Obama’s lies on the stimulus
Obama lied, the stimulus died. Actually, I should have said “Obama lied or was in error, the stimulus died,” but the rhythm doesn’t scan as well.
Now he’s scrambling to rewrite history—so even if he wasn’t lying then, he’s lying now about what he said then. Will his revisions work? Karl Rove thinks not [emphasis mine]:
So what’s a president to do when the promises he made about his economic stimulus program fail to materialize? If you’re Barack Obama, you redefine your goals and act as if America won’t remember what you said originally. That’s a neat trick if you can get away with it, but Mr. Obama won’t. His words are a matter of public record and he will be held to them.
I’m not so sure that highlighted sentence is correct. Obama has gotten away with a great many rescinded words so far; why not these?
How much attention is the public paying? After all, isn’t it only the nefarious Karl Roves of the world (and we all know he’s the anti-Christ or whatever) who are pointing out how very naked this particular emperor is? I know better than to send most people I know a link to a Karl Rove piece; they would dismiss it out of hand without reading it. And yet they would believe Obama implicitly; it’s a funny world, isn’t it?
But Rove manages to catch the Obama administration in quite a few whoppers:
(1) Larry Summers originally said “You’ll see the effects begin almost immediately;” now Obama is claiming the stimulus was always going to be a very slow starter in terms of its effects on the economy. But he didn’t say that at the time.
(2) At the outset, Obama stated that most of the money “will go out the door immediately.” But now he has changed his tune, saying, “We also knew that it would take some time for the money to get out the door.” Well, if he knew it, then he lied. Or is he lying now? Take your pick; it hardly matters.
(3) Obama creates his usual strawmen by saying stimulus opponents “felt that doing nothing was somehow an answer.” He ignores, of course, the fact that many alternative approaches were suggested; Rove describes some of them in his piece.
Obama has contempt for the American people. He believes they are not paying attention to what he was saying then and/or are unable to compare it to what he’s saying now. He also may believe they are incapable of assimilating the facts about the stimulus—or at any rate that their opinion on these or any other points no longer matters because, after all, “We won.” The “we” in this case is a combination of the royal “we” (Obama himself, that is) and the Democrats who now so strongly dominate Congress.
“Obama has contempt for the American people. He believes they are not paying attention to what he was saying then and/or are unable to compare it to what he’s saying now. He also may believe they are incapable of assimilating the facts about the stimulus–or at any rate that their opinion on these or any other points no longer matter because, after all, “We won.””
Unfortunately, he’s not wrong.
While Americans have the luxury of ignoring Obama’s tricky footwork when it comes to his background, his positions on the Iraq War, his historical ignorance (or lies depending) etc., the stimulus was supposed to address jobs and the economy, and few Americans can ignore that.
Unless the economy magically comes around, and I see no reason for it to do so anytime soon, Obama is stuck with this reality, this gap between what he said and what happened.
American will hold Obama to it and it is showing in his poll numbers. I predict we are going to see another 5-10 point drop in three months as job numbers worsen and likely other unpleasant economic signs.
Hence this summer will be his last shot to jam through Obamacare. It’s make or break time for Obama.
As Neo has often pointed out, Obama’s Narcissism is his predominant characteristic. I have an old college friend working in France. He reports that Obama is acquiring a reputation as a big spender (on himself and family) when he travels. This is a consequence of his baffling undiplomatic behavior in Paris. The Germans have him as a huge deficit spender.
In the US he is attempting to sell the Health plan as some kind of academic exercise rather than something that has individual benefits.
He cannot overcome is narciccistic habits and put himself in Joe the Plumber’s shoes. This will be his downfall.
“(3) Obama creates his usual strawmen by saying stimulus opponents “felt that doing nothing was somehow an answer.””
I remember that one from the debate at the time. YES, doing NOTHING was better than the stimulus. Sometimes standing still / doing nothing is the right move.
The recession would be ending now. The stimulus is extending it and growing it into the entitlement crisis (which was going to happen anyway, but he is causing it earlier) and the currency crisis (by inflating the dollar with debt)…. both on top of the recession and credit crisis. Great job O!
One third will believe and defend him no matter what he says and does. It’s the less starry-eyed we are focusin on. Obama was very skillful in persuading 10% of the population that he would actually accomplish what he promised, and another 10% that McCain (or Palin) was so much a worse choice that they should put up with him. (Rough estimates, of course)
Breathe deeply, and do not be alarmed at the things that the one-third continue to say. Be very concerned with hampering those they elected. But as for persuasion, it is those 2 10% groups that we have to keep hammering at. We are winning that battle at present.
I really do believe that Obama lives in a fairyland where he is FDR, JFK, MLK, and Martin Sheen from West Wing all rolled into one and just by his sheer personal magnificence, his enormous heart, and his native genius, everything was supposed to fall into line.
It has worked for him until now and quite a few Americans thought they too were going to live happily ever after in the West Wing tv show.
There’s going to be a nasty hangover from this, and not just economic.
If only we had Jed Bartlett instead!
At least he seemed to understand history, and had a conscience.
Even a fantasy Dem president who sprang from the brain of Aaron Sorkin would be a big improvement.
Recalling that there was going to be improved transparency and public accountability provided by the Offices of 12 Inspectors General and visible on the website Recovery.gov, I took a look to see if the site compares employment rate promises, or promised rollout schedules to actual performance. No signs of such measurement appears. No surprise, these guys apparently do not want to end up like Gerald Walpin.
