academic circles" and to which Obama is associated.
For example:
What I'm reacting to is this idiotic "character" gotcha game that is so goddamn corrosive to public life and which you seem happy to play along with.
And which is based on principles that ONLY APPLY TO DEMOCRATS!
So let me summarize:
1) You are against some people's views of Diversity or Social Justice, and believe these people to be Anti-American for expressing their right of dissension .
2) The purpose of this post is to take a political swipe at Liberals in general and Obama in particular using the completely specious "guilt-by-association" tactic that is both illogical and unsupportable.
You're aversion to stating who your alternative to Obama is, on the basis of your supposed "discomfort" with these issues, suggests an appreciation of the possibility of being viewed as a hypocrite.
Anomdebus:
Thanks. Could you explain the nom de plume? Any reference to Ken Kesey or Tom Wolfe will do.
Troll # 13:
I don't have any aversion to stating the alternatives to Obama. Within the party it's Hillary, and outside the party it's McCain. Not exactly rocket science.
I have rarely met anyone on the left willing to define the terms "diversity" or "social justice." Of the two, diversity is more problematic, because practically any BS will do to define Social Justice. The problem with "diversity" is that it, in practice, rules out actual or meaningful diversity, in favor of rank ideological conformity. See Peter Wood's treatise: Diversity. The concept is, at best, insubstantial. Social Justice is more interesting, and has a longer history... but it's equally ill-defined. The basic translation is "group rights or entitlements," which is effectively the same as the definition for "diversity."
This is child's play. Are you, perchance, a child?
Best of luck.
It is always amusing to be reminded character only matters when your policies come from the right side of the aisle. When you're a lefty, it's a mere distraction from the shining utopia to come.
Look, if Obama were running for local Superintendant of Water and Irrigation Systems, his character and his worldview would be a moot issue. He's not. He is claiming to be a good enough person to lead the entire country; if you think character is irrelevant to that proposition, I can't imagine when you would agree a person's character is important.
No, but I see that viewing the world through a child's eyes might help me better understand the silly games you're playing here.
I think my summary points say it all pretty well, and I will take your reversion to the "You're a Troll" trope to indicate an inability or unwillingness to refute them.
Errrr, perhaps not, but that's not what I asked.
#16
Did anyone say that "character doesn't matter"?
No.
Troll #17:
Again, I asked first... and for practical purposes my questions trump yours. Moreover, I've actually answered most of your questions, at least those that weren't patently nonsensical. You're hiding behind a hay bale.
Anyone familiar with farming will get the reference.
BTW, the "locus of dissensus" according to J. David Greenstone's classic treatise, is the nation state. If you deny the relevance of the nation state (or in this case, the American Identity which defines the locus of dissensus) then you're essentially copping to a groundless claim.
But it's even worse than that, because you're not even copping to a coherent claim, groundless or otherwise. You're just plain dissembling. Lying, misrepresenting, etc... You claim to have a position, but all you really have is a sentiment, and even that's ill-defined.
Again, what's your definition of "social justice" and/or "diversity." Try to be specific. Otherwise, you're just giving us unearned opportunities for hilarity. We really don't deserve it.
Who the hell do you mean by "some people"? Are you talking about the Weather Underground? It's that association that is being criticized. Not because the Obamas hang out with harmless multiculturalists at cocktail parties.
who was on the lamb...
Not to be a pedant, but...oh, what the hell, I'll be a pedant. I think you mean "on the lam."
Unless you're saying she was a sheep pedophile. And if so, was it a young ram or ewe? In the latter case, it could get even more kinky.
Very interesting post and comments.
How about both sides defining "diversity" & "social justice", or at least what you understand these words to mean - unless we know we're talking about the same things, we'll continue to talk past each other, and we'll never come to any agreement (if possible), and even worse, we'll never understand each other.
To Sepp - I'm not sure you want to be understood, or that anyone here can change your mind. After all you were the first to throw out the invective "McBush". No more name calling from either side, please.
Well, Sepp, let me chime in,.
I do think that Demo is being kinda - paranoid - both in his presumption that Obama's youthful politics preclude a passionate love for America as Obama, Demo and I all share it, and in his presumption that if Obama didn't, he (Obama) could do much about it.
I happen to believe Obama does - which is where Demo & I agree.
But I will say that much of the modern left, per Danny Postel, has defined itself post-collapse-of-communism as relexively anti-Western and specifically anti-American, and I don't think that's remotely a false charge.
Creating a pro-Western left is something I feel pretty strongly about as well. How do you feel about Habermas?
A.L.
Fine. In my words:
Diversity: A representation of various groups that comprise, as a whole, the population.
Social Justice: The idea that there exists, beyond the written laws, a code of conduct and/or ethics that guides human behavior in community settings.
So first of all,
I've lived in, worked in and taught in an academic environment for over 10 years. Never heard of social justice before, but i can google it on the internet.
Diversity, on the other hand, is a very common slogan. But it's used more as a sticker sale than as a "mantra" or "pollitical sensor". They want to sell kids/parents and trustees on the idea that "snowflake" U is unique from all other universities, and it's the only place where you can meet other kids from russia, south africa, china... yadda yadda yadda. And hence, you are unique if you come here.
I went to a small, uber liberal university on the east coast. And you know what, the student body wasn't neccessarily that liberal. For example: my entire cross country team was not only 1) extremely conservative but also 2)devoted their time to espousing slurs and racist comments. So if this was a strategy of "purging" by diversity, it failed miserably, at least in my experience.
And the reason, at least what I learned on a trustee board, is that you know very little about the students you accept. You've got grades, and a few generic essays. Maybe they did community service, maybe a semester abroad, otherwise you know next to nothing about the politics of the students you let in.
AL:
Well, I may be sorta kinda paranoid. That's certainly my hope. But what evidence do I have to go on that allows me to discount my fears? What evidence is there that Obama both understands and has some love for "America" as Lipset and Ladd (and Tocqueville) define it? I'm not resisting the evidence. I just don't see it. You can certainly enlighten me. I can hope, of course. In fact, if Obama is elected hope is about all I have...
-Demo
Alchemist #24:
Just google "diversity" specific to your university, and see what comes up. Some of the references will probably be apolitical, but most will be directly related to political assumptions related to diversity of gender preference, race, etc. Moreover, anyone who fails to offer appropriate obeisance to the concept won't be tolerated, unless they come on board with unassailable credentials.
Anyway, if you're on the trustee board I'm surprised that you don't already know this. Where have you been?
(Formatting error in posting: ignore previous post).
[ Deleted -- M.F. ]
A.L.
I do not have the knowledge base to comment on whether your statement about "much of the modern left...is reflexively Anti-Western and Anti-American". Such people might exist. I have not heard much from them as a typical consumer of widely distributed news and information, and I therefore am provisionally of the opinion that this group must therefore represent a small minority within a larger group of Liberals or Democrats.
I am Pro-America, for example, but I do not support everything our country does. Does anyone?
But, I fail to see how any of this has anything to do with Obama, Clinton OR McCain.
And rather than letting Demosophist squirm his way around addressing the purpose of my prior question, let's put it another way:
1) Which of the three Presidential Candidates's views on Social Justice and Diversity do you most closely associate?
And more broadly but cutting to the core to the point of this (as articulated by Demosophist):
2) Which candidate would least likely "...set....values that (could undermine the core principles of our Free and Democratic Society) at the very center of our leading institutions."
Note that I would regard it as artificial to set limits on what kinds of "values" one would consider in this case. For example, I would consider the following to be values that could be undermined by Presidential actions: Institutional deception/lying, torture and/or imprisonment of innocents, killing of civilians, theft, greed, naked ambition, anti-intellectualism, Nepotism, adultery, corruption.
There's more but you get the idea.
And I will add, finally, that I believe the expression of these types of values is likely to be orders of magnitude more impacting than a wobbly or even negative (by your definition) view of Social Justice or Diversity. After all, President is not Admissions Officer, is he?
[Duplicate post removed. --NM]
Here's a different approach:
These questions aren't only asked by centrist voters of Obama. Businesspeople ask them of prospective vendors. Fathers wonder about their daughters' suitors. Sick people quiz their prospective healers, parents their children's teachers...
For a long time, the Hard Left has gotten a pass. They're working hard in the name of all sorts of virtuous ideals--Peace, Social Justice, Feminism, Equality, the Environment, Fairness, Progressivism, the fight against Global Warming and FrankenFoods, Universal Health Care, the Rights of the Oppressed, Diversity, Fair Trade. So it would be churlish to inquire too insistently about ideas and motives.
What do Hard Leftists say when they talk with one another; is what's said pretty much the same as when their speech is for public consumption?
This came up as a sidelight in a recent turn taken in the 2006/07 Duke Lacrosse Rape Hoax/Frame. Three of the Hard Left faculty involved in enabling the hoax recently penned an article in the journal Social Text (of Sokal Affair fame) entitled "In the Afterlife of the Duke Case" (here, but $) .
Most of the piece was comprised of turgid prose replete with factual errors, slipshod scholarship, and cries of victimhood; review by KC Johnson is here.
More germane to this conversation are some of the authors' broader remarks, written in a surprisingly straightforward manner.
Page 4:Page 11:
So that is how these three comrades of William Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn write when friends are to be doing the reading.
Note that the functional definition of "social justice" isn't the milky thousand points of light idea espoused by Sepp earlier in the thread. In the case of these three Duke professors, social justice explains and excuses their support of a frame-up that--had it succeeded--would have sent three innocent Duke students to prison for rape. Three male, white, middle-class student-athletes to prison, that is.
So I hope Sepp will understand if I look at the champions of this common flavor of social justice with a certain amount of reserve.
In tone and in content, this is what passes for respectable scholarly discourse in the precincts of the mainstream Hard-Left academy. "Manchurian Candidate" material, it ain't.
So can I know what the authors of this Social Text piece think, because their hostility towards individual rights, equality under the law, the market economy, republican democracy, and other institutions of American society is plain to see.
As is also the case with Professor Ayers and Reverend Wright.
For friends and allies of people like this, it's harder to tell. "Golly, I had no idea that my pal believed so passionately in such wacky ideas!" might well be the whole truth.
But I hope skepticism doesn't come to be seen as a completely outlandish response to such claims.
Sepp #28, etc.:
If we're absent a coherent definition for "social justice" how is it possible to respond? What are you talking about? A social safety net for those who experience "outrageous fortune?" Or are you just echoing the conventional leftist dogma that anything remotely competitive is, by definition, "oppression?" That's the way most social justice advocates talk, including Ayers and Dohrn (and presumably Obama). Are you willing to separate yourself from this sort of rhetoric. Is Obama?
Why should be we be considered out of bounds simply for asking?
Demosophist- 1) I don't understand what you're linking too. There are three articles in the link, unsure which one applies.
2) I WAS on a trustee task force on advertising and PR. I'm not anymore. It was a temporary position while I was still attending the college.
That's being extremely charitable. Ayer's idea of justice is setting off bombs, and his gang was prevented from setting off a nail bomb in a dance hall only because it went off on them first - Darwin's idea of justice, maybe.
Bernadine Dohrn's idea of justice was the Manson family stabbing a pregnant woman to death with a meat fork.
I wouldn't worry too much about what Obama thinks of this, because I don't believe he ever has thought of it. All he knew about Ayers and Dohrn was that they were go-to people in the Chicago political elite when he was looking to run for the Senate. The rest of it he couldn't care less about. Obama doesn't know any more about Marxism than he does about Christianity or bowling, because the man is a naif, and a poser.
This is kind of silly, Demosophist.
You're too small and insignificant to be able to effectively smear Obama. You're not on Fox News, you're on windsofchange.net. You can't turn hatred into a vector of infection like Limbaugh or Hannity can. You can only stew on a tiny corner of the internet. Are you sure you want to spend your time manufacturing and keeping these toxins within your mind? Character assassination is an effective political tool, but not without its dangers.
Good Chewbacca defense.
atheist, you're completely over the line here. I'll offer you a chance to back up and disagree civilly with Demo or to take some time off.
A.L.
Armed Liberal, I'm simply pointing out that, while character assassination is a useful and time-honored tool, it does have limits, and even dangers, for its practicioners. I'm acknowledging that Demosophist has a pretty good attack on Obama, but I'm wondering if he really wants to incur the psychic damage that can happen when you dedicate yourself to pulling down a public figure. I'm also pointing out that, while windsofchange.net is a pretty well-read blog, and therefore just fine for education and argumentation, it's not a really effective platform for propaganda. How is that uncivil?
AL:
Thanks. Not that I disagree with the notion that I don't measure up to the impressive credentials of Hannity, Limbaugh, or even... Dan Rather. But I am familiar with the denizens of the Alinsky militia, and the way they think, act, and apply social pressure. Anyway, here are some fairly damning thoughts about Ayers and Obama from a different corner of the blogosphere.
atheist:
Are you telling us something from your personal experience, perhaps having to do with George Bush, or even with God?
atheist, does that count for you & Bush as well?
A.L.
Glen W, #38:
I've certainly been angry at Bush, and the violently authoritarian "conservative movement" that has been his base, for many years. They have a fever for war, combined with personal cowardice, and a strange, childish need for an absolute ruler.
Examining the actions, statements, and beliefs of Bush's administration, and this movement, I have certainly felt anger- sometimes extreme anger. I have also felt much visceral disgust with the conservative movementarians, and also a deep fear of their violence, and their lust for a protofascist rule. The fear I have of them has sometimes made me feel paranoid. Finally, I have also experienced simple incomprehension at their emotions and desires.
God has never been much more than a strange fantasy to me. It's hard to feel much anger against something that one doesn't believe exists.
The thing I am reacting to in Demosophist's post is an odd sense of manufactured outrage. My reactions to the actions of the Bush administration, and also to the conservative movement, have always been visceral- almost reflexive. In examining the horrible slaughters that Bush has wrought on Iraq and Afghanistan, the utter, disgusting waste that he has unleashed simply to ensure US control over Iraq's oil reserves, or the bizzarre, dangerous cult of personality among his supporters, I have never had to dig for a sense of outrage, anger, or fear. The feelings have simply come to me. If anything, I have fought against them in order to maintain my ability to deal with life. The essential vanity, and destructive absurdity, of his Neoconservative schemes, has also been very hard to miss.
So, Glen, while I have certainly tried to pull down Bush, and his movement, I have never had to dig for manufactured outrage in order to do it. I have always acted from an emotional sense. Not only that, but also a simple judgement of my self-interest. I am middle class, and in my thirties. Leaders like Bush, and people like the conservative movement, will never do anything but damage my society, impoverish me, attempt to remove my freedoms, damage my environment, and turn the world against the USA. The farther I can get them from power, the better for me, and damn near everyone else.
I don't have to reach for Bush's connections with random KKK members, or fundamentalist preachers, or whatever, in Connecticut, or Texas, back when he was a 25 year old idiot. I don't have to look for exactly who he bought his cocaine from, and who they were giving money to, and why his wife crashed her car and killed that guy. (Though, of course, if it can help me pull him down, I will do so.) I already know I hate the guy. And, finally, I won't pretend to be his friend as I pull him down. "But Bush, if he wants to be elected, should come clean about his relationship with Jimbo, the fundamentalist preacher, who said that women should be chained to the stove and beaten if they don't produce babies because it's God's will..."
In short, I feel like, in this post, Demosophist is reaching for a sense of outrage. And I mentioned that, he can certainly do that, but I question both its effectiveness, and I wonder what this kind of character assassination does to its practitioners.
Wow. I give up. What's the point of trying to engage people here intelligently if this is the response?
If you cannot answer this question using YOUR OWN definition (and feel free to explain it along the way, why don't you?) then you don't have an answer, or you don't want to answer (and who knows why, although it might be fun to speculate, but then we get accused of threadjacking), or you're just playing more semantic games.
My bet is on (b).
Really it's a very simple question.
Behold Glen Wishard the Amazing Mind Reader!
All in one paragraph!!!
Really, please please Glen lend me your Magic Crystal Ball that lets you see so deeply into the minds of others.
Hey, what am I thinking right now? C'mon, crank that thing up.
atheist -
You've just rationalized your own hate and anger by insisting that it's genuine. Whereas the hate and anger that you attribute to Demosophist is insincere - and therefore likely to cause psychic damage? This is some strange psychology, friend.
You want some real advice? Never get your personal problems mixed up with the world's problems, because that is indeed a sure and certain path to paranoia. And real paranoia is no damn joke.
The country around you, and the people in it, are not one tenth as threatening as you imagine. My advice is to get some friends who don't agree with you when you start going on about "protofascism". I guarantee you'll feel better in no time.
I have to admit I don't know. Unplug your refrigerator, because I can't tell the difference between you and the compressor motor.
You've just rationalized your own hate and anger by insisting that it's genuine. Whereas the hate and anger that you attribute to Demosophist is insincere - and therefore likely to cause psychic damage? This is some strange psychology, friend.
Well, you know, maybe Demosophist is actually as afraid of Bill Ayers, Bernardine Dohrn, & the "Alinsky Militia" as he is claiming to be. Honestly, my first reaction to this post was that he had to be bullshitting. But, you know, maybe Demosophist seriously believes that Obama is controlled by the mental emanations of Bill Ayers and the dread lord George Soros. In which case, Demosophist is not a bullshitter, he's just completely nuts.
You want some real advice? Never get your personal problems mixed up with the world's problems, because that is indeed a sure and certain path to paranoia. And real paranoia is no damn joke.
Oh, thanks. I love internet advice. Advice from random people who have never met me, and think I'm crazy. Worth every penny I paid, I'm sure.
The country around you, and the people in it, are not one tenth as threatening as you imagine. My advice is to get some friends who don't agree with you when you start going on about "protofascism". I guarantee you'll feel better in no time.
I do have freinds who don't agree with my assessment of the conservative movement. It's fine, we just don't discuss these matters. But it's not a matter of 'feeling better'. Once you see what is going on, you can't un-see it. A group of people that acts like the conservative movement does is proto-fascist. That is the best description of them. And the longer they have power, the more damage they are gonna do.
Night all.
atheist, check your irony detector. I think the psychic aftershocks of your #36 and #45 in the same thread may have damaged it.
Equally arguably, any group of people that acts like a government over capabilities the size of the US's is proto-fascist -- if by "proto-fascist" you mean "capable of errors that seem unconscionable in retrospect" or "abusive of power with little accountability". Doesn't seem to matter which particular gang is in power. I could list things all the way back to the 1890s, if you want. Democrats not excluded.
So let's tear it all down and settle the matter. If the US were balkanized into (say) 10 or 20 countries all comprising Swiss-style cantonments, then we could talk about how they couldn't be "proto-fascist". Seem fair? Seem likely?
Maybe that's really what the nail bombs and cop-killings (and even the Tate murder) were all about. That makes them OK, right?
Equally arguably, any group of people that acts like a government over capabilities the size of the US's is proto-fascist -- if by "proto-fascist" you mean "capable of errors that seem unconscionable in retrospect" or "abusive of power with little accountability".
Nortius M, I'm not using "proto-fasticst" as some kind of generalized insult, nor am I saying that they are common criminals. I'm serious that the term seems descriptive of them in the big picture. A scholar named Paxton made a list of traits describing fascism:
1-- a sense of overwhelming crisis beyond the reach of any traditional solutions;
2-- the primacy of the group, toward which one has duties superior to every right, whether universal or individual, and the subordination of the individual to it;
3-- the belief that one's group is a victim, a sentiment which justifies any action, without legal or moral limits, against the group's enemies, both internal and external;
4-- dread of the group's decline under the corrosive effect of individualistic liberalism, class conflict, and alien influences;
5-- the need for closer integration of a purer community, by consent if possible, or by exclusionary violence if necessary;
6-- the need for authority by natural leaders (always male), culminating in a national chief who alone is capable of incarnating the group's destiny;
7-- the superiority of the leader's instincts over abstract and universal reason;
8-- the beauty of violence and the efficacy of will, when they are devoted to the group's success;
9-- the right of the chosen people to dominate others without restraint from any kind of human or divine law, right being decided by the sole criterion of the group's prowess in a Darwinian struggle.
It seems to me that 1-4, and also 6 and 7, describe Bush, and the modern "conservative movement", without any reservations at all. #1 seems just like the "9/11 changed everything, can't you see?" that I've constantly heard from conservatives. #2 in the constant assertions that civil rights are an outdated concept, and that anyone who is asking for them is anti-American. #3 is especially evident in the anti-Mexican rhetoric that's so prevalent nowadays, but also from the anti-arab people, who go on about how the US will soon be in Saria law etc. #4 is just an old standby that conservative media figures constantly use. #6, just consider any statement about Bush by Peggy Noonan or Chris Matthews or any media stars of that ilk. (Until it lately became unfashionable, of course.) #7 seems visible in the attitude of the conservative movement toward laws which go against what the leader wants, for instance the blithe attitudes toward torture, and twisting of US laws to make torture legal. (I'd argue that #9 is pretty well summed up in the "War on Terror", too.) None of these things seem like "errors", as you say, but more like inevitable expressions of people's actual beliefs.
I call this proto-fascism because the US government is obviously not in a true fascist stage. You can put an "Impeach Bush" bumper sticker on your car and you won't be arrested. But it seems like the conservative movement is constantly trying to push the US in that direction. And they've had a great deal of success in the past seven years.
Regarding the last crop of comments, #40 - #48: Wow.
Sepp and atheist, I hope you got a chance to take the poll linked in the Cold Civil War Survey post earlier this week.
Unlike you, I found Demosophist's essay to be quite germane to this election, and his doubts about Obama to be well-founded and--as far as I could tell--sincere.
I suppose that makes me a fascist, um, proto-fascist, too. (Proto-fascist is good, as it doesn't automatically invoke Godwin's Rule.)
One thing that's notable about the discussion of Obama and his closest associates in the mass media is the prevalence of "this is my interpretation of what I say he said" meta-narratives in preference to the straight-up "this is what he said, form your own opinion."
That's why, at the risk of going off-topic, I quoted extensively from some recent scholarly writings of some ideological soul-mates of Ayers and, presumably, Michelle Obama in #29, above.
This is how these folks see the world, and this is how they express themselves. If you want to explore some real-world effects of their philosophy, click on the links.
Obama's pitch is that he deserves the Presidency because of his vision, his intentions, and his judgement. He's never been harshly vetted, thanks to the particular circumstances of his rather brief political career. (DSQ'ing his State Senate opponent by petition signature challenges; losing a House race to Bobby Rush for being insufficiently black-nationalist and extreme-left; winning his Senate seat against a crank-pundit after his primary and then his general-election rivals each self-destructed in ethics scandals.)
There's more to know about your character and politics than the character and politics of your close associates. But it's a helpful "getting to know you" topic to explore. In particular, how do you answer any difficult and awkward questions that arise? Do you duck and weave (Obama's Philadelphia race speech)? Do you get annoyed at the questioner when the issues are phrased bluntly and directly (the last primary debate)?
Does your campaign and movement rely on allies in the mass media to present pleasing meta-narratives (Bill Moyers' interview of Jeremiah Wright)?
As to the charge that "doubts about Obama must be manufactured outrage (#40; to paraphrase Chomsky) that could only come from proto-fascist Bush cheerleaders": read other posts at the site. For that matter, since Peggy Noonan is cited as one of Skeletor's goose-stepping cheerleaders-in-chief, try reading her. Should be interesting exercises for those who try to ground their opinions in reality.
Also, just to be clear, "the conservative movement" does not mean every person who considers themselves conservative. The Ron Paul people, for instance, seem to have some pretty significant differences from this "conservative movement" which has been Bush's base until pretty recently.
Regarding the Duke Lacrosse Rape Hoax/Frame referenced above, I should add that Obama was about the only politician of national stature to weigh in. The rest of the crop avoided the issue like toxic sludge. Obama went on the record to state that the railroading was wrong, while it was still in progress. For others, from Bush and Reid on down, the silence was just another chapter in their Profiles in Cowardice autobiographies.
Unlike you, I found Demosophist's essay to be quite germane to this election, and his doubts about Obama to be well-founded and--as far as I could tell--sincere.
Obama is being mentally controlled by George Soros, and is getting "kill whitey" memos from Bernardine Dohrn?! If this scenario is honestly believed, then the only word for that is nuts. Complete paranoid schizophrenia.
For that matter, since Peggy Noonan is cited as one of Skeletor's goose-stepping cheerleaders-in-chief, try reading her. Should be interesting exercises for those who try to ground their opinions in reality.
That's my point, dude. Peggy Noonan offers absolutely nothing to someone who grounds their opinions in reality, except comedic value.
One thing that's notable about the discussion of Obama and his closest associates in the mass media is the prevalence of "this is my interpretation of what I say he said" meta-narratives in preference to the straight-up "this is what he said, form your own opinion."
The corporate media apparently considers itself aligned with the conservative movement. Seems like all they do is come up with the most childish, absurd bullcrap to smear him with. He has to renounce Bill Ayers. Oh, but now he has to renounce Farrakhan (who he has absolutely no connection to, other than being black and living in Chicago), but wait, now he has to renounce that devil rap music. Oh, but we forgot, he has to denounce Harry Belafonte! After the years of 2001-2007, I never thought my opinion of the racist, sycophantic US media could go lower. How short-sighted I was.
I suppose that makes me a fascist, um, proto-fascist, too. (Proto-fascist is good, as it doesn't automatically invoke Godwin's Rule.)
No. You misunderstand. What would make you a proto-fascist, or a fascist, would be if you believed that the US was in crisis without traditional solution, which required Americans to obey unquestioningly and not criticize, and felt the US was victimized and needed to strike back, and were terribly worried about the chaos of liberal values, and wanted to feel tightly integrated into a community led by a manly leader, who was beyond laws, and who would use violence and war to beat back all danger.
I searched the thread for "Soros", Demosophist wrote
The other "Soros" hits were written by atheist.
For "Dohrn/Dorhn", Demosophist wrote
Other hits in comments 29, 30, 32, 45, 52. No mention of kill-whitey memos.
Drifting off topic is one thing. Atheist, your style of debating is a bit more pronounced than that.
Dude, you need to get out more. Here's the tail end of yesterday's column
He can do as he wishes. The thin gruel of Huey Long-style Hope and Change is enough for many voters. Especially in the context of the dreary alternatives in the primary and the general. As Demosophist wrote in the post that so offends you, some of us find little hope for change for the better in what Obama's campaign has offered, so far. And, yes, that includes the judgement he has displayed over the year in his choices of mentors and other close associates.
Ugh, formatting without preview!
That's a paraphrase of atheist in #52, not the closing sentence of Noonan's Op-Ed.
... In case it wasn't obvious...
Atheist:
I honestly don't "grok" what you're talking about. The incremental leftward creep of the academy, since the classic Lipset and Ladd studies for Carnegie in the early '70s, is pretty well documented... and was entirely intentional. As AMac's post suggests, they launched a "studies" movement that transformed the University, and has led to state where Women's Studies is now so influential that they're building momentum for a move to place science and math departments under the auspices of Title IX.
Gender parity in science and math. Now, there's an idea whose time has come!
This isn't mind control, it's strategy. They've defined the very context of university life in such a way that it presumes the institutional legitimacy of ideological movements. It would be paranoid to worry about such nonsense, if it weren't actually happening. I don't mind someone representing these nutty ideas, btw. My problem is that they've become virtually the only acceptable viewpoint in the academy, justifying speech codes, defining who obtains tenure, etc.. A friend of mine was nearly fired for assigning a classic policy article from the 1970s that happened to use the word "oriental." But it seems to me that the way to counter this silliness is not to ban it, but to do what the "studies" people did, and launch a movement to establish institutes and centers dedicated to Lockean values and genuine academic freedom. If it worked for them, it'll work for us.
I think it's clearly rational, however, to worry about electing a president who, in some substantial sense, accepts many of these nutty ideas as normal... or at least not sufficiently disturbing that they're worthy of much comment until someone on Utube raises the issue. Yes, that worries me, because the ideas are clearly subversive... and are intended to be. Always have been.
I did not know that Obama opposed the political correctness railroading of the students in the Duke rape case. That's a point in his favor. I wonder at what point in the progress of the case he made his statement? But anyway, more of that please. A lot more.
As for the pretzel logic you use to justify your prejudices about conservatives... Oy! Pot. Kettle. Black.
I once went to a neighborhood meeting hosted at the largest house on the block.
A few years later the wife killed her husband. (They had, at least, moved to another neighborhood first.)
I'm not sure how this affects my political viability. Hyde Park is a small neighborhood and the "connection" between Obama and Ayers (whom I will agree is a despicable figure who should have been imprisoned) doesn't seem much tighter than me and my insane ex-neighbor.
The question of X Studies is an interesting one. The fact that the perpetrator of the brilliant Sokal Hoax (namely, Sokal) is a hard leftist suggests that the overlay of political beliefs has to be a little nuanced.
Just to be clear, I don't oppose gender parity. I oppose compulsory gender parity. Getting more women interested in careers in science and math is laudable. But that's not what's being proposed.
Andrew #56:
So you served on a planning board with this neighbor, and your wife invited him to speak to students at her university on a panel dedicated to lighter sentences for murderers ?
I'm sure you didn't intend to deliberately mislead people, but a little more reflection might be in order. My sister lived next door to a man who murdered our former kindergarten teacher. The situation is hardly analogous to Obama's relationship with Ayers.
Well, I certainly could have served on a neighborhood planning board with my ex-neighbor. I don't think it makes much sense to tax Obama with the other members of a board. I mean, you don't fault John McCain for sitting in the Senate with Barack Obama, do you?
Bill Ayers exists, and he's out free. (Even if he had been convicted, by now he'd be out anyway.) I understand and share your dislike of the man, but the Obamas' relationship to him doesn't seem friendly or personal at all. Ayers is who he is, and his expertise (?) and professional role is what it is. The Obama/Ayers seems professionally correct.
[Drive-by. Deleted. --NM]
I, for one, refuse to vote for AJL on grounds other than his previous associations. Sorry, you'll just have to work harder for my vote!
I do. Not because he sat in the same room, but because of his conduct while in Congress, and that fault extends to all of Congress sitting during Obama's first (and only) term. If McCain and Obama got into more arguments, or McCain had acted like the fire-breathing right winger the lefties are trying to make him out to be, I would give him a pass for participating in such an incredibly useless assembly. Similarly if Obama broke with and expressed revulsion for the roots of Ayers' philosophy, instead of just his methods, I would give Obama a pass.
But then again I'm one of the "throw the bums out" conservatives Peggy Noonan was talking about. Maybe I'm just bitter and need to go find a gun to cling to.
FWIW Ayers isn't the dealbreaker for me with Obama, and if he was the only incident of Obama's poor judgement in picking his peers I would laugh it off as random character assassination. But that incident does not exist in isolation. It is Obama's 20 year close ties to Rev. Wright that is the bigger issue in my mind, and the combination of the two associations (plus others), plus his voting record, shows a particular mindset that is disturbing in any candidate for President.
Isn't it time for Robohobo to chime in that Obama is literally the Antichrist?
I don't know how friendly they were. I just see a pattern, of which this is a part. I think he'd have been nuts to cultivate a close friendship with Ayers, which would be atypical for him. But I would have refused to serve on the Woods board with the man, and although I can understand you serving on a planning board with a murderer before he commits such a crime, I could hardly excuse you for doing so after his crime were publicized and he were released on a technicality. The fact that Dohrn and Ayers are free is due to such a technicality. The fact that they are so broadly accepted within the leftist and academic community justifies at least some sort of indictment of that community. It's a problem. Indeed, it's a big problem... though not an insoluble one.
I agree that Wright is a bigger issue. However, falling back on my own familiarity with this community, I'd be surprised if more examples of the pattern don't continue to dribble out over the next eight months. But you know, I'm frequently surprised.
Of course, anti-terrorism should cut both ways.
Sometime I'd like a thread on how the conservative shadow Academy has even lower standards than the liberal one. Point: Liar and fabulist John Lott is still, AFAIK, at AEI. Liar and fabulist Michael Bellesiles was forced out.
The ersatz gold of messianism is beginning to tarnish a little. A real Antichrist would hardly be threatened by a woman with a negativity rating consistently above 60%.
Andrew -
The Obama campaign has actually claimed false links between Ayers-Dohrn and Obama. David Axelrod said "Their kids attend the same school" and "they know each other, as anyone whose kids go to school together."
Not bloody likely - Obama's two daughters are less than 10 years old. Ayer's children were born while they were on the run from the FBI and are in their late 20s. As is Kathy Boudin's daughter, whom they adopted.
The Obama campaign is stressing personal links, which are indeed weak, in order to obscure the real links, which are political.
Let me be clear about something, though - it wasn't Obama that sought out Ayers and Dohrn. It was the rich Lakefront "progressives" of the Chicago Democratic party who allowed this scum into their circle. They're the ones who thought these ex-Weathermen were cool. It's not a sinister political connection, it's a stupidly familial one.
To paraphrase Obama himself, "I can no more turn my back on Bill Ayers than I can turn my back on the progressive community in Chicago. Or turn my back on those assholes in San Francisco who have almost cost me the election already."
Obama doesn't see the need - not yet - to think past the parochial prejudices of the leftist elites. Their approval is still more important to him than what the voters think. He doesn't seem to understand the incompatibility, or is too weak to face up to it.
AMac said:
Too bad you didn't apply at least some of the same attention to what I wrote here, before #40.
Because nothing you have said in any way contradicts my points.
So I will restate the MAIN POINT for you again:
You wish to challenge Obama's "character" and "values" as you divine them to be on the basis of his "associates", while at the same time ignoring his own words and actions that paint a very different picture of the man from the one the Rightwing and you would rather believe.
So, since it is an election season, which of the remaining candidates's "values and character" do you think are superior to Obama's? Applying the same standards of measurement of course.
You may want to refer back to post #12 to review some of the common categories of "values and character" that I think most would agree are very relevant to a President.
Sorry, refer to post #27.
Sepp, you may want to try following the thread of argumentation before you tilt at windmills.
No, his associations tell to his mindset...
...and his words and actions speak to his character. His reactions to the news stories revealing his past associations have been disingenuous to say the least, though he earned his checkmark for oratory skills. His words about Pennsylvanians while speaking to the fund raiser in California speak volumes about where his head is at, and how he views the American people. His actions in the Senate speak to his values, and we've already covered that ground repeatedly.
McCain (plus some other candidates who already dropped out). But not nearly enough for me to vote for him, either.
#69
Demosophist:
And
You follow?
Has a better character than Obama? Wow. Thanks. That certainly helps clarify what character issues you think are important. I guess lying and adultery are not among them? Or pandering to an ideology that you supposedly disagree with to win their votes? Or breaking laws that you helped write? Saying anything to get elected? A sense of towering moral superiority and righteousness? Calling your wife a "c..t" in a public fit of rage?
All stellar character traits to be sure.
[ Duplicate comment deleted -- M.F. ]
Sepp,
I read comments #67 and re-read your comments #12 and #27.
Sepp's main point:
As to what I think: here's a letter I wrote to my local paper's senior politics reporter after the paper printed yet another horse-race piece on the Democratic primary.
As far Sepp's question, "which of the remaining candidates's 'values and character' do you think are superior to Obama's?"
In #27, Sepp lists his most important traits, noting that "I think most would agree [that they] are very relevant to a President": "Institutional deception/lying, torture and/or imprisonment of innocents, killing of civilians, theft, greed, naked ambition, anti-intellectualism, Nepotism, adultery, corruption."
Well, I suppose that most of these are important. We should also be sure not to elect a Mugabe spy or a paranoid schizophrenic to the Presidency. But I don't spend a lot of time worrying about that.
My own list would look pretty different. I'd be interested in the candidates' views on
In terms of personal traits, I'd prefer some evidence that the candidate has a sense of right and wrong that approximates my own, and has some reluctance to enrich himself/herself and associates at the public trough. I find outright hypocrisy and self-deception to be unattractive, though realistically, the standards there have to be pretty low.
In terms of experience, I would look for a track record of managerial competence in running a large organization.
Sepp, since you asked, none of the three candidates gets over a D or at best a C- in my book. Obama is probably the worst of the lot, though not by much, as far as I can tell at this point. But so little is known about him that he might end up being a positive surprise; it's impossible to think that about the other two. McCain's single biggest advantage is that Clinton's/Obama's party is likely to sweep the House and Senate this November, giving them more opportunities to swiftly implement their Bad Ideas. On the other hand, McCain shares a number of the left's conceits. If we're going to have at least 4 years of these left-wing policy slo-mo train wrecks, maybe it would be better to kick out the Republican bums entirely and let the Dems own the whole thing. Some time in the Wilderness might help the Repubs shed some of their most corrupt elements and discover some pragmatic and useful policy ideas.
Ah well, the country has strong institutions, and will muddle through somehow. The series of challenges we are going to be facing may bring out the best in some people, including politicians.
Gee, Sepp, I thought we weren't supposed to be
Funny how that goes out the window so quickly when you want to try making a point.
Atheist:
I honestly don't "grok" what you're talking about.
Demosophist, I feel that I was saying something fairly simple. Your statements about Obama's connections seem very odd and paranoid. I can't figure if you are honestly worried about Obama being a secret confederate of Bill Ayres & an agent of George Soros, or simply attempting character assassination. Since you seem rather intelligent, I tend to assume the latter. If, in fact, you are attempting character assassination, then I think this particular attempt will be effective with right-wing true believers, but will fail with normal people. That's all I was getting at, Demosophist.
BTW, for those who are uncertain of what the Weather Underground was all about, or what kind of people Ayers and Dohrn are, there are two books I would strongly recommend: With the Weathermen by Susan Stern, and Growing up Underground by Jane Alpert. Especially the former, if you can only stomach one.
These Weathermen, like Ayers, were (mostly) unrepentant radicals when they wrote these books. Unlike him, they were candid about what they participated in, and they don't lie about the murderous attitudes that were espoused.
I think even those brain-dead Chicago liberals who sit at Ayers' feet would be impressed by these books. Not by the bombings and the bank robbery murders, which they find so trivial, but by the sexual degradation and abuse that "revolutionary women" faced every day.
Atheist:
As I said, I'm worried that Obama is so comfortable in that left wing academic community that he didn't even consider the oddness and paranoia of Jerry Wright until people started reacting to a Youtube video. That suggests that he might well act or use the bully pulpit to facilitate their wacky ideas... to give them more room to breathe. And, as usual, this speaks to his state of mind.
But if you believe that pointing out these personal connections, suggesting they're part of a millieu, amounts to character assassination, one must assume that you at least have concerns that these people bear rather questionable characters. So, since you're being so straightforward and transparent, at least we can agree on that, right?
So, you must think it odd or paranoid to believe that people move and act in social circles where beliefs and perspectives tend to converge. Yes, that is quite odd. Obama must've come up with the notion that small town rural Americans cling to guns, religion, and bigotry out of bitterness all by himself. And his wife's Chomskyesque attitude about the country that allowed her such success was obviously pulled out of some raggedy old hat that she found lying around the Princeton campus, having not graced an actual head in decades. Yeah, that makes a lot more sense.
I understand the self-preservation reflex, AMac: too much potential to damage the psyche, I suppose, to think that you may have played a part in helping the current administration transgress virtually every one of these issues. Rationalization, I believe it's called.
And this I love:
What train wreck are you talking about, exactly, that America is supposed to fear from a Dem-run government? Do you think it will be worse than what has happened over the past 8 years?
The effort, once again, to disown the fruits of one's own labors rears it's ugly head.
Interesting, I wonder the same thing about people here. But it's fairly easy to determine this. If someone's opinion is not grounded in reality, it is by definition delusional. Evil is harder, of course, because it requires evidence of action or intent that is impossible to divine over the internet (although this certainly never seems to stop those on the right...calling Glen Wishard!...from thinking that they can see thing's in people's character and soul that they pointedly disavow).
Here's a good example of that I'd say:
And now here's another good one:
The blog you link to is basically full-time Anti-Obama. The guy is obsessed with him, obviously...19 out of 20 of his most recent posts (95%!) have been slamming Obama. If this is your opinion of a trusted "news source" which you think reporters need to read to understand Obama better, than I do question your connection to reality.
But not the series of challenges we are already facing I guess? And how did these challenges arise I wonder.
Final question. In light of this comment:
Did you vote for Bush in 2000 or 2004?
And here's a view contra-McCain that I agree with which sets a nice contrast to your letter and subsequent comments:
The large truth well-known to mainstream media in Washington and to the candidate's colleagues is that John McCain has a well-established record of intemperate opinions, inadequately thought-through positions, and ill-considered views. In addition, over the years he has also shown a lack of interest or commitment to many important public policy topics. Where on occasion he has advanced interesting ideas, such as calling for broadcasters to provide free air time for political advertisements, he has not translated his suggestions into legislation, nor does he now even mention them in his campaign policy statements. A commonplace view about McCain on the Hill is that he has at most a transitory commitment to the achievement of practical goals through government. After Giuliani, Thompson and Romney all flubbed their chances, we can see why the White House turned to its fourth draft choice, John McCain, as the only viable alternative to Huckabee, who actually might have shaken up their establishment and even, if elected, withdrawn from Iraq. But the rest of America is not so constrained in its choice for President. We want a hard-working, knowledgeable, engaged, caring, and reasonable President. Based on his long record in Washington, McCain does not appear to be that person.
Sepp, thanks for the psychological profiling service. I believe that I got my money's worth.
As for your point that Steve Sailer hasn't been entirely won over by Obama: we can agree on that much. Although Sailer does find things to admire in him. Since you followed the link, you also realize Sailer is no friend of McCain or Clinton.
Of course, there's a fairly simple set of questions that I hope my local paper's reporter gets around to considering:
An example of why this might be important: Sailer characterizes Obama's writing as that of a man who is vitally concerned with being black enough.
This paints a very different portrait from that offered by Obama's supporters and campaign--Obama as the post-racial candidate of Hope and Change.
There must be a better way to illuminate this contrast than by claiming, "no fair quoting the guy's words back at him!"
Sepp #77 --
I only concur with about three-quarters of the negative characterizations of McCain that you quote.
I agree wholeheartedly that anybody running for President should expect to be persistently questioned and challenged on their past accomplishments, words, and deeds; their character; their policy prescriptions; their beliefs; and more.
Sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander.
We might even get a better President out of the deal, if Clinton/McCain/Obama are forced by journalists to confront what most Americans view as their respective flaws.
Frankly Sepp, I was shocked to find a hit piece about John McCain on TPM Cafe, especially one that lauds the "mainstream media in Washington" as its primary source, along with a vague reference to "the candidate's colleagues," without bothering to cite anything or anyone who specifically holds such views.
Thanks for providing us with an example of how you think criticism of presidential candidates ought to be conducted.
Somehow, however, I don't think the argument that McCain lacks deep convictions is going to be all that convincing, outside the TPM community that is.
AMac:
Frankly, I'm not all that sure where I stand on a number of communications or environmental issues, so I can understand how one might be unsettled, or take conflicting positions at different times. However, Mac's various positions and actions are out there for everyone to see, unlike his primary opponent who seems to think he gets a free pass and a lolly. I know Sailer has been skeptical about him for a long time. Shelby Steele even more so, and with more moral authority on the topic.
Demo #81 --
Hmm, not sure--do you mean Romney or Thompson, maybe?
Re: McCain, I disagree with many of his policy ideas, and agree with some (notably his support of the Surge cf. rapid drawdown).
My impression is that McCain's temperament is worrisome for a manager of a huge enterprise like the Executive Branch: impulsive, thin-skinned, takes things personally. Also that he's prone to poor political judgment, e.g. taking steps to avoid the appearance of conflict of interest, also e.g. his compromises in the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Anyway, the broader point is that no candidate should be fawned over by the Fourth Estate. Hillary got that treatment back when Bill was still well-thought-of, but the new favorite makes that seem like a distant memory (must be awful to have a prize like that snatched away). McCain's gotten some kid-glove handling too, mixed in with the occasional NYT page 1 hit piece. Realistically, no Republican can expect gentleness once the Democrats have resolved their Denver problem in a couple of months.
Re: The TPM piece on John McCain
I have a question – if someone is serving as an advisor for political candidate and they author a piece on that candidate or their opponent, isn’t is customary for them to disclose that fact either within the piece itself or at the bottom of the article for the readers? How hard would it have been for TPM to include:
Reed Hundt is an advisor to presidential candidate Barack Obama on technology and communications issues.
At the very bottom of the article or for Mr. Hundtl to write “in the interests of full disclosure, I’m advisor to Barack Obama on technology and communications issues” within his piece. Isn’t that what experts who advise candidates and opine in public do in order to fully inform their readers of any possible biases?
It seems to me that in the process of trying to attack Senator McCain’s integrity, Mr. Hundtl may have just called his own into question.
AMac said:
Sure, great example. Let's track down every crackpot accusation this guy or anyone else makes against Obama. Let's especially try to get to the bottom of all of Limbaugh's claims. That'll really be a productive use of reporters' effort and resources in the service of the public good.
At least your comments tacitly acknowledge the utility of diverting the public's attention away from issues that really impact them and that they really care about. Congratulations for your efforts toward perpetuating this.
Agreed. Too bad you don't recognize that, at least for Obama, that is very far from what is happening with Wright, Ayers and all the other smear-by-association issues raised by the Right and to some extent by Clinton as well.
In my view, Obama should be given a chance to prove himself as President. He's gone far beyond what I believe is necessary to prove that he is deserving of this, and in comparison to the other two out there, or by recent historical measures (e.g., Bush) it isn't even close.
Speaking of which, you never came clean on who you voted for in 2000/2004. You can run but you can't hide.
Zounds, that's a new entitlement I've never heard of. How do you get on that list?
I suppose they decided to "give him a chance" as President of the Harvard Law Review - the only HLR president who never published.
He's been given a chance to be a US Senator, but apparently that too is beneath his station.
Sepp #84 --
A further display of analytical skills. I may have been your first subject, but surely not the last.
Coming clean? Running? Hiding?
Er. As to the querulous tone you seem to prefer--Who you are to me, again?
At any rate, thanks for clicking on the links and considering the criticisms of your guy. If people vote on the basis of the best information on who they are choosing, well, that's democracy in action.
Sepp --
Sorry for the snark in #86. On reflection, our exchange has left the topic of Demosophist's post behind, and moved on to the subject of Civility. We can take that offline. Email me at
AMac at windsofchange dot net
if you want to correspond.
I demand an equal chance. Any rejection of my claim is an obvious violation of basic human rights, and discrimination to boot.
How about he prove himself as a Senator first by finishing one freaking term? Or was that joke of a campaign season in Illinois 2004 enough to vet him for Emperor of the World as well?