The day after: post-election reflections
A few minutes into the second Presidential debate, I realized McCain was almost certain to lose this election.
I had been thinking that a McCain defeat was the likely outcome ever since the financial crisis began. But that debate was very troubling. I wrote at the time that Obama looked better and sounded better, although both candidates were strangely lackluster. But although I did not write this, I felt that McCain had squandered an important—perhaps a vital—opportunity to reassure people that he was up to the task. His lack of energy and focus on that evening was a very bad sign.
Then it became crystal clear to me late on the night before the election, when the returns from the tiny New Hampshire town of Dixville Notch came in. I didn’t write about my reaction at the time because it was after midnight, and it also seemed to me that I may have been over-reacting to trivial evidence—after all, who cares what a tiny little town in New Hampshire thinks, even if it does go for Obama 15-6?
But I could not escape the feeling in my gut that these returns, however small, were highly significant. The fact that made me realize Obama would absolutely win this thing—and handily—was that in 2004 Dixville Notch had gone for Bush 19-7. Unless the town had been taken over by its own private invasion of the body snatchers, one could assume these were more or less the same people, and therefore a sign of just how great the dissatisfaction has been with Bush and how pressing the need to believe in Obama’s hope and change.
Remember that, except for a post 9/11 bump and some other bumps along the way, Bush was not a truly popular President. He began his first term without winning the popular vote at all, which is unusual, and in his second run only a few thousand residents of Ohio protected him from defeat. In addition, he may have eked victory out each time only because he was most fortunate in running against two of the least charismatic Democratic candidates on earth, especially Kerry.
The Democrats I knew never even liked Kerry although they voted for him, and no one had real enthusiasm for him. I am virtually positive that with even a marginally attractive candidate, the Democrats would have won in 2000 and in 2004. The Bush years were hardly a mandate for conservatism, nor did he govern as a classic conservative—and then the 2006 Congressional elections were a clear sign of the backlash to come.
Obama not only was the perfect un-Bush, he was the first charismatic Democratic Presidential candidate in my lifetime other than JFK and Clinton. If the Democrats find such candidates they will win because they are in the majority, especially with the 1971 amendment that allowed eighteen-year-olds to vote. Yes, everyone says that the youth vote doesn’t usually come out on Election Day, but that’s because youth doesn’t ordinarily get inspired by any politician. But it was clear from the start that Obama inspired them mightily. And I am convinced that, if eighteen-year-olds had been voting in 1960, Kennedy would have cleaned Nixon’s clock instead of the electoral squeak-through that actually occurred (with or without the help of Chicago chicanery).
Reagan won in the Eighties not just because he was an articulate spokesman for conservative ideals, but also because the nation was tired of a long era of liberal hegemony. But I’m not at all sure that even those traits would have been enough for Reagan to win had he not also been charismatic.
The bottom line is: woe to the party that lacks a charismatic Presidential candidate and is up against the party that has one.
The funny thing is that McCain is pretty likable himself. But he’s not charismatic, which is a different thing. His ego isn’t big enough, which may make him a better person in the general sense (and unusual for a politician), and probably a much more fun person with whom to go out for a drink. But it handicaps a candidate in an election, as did his ideological fuzziness and his age—and, of course, the undeniable fact that he is a Republican in a Democratic year.
I find myself quite calm today, and perhaps that’s because I really do not know how Obama will try to govern. As I wrote here, one of the reasons Obama’s past was so closely studied by those on the Right, and so deeply feared, is that his actions as Senator were so few and his moderate rhetoric so at odds with his radical past and associations, and the shadiness of certain aspects of his campaign (such as disabling online controls for credit card donations). But I also wrote in that same piece:
…people hope that Obama won’t be the radical all indications point to””and, if he should be elected, I’ll be one of those people hoping.
So I will wait and see what Obama will do. We will find out soon enough whether conservative fears were correct, or whether Obama’s radical past was more pragmatic and less ideologically driven. I still believe that, based on the evidence, America should never have trusted someone with such a past to lead the nation. I am gratified that it appears that the Democrats have failed to get a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, although I’m not at all sure how often the Republicans will be able to actually mount a successful one to block legislation deemed especially pernicious.
The first indication of the true nature Obama’s presidency will his Cabinet appointments. Another will be the issues he chooses for his initial legislative agenda. Will the Orwellian-entitled Employee Free Choice Act be first on the list? Will it be payback time to the big unions who gave Obama and the Democrats so much money and so much support? This will be very telling. Will the rights of workers to a secret ballot be thrown away? And if a concerted attempt is made by the huge Democrat majority to do so, will the Republicans be able to stop it?
Perhaps even more importantly, will the majority of Americans notice, understand, or care? And if not, and the bill passes, will it have a chilling effect not only on freedom, but on the economy as well?
There are so many similar issues—including one of my major concerns, foreign policy—that I believe the nature of an Obama administration will become quite clear rather soon. I’m with Biden on the idea that Obama will be tested. My question is whether he will rise to the occasion. Will grow in office towards wisdom, or will he remain narrowly focused on partisan and even destructive and short-sighted concerns? If the former, I will be extremely pleased, and so should you all.
But if the latter, I still believe there is enough good judgment in America that the people will turn him out after a term, and perhaps even reject some of his helpmates in Congress in 2010. Whether terrible damage will have been done in the meantime to our country, and to the cause of freedom throughout the world, remains to be seen.
As for the press, I feel they have already shown their true colors: blue to the core. This is a problem of major proportions, and has nothing to do with Obama, although he has been its beneficiary. Steven Den Beste, blogger extraordinaire from the early post-9/11 years, has published a rare political essay today. In it, Den Beste makes this prediction:
There will eventually be a press backlash against Obama which will make their treatment of Bush look mild. Partly that’s going to be because Obama is going to disappoint them just as much as all his other supporters. Partly it will be the MSM desperately trying to regain its own credibility, by trying to show that they’re not in his tank any longer. And because of that they are eventually going to do the reporting they should have done during this campaign, about Obama’s less-than-savory friends, and about voter fraud, and about illegal fund-raising, and about a lot of other things.
I don’t agree with Den Beste, although I sincerely hope he is right and I am wrong on this one. I think the press will continue to give Obama a honeymoon long after they would have turned on anyone else, just as they gave him a pass during this campaign on so many things that would have sunk any other candidate. Now they have even more reason than before to cover up, because part of what they would be trying to cover up would be their own initial coverup.
Obama’s actual election concerns me less at the moment than does the fact that it is evidence of systemic changes in this country: the increase in press bias, the triumph of PC thought, the lack of critical thinking education in our schools, the spread of a victim and entitlement mentality, and the naivete of belief in the power of diplomacy with tyrants. I also am very concerned about the economy. That would have been true whomever had been elected, but it is especially true if Obama shows that he really intends to increase taxes on the people who can be using their wealth to create business and jobs, and the recession deepens as a consequence. I am apprehensive about Iran and Israel, and wonder if this is the crisis to which Biden was referring when he said there would be one in the first six months of an Obama administration. I also think it is very possible that enlistments in the armed forces will decline with an Obama Presidency, and that there will be unwise defense cuts.
I could go on, but you get the picture. I am relieved, however, that this seemingly endless campaign is over. I am pleased that Americans have shown the world how little racism is left in this country compared to almost every other place on earth. Although I never saw Obama’s color as a reason to vote for him, I still think it is a plus.
But what I’m really looking for are the signs that will tell us what course Obama intends to steer. Until then I will be optimistic and open-minded, and in the spirit of hope and change (both words that have no particular valence—it depends what change you are hoping for) I will hope that the change in Obama will be away from his radical past and towards a more moderate future, fully protective of the liberties we all hold so dear.
[NOTE: Yesterday I wrote that I’d have a post that deals with Obama Derangement Syndrome, which I think is going to be a hazard on the Right. This probably isn’t it; I may indeed have more to say.
But I hope some of the thoughts I’ve expressed here will address the dread some have that Obama is evil incarnate and that his election is the end of the republic. I don’t think so, although I do not dismiss those fears out of hand. My position is that we simply do not know, and although there was plenty of evidence up to this point to believe it to be a distinct possibility, it is necessary both for the sake of the country and our own well-being to give the man a chance to prove those fears wrong. And it is also necessary to hope that he will do so, and to believe that whatever happens, our Constitution and our form of government is not as fragile as all that.
Time will tell, and it always does.]
Well said. All of it.
I agree with your last part.
I’ve had the same concerns about Obama’s slim record and his radical associations as any other conservative, but when Obama won it I suddenly did not feel all that concerned. In fact, I felt calm about it all and even got a little caught up in the historical nature his election. I appreciated McCain’s decency in defeat and when Obama said that he would “be your [McCain supporters’] president too,” I decided that I would give him my goodwill and the benefit of the doubt and see what his actions end up being.
In short, I’m not going to be a self-deluded cog in the Obama machine, but will approach his presidency with an open, but cautious, mind.
Neo wrote, “I find myself quite calm today”
Me too.
The only flash of fear I had while driving to work today was, “What was that generated test that Biden referenced”?
I hope it isn’t terrorist related and I hope people do not die from it.
As far as the economy, I will always work to provide for my family. Whether the economic picture is bleaker or not really doesn’t change that. It might be harder for many of us and many of us might be more dependant on govt. but we’ll all do ok and most of our lives won’t change one iota.
Presidential elections really have had no influence on my life. Some years I pay slightly more in taxes and some years I pay slightly less.
The rates do affect the economic future whether or not Democrats want to admit it.
The question to Democrats is – are you willing to sacrifice economic activity and create more dependency on government to be so-called “fair” and take more from the top 10% of income earners (recognizing they already pay 71% of the income tax pie)?
If they restrict their spending and hire less that only hurts people of less means not them….. reflect on that.
I will do ok and most people will. The % of people that don’t do ok should be apologized to by Democrats… for the Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac mess to btw. Because you Democrats have hurt a lot of people. Every one of them voted against the GSE reforms a few years ago that McCain pushed for. Good job! These risky loans in order to “help” because you have “good intentions” means that you “care” but guess what? “Caring” and then name calling and calling conservatives “mean-spirited” (as Algore did) does not ABSOLVE you from the mess you created.
Back to work! I must perform at my job. 🙂
Neo,
I told a couple of friends of mine this morning that I am willing to give him a chance. I also said I do not hold out a lot of hope because of what I heard in parts of his speech last night. It seemed to follow on the one he gave a few days ago in Iowa – that winning their caucus renewed his faith in America. Last night he said, “this victory shows that the dream of the founding fathers is still alive” implying, I believe, that if he had lost it would have signaled the death of the American system of democracy. The press (and Obama himself in his speech), after raising expectations, are now going about lowering them. And of course putting the blame directly on the shoulders of the current administration.
I thought the defining missed chance by McCain was in the first debate. I think it went unnoticed by almost everyone but if McCain had caught it and used it then it would have immediately illustrated the difference between how McCain and Obama saw themselves and the office.
I don’t remember exactly what the question was about but that is unimportant. Jim Lehrer asked, “If you are selected to RULE this country what would you do – blah, blah, blah.” Obama answered first.
If McCain had caught it and said, ” Jim you just said if I was selected to RULE this country?? I’m sorry Jim, but I don’t remember anything in the constitution about electing a RULER. If fact we fought the revolution to free ourselves from tyrannical RULERS. If I have the honor to be elected president it will be to work for the good of American people with a willingness to listen to their voices – because they would be my employers and they are the ones who drive the engine of this great nation.”
It would have been a defining moment. Maybe THE defining moment.
Btw, I started to have hope after the Dan Rather debacle that the press would realize they can’t make up stuff and run false hit piece after hit piece.
They have only gone in overdrive and reported lie after lie after lie about Palin and done very little to educate the public about the origins of the home loan / credit crisis.
The press has been rewarded for their behavior here and that is the sad news today.
On another topic:
I’ve maintained that America is the opposite of racist. We were more than willing to give and African American a chance. Obama almost defeated himself with the way he has led his life, started his campaign and then the comments he has made about coal, spread the wealth, etc. But he won. He won but if it was Colin Powell running he would’ve won to the tune of a popular vote margin of more than 20% or more.
Obama won big in states with very small african american percentages like Vermont.
This election had a few aspects:
1) The rock star aspect that Obama had (kind of like the unstoppable Arnold here in CA) didn’t matter what the politics was.
2) The desire to elect an african american for the first time
3) The anti-Bush sentiments
It really wasn’t a referendum on liberalism vs. conservatism. McCain was hardly considered to the right. Obama’s policies almost didn’t matter to people I talked to. His record didn’t matter. His votes didn’t matter.
Yesterday afternoon in a Starbucks, looking out the window at the sidewalk as a young mother walked by pushing a stroller, I found myself thinking something like “Oh, those poor innocents. Look at them, going about their lives when it’ll only be a few more hours before…”
And then I thought :before WHAT? Before the oxygen we breathe is replaced by some toxic chemical? Before the earth skids off its axis? It was as if somebody had given me a good hard salubrious slap across the face, and I thought “I’ve been a little nuts, haven’t I?”
Now that it’s over, I’m so relieved. There’s something so distorting about these political obsessions. Our private loves and our work are so much more important. Of course, that’s the thing: what we fear is that the political will intrude into those private spaces. But I’ve been so hypervigilant that I’ve forgotten to live the life I want to see protected.
Wow, this continues to be my favorite new site. This from a Power Line, Althouse, Instapundit, Rachel Lucas, Anchoress, kind of guy.
Thoughtful, intelligent. As always, Neo – so what else is new. Thank you Thank you.
I’m calm today too. But I have the exact same long term fears. I’m just your average middle of the road Catholic, but I have a lot of anxiety over Israel and our enemy in Tehran getting nukes. Which is now a certainty. I have anxiety over our next 911 being a LOT more severe….what anonymous terror group – who has no home base we can retaliate against, is going to be given WMD?
I have anxiety over the future of our 1st Amendment rights if the Fairness Doctrine becomes a reality.
In terms of the economy, I have no confidence whatsoever that Obama will govern as a centrist. I think this was wishful and hopeful thinking on the part of MANY of his voters, and now, on the part of those of us on the losing end. Pelosi and Reid and Schumer and Co., are licking their chops. Jew hating Middle Easterners are celebrating.
But….life goes on. On OUR side of the aisle (the grown up side) we for the most part, don’t have the hissy fits and the “He’s not MY President” and the “He STOLE the election” etc, etc., juvenile stuff we all had to live through after 2000 and 2004. We go about our business. Focus on our families, our faith, our communities, our charities, our country.
And alwasy give thanks for that for which we should be thankful. Today, this blog is included.
Government employees enjoy good wages, and benefits and retirement that private sector employees can only covet from afar. Every year, a higher proportion of Americans live off a government check. The great divide in America is between the productive and the parasite that lives off the productive. The parasite is winning, since it is strong enough now to vote itself power and benefits indefinitely.
Under the new regime of Obama plus all-powerful Pelosi etc., government growth will be a blur.
It reminds me of an Ayn Rand novel, except I can’t for the life of me see any of the Randian heroes. Randian heroes never seemed to feel calm in the face of growing tyranny. I wonder why?
Ditto what SouthernJames has to say about behaving in an adult way after our side lost the election. It struck me again, reading some of the NYT editorials and letters (always good for a cheap laugh) that our liberal colleagues at the Times never viewed GWB as a legitimate president because of the closeness of the electoral vote. I don’t recall a honeymoon of any sort, except maybe in the week following 9/11. I remember a sulking Al Gore (for whom I had voted) making me ashamed of my choice. I didn’t like Bush, but he had won and needed the country to get behind him in the beginning. It never happened. Maybe it was revenge for the impeachment mess, I don’t know. But last night when I watch Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi prancing about, gloating, I had a terrible feeling in my gut that these people mean to wipe out the opposition. If they were living in some other culture I swear they would have stuck a few heads on pikes and gone parading down the avenue. At least with the failure of the Dems to get a veto-proof Congress there may not be a total absence of the art of compromise. Look for a whole lot of New Deal and Great Society type social programs being proposed. After all, didn’t Obama say it was OK to spread the wealth around?
A big part of the loss was the inability of the McCain campaign to craft simple, coherent, and logical arguments in favor of their policies. For example, McCain repeatedly said we need nuclear power, but he never (to my hearing, at least) explained why it is infeasible for wind/solar to bear the entire energy burden in any near term. It is certainly possible to explain this in a couple of sentences, if you really work at it. The use of keywords and emotion triggers isn’t enough.
Pingback:Obama thoughts, links and reactions…UPDATED | The Anchoress
He will do what he has always done. He will begin today running for the next election. He has never buckled down and actually DONE THE JOB. His handlers will take care of the Job, he will come out and speak for their actions off and on as if it is him doing it. Sometimes he will seem uncomfortable, and that will be because he is and doesn’t even know what they have done. If he makes a mistake, they will likewise cover for him with all the ferocity they possess, and you have only seen the smallest glimpses of that so far.
I know. I have seen it play out in a mini version. Make no mistake, the activist extremists have just been handed the White House. They don’t mind that they had to pretend to be something they are not, to them the end is all that matters, and to them this is a mandate.
They have control here, too, again, in a much smaller version, but with it has come the destruction of industry, the obstruction of any attempts to build for the future, the (almost) legalization of crime, in our case the pot industry, using compassionate medical use as the ploy, now one in three homes are grow houses by cop’s estimation, in at least one town. The result is a clandestine wealth that is winked at, while those who work real jobs and earn money are treated with revulsion (you see this nationally already, the class warfare card.)
In our case it was a ‘charismatic’ DA who won election. It took him only a few months to file lawsuits on behalf of his backers. It took only a few years to lose all but two of the experienced prosecutors in his office, it took only a few years to decimate programs, lose grants, and now, lose case after case.
Here, finally, even the activist backers have turned their backs on him – so I expect this will happen to The Obama, too.
For now, deceit and dishonestly rule the day. We will get the chance to see how fragile our system actually is. Without the press, in reality, we are lost.
Neo said: “I am pleased that Americans have shown the world how little racism is left in this country compared to almost every other place on earth. Although I never saw Obama’s color as a reason to vote for him, I still think it is a plus.”
I half-agree with you, but think Shelby Steele has it exactly correct with his argument that Obama is a “bargainer” who relieves “white guilt,” but the race-game goes on. In a political sense, if not legal actuality, Obama is our first Affirmative Action President.
The MSM will turn on Obama, be intensely critical of him, about the same time they call for an end to Affirmative Action (i.e., quotas), since that would also mean ending identity politics, and that covers a lot more than color!
Take a look at Detroit. That is what America will look like when the legions of Obama have done their job. The legions must demonstrate that they are on a righteous mission. The longsuffering hosts must remain calm and demonstrate their lack of racism, sexism, homophobia, and sense of self-preservation. It works out in the long run. It always does.
Crocker, Ayn Rand’s characters are not calm in the face of tyranny because they understand the full implications of bad political philosophy. Another arcane regulation to most people is experienced viscerally by those who know what its full application will yield. In Atlas Shrugs, Rand dramatized it very concretely in the episode where the government bureaucrat aboard a train overrules the engineer and orders a slow train into a tunnel, dooming those aboard to asphyxiation when the train’s exhaust fills the tunnel faster than the train can pass through it.
I heard an Objectivist speaker, John Ridpath, describe a visit to the Pantheon in Paris to see Victor Hugo’s grave. Nearby are the remains of Jean-Jacques Rousseau, the supposed liberal (good, classic sense). Mr. Ridpath described how it was all he could do not to spit on Rousseau’s tomb because he thought of all the destruction visited on human beings who were victimized by political thugs who applied Rousseau’s ideal society theories by force. (think Khmer Rouge).
Since the media did not supply the electorate with Obama’s scariest quotes about redistributing average Joes’ wealth and bankrupting politically incorrect industries, it is not clear whether the American spirit of individualism survives in enough of us to recognize and reject his order to “enter the tunnel” if it comes – no doubt couched in terms of fairness or justice.
Neo,
You wrote
“it is necessary both for the sake of the country and our own well-being to give the man a chance to prove those fears wrong.”
True and gracious, but we haven’t any choice anyway.
My concern has to do with the long-term effects of an Obama presidency. In the future we can trim policies such as tax cuts just as we trim the fat from the edge of a steak; social programs however, such as gov’t run health care, become marbelized into the meat. Those programs can not simply be shut down, and may not be able to be purged even over the long term (imagine trying to eliminate social security or welfare).
I see too many similarities between Obama and Jimmy Carter, and 30 years later we are still dealing with some of the egregious errors of Carter’s presidency.
(e.g., the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 was the birth of the credit crisis of 2008, and his belief that an extreme Islamist Iranian regime would be an improvement in human rights over the shah, has led us to our concern about a nuclear Iran today.)
It’s not a matter of Obama’s integrity, although that too has yet to be demonstrated, it is a matter of his underlying ideology. I fear that we could be in great peril. Supporters would point to his ivy league pedigree and his law degree as examples of his intelligence, but don’t forget that Carter, too, was an educated man (nuclear engineer).
I hope and pray that my fear is unfounded.
Neoneocon,
Charisma is a penultimate superficial quality. For some strange reason, every early in life I tended to shun charisma and charismatic people. There is something about showmanship that is a turn off with me. It betokens manipulation and narcissism. I habitually run the other way from “charming” people. I just don’t trust them. I always like to dig into ideas and look under the hood. Even when I was an aspiring academic Marxist, I was always hot on the trail of ideas, argument, substance… And it was precisely that instinct of mine that gave credence to the other side’s arguments and facts that eventually led to my break with the Left. I cannot in any way imagine myself going back there again, and the Left’s behavior after 9/11 sealed the deal on that. I slammed the door shut on them. Like Cortes, I burned my ships.
Besides the substance of ideas, what matters to me is character, honesty, and sincerity. That is why I was never taken in with Obonga.
At work today a few of us were commiserating with each other over what happened and what it meant. It meant that most Americans were lazy and stupid. They also got to that point where they were emotionally idiotic because, I believe, they trashed the life and career of a good man in the White House who every day made it his business to be a Commander in Chief and make the tough decisions to protect the people. For his unselfish, yeoman work and for doing the right thing to liberate Mesopotamia, the media and the American people trashed him. Savagely.
And so I kind of see the American people now as getting the government they deserve. And it won’t be pretty and it will make the Carter years look acceptable by comparison. I see what has happened as kind of Divine retribution for how stupid, lazy, craven in our anger and savageness, and given over to all of our most vile instincts.
I shudder at the thought of the possibility of millions of human lives being lost because of this insanity. We may even pay a butcher’s bill in American lives in the long run.
And when hiring does not snap back because companies will not expand as rapidly as they would otherwise, people will see how utterly deranged it is to raise taxes during a recession.
And foreigners have been watching how we’ve savaged our current president.
Paragraph 3 “tax cuts” should be “tax increases”
Sorry
i am from rural south georgia.worked last night in the er- chaotic as usual, the lobby full of minor complaints, aches, pains, cough, colds, etc. etc. amongst the luckily few potentially life threatening emergencies.
many patient waited for a couple of hours before they could be seen.the election returns were on fox on the lobby tv.the mood was somber.like at a wake.black and white alike.we are value based people.we hunt. we fish. we provide for our families. we go to church.the good people down here just don’t get obama and the left.i feel like the south is going to retreat into itself and ride the storm out. we will take solace from each other and maintain our way of life.we have always done this.
FredHjr,
So we simultaneously write about Carter and butchers. Do I ddetecgt a theme?
*detect
I took the day off work today–I had planned that since July ‘cuz I knew I would be feeling ill today.
I’m an engineer on a defense program Obama said he would cancel. I’ve spent the day discussing that scenario with my wife and recalibrating our dreams for the next at least 4 years.
I’m depressed and I’m going to go take a nap. I’m not going to whine or mope or feel sorry for myself for too long ‘cuz I’m the sole breadwinner and I don’t want to flip out my 10yr old.
I just gotta mope for a while and grieve over the indefinite postponement of some plans and dreams while I save money for an anticipated layoff and destruction of my field in defense engineering, getting my good healthcare plan screwed, paying more taxes and higher electricity bills.
I’m really concerned about what happens when he immediately starts taking troops out of Iraq. In every way I think it will be bad (unless you’re Ahmadenejad.)
I selfishly console myself with the following reminders…I’m 61 and my husband is a retired 66. The big growing part of our life is over. We have no grandchildren. We live among our “kind” in red state TN. In my heart of hearts, I was not a real big McCain fan and I hated the thought of the GOP being stuck with his stupid bipartisan presidential outreach in trying to solve some of the big problems that this country is facing. At least this way, the Dems have to walk the walk of problem solving and own the solutions. I worry for our country’s national security but am hoping for the best. This is my day after election mantra.
Neo, I am about as calm as I was sitting on the catapult at night. The difference is that then I knew that disaster, although possible was unlikely–and I had some control. Now I know disaster is possible; I have no idea how likely or unlikely, and I have NO control.
I know that one of my daughters, and maybe both, voted for Obama. Like most white people who voted for him, they never really explained the
attraction. I surmised that it made them feel good. Secondly, they are both in health care in California and struggle with a system that is swamped (with immigrants). They feel strongly that something needs to be done. What? They really don’t know. They have a lot of company. People who believe that something needs to be done about all of these messy problems in life. What? Well, who knows? But, things need to change; someone needs to take care of these problems.
Well, we know change is coming. No one other than Barack, Michelle, maybe Bill Ayers and a few others knows to what degree. I tried very hard to alert daughters to the danger signals about Obama—and I think they were abundant. But, like about 52 million Americans, it was comforting to believe the soothing words that he spoke in public, and ignore everything else. The other 10 million or so, needed no reason beyond his skin color. (Am I a bad boy for saying that?)
But, I am calm. I am 73 years old, and I simply don’t worry too much about things I cannot control.
neo:
All we need to know about how tragically the next few years will turn out is to look at who’s being mulled over for the cabinet and who’s the chief of staff. John Kerry for Secretary of State? Chuck Hagel for Defense?
I shudder.
“…evidence of systemic changes in this country: the increase in press bias, the triumph of PC thought, the lack of critical thinking education in our schools, the spread of a victim and entitlement mentality, and the naivete of belief in the power of diplomacy with tyrants.”
This is what has me heartsick. This is a long row to hoe, but we’re going to have to do it if we want to remain a free republic.
I feel like I’ve lost my country.
Neo,
I’m calm today also. In search of further calm I went looking for silver linings, and found quite a few.
Two words: Supreme Court.
I feel ill. I’ve felt ill for months. I hope I’m wrong but how could I possibly be wrong? If an administration would float John Kerry for SecState who would it nominate for the Supreme Court?
Who will it nominate for Supreme Court? Ask William Ayres. He finally has the bomb that will destroy the country. And no police to nip at his heels.
I agree with all of the comments above. I’m worried about the Supreme Court (and other judicial appointments Obama can make, since we’re still enduring the Carter legacy).
I am willling to give the man a chance, despite distinct trepidations. The biggest of those concerns foreign policy.
Obama has skated from one situation to another, benefiting from his race and the good heart of Americans generally to go out of their way to redress slavery (even though that was not our idea, but was imposed on us by Europeans).
My concern is that Obama will try to guilt Putin/ DinnerJacket, Kim Il Sung, Chavez et al. (“did you notice I’m black?”) and expect them to fall all over themselves to please him and show that they’re not racist (as we have done). But since ever one of those worthies has doubtless had any number of people killed, and perhaps killed some of them personally, I don’t think the “Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner?” strategy is going to accomplish much more than giving them a good laugh.
Frank J.
Hoping for the best is a touch of the Stockholm Syndrome. And what is the best we can without frank delusion hope for, I ask?
Ultimately, we the people do have the same choice the Founders recognized and acted upon.
The images from Grant Park reminded me of a Nuremberg rally. We know enough about O from his writings and associations, just as the German voters did about Adolf in the 1930s. We know of his desire for a “national civilian security force” as well equipped and financed as our armed services. We will see the Dems’ paranoia about civil rights and the Patriot Act evaporate in a flash as they ‘consolidate ‘ their victory.
I’d like to second Steven Den Beste’s essay Not the End of the World. Like neo, I discovered Den Beste not long after 9-11 and his writing affected me deeply.
And like neo, as much I appreciated hearing from Den Beste again (he ceased serious blogging due to a debilitating chronic illness), I don’t believe the media will turn against Obama. It will be up to the New Media and those of us participate in it to do the footwork and spadework for responsible criticism of the Obama administration.
I lean more towards your analysis than Den Beste’s on the media, Neo. Certainly the average reporter will want their scoops but we already know that it is the editors that decide what gets published, not the reporters. The reporters have plenty of motivation to go after Obama but the editors have almost reasons to go against Obama. Especially when Obama can pay the privilege and favors game for such folks as the New York Times with both the Fairness Doctrine as well as news exclusives.
I’m very concerned that the massive voter fraud and illegal campaign contributions have already gone down the memory hole. We used to laugh about such things in third world countries.
Baklava: In an ideal world, the government would cut taxes and borrow in order to weather a recession, but the global nature of the economic problems, and the large debts run up during the Bush Administration, make this very difficult. For most of the Bush years, the persistent deficits amounted to a matter of morality, of justice between the generations. By this time, however, the real possibility exists that if you continue to borrow at the current rate, you may hit a debt wall, in which people will refuse or find themselves unable to lend to you.
I don’t think theres anything McCain or Obama could have said in a debate that would have changed a thing. To people reading this blog the debates had importance. But i’d say 80% of the people that elected Obama couldn’t even name who their own senators are.
This was a contest of image marketing from the get go.
gcotharn, that quote sums up the situation, and the concern, perfectly.
Excellent musings neo…
The trouble has already started and it stems from a complete lack of common sense in the new age edumacated genderized tenderized emasculated consumption based socialist american persons of left persuasion.
the new education has insured that they cant follow a logical process and so they are completely oblivious to common sense logical associations outside the dikta.
they literally believe that they are in merit politics while the system switched to power politics way back. that “win by any means” goes past the boundaries that “win by merit sets”, and dares you to disprove it without having to actually experience it. Following a sociopathic power principal: One doesnt feel power unless one is doing something bad to someone, and that someone cant do anything about it (doing good hides the feeling of power).
why would groups who have stated that they are enemies and opponents of the US endorse our candidate?
to the left, common sense is gone in the service of ideology (they basically abandon common sense and reason in an attempt to avoid feeling cognitive dissonance with the ideologies contradictions, and blindly follow), and so they think that its because everyone wants to be friends.
but to someone with some form of common sense its because a bully would rather have an easy prey than a tough fight.
The harsh tone and repeated attacks on the United States the day after Democrat Barack Obama’s electoral victory surprised some observers who had expected a more liberal style and more detail on how Russia would tackle a financial crisis.
“Medvedev was very assertive in his delivery,” said Ronald Smith, chief strategist at Alfa Bank in Moscow. “(He) appeared to be staking out strong positions on various issues ahead of the entry of the new American presidential administration.”
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
One day after Obama won the U.S. presidential election, Medvedev reserved his harshest criticism for the United States, blaming its “selfish” foreign policy for triggering Russia’s brief war in August with Georgia, a U.S. ally.
so the second they know which leader they have, and its the weak one, they are staking out the new aggressive game. note how the press is ‘surprised’.
the stock market has taken another dive of almost 500 because money is trying to reposition itself at the place of last inspection by the state. the rest is going to flee to other markets. those too poor will have to sit and be targets… others are restructuring, moving their money, their operations… i would bet that certain countries right now have a small boomlet in new accounts.
want to know what will come next? its easy.. two major categories, external, internal…
external will be everyone starting crap at one time. russia took the first step… everyone will become beligerent to see what barry will do. given that he is a max left ideological based decider (of the skewed form with false points), he will be soft, attempt to reason with them, he will refuse to resort to force…
[since this side of the ideological fence eats their own, they will not cooperate as one might think]
internal, he will inact all kinds of things that wont work and will hurt more than help. he will find out quickly that when the rich get poorer he loses his base for paying for things.. and his promises will shift, but in a tricky way…
the issue comes later on.. scapgoating will be needed to drum up some reason why what they are doing is not resulting in what they promised.
[for a bit of economic insight to whats happening look for “planned chaos” by ludwig von mises. the book is free online… i will post a few quotes after this to give gist]
thats when people will start to get angry… and that we will do ourselves in with our own behaviors setting the excuse for action, suspension of certain things, etc.
the general blame will be not the ideology, the policies, the lies, but the people. if not the general population, then the oppressor classes they have been focusing on and we have been faint to notice. i wont list them out so that i can have names thrown at me, but someone else can if they want.
This sunday marks a very sad event in history that while similar in lesson (not in actual action i hope), can illustrate. sunday is the 70th anniversary of kristallnacht… hitler came to power in 33 give or take… kristallnacht, and the start of the hollocaust that MARX called for (or predicted depending on what your take is), didnt start till 38… 5 years later..
way before that though after a short while, scapegoating became necessary to hide the incompetence with a class/race/state enemy who is blamed for halting progress. then favoritism is given where insults in one direction are overlooked and responses including defense are pounced on.
this process has a LONG historical record… but its what happens when incompetence and statism get together… and combined with a morals or ethics that allowed something other than merit to prevail.
i dont see the end purging happening… while i can argue its possible… and can argue what would happen if it did happen… i cant predict that things would go that far, but i also cant give a single reason why they couldnt.
i do see a heck of a bad time being given to the oppresser class and that causing a huge decline and change in behavior, and that decline being blamed and so forth… the idea is to maintain this to keep the situation that way…
the external situation is why i might say that the end result would not be purging… in other words, the situation was not created to create another hitler, it was created to create a rock and a hard place destabilizing things for advantage of some degree.
however, ultimately, we are on a bad path to a bad end that has had no other end yet. the logic of marxism is the logic of wwi going over the top in the trenches. every day we go over the wall, and after 5 days and 5 times, the enemy would never think that we would try another time! so its tried and tried over and over again by the people in exchange for their freedom by people who know and desire the end result.
the fact that russia is having a nationalist problem with nashi and heil heils… and we have just elected a inexperienced ideologically based guy doesnt bode well.
A leftist can talk of morality? Clearly there is no God, unless you get hit by a lightning strike. And whatever happened to Keynesian economics?
And you can’t wait, can you?
I have a modest proposal: make Canada pay for its own defense, or we close the border and watch Canada join Bangladesh in the world economic league tables. Actually, I’d rather like to see that (not that that milquetoast Obama would do it, but Michelle would) just for amusement value.
Many advocates of interventionism are bewildered when one tells them that in recommending interventionism they themselves are fostering anti-democratic and dictatorial tendencies and the establishment of totalitarian socialism. They protest that they are sincere believers and opposed to tyranny and socialism. What they aim at is only the improvement of the conditions of the poor. They say that they are driven by considerations of social justice, and favor a fairer distribution of income precisely because they are intent upon preserving capitalism and its political corollary or superstructure, viz., democratic government.
What these people fail to realize is that the various measures they suggest are not capable of bringing about the beneficial results aimed at. On the contrary they produce a state of affairs which from the point of view of their advocates is worse than the previous state which they were designed to alter. If the government, faced with this failure of its first intervention, is not prepared to undo its interference with the market and to return to a free economy, it must add to its first measure more and more regulations and restrictions. Proceeding step by step on this way it finally reaches a point in which all economic freedom of individuals has disappeared. Then socialism of the German pattern, the Zwangswirtschaft of the Nazis, emerges.
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
[think of the milk situation in venezuela on this one]
If the government wants to make it possible for poor parents to give more milk to their children, it must buy milk at the market price and sell it to those poor people with a loss at a cheaper rate; the loss may be covered from the means collected by taxation. But if the government simply fixes the price of milk at a lower rate than the market, the results obtained will be contrary to the aims of the government. The marginal producers will, in order to avoid losses, go out of the business of producing and selling milk. There will be less milk available for the consumers, not more. This outcome is contrary to the government’s intentions. The government interfered because it considered milk as a vital necessity. It did not want to restrict its supply.
Now the government has to face the alternative: either to refrain from any endeavours to control prices, or to add to its first measure a second one, i.e., to fix the prices of the factors of production necessary for the production of milk.
Then the same story repeats itself on a remoter plane: the government has again to fix the prices of the factors of production necessary for the production of those factors of production which are needed for the production of milk. Thus the government has to go further and further, fixing the prices of all the factors of production–both human (labour) and material–and forcing every entrepreneur and every worker to continue work at these prices and wages.
No branch of production can be omitted from this all-round fixing of prices and wages and this general order to continue production. If some branches of production were left free, the result would be a shifting of capital and labour to them and a corresponding fall of the supply of the goods whose prices the government had fixed. However, it is precisely these goods which the government considers as especially important for the satisfaction of the needs of the masses.
But when this state of all-round control of business is achieved, the market economy has been replaced by a system of planned economy, by socialism. Of course, this is not the socialism of immediate state management of every plant by the government as in Russia, but the socialism of the German or Nazi pattern.
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
and the most important one… the reason it all goes to potty…
The advocates of interventionism–foremost among them the Prussian Historical School and the American Institutionalists–were not economists. On the contrary. In order to promote their plans they flatly denied that there is any such thing as economic law. In their opinion governments are free to achieve all they aim at without being restrained by an inexorable regularity in the sequence of economicphenomena Like the German socialist Ferdinand Lassalle, they maintain that the State is God.
The interventionists do not approach the study of economic matters with scientific disinterestedness. Most of them are driven by an envious resentment against those whose incomes are larger than their own. This bias makes it impossible for them to see things as they really are. For them the main thing is not to improve the conditions of the masses, but to harm the entrepreneurs and capitalists even if this policy victimizes the immense majority of the people.
In the eyes of the interventionists the mere existence of profits is objectionable.
They speak of profit without dealing with its corollary, loss. They do not comprehend that profit and loss are the instruments by means of which the consumers keep a tight rein on all entrepreneurial activities. It is profit and loss that make the consumers supreme in the direction of business.It is absurd to contrast production for profit and production for use. On the unhampered market a man can earn profits only by supplying the consumers in the best and cheapest way with the goods they want to use. Profit and loss withdraw the material factors of production from the hands of the inefficient and place them in the hands of the more efficient. It is their social function to make a man the more influential in the conduct of business the better he succeeds in producing commodities for which people scramble. The consumers suffer when the laws of the country prevent the most efficient entrepreneurs from expanding the sphere of their activities. What made some enterprises develop into “big business” was precisely their success in filling best the demand of the masses.
now tell me that last paragraph isnt a good description of the desease?
anyway. i took the time to find the link for ya all
mises.org/web/2714
thanks for tolerating my posts… 🙂
Pingback:Obama Elected President of the United States of America « Sake White
Isn’t it interesting that Dixville Notch has 19 registered voters yet the vote was 15-6? I think that’s also emblematic of this election.
Well, even my father has calmed down a little bit today.
I think he also has realized what I did a while back – there are really only two outcomes to this.
One is Obama is what he appears to be and there will only be two years of it (why two you ask? Mid term elections). At best I think Obama is an empty suit and will be whomever he is surrounded by.
Second is he does OK – in which case who really cares?
The dems won what they did in the last two elections because they were the “opposition” party – they didn’t get elected as much as the republicans were thrown out and they were the only other choice. They are no longer the opposition party – they now have to do something other than kvetch about things and blame it on the republicans. Sadly both parties seem to work their best as opposition, not as leaders.
My guess is that they will fail miserably – even were Obama to turn out to be a fairly nice guy I can not see him overcoming Pelosi and Reid and the others in congress.
In another two years it is *really* easy to have another “we hated that change” vote come about. I don’t know if Republicans can pick it back up or if some third party will, but I don’t really expect this congress to retain power very long.
If Obama turns out to truly be an empty suit (that is, no real beliefs and his past choices were simply choices of convenience) it could even be that we end up with an OK president (say, Clinton hopefully without the scandals – I think he was a democrat only because it convenient to be one). The American public is still more conservative than not and having no real beliefs means he can be whatever he needs to be. Unfortunately I think he *does* have some real beliefs and will pursue them.
Hi Neo,
Been a while since I’ve posted here, but I just read your post and I have to admire its graciousness and level-headedness. As a staunch moderate, I certainly have to agree that I hope that Obama will govern from the center, but I have to say that I believe quite firmly that he will do so. There is plenty of evidence that Obama is a thoughtful, level-headed person, someone who sincerely listens to both sides of an issue, and attempts to come up with a workable compromise. His “associations” of the past hardly worry me — I have plenty of “associations” — friends who are far more politically left than I am, and some friends who are more politically on the right — but none of that makes me anything but a committed moderate. I am what you might call a radical moderate, someone who believes that optimal policy is usually one that draws from principles from multiple points of view. I recognize in Obama precisely the same attitude.
What’s my evidence? Sure, his career in national politics has been brief. But there has been plenty of time to gather information on his temperament and judgement. I think, for example, this article was quite telling:
http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1853025,00.html
‘General David Petraeus deployed overwhelming force when he briefed Barack Obama and two other Senators in Baghdad last July. He knew Obama favored a 16-month timetable for the withdrawal of most U.S. troops from Iraq, and he wanted to make the strongest possible case against it. And so, after he had presented an array of maps and charts and PowerPoint slides describing the current situation on the ground in great detail, Petraeus closed with a vigorous plea for “maximum flexibility” going forward.
Obama had a choice at that moment. He could thank Petraeus for the briefing and promise to take his views “under advisement.” Or he could tell Petraeus what he really thought, a potentially contentious course of action – especially with a general not used to being confronted. Obama chose to speak his mind. “You know, if I were in your shoes, I would be making the exact same argument,” he began. “Your job is to succeed in Iraq on as favorable terms as we can get. But my job as a potential Commander in Chief is to view your counsel and interests through the prism of our overall national security.” Obama talked about the deteriorating situation in Afghanistan, the financial costs of the occupation of Iraq, the stress it was putting on the military.
A “spirited” conversation ensued, one person who was in the room told me. “It wasn’t a perfunctory recitation of talking points. They were arguing their respective positions, in a respectful way.” The other two Senators – Chuck Hagel and Jack Reed – told Petraeus they agreed with Obama. According to both Obama and Petraeus, the meeting – which lasted twice as long as the usual congressional briefing – ended agreeably. Petraeus said he understood that Obama’s perspective was, necessarily, going to be more strategic. Obama said that the timetable obviously would have to be flexible.’
Meanwhile … the qualifications of McCain’s Vice Presidential nominee were, by any reasoned, critical analysis, laughably meager. McCain’s own advisers commented to Fox News, of all places, that Palin was woefully unprepared; as an example, she literally thought Africa was a country:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MWZHTJsR4Bc&eurl=http://instaputz.blogspot.com/2008/11/fox-news-is-in-tank-for-obama-and.html
The nation really had no reasonable choice: Obama was the only rational choice, after McCain chose Palin.
Actually there are two roads Obama can choose: that of Jimmy Carter or that of Salvador Allende. This is essentially a choice between a disaster and a catastrophe. If he is an unscrupulous opportunist, as I suppose, he will choose the first road; if he is a closet Marxist, he will choose the second. In two years everything will be clear: deteriorating economy, voters disenchantment (both are inevitable) and internecine quarrels among Democrats (also inevitable for a party in trouble) will give Reps both houses and will make Obama a lame duck or, if he would be stubborn enough, lead to impeachment. Dems also would be happy to throw him under bus to save their asses.
Oh man, that is such an absurd fantasy…
One thing to point out is that the economy, and the stock market, do better under Democrats than Republicans. This is the case even if you take into account a time delay for policy to take effect.
Under Clinton, for example, we had a budget surplus, real wages went up by $8000/person over his 8 years in office, and the economy grew like mad.
Under Bush, real wages have dropped $2000/person over 8 years, and Bush has presided over the biggest economic crisis since the Great Depression.
As for “closet Marxist” that is truly laughable. You guys really come up with some crazy scenarios.
Sergey. What’s voter disenchantment have to do with anything? I’m disenchanted, I voted for McCain, a good man with at least tolerable policies. That vote didn’t do me much good. Obama voters were disenchanted as well. They hated George Bush, saw America as failure and privation, and voted for the man who could take them out of this Hell hole and make them whole again. The economy is already in the tank, so what’s going to be different in two years? We all know it was caused by Wall Street and Fat Cat Republicans. If the Barack has managed to achieve income distribution in two years (a certainty) those of the Messiah persuasion will at least know that He is gracious onto them. But if the economy is worse as well it will be clear it’s because the Savior has not enough power, the Constitution needs to be rewritten. I could see that as a rallying cry two years out (though of course expressed as a need for “fair” judges). I could see immense majorities in support of “the one who understands their needs.” Think Hugo Chavez. And the MSM propaganda, unabated, would destroy any racist who dared criticize.
This is only one scenario, there could be many, but we’ve had many years now of a press I consider insane. I see no reason why it should change in a mere two years more. It’s a power thing, you see. The business of “closet Marxist” or some other “ist” is meaningless. It’s just a drive for power. We’ve seen that for years now, in the drive to destroy Bush, with no care for truth or possible damage to national interest. And now they have their Golden Boy, desiring the same as they and protected by the armor of race. I see no reason to presume that in our next full and free and fair election there won’t be an immensely increased mandate for Nancy and Harry and Barry.
I find Den Beste’s analysis absolutely right. MSM is not a monolith, and different clans of Dems control different parts of it. Internecine quarrels among victorious left ambushed by unintended consequencies of their victory is a general rule from which I do not know any exceptions. These quarrels would escalate – remember how nasty Obama/Clinton rivalry was? – untill every faction would feel convenient to scapegoat Obama and its opponets as Obamabots.
Mouse, what you described actually happened in Chile and resulted in mass protests of middle class that paralysed the country and led to military coup forcing Allende to commit suicide. Yes, in USA this is also possible. But Hugo Chaves is another story: there is no large middle class in Venesuela, half of country lives in extreme poverty. THAT is impossible in USA.
There are two kinds of mass hysteria: hysteria of fear and hysteria of hope. The second was very visible on TV screens yesterday. It is much more malignant in consequencies than the first: fear ends with calm and relief, hope with desperation. Nothing unites Obama’s coalition except for unreasonable hope: when it ends, the coalition of special interest groups would come apart. There is nothing to redistribute, except for radical confiscation of private property. This is not possible without armed rebellion, and Obama’s handlers are not insane enough to try it.
Sergey. I appreciate your response and defer to your greater knowledge of Southern Hemisphere affairs, but I have now read the Den Beste analysis and I find it totally implausible. He sounds sane. What can a sane man know about insanity?
I’m attempting a little humor here but I simply don’t see the press as the same as it was in the Clinton years. To my mind Clinton had one genius, he(she) recognized that a lie was not an attempt to deceive but was a statement of position. Anything said was taken up uncritically by the press and repeated. This is, for example, how we got “the great right-wing conspiracy.” If caught in a lie, well, there was some good humor in that: “He sure is good at it.”
With Bush things have changed. They’re not protecting their man, they’re destroying a good man, and they’re viscous, and in no way circumscribed by reality or the possible ill-consequences of their attacks. The press is not the press we once knew. It’s not that it’s biased, it’s not that it’s partisan, it’s that it’s not tethered to reality.
And I don’t in the slightest accept that Obama is going to disappoint them. They are not after socialistic goodies, they are after power. So what if the economy tanks? In war there’s destruction. What’s important is victory, and they’ll have victory once they’ve remade the constitution.
Revolutions do happen, societies do surrender their freedom, and they don’t surrender that freedom simply in the hope that they might buy a gallon of milk for a quarter less; they’ll surrender that freedom for the satisfaction of knowing that a rich man can no longer buy mink. I don’t believe men are driven by economics, I think they’re driven by faith, and a particular faith I see out there now is a “faith in fairness”; envy, actually, and I’m not sure it can’t sustain a political movement when it’s driven by a man who shares that same hatred for wealth.
And my sense is that all of this is enabled by a press that is, fundamentally, monolithic. I am aware that there was nastiness between the Obama and Clinton camps, I am not aware that there was any faction (barring the blogosphere) that supported Hillary. And I do think the press can mesmerize masses. It’s the concept of “Narrative as Truth”. I fear they’ve tasted great success in getting their boy Obama elected, I see no reason why they should begin to fight with each other just because Obama can’t deliver on his promise of a windmill on every farm, or whatever his energy policy is. They’re simply not interested in any of the ordinary promises a politician might make, they merely want control.
Of course, I could be hallucinating. But I do know there’s something out there I’ve not seen before.
Note on your last note: I would argue that the “hysteria of hope” might readily suffer actual physical deprivation if in return a new order might arise. We’re an exceptionally fat, wealthy, comfortable nation. Nobody in this nation is justified in having a “hysteria of hope” if it’s for nothing more than something material. Something else is happening. –And by the way, Obama does want his “civilian security force”, however he termed it, one as well funded as our military. For what purpose? Sounds nutty to me, but he’s made that statement more than once. How do you know Obama’s handlers aren’t insane enough to try it?
By the way, I do not believe 9/11 was an inside job.
Envy of losers is a factor, of course, but not the most important. Most of Obama supporters are not losers – not welfare black recipients, not white trailer trash, but middle class, college educated whites from North East suburbs. Their motivation is purely ideological: white guilt, guilt of success, utopian ideas of equality and fairness. And anger induced by trauma of 9/11, when rosy liberal worldview was shattered. These are symptomes of immature personality, which needs token jestures and symbolisms to overcome internal conflict. Now they have their Savior – and he will inable to make a bit of difference! So he is doomed to become the next scapegoat, and fairly soon. That is how this adolescent psychology works.
I have seen this “hope and change” dynamics in my own country. Twice. First, it was Gorbachev’s “perestrojka”. Hopes were high. Then trauma – Chernobyl catastrophe, press lies and, under popular protests, abolishment of censorship. A new trauma of aknowledgment of disgusting truth about communist regime. After four years Gorbachev’s reputation in tatters, and new Savior on horizon – Yeltsin. Elected with lanslide – 70%. Five years after his rating 3%, because of severe economic hardship which were not of his making – a heritage of decades of communist insanity. So high hopes fade even faster than arise.
mouse.
I have to admit, you may succeed in selling the meme of fat-cat republicans.
But you and I and anybody with half a brain know you’re lying.
The heads of Fannie and Freddie are buds with Obama, Barnie Frank & Acorn and othes promoted CRA and the attempts to regulate F&F were from the reps defeated by the dems.
Still, a lie is easier promoted than refuted and I have to admit that your meme, lie though it is, will probably win.
Hell. I have a relation with a specialty in such things and she believes it. Go through the facts and she agrees. Then she says it’s still Bush and the republicans.
My son is trying to decide if he will reenlist. The economy, Obama’s election and his quite possible return to Iraq will influence his decision.
I suggest that we can judge Mr. Obama by how he treats the early passage of a renewed ban on drilling demanded by Speaker Pelosi after Mr. Bush forced her to back down or he would veto the continuing budget resolution. If Mr. Obama goes aginst the 68% of Americans who support drilling off shore, I will know that he places ideology over substance.
neo, any thoughts on “leaving the fold” and missing out on that big “circle dance” going on right now?
Regarding November 4, 2008, I recently heard of a new phrase that has been coined that I think is quite appropriate.
November 2008 should now be recognized as “Blue November”, continuing the socialist tradition that recognized “Red October” as the anniversary of the communist takeover of Russia.
This will coincide well with 2008 being known as the Year of the Fool.
The only question is, will the US take 70+ years to undo the damage?
God I hope we’re smarter and more motivated than to take that long!
Mitsu:
Obama chose to speak his mind. “You know, if I were in your shoes, I would be making the exact same argument,” he began. “Your job is to succeed in Iraq on as favorable terms as we can get. But my job as a potential Commander in Chief is to view your counsel and interests through the prism of our overall national security.” Obama talked about the deteriorating situation in Afghanistan, the financial costs of the occupation of Iraq, the stress it was putting on the military.
What Obama said there–that made you feel good?
He sounds to me like a complete neophyte filled with ideological nonsense and memes spoon-fed to him by Big Media and his dirty leftist handlers.
“Your job is to succeed in Iraq. My job is to thwart you and look good doing it.”
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/11/05/video-obama-cultists-cope-with-victory/
The big difference is that American citizens are armed, while Russian never were. If they were, Big Terror would be impossible.
Neo, you are gifted.
Sergey,
At least some of the Russians were armed. Problem was, they gave their weapons up to those seen as being in *authority* – especially when you had some farmer alone in a remote area being confronted by much larger numbers of communists.
While there are some firearms owners in the US who would meekly do as they’re told (North/Northeastern areas, Left coast) – there are larger numbers of firearms owners who would NOT do as they’re told (South, southwest, midwest).
At that point things would get real interesting real quick….
While I see no reason and no pending concrete evidence for things to go that route – the thing the True Believers in The One may be stupid enough to do is not consider that someone would ever vigorously reject their issued directives.
This could lead to an overreaction by the Disciples of The One to enforce said directives – and since they will now be in control of law enforcement it *could* get downright ugly if they push too far and too hard against people not willing to bend to their will.
All hypothetically speaking of course….
Gray,
Well, I don’t expect everyone on this site to see what’s so great about that story of his encounter with Petraeus, but I’ll list out what struck me about it.
1) He disagreed with Petraeus, yet didn’t simply dismiss his arguments but got into a detailed discussion of the details of policy, Petraeus’ arguments, and did so in a respectful and thorough manner, according to all reports, including those from Petraeus himself.
2) He saw the situation in Iraq not as an isolated situation but in the context of our larger strategic picture. This has always been my argument with respect to Iraq: it is distracting us from more pressing security issues elsewhere.
3) In the end, he managed to persuade Petraeus that there was some merit to his view, and he listened to Petraeus and conceded that there would have to be some flexibility in the timetable. In other words, he signalled a willingness to reevaluate his policy based on recommendations from Petraeus and others, and changing circumstances on the ground.
Obama generally convinces everybody that he’s heard them and taken them seriously. It’s a gift.
But the actions taken are not necessarily related.
Mitsu:
Stated without all the flowery nonsense:
1) He disagreed with Petraeus on not tucking tail and running in disgrace for no reason.
2) He misunderstood the centrality of Iraq and Iraqi stability to to Middle-East and our entire strategic picture. He thought Petraeus was too dumb to see Iraq in the strategic picture (Petraeus was getting the Intell briefs that Obama is just now getting.).
3) Fortunately, he waffled and betrayed his initial gut instict to run away.
This makes you feel good about Obama?
This gift has a proper name: con artist.
Richard Aubrey. This thread is probably dead, it’s been going on a long time and people have things to do during the day, but I do have a few minutes.
My “meme”, that the financial crisis has been caused by Wall Street and Fat Cat Republicans… is a joke! For heaven’s sake, everybody on this site knows it’s a joke. –You are right though, it probably will succeed.
This has been an exceptionally interesting thread. It is oddly comforting to see that others feel the same unease about this administration as I. Normally I would simply presume a few years of annoying leftist governance and then a ballot rejection by the voters. But there is a sense now that things are nutty. Will there be the normal tumble from left to right and back again, healthy in a complex democracy, or will there this time be something different? To speak profoundly: I guess we’ll find out.
Well, let’s just say we disagree on the strategic importance of Iraq, Gray, and we certainly have a very different way of judging the fundamental thoughtfulness and character of people.
If you think Obama is thoughtful about anything other than his personal aggrandizement you shouldn’t be allowed to cross the street by yourself.
neo, I’d like your views on this question. What’s Obama going to do after being President (God willing, for only one term)? All his life he’s never accomplished anything, but instantly begun pivoting for his next step up. But what after Presidency? It seems to this layman that a fundamental pillar of his personality will necessarily be kicked out from under him.
Mitsu — It’s hard for me to give much credit for thoughtfulness to Obama in that quote about Petraeus, given:
* Obama’s immediate dismissal that the surge could work,
*his claim that it would in fact make things worse in Iraq
* his long-drawn out denial that the surge was working
* his misleading statements, if not plain dishonest, when he started changing his position about the surge
I’ve yet to hear substantive support for the claim that Obama is an especially thoughtful candidate. Yes, he’s a smart and devious politician, but what have we heard from him that is not just warmed-over liberal, multi-cultural bromides. Tire-pressure gauges?
That’s perfectly ridiculous, Occam, but you’re welcome to your opinion. I’m quite sure Colin Powell, Christopher Buckley, CC Goldwater, and many other Republicans who endorsed Obama would disagree, as I certainly do.
Mitsu — The support from Powell and Buckley was largely framed by their dislike of the McCain campaign. Otherwise they just went on in vague, flowery rhetoric much like Obama’s:
“I think he is a transformational figure. He is a new generation coming into the world — onto the world stage, onto the American stage — and for that reason I’ll be voting for Senator Barack Obama.”
–Colin Powell
Boil that down and the reason for Powell’s endorsement is not really reason, but emotion and symbolism. This is what I mean when I say that I have not heard substantive support for Obama.
Furthermore, given that Powell and Buckley waited until the polls put the election in the bag for Obama–as opposed to early September when McCain briefly led–one may well suspect opportunism on their part. I certainly do.
Mouse,
The thing that I feel fundamentally bothers me more about this upcoming administration, as opposed to someone like the Clintons for instance, is the fact that there are literally millions of people who have developed an unhealthy *connection* to The Chosen One, and will end up going to great lengths to defend him when he comes up short.
No matter what happens, they will explain away his mistakes, rationalize his decisions, and attack any who they see as threatening his “legacy”.
They are too emotionally invested in an almost religious manner to this demagogue, and it’s a mindset that will require the services of a jackhammer and dynamite to dislodge at this point.
Whereas logic and reason can work with many people, such will not be the case with these Disciples.
No, Mitsu, your comment was the ridiculous one. There is a big difference between thoughtfulness and indecisiveness, although superficially they look similar. Anyone who could listen to Wright’s rants for 20 years cannot ever be described as thoughtful.
The day will come when you will be embarrassed to say you supported Obama. Ask Carter supporters – if you can find one.
Occam — Perhaps Mitsu was responding to your ad hominem about his crossing the street by himself.
Mitsu’s a bright guy–he’s just doing what we all do to an extent: discounting some things, emphasizing others.
I don’t understand either how any American can ignore Obama’s long-term relationship to Wright and Trinity Church. Obama was either stupid, complicit, or calculating to stay in that church. Thoughtful is not an option.
>indecisiveness
So, you’re saying that by admitting that the timetable has to be flexible, Obama is being “indecisive”, and this somehow means he must not be thoughtful? Is the upshot of your view that any mention of flexibility in one’s views is evidence of lack of thoughtfulness? If that is truly what you’re saying, it says quite a bit about how far the conservative movement has fallen in terms of intellectual rigor.
To me, that is simply a misjudgement. Obama didn’t simply waffle on his plan, he engaged in a detailed debate on the specifics of Petraeus’ arguments. That is what I mean by thoughtful. To suggest that the fact that he was swayed enough by Petraeus’ arguments (and one must note that Petraeus is, like Obama, extremely intelligent, so I am quite sure the conversation was both substantive and interesting) to re-emphasize that any timetable must be flexible (a position I’m sure he held before the discussion, but had more of an in-depth reason to hold after the debate) is simply a symptom of “indecisiveness” is merely a projection, an assumption, on your part.
There is, in fact, a difference between thoughtfulness and indecisiveness, and the fact that they had a detailed discussion of the issues at stake in Iraq and around the world is plenty of evidence, to my mind, that the correct judgement is Obama is thoughtful. At least Neo is keeping an open mind on the subject — it’s too bad you’re not.
one must note that Petraeus is, like Obama, extremely intelligent, so I am quite sure the conversation was both substantive and interesting
Mitsu — You and others keep saying that Obama is “extremely intelligent.” What do you mean by that and how do you know?
I’ve no doubt he is intelligent, but on the level of the world stage, I don’t see anything “extreme” going on.
I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views
–Barack Obama, “The Audacity of Hope”
Mitsu — This is my problem. Obama does have an extreme ability and this is it: his chameleonic blankness onto which people project all sorts of things, including extreme intelligence.
One last thought — I’m frustrated. I’ve been studying Obama for the past year and change, and I still don’t have a solid sense of the guy beyond the obvious: he looks good, gives a good speech, he ran a long hard campaign, he is somewhere on the left to center-left, and he is very ambitious.
I’m sure he is intelligent and thoughtful about some things–though not Iraq IMO–but why the heck don’t we know him better? It’s pathetic that we are reduced to arguing about his qualities.
Bush and McCain both indicated that the “timetable” depends on the situation on the ground, i.e., be flexible. Were they thoughtful? At that same time, Obama vowed to remove the troops within 16 months. Period.
Then when he realized he might actually win, and that the US had won the war in Iraq, he nodded gravely when Petraeus sorted him out. Basically, Obama is like a drum major trying desperately to get in front of the band, so he looks like he’s leading it.
And where was that “thoughtfulness” re the surge? Even after Obama had long been proven dead wrong, Mr. Thoughtful still hung on, hoping against hope that we might lose via a deus ex machina, but no luck. Fortunately the media were more interested in Palin’s overdue library books to bother reporting anything from Iraq, because that would have hurt the Messiah.
My indecisiveness comment was triggered, inter alia, by l’affair Wright. Obama could “no more disown Wright” than he could his honky grandmother, both of whom soon found their way underneath the public transport conveyance once Obama quite dithering. I’d call that indecisive.
Mitsu,
Actually, your wrong on the market performance. It does poorly if both Congress and the Presidency are
Democrat. It’s better if all Republican or better still with a Democratic President and a Republican Congress. The GDP is roughly equal, until the last combination where even GDP is better.
See WSJ http://online.wsj.com/public/article_print/SB122117691244025843.html.
Sorry, I’m lousy at links.
OK, the link doesn’t work because of the period at the end so
http://online.wsj.com/public/article_print/SB122117691244025843.html
That should work.
Sometimes when something defies common sense, it’s because it’s actually wrong.
Wonderfully written.
I can’t bring myself to believe that the mainstream media will ever turn on Obama. He’d have to do something so extreme – and that just isn’t a viable expectation.
The liberal illuminati will close ranks around whatever unpopular decisions he manages to get someone else to make.
Christopher Buckley, Mitsu? He is merely rebelling against his father.
How could he separate himself enough to make his own mark without doing so?
Bill Buckley is the only individual I read with a collegiate dictionary at the ready. And even then, he regularly used words I could not find. God, I miss that man.
…it says quite a bit about how far the conservative movement has fallen in terms of intellectual rigor….
–Mitsu
Mitsu — The support for Obama lacks intellectual rigor almost entirely. It’s all emotion and symbolism, even from smart people like you and Colin Powell.
Those who support Obama just just say that he is a really smart guy, and he has good “judgment” or “temperament,” or he’s “thoughtful”, and has the potential to be a good president.
Why? It’s never explained. It’s just assumed because people like the way he talks. Certainly Obama has never done anything except write a couple of books and campaign for the next office.
Maybe he will be a good president, but there is no way anyone could know that this year. Those who voted for him have simply rolled the dice and crossed their fingers.
Intellectual rigor indeed.
Mitsu’s not dumb. However, intelligence doesn’t really mean anything once human beings have gotten beyond a basic need for survival. Then we are talking about specialization.
huxley Says:
I have found that the Democrats treat intelligence, an eugenics trait, the same way we treat character and virtues (an acquired rather than genetic trait).
They believe that so long as someone has the right genes leading to the right IQ, they will make the right decisions just like we believe that a person with a strong character and lots of virtues will make the right decisions irregardless of what happens.
This means that regardless of whether Obama is corrupt or not, so long as he shows the right kind of genes and intelligence, he will be golden to the Left.
Since it is very hard to do DNA tests and IQ tests on everybody, the aristocracy, in order to judge “good blood”, instituted social controls.
If you weren’t part of the aristocracy it would show up in your manners. The Democrats emulate this protection via their focus on education. It is why Sarah Palin couldn’t be accepted as intelligent because her education was not up to the right standards. Bush’s education couldn’t be attacked for he was yuppie old money or something. So the Left attacked him as a liar, drug user, alcoholic, and playboy. Traits they knew we would care about but things that the Left didn’t give a damn about when it came to deciding whether people had intelligence or not.
If you weren’t part of the aristocracy it would show up in your manners. The Democrats emulate this protection via their focus on education.
Ymarsakar — Yes, I think this is what people like Mitsu are responding to when they go on about Obama’s extreme intelligence. They are picking up on ivy league cultural cues. Plus the fact that Obama says most of the things they agree with, ergo, he must be smart.
However, the fact remains that Obama has never said or written or done anything demonstrating this extreme intelligence. He wrote no papers for law review even though he was the editor, he wrote no papers as a part-time con law teacher. No one from his law days even remembers him as saying anything striking. He has written nothing at a professional level about foreign or domestic policy. His two books were essentially about himself — his life, then his vision.
The only thing original I can remember from his campaign was his remark about meeting the oil squeeze with tire pressure gauges.
“The only thing original I can remember from his campaign was his remark about meeting the oil squeeze with tire pressure gauges.”
While Obama never, ever said or suggested that maintaining proper tire pressure would meet the “oil squeeze,” he did say that America could, if most or all people maintained proper tire pressure, save tremendously through greater efficiency. Americans waste a huge amount of energy and therefore consume far more oil and other fossil fuels than we need to maintain our way of life. Increasing efficiency would lower dependence on foreign oil, undercutting American enemies in the Middle East, Russia, and Venezuela. But, because Obama suggested it and you suffer from Obama Derangement Syndrome, you dismiss a pro-American policy (encourage people to pursue voluntarily greater energy efficiency) and support America’s enemies.
Good job, America-hater.
some guy — Oh, give me a break.
I didn’t say that tire pressure gauges were the only means Obama suggested for meeting the oil squeeze. I said it was the only original thing I could remember Obama saying on any subject in the campaign.
With a few exceptions, such as Mitsu above, most of the responses from Obama supporters I have seen on center-to-right blogs have been quite ungracious.
“Most of the responses from Obama supporters I have seen…have been quite ungracious.”
Let’s see…
Obama is a secret Muslim radical Christian black nationalist racist Kenyan Indonesian Marxist socialist communist terrorist-loving liberal liar who hates America and freedom and puppies, and likewise for his stupid evil supporters, and yet….Obama’s supporters are ungracious?
Liberals have spent the last eight years told that their criticism of Republicans is either a sign of mental illness, tantamount to treason, or both, and yet Obama’s supporters are ungracious?
Well, it’s true. I’m being ungracious. Let me get it out of my system, ok? After eight years of putting up with your unrelenting bullshit, let me get it out of my system. After eight long years of listening to your high triumphalism, only to watch you turn around and mimic what just a month ago conservatives would have decried as treason, let me get it out of my system.
Oh, and I hope you’ll all support our (soon-to-be) president while he prosecutes two major wars, and that you’ll refrain from undermining him by giving aid and comfort to our enemies by questioning the way he prosecutes those wars. Because, that would suck if someone had to call you out as a traitor for speech critical of the president…
Oh, give me a break and gag me with all the positive responses to the socialist king!
Neo, I came across your old blog by accident. Once I began reading some of your thoughts, I found myself further intrigued by your mind. Now, I have followed you to your new site. I began with your open thread on Nov. 4 and I was shocked that you were supporting McCain.
I backed out and ended up here. I was just getting prepared to voice how much I liked you until my mind became overblown with more Kool Aid!
Are you kidding me? You felt calm? How can you feel calm knowing that a Marxist has/will infiltrated the White House? This man has single handedly brain washed 52% (supposedly) of America into ignoring the fact that he has relations with domestic terrorist! How can you be calm? I understand that we will be a tad protected considering that we won our 40 seats but come on!
Give me a break already! You’re right in the fact that our votes did not matter! I personally think this thing was rigged beyond belief! But, I am happy to know that 57 million Americans don’t like nor trust this man to be our nations president!
He wants to rewrite the flipping Constitution for Christ sake!
Groovgal: I feel calm because there’s no point in panic. I feel calm because nothing has happened yet and there will be plenty of time to be agitated if and when Obama does the things people fear he might. I feel calm as in “the calm before the storm”—the storm that may or may not come.
I wrote many posts here about the dangers I saw, and still see, in electing Obama. But now the campaign is over, and it’s time to observe. Calmly.
Neo, I agree that there is no point in panic, yet there is a need to be aware. The government (our government) has gotten away with far too much. They have done this because we (conservatives) have been asleep far too long.
“The calm before the storm,” as you say, has already passed. The storm is becoming organized! I’m not an extremist by any means but I am aware of truth.
I believe that you might be interested in blog about the UN 21 situation…
…or the Illuminati
Pingback:Pajamas Media » Avoiding the Clutches of Obama Derangement Syndrome
For the sake of the country it is necessary to give the man enough rope to hang himself.
Sergey, I was just wondering if maybe you have seen that Mr. O has already hung himself… lmao