The website give the impression that the oversight effort is off to a “bureaucratic speed” start. The site touts that we will be able to track the spending in detail in October. Today the Chairman of the Recovery and Accountability Board introduced his report to the American People. The site is worth a look. To analyze results that go beyond just distributing tons of money and claiming victory you will need to do considerable data mining. Many reported items resemble “house organ articles”. One interesting item on the home screen is a weekly chart that shows funding distribution progress. Thus far both “funds available” and “funds paid out” looks quite anemic. Another item shows two pie charts indicating where the State and Local funding is going in 2009 Vs 2012. While total $ are not shown on the charts, funding swings from a huge portion 64% going to “health” (assume medicare/medicaid state deficit reduction?) in 2009 to 30% to “community development” in 2012. It is stimulating reading….
Neo said,
Obama and by extension, the left’s arrogance and contempt for the American people will (hopefully)will be threir undoing. While many may not be politically engaged or be paying close attention, yet. They most certainly will when it begins to affect their pocket-book and style of living. At that point Obama and his cohorts will be wearing mighty thin on the public.
It reminds me of a scene in the movie Reds when Beatty’s character, John Reed askes Maureen Stapleton’s characer, Emma Goldman why she’s leaving and fed up with the (Russian) revolution, she responds, “because nothing works!”
The real objective of ‘transforming our nation’ as Obama has said, really means imposing a radical agenda with massive wealth redistribution. The majority of Americans, when asked about wealth redistribution are squarley against it. That’s why they are is such a hurry to get all of this legislation passed, before folks wake up and see what they are really proposing. The great question (and urgent race) is will the public become aware quickly enough?
I think a lot of small business people who may be basically FDR/Truman democrats are starting to catch on. They don’t know what their energy bills will be or how this healthcare thing will play out financially. They are questioning whether they can buy that new delivery truck they need or whether their restaurant can survive with fewer customers who order the cheapest items. At some point, they are going to want answers more substantial than hope and change. Their mood will spread to their employees. These people will also note that government employees aren’t taking cuts and that Obama will have even more of them monitoring their emissions and checking their caulking. They voted for Obama because they were tired of Bush and the war–not because they were for Obama’s specific promises. They will turn on him and they will tell the collegiate Obamamaniacs to shut up and grow up.
Obama has contempt for the American people. He believes they are not paying attention to what he was saying then and/or are unable to compare it to what he’s saying now.
Unless the economy magically comes around, and I see no reason for it to do so anytime soon, Obama is stuck with this reality, this gap between what he said and what happened.
If the economy improves, even the slightest improvement, it will be hailed by the MSM as the greatest engineered economic recovery of all time. As wounded as it is, our economy is still capable of overcoming almost any economic handicap, so I think the economy could have a minor improvement or at least a slowing down of some of the worst indicators. A few key speeches by Obama on the subject and the MSM will have its memes. For some time now the MSM has been merely paraphrasing talking points signaled to them by Obama’s speechwriters.
If the economy does not improve the MSM still has Bush to blame. The unfortunate fact remains that the economic crisis started before Bush was out of office. We must never forget that the MSM controls opinion. The proof is that we all get so excited when an editorial is mildly critical of Obama. There will always be a few of these because they have to relieve their own cognitive dissonance and act as if they are not the parrots that they are — but never enough to sway public opinion.
I forgive the public because it is impossible for the general public to know the truth. It has not been possible, really, since the sixties, when the MSM, the academics and the intelligentsia began giving up truth for ideology.
I see the economy as a win/win situation for Obama no matter which way it goes. It goes up? He’s a hero. It goes down? Bush is blamed and radical social reform is pushed as a method to fight the economic downturn.
I just don’t understand how so many could be so unaware of Obama’s behavior and its implications and his policies and their implications. / consequences. I know, I know. I’ve heard the culture explanations and I know people don’t a lot of have time to pay attention. Those things would might it explain it for a relatively small number of Americans but for so many to be so unaware (like 35 to 50%) or stupid that they can’t process simple contradictory statements from Obama or that are so enamored by him that they won’t or can’t put 2 and 2 together? I just can’t believe it.
grackle wrote, “I forgive the public because it is impossible for the general public to know the truth.”
whew that’s hard to do.
They voted. They could’ve stayed home if they didn’t understand the issues….
I also wonder how our MSM will react when they note that Obama’s flaws are being pointed out by the foreign press. They were embarrassed at being representedby a man with a Texas twang, but increasingly Europeans are questioning whether BO is mathematically and economically challenged.
Unfortunately, if a Republican president takes office in 2012 and fixes the economy, the credit will go to Obama and his stimulus plan.
If the economy improves, even the slightest improvement, it will be hailed by the MSM as the greatest engineered economic recovery of all time. As wounded as it is, our economy is still capable of overcoming almost any economic handicap, so I think the economy could have a minor improvement or at least a slowing down of some of the worst indicators.
grackle: Though I don’t think our economy is capable of overcoming almost any handicap, you do have a point. If there is some recovery, it will be exploited to the hilt by Obama and the MSM.
I think the economy could start to recover now, but the problem is confidence. While that is lacking — and it is lacking for good reasons, e.g. Victor David Hanson’s latest column On Shearing Sheep which explains how Obama has been relentlessly hostile to small business — I doubt the numbers will get better and attempts to spin a decrease in the rate of acceleration or some such will work.
I am always amused when I see mild-mannered Karl Rove on Fox these days. Clearly he’s not the nefarious mastermind, devil-in-human-form we’ve been told he is for the past eight years.
Just a low key, unflappable, relentlessly reasonable guy who clearly knows what he’s talking about. No wonder Bush listened to him. I hope Rove is right about Obama being held to his words. Sadly, I fear that he may be too optimistic.
My reading of Obama and his team is that they did expect that dumping hundreds of billions of dollars into the economy, or the promise to, would start some recovery about now.
I believe that Obama assumed that would happen by his Howard Zinn understanding of the Depression. You just stand tall like FDR, smile, show faith and throw gobs of federal money around, and bingo! The American people get unified into hope and change, pull together, everything gets beautiful, and Obama is Da Man.
Sure, he means to restructure the economy to his leftist vision, but I don’t think he means to destroy it. Obama is a fool and a knave by many measures, but he does know that a working economy is essential to his success. He just does not understand that what he is doing is crippling the economy and no amount of rhetoric, lying, and strawman attacks will make up for it.
There is a fantastic video at both Jawa Report and Gateway Pundit of Barbara Boxer being taken down by the CEO of the Black Chamber of Commerce. It’s about energy, but it indicates a crack in black support of Dems. He calls her condescending. Gateway has more on the cap and trade topic with Jim Imhof.
Darth Rove, didn’t you get the memo that The One’s promises have expiration dates? and that his porkulus promises expired a while back…
CV Says:
“Even a fantasy Dem president who sprang from the brain of Aaron Sorkin would be a big improvement.”
Only a fantasy liberal dem would know any history (other than the progressive rewrite)….
and the Democrats who now so strongly dominate Congress.
I’ve gotta feeling that’s gonna change in 2010. We’ll see who the candidate are, and how the issues have panned out more then.
From wikipedia:
Elections to the United States Senate will be held on November 2, 2010, with at least 36 of the 100 seats in the United States Senate being contested. Thirty-four of these are to six-year terms, from January 3, 2011 to January 3, 2017. They will join Senate Class III, which traces its roots back to the Senators who served full six-year terms from March 4, 1789 to March 3, 1795. Elections to the United States House of Representatives as well as some state and local elections will occur on the same date.
grackle wrote, “I forgive the public because it is impossible for the general public to know the truth.”
whew that’s hard to do.
They voted. They could’ve stayed home if they didn’t understand the issues….
A good portion of them voted because they either a.) wanted to teach the evil rich a lesson
b.) thought they were going to get something for themselves
All boils down to greed, not concern for their fellow citizens. No way would they reach into their own pockets to help a neighbor out.
Huxly you said above,
“Sure, he means to restructure the economy to his leftist vision, but I don’t think he means to destroy it. Obama is a fool and a knave by many measures, but he does know that a working economy is essential to his success. He just does not understand that what he is doing is crippling the economy and no amount of rhetoric, lying, and strawman attacks will make up for it.”
I’m not sure that I agree with what you are saying. With the exception of Obama being a fool & knave.
Discussing that point further…
I question how he (Obama) could not know the truth, given the numbers on unemployment and the CBO’s gloomy estimates of the stimulus and Obamacare. Not to mention his own party’s more fiscally minded are beginning to balk at all of this spending. The incoming data is clear. Does he think he can bs his way out of a collapsing economy? Even with wall to wall cover from the MSM? If so, he’s beyond stupid and into delusional.
My point above is what leads me to think that he does mean to maybe not destroy it, but cause enough lasting devastation to the economy, as it is presently structured, so that the only alternative is massive government intervention. Which, as we know, never goes away, but only increases.
So maybe, by his view, economic damage is not so bad? Maybe that’s why he is in such a hurry to pass all this legislation before the majority of the public catches on? Else, why the rush?
I would like to take a more optimistic view, but I just can’t see how someone with his intelligence and education could not see where his economic policies are leading.
As I’ve said before, he means to destroy and impoverish the American middle class, thus creating millions of people who are frightened, destitute, and utterly dependent on the Federal government. I insist that this is absolutely intentional.
Kind of like the way Stalin treated the kulaks in 1930s Russia, only without the mass murder. Yet. That could change, though, if he encounters any serious resistance.
I don’t think the economy will improve at all. Not with all of the legislation and policy changes they are making, every one of them is a negative impact on any chance of recovery.
It isn’t going to take much more for the people who buy our debt now to simply stop, regardless of the promise of a higher return, the risk of ever seeing it will be too high.
http://www.treas.gov/tic/mfh.txt
With all of the money they have pumped into the system we are really in new territory, there is no historical precedent for what they have done:
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?chart_type=line&s%5B1%5D%5Bid%5D=BASENS&s%5B1%5D%5Brange%5D=10yrs
As they add all this new spending, watch the tax receipts, further tax increases will cause more people to go galt:
http://www.bizzyblog.com/2009/07/13/this-is-what-going-galt-and-obamas-induced-uncertainly-have-led-to/
I cant see how we are going to avoid hyper-inflation, anyone have an explanation how we will avoid it after reviewing the pertinent data?
The media wont be able to hide it pretty soon, its going to hit almost everyone.
I picked a bad time to retire, sigh.
Tim P: Obama holds his cards close to his vest. Neither of us knows what he really thinks. So we are stuck with coming up with models of who the guy is and how he might be making decisions.
I know that people, intelligent people, can get locked into belief systems and make poor decisions, terrible decisions not even in their own self-interest.
Being president is an overwhelming job even if you are sane, conscientious and prepared. I don’t think Obama is any of those things.
As I say, I think Obama is used to skating through everything based on image and a good verbal presentation. I think his historical and economic knowledge is no deeper than Howard Zinn. I know that he is suffered no serious setbacks in his life since he was a teenager. I think he believes that if he just perseveres and maintains a cool, presidential demeanor it will all work out, and he will be the FDR of our time.
I could be wrong, but that’s what I think.
Darrell Says “I cant see how we are going to avoid hyper-inflation, anyone have an explanation how we will avoid it after reviewing the pertinent data?”
Nope. I don’t see us avoiding it either. The money supply graphs are scary. I’m not sure it will be hyper-inflation, but there will be inflation. The fed has pumped so much dang money into the supply that it dwarfs the increase back in the 70s. As long as the velocity stays low, there isn’t a problem. But it won’t stay low forever. As soon as it picks back up, look out.
What i see is someone who still wants approval. he and his friends are trashing america, and he expected the others who know the similar doctrines to fall in line and help him, and at least pretend to make him look good. (he and all those that do this never ever realize that the ones they worship and follow see them as traitors). [soon he will have the malaise of lenin who realized that the middle class like their lives and will not rise up]
he is learning something i learned a long time ago that most people never find out. if you have talent, talent doesnt grant you anything. all talent does is let you sit in a certain room with other people that are very talented and you all fight at that level. if you didnt have the talent you would just be playing a different game.
meanwhile many people believe the fantasy of american idol that just talent is enough.
well in obamas case he thought that he has talent, now that he made it up with the big boys, he is finding out its not a good ol club. he is not any more welcome (other than his predictibility and bad choices, etc), than any other competing leader with enough force to make everyones life difficult.
problem is he is not alone, and the others are not as naive as he is or pretends to be.
as i have said before, capitalist societies rely on stability to maximize productivity. destabilization prevents this, what is left is raw materials sales, etc.
we have forgotten all that supports our fundemental abilities, and safety. so we, in our generousity as a evil capatalist society have allowed things that systemically amounts to crossing wires in a complex machine.
to those in business they are like deer in the headlights frozen waiting for the shoes to drop so that they can act.
I sure miss FredHjr, he would have had some expert advise on the money subject, heavy sigh….
“Kind of like the way Stalin treated the kulaks in 1930s Russia, only without the mass murder. Yet. That could change, though, if he encounters any serious resistance.”
But to reiterate, when utility bills double, and it gets real cold… The classic left-wing (Stalin/Mao) central planning model will take it’s historically typical toll. History will record of this era the “audacity” of left-wing politicians and their bedfellows in selling the masses the absurd notion of manipulating the earth’s temperature by an amount of 2-3 degrees thru carbon emission social control. What a bunch of suckers…. I don’t blame obungler (he’s an honest enemy, a born and bred muslim communist traitor) so much as the actual power brokers (high and low) of the Democratic Party, the Vichy French of our time…..
Artfldgr: For whatever reasons, you are far more credible when you take the care to capitalize and punctuate properly. You might reconsider your previous, albeit short-lived, attention to those concerns.
Now you are babbling. We agree that Obama is sufficiently superficial that he functions off approval. After that we diverge.
Stalin and Hitler were aware of how people approved of them, but no more than that. When it came to kill inconvenient people, neither hesitated.
Wake me up when Obama is functioning at that level.
[grackle — earlier] “I forgive the public because it is impossible for the general public to know the truth.”
whew that’s hard to do. They voted. They could’ve stayed home if they didn’t understand the issues….
Another reaction:
A good portion of them voted because they either
a.) wanted to teach the evil rich a lesson
b.) thought they were going to get something for themselves
All boils down to greed, not concern for their fellow citizens. No way would they reach into their own pockets to help a neighbor out.
I sympathize with the commentors’ reactions. I myself in unguarded moments yearn to grab people who voted for Obama by the scruff and shake them until they come to their senses.
Our academia and the intelligentsia have been on board the anti-American train since the Transcendentalists in the mid-1800s. For instance, many of the most influential academics and writers were against the Korean War. But it wasn’t until the sixties, which was when television reached a saturation point in our society and was used to promote the anti-war movement and an anti-American viewpoint, that the newly born Mainstream Media joined them and made it a triad. Since then the public has been fed a steady diet of ersatz Marxism, false historical revisions(the Vietcong were “invincible”), pro-Progressive memes and other Leftist political urban legends by the opinion-makers.
If the public doesn’t get the truth in books and magazines, in the classroom and from the news, there is no way it can make an informed vote. We can’t on the one hand revile the MSM for being in the tank for Obama and on the other hand totally condemn the public which gets 90% of its news from the MSM. If the MSM had no effect on opinion, why would we care that it is lopsided in its promotion of Obama?
Of course, as the commentor above writes, “… they didn’t understand the issues,” but they didn’t know they didn’t understand. They can’t know the truth about issues because they are fed a diet of pro-Progressive, pro-Obama news-pabulum.
And the reaction from another commentor, that those who voted for Obama “wanted to teach the evil rich a lesson,” is probably true. I voted at least partially to teach the evil Progressives a “lesson.” People probably vote a lot to teach various folks a lesson, especially if they are ignorant of the distinct possibility that the “lesson” in the end may also NOT be in their own self-interest. Especially if they are not educated in the first place that there really is no such thing as the “evil rich.”
The same commentor goes on to decry those who “thought they were going to get something for themselves.” But don’t we all vote more or less to “get something” for ourselves? In all our cases we think that “something” was a more equitable and prosperous nation than Obama would provide. I venture to think that many of those who voted for Obama thought they were the ones who were voting to “help a neighbor out.” Over the years the Leftists have been very shrewd in tapping into an altruistic vein that has always been present in the American public body.
The ones I blame are the ones who should have known better — the Ann Althouses and the Megan McArdles. They have both professed to be, if not conservatives, at least NOT liberals. They are both intelligent, well educated and knowledgeable on the issues to a depth that the general public could never hope to match. But they fell for the Obama mojo and I’ll bet there was a little bit of the Palin Derangement Syndrome involved as well. How silly, how sad, how utterly stereotypical and contemptuous.
The ones I blame are the ones who should have known better — the Ann Althouses and the Megan McArdles.
grackle: Bingo, bango. I’m with you there.
It is no doubt petty on my part, but I am so pissed with almost all my smart, college-educated friends, as well as people in the blogosphere, who voted for Obama, even though they knew little about him, and just assumed by his good looks and good talk and ivy league degrees that he would be a good president.
huxley,
I think there may have also been a bit of white guilt in that mix.
We need to get beyond blame for the saps who bought the “Hope n Change” hype. We need Ann Althouse and Megan McArdles and even the Peggy Noonans back, and asking them to eat dirt is not going to make our side more attractive.
The New Class has always thought it would do a better job running things, and Mr. Obama’s affect and statements are just about the definition of what the New Class thinks a President should be and say. It’s about attitude.
The New Class are professional talkers of various stripes who have built their careers as adversarial advocates for various groups and causes, but who have never had to take responsibility for the welfare of the whole entity, whether that is a company, a school, a city, you name it.
On the whole, they haven’t done a great job over the last twenty years with that micro-commonweath called the family.
Educating people to become expert at rationalizing, blaming, and consuming is not likely to develop a lot people who understand responsibility and modesty.
The problem is, the facts of life are conservative, as The Iron Lady said. So when the New Class gets into power, they must either edit out the facts or somehow reinterpret them, or face into the reality that they have dedicated their lives to spinning unworkable theories. The obvious answers are The Memory Hole for inconvenient facts and Humpty-Dumptyism for re-interpreting events to suit their theories.
The great thing about the Sotomayor hearings is that the Left has backed away from the Humpty-Dumptyism that only whites can be racist. Humpty-Dumptyism cannot stand the light of day.
This administration’s policies will fail. If we can keep advertising the facts and contesting Humpty-Dumptyism, the New Class will be forced to deal with the problem that their ideal administration turns out to be made up of incompetent liars.
Re Althouse and McArdle: I like reading both of them very much. They have cogent observations, delivered wittily, and I suspect they will be invaluable in the next election cycles. However, they illustrate an enormous problem we will continue to have, to which we will be offered the same wrong solution over and over.
Althouse and McArdle saw through much of Obama but voted for him anyway. They were put off by the social conservative stances of the Republican Party. For that read: they think there are too many yahoos who are against abortion and gay marriage, and they can’t bring themselves to associate with yahoos. They never say that, they don’t even think it consciously, and they would certainly deny it. But the pattern shows from that group, election after election.
The usual libertarian solution to this is to say “well, get rid of the yahoo positions, and we’ll get all those votes, and everything will be good in the garden again.” I believe the opposite to be true. Abortion and gay marriage are proxy issues for a larger set of attitudes. This is true of both sides of those issues. If you don’t hold the right view, you are not “one of us.” The McArdles and Althouses of the world have some ability to see beyond that, but nowhere near the openmindedness they believe. When the chips were down, they voted tribally. They may make exceptions from time to time, but that will persist. Getting rid of the “yahoo positions” (both of which I generally hold to, so I must be a yahoo) will not change their tribalism much. It will help at the margins for some elections.
But ultimately, the goalposts will keep moving, and if Yahoo A and B are abandoned, Yahoo C, D, & E will emerge. The problem is not with the yahoos, but with the McArdles and Althouses, though they cannot see that. We can eke out a few narrow victories by acceding to their preferences, but it will never be enough to make real changes. Even under Bush, when the Republicans supposedly had “control of all three branches of government,” Republicans had bare congressional majorities only four of those eight years.
And that’s just Republicans, which we all know is only a partial overlap with Conservatives.
The problem is ultimately about reason, and control of emotion, and self-knowledge by our elite classes. Those in turn may have only spiritual solutions.
Oblio: I was just venting about McArdle, Althouse et al.
Since Obama took office they have both written various useful pieces of critical of Obama.
Nonetheless, I don’t assume that they would not vote for Obama again.
grackle asked, “But don’t we all vote more or less to “get something” for ourselves?”
No. I ask myself what is best for the country. As every person should…
I do not see one thing that Obama is doing that is good for the country either…
He is economically illiterate. It was apparent BEFORE the election.
AVI, don’t overlook the power of Palin Derangement Syndrome. Most of the women I know voted against Palin.
All political opinion has to be personal these days, doncha know. It was weird and very telling how political discussion devolved to Palin, and how quickly.
Re Althouse and McArdle: I like reading both of them very much.
Until recently I read Althouse a bunch, even after I was shocked to learn she voted for Obama. I thought her revelation begged for explanation but the only thing I ever read was an enigmatic excuse that she thought McCain to not be “right” for the country. People who are rationalizing their behavior often take refuge in vagueness. Maybe there was more that I missed, I didn’t read her every day, but that’s all I ever saw on the subject. But that voted-for-Obama shocker had put me into a new frame of reference in regards to the blog.
Next, I viewed a conversation between her and Hanna Rosin on blogginheads.tv in which it seemed to me that Althouse acquiesced to, even agreed to, every piece of Progressive prejudice that Rosin put forth. The video was boring, what with the two gals agreeing so much on so much. I remember little of the actual conversation — I view so many things — on blogginheads and elsewhere. It wasn’t what they actually said so much as the unstated assumptions from which they both spoke. And they had the type of easy rapport that I wouldn’t think possible between two people with fundamental disagreements on politics having a conversation about politics. “Two peas in a pod,” I thought. I gave up on it about 2/3 of the way through.
I began thinking thoughts like: Could I get a mental picture of Althouse voicing anything like simple patriotism? I found I could not. Could I imagine Althouse conversing without condescension to, say, a dishwasher or a janitor? No help there, either. There’s a coy elitism about the blog that began to be cloying. Contrast that with the open and forthright style of our hostess on this blog. There’s no guessing on where Neo stands on any issue, while you could read Althouse for a week without knowing for sure.
McArdle’s confession of her vote was also disturbing. I had just started reading her a couple of months ago and saw a blogginheads appearance where she let it casually drop. What! “She has even less of an excuse than Althouse,” I thought, “she’s a renowned libertarian for God’s sake! And she is obviously brilliant, on top of that!” Economics is her area of expertise and she couldn’t see the disaster that Obama represented? Yikes!
I still read her because she is an extremely good writer and presents economic issues in a clear and easily understood style. So often experts on a particular subject are awkward writers. I feel the need these days to read more on the economy. Also, her blog doesn’t have the elitist-yet-Facebook flavor of Althouse’s. It’s the difference between a steak dinner and a box of bon-bons.
These viewpoints are admittedly subjective. If someone enjoys either writer I wouldn’t discourage their indulgence.
… they[Althouse and McArdle] think there are too many yahoos who are against abortion and gay marriage, and they can’t bring themselves to associate with yahoos. They never say that, they don’t even think it consciously, and they would certainly deny it. But the pattern shows from that group, election after election.
But what if the Republican Party let abortion and gay marriage rest for awhile? What if anti-abortion and anti-gay marriage were only a secondary aspect of being a Republican instead of being the focus? What if the GOP began emphasizing limited government, a free market economy and a strong national defense, as it did during the Reagan era? What if the GOP campaigned on issues of governance instead of issues of morality?
And I really don’t know about the “election after election” contention. Bush won two terms before Obama showed up. He got the votes from somewhere. Any vote against Obama is a good vote.
grackle asked, “But don’t we all vote more or less to “get something” for ourselves?”
No. I ask myself what is best for the country. As every person should…
I do not see one thing that Obama is doing that is good for the country either…
He is economically illiterate. It was apparent BEFORE the election.
I want to give the writer a chance to read my comment again and revise their comment before I give a complete reply. How about it Baklava?
I wasn’t attacking you Grackle.
All is good
[grackle — as quoted by Baklava earlier] “But don’t we all vote more or less to “get something” for ourselves?”
Baklava — in response: No. I ask myself what is best for the country. As every person should…
I do not see one thing that Obama is doing that is good for the country either…
He is economically illiterate. It was apparent BEFORE the election.
grackle’s response: I want to give the writer a chance to read my comment again and revise their comment before I give a complete reply. How about it Baklava?
Baklava’s reply: I wasn’t attacking you Grackle.
All is good
The readers will please note that I never mentioned anything about anyone “attacking” anyone else. My only interest was to allow Baklava the opportunity to correct his misread of my comment. Alas, this he did not do — so I must take up the chore myself.
The partial quote from my comment offered by Baklava obscures my meaning. A more complete quote:
“But don’t we all vote more or less to “get something” for ourselves? In all our cases we think that “something” was a more equitable and prosperous nation than Obama would provide.”
Including that second sentence makes a world of difference; it becomes obvious that my comment was in agreement with the principle that people should cast their vote for “what is best for the country,” instead of opposed to it.
The writer goes to attach 2 or 3 other thoughts to the original out of context quote from my comment. A casual reader might think that with these the writer was implying that what I wrote was tantamount to believing Obama is “good for the country” and that I realized Obama’s unsuitability for office only after the election. Neither would be the truth so I feel compelled to set the record straight for those who might not know the truth.
Misinterpreting the meaning and tone of comments and then perhaps providing untrue implication is always a danger, especially if we are hasty in our responses.
Now, finally, all is good.
Let’s stick with McArdle and Althouse and presume that their “tribal affiliation” mandated a vote for Obama. We are really talking about tribal shibboleths and taboos here. I am wondering what it would take to break the power of the taboos. I am wondering how much incompetence, lying, and intellectual dishonesty would be required from the Obama Administration before the intellectual tribe would not be able to vocally support it AND maintain its self-respect.
I guess I am wondering whether the intellectual class has any values deeper than its PC shibboleths, and proposing that that do.
The intellectuals are proud of being smart. The greatest fear they have is to be shown up as lacking intellect and judgment. If they aren’t smart, they are humiliated. The taboos (racism, puritanism, and homophobia) are associated with the ignorant, i.e. conservatives.
We need to induce cognitive dissonance within the intellectual tribe. We do that with facts, logic, and a demand for transparency and intellectual accountability.
I am wondering how much incompetence, lying, and intellectual dishonesty would be required from the Obama Administration before the intellectual tribe would not be able to vocally support it AND maintain its self-respect.
First let’s define an intellectual: My definition would be anyone(usually, but not always, with an advanced degree) who is immersed in the world of ideas. As a group they would be referred to as the intelligentsia.
I would divide the intelligentsia into 3 factions:
There are those who are openly and obviously in the Obama camp, Progressives like Kristof, Krugman and Andrew Sullivan(even though Sullivan calls himself a libertarian conservative). I believe they can be counted on to defend Obama to the bitter end. Their credibility, self images and careers are invested in the same political philosophy as they believe Obama possesses — basically they see Obama’s policies as mirrors of their own political philosophies. Useful idiots.
There are also intellectuals who are flatly against Obama. Bill Kristol and Charles Krauthammer come to mind. O the brilliance of Kristol and the hammer of the Kraut! I believe this group to be the smaller of the three.
The third group are those who profess to be against most of what Obama represents but who for one silly ostensible reason or the other promote Obama — the Althouses and the McArdles. I would say this group is in the middle in size of the three. But if they could be won over and combined with the second group it would represent a sizable opposition to Obama, perhaps even a majority of the intelligentsia.
Others have commented on this blog that the third group was turned off from McCain/Palin and the GOP in general because:
… they[Althouse and McArdle] think there are too many yahoos who are against abortion and gay marriage, and they can’t bring themselves to associate with yahoos. They never say that, they don’t even think it consciously, and they would certainly deny it.
I think this is certainly an astute observation but I believe it is only partially true. I believe what turns off many intellectuals to the GOP is the relatively recent emphasis on issues of morality. Any intellectual would be aware that the Republican Party has in modern times attracted and encompassed folks with what is known today as a social conservative viewpoint. However, it is only after the Reagan era that issues of morality have been allowed to dominate over issues of governance in the GOP.
The belief that political parties should primarily be about governing, NOT about dictating who gets married to who or wanting to put women in jail for having an abortion or demanding a fairly strict social conservative orientation from candidates, may be the problem the third group has with the Republican Party.
If the focus and energy of the GOP were switched to limited government, a free market economy and a strong national defense I think this third group would find it easier to vote for the GOP slate the next time around. But these days they are told, in effect, to “go back to the liberals,” just as I have been on this blog. Is it any wonder that they have a hard time voting for the GOP?
grackle, thanks for a thoughtful comment. I think you are confusing pundits with intellectuals. Pundits are sort of Intellectual Lite.
You need to provide some evidence of GOP politicians or party officials who want to put women in jail for having an abortion or dictate who gets married to whom. As it is, I can’t accept the premise of your argument. You may feel strongly about social issues such as abortion and gay marriage, but you don’t get to make things up.
I think you are right that the social conservative wing of the GOP trips the taboos of intellectuals that we discuss above. You might say that this is natural and inevitable. You might personally agree that such intellectuals are right to be turned off.
I think you are stuck arguing for a trade that isn’t going to get made. I also think that you are assuming or believe that these social issues dominate what you describe as issues of governance for this particular group of intellectuals.
grackle, thanks for a thoughtful comment. I think you are confusing pundits with intellectuals. Pundits are sort of Intellectual Lite.
Oblio, thanks for the response but I defined what I meant by “intellectual,” and all the folks I mentioned met the definition. Look them up and see for yourself. Note their education levels and other background information. A pundit can also be an intellectual, you know. What is your definition of “intellectual?”
As it is, I can’t accept the premise of your argument.
I can’t respond very well to this since you don’t offer just what you think my premise is.
You need to provide some evidence of GOP politicians or party officials who want to put women in jail for having an abortion or dictate who gets married to whom.
You may feel strongly about social issues such as abortion and gay marriage, but you don’t get to make things up.
I sincerely do not believe I am making anything up. And I’m not promoting or campaigning against either issue in these comments; thus the strength of my personal convictions on these 2 issues are not relevant to my points. I am merely trying to propose a strategy for beating Obama. For instance, many Americans have friends and/or relatives who have had abortions. Calling them murderers, as many social conservatives do, in my opinion doesn’t make those folks want to vote GOP. What is usually done to murderers is to put them in jail. If you call someone a murderer it seems to me that they might feel threatened. That’s my opinion.
Most social conservatives I’ve seen offer a viewpoint on the issue want Roe vs. Wade repealed. What do you think would happen if that unlikely event ever came about?
Wikipedia says, “A majority of the GOP’s national and state candidates are pro-life and oppose abortion on religious or moral grounds …” So you have a group of folks who are opposed to a certain behavior … this same group creates the law of the land … I ask you to use your imagination to complete the syllogism. Frankly, researching just which of these politicians favor relatively draconian measures and which are relatively soft on the issue is just too damned much work for a comment — perhaps if I were writing a book …
As for gay marriage, I happen to know 2 gay couples who have stable, long-time relationships and who except for the issue of gay marriage, are otherwise quite conservative in many of their viewpoints. I am also acquainted with 3 or 4 unattached gay persons. As a group they seem especially troubled by Progressive economic and some social policies(such as welfare and healthcare) but I suspect they all voted for Obama. I know for sure the couples would like to be able to marry. However, the Republican platform in the last election was firmly against gay marriage, even calling for a constitutional amendment to make it against the law. I’m not claiming that gay folk are mostly conservative or even centrist — if I had to guess I would say it is on the order of 60/40, the majority on the liberal side, but the gay vote is 10% of the voters, a sizeable bloc. A little tolerance might go a long way.
I think you are right that the social conservative wing of the GOP trips the taboos of intellectuals that we discuss above. You might say that this is natural and inevitable. You might personally agree that such intellectuals are right to be turned off.
No, I do not agree that “such intellectuals are ‘right’ to be turned off.” I was appalled to learn that Althouse and McArdle voted for Obama. It is true that I think many intellectuals who are not avowed Progressives(like Althouse and McArdle) but who voted for Obama anyway might again be attracted to the GOP slate if the GOP would start campaigning on the tried and true issues of governance instead of focusing on issues of morality. I think McArdle and Althouse’s counterparts voted GOP in the Reagan era and before. What do you think drove them away?
I really don’t think they care that the Republican tent shelters social conservatives; they would certainly be aware that the GOP has welcomed social conservatives throughout the modern era — at least since the early 1900s – I DO, however, believe that the fact that social conservatism seems to dictate Republican policy these days has driven many away. I believe they no longer feel welcome in the GOP. The ubiquitous neologism, “RINO,” which was coined fairly recently(1994) and which we have all seen used in reference to Republicans such as McCain, Romney, Graham, Snowe and Chafee says it all.
I think you are stuck arguing for a trade that isn’t going to get made.
Too vague to respond to.
I also think that you are assuming or believe that these social issues dominate what you describe as issues of governance for this particular group of intellectuals.
“… social issues dominate … issues of governance …”? I’m sorry but I can’t get your meaning here.
grackle, sorry to be slow responding. I was traveling all day.
The premise of your argument was about the GOP wanting to do things (e.g. put women in jail) that are contrary to fact, as far I know. I don’t think you would be able to find any major Republican candidates who took positions as you describe them. That was not the position of the Presidential or Vice Presidential nominee. It was not the position of any US Senate or House nominee, as far as I know. It is not in the party platform. That premise I do not accept, and no fair-minded and well-informed person should.
The “trade” I meant was that the Republicans would be able to woo any significant number of intellectuals by jettisoning the social conservatives. I don’t think that’s on, partly because the GOP would never be able to distance itself far enough from the social conservatives to satisfy the critics who treat social issues as a litmus test. We would hear twenty years of accusations about cryptic appeals to the social conservatives.
I was asking whether you think social issues such as abortion and gay marriage trump economic (fiscal and regulatory) and foreign policy issues for these persuadable intellectuals.
I think that if these issues don’t determine the support of these valuable “middle” intellectuals, we should be going on offense, as opposed to figure out how to appease them on particular hot-button issues.
The premise of your argument was about the GOP wanting to do things (e.g. put women in jail) that are contrary to fact, as far I know.
I don’t think you would be able to find any major Republican candidates who took positions as you describe them. That was not the position of the Presidential or Vice Presidential nominee. It was not the position of any US Senate or House nominee, as far as I know.
The writer has misinterpreted my position but I welcome the chance to reiterate some important points:
Social conservatism’s moral aspects(such as the anti-abortion stance) have historically been only a part of the GOP philosophy. Up until and including the Reagan era, the emphasis had been on issues of governance: limited government, a free market economy and a strong national defense.
Beginning in the 1990s that changed to what is now the case, a domination of social conservatism and moral issues in the Republican Party, resulting in the de-emphasis of the tried and true issues of governance which were attractive to a wider range of voters. I believe one of the products of this development has been a shrinking percentage of intellectuals who identify themselves as Republicans, including intellectuals such as McArdle and Althouse.
I think that the Republicans have had the support of Althouse and McArdle’s counterparts in the past. But I don’t think the problem is limited only to intellectuals who are finding it difficult to identify with moral issues in place of principles of governance and who perceive they are no longer welcome in the GOP. Relatively moderate politicians have been feeling the heat, too. This situation is signified by the neologism, “RINO,”(Republican in name only) which is used as an epithet and was invented just after the Reagan era.
As a matter of fact I have not claimed any GOP candidate has ever taken a position of wanting to “put women in jail.” The writer appears to be erecting a “straw man” argument, perhaps unknowingly. What I have done is deplore the tendency of the extremes of the social conservative faction to label women who have abortions as “murderers.” Rightly or wrongly, these folks are identified with the GOP.
It is not in the party platform. That premise I do not accept, and no fair-minded and well-informed person should.
The readers, and perhaps Neo, will please note that the writer implies here that I am not fair-minded or well informed. Before Neo’s post on back and forth bickering I might have responded in kind but will instead settle for a request that the writer refrain from the tactic of ad hominem attack on those who do not agree with his views.
I think also the writer may have made a mistake in not actually looking up the 2008 GOP Platform, part of which I quote below:
We support a human life amendment to the Constitution, and we endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children.
Such an amendment would make it the law of the land that abortion would be illegal and the decision in Roe vs. Wade by the SCOTUS which is so hated by the social conservatives would be rendered legally irrelevant. Any woman having an abortion could be put on trial and if found guilty would indeed most likely be put in jail.
http://www.gop.com/2008Platform/Values.htm
The “trade” I meant was that the Republicans would be able to woo any significant number of intellectuals by jettisoning the social conservatives. I don’t think that’s on, partly because the GOP would never be able to distance itself far enough from the social conservatives to satisfy the critics who treat social issues as a litmus test.
Well, I think the GOP better “woo” somebody before the next Presidential election. I should not need to remind the writer that the Republicans lost the last election, putting a majority of Democrats into both Houses of Congress and a Democrat into the Whitehouse. I DO agree that loosening the hold of the social conservative wing, with its mania for moral issues, from control of the Republican Party could be difficult. But it’s not “social” issues that I believe are the litmus for those “critics” that the writer does not want to bother to “woo.” It’s “moral” issues.
We would hear twenty years of accusations about cryptic appeals to the social conservatives.
Here again I am at a loss on what the writer means with the above sentence. “ … cryptic appeals to the social conservatives … “?
I was asking whether you think social issues such as abortion and gay marriage trump economic (fiscal and regulatory) and foreign policy issues for these persuadable intellectuals.
What I think is that the GOP needs to change its social conservative-driven emphasis on moral issues to a promotion of the proven and attractive principles of limited government, a free market economy and a strong national defense — as was the case in more successful times, the Reagan era and before.
I think that if these issues don’t determine the support of these valuable “middle” intellectuals, we should be going on offense, as opposed to figure out how to appease them on particular hot-button issues.
I’m a bit puzzled by the meaning of the above but I’ll take a stab at addressing it. I think there are many factors that could appeal to potential recruits to the GOP. One would be to stop calling women who have had abortions, “murderers.”
And it’s not, as the writer seems to assert(if I understand him correctly), those lost constituencies I have been wanting the GOP to regain that have demanded to be appeased. No, quite the opposite; instead it has been the social conservatives who have been wanting the GOP to be purged of the evil RINOS — with a “Don’t let the door hit you in your pro-gay marriage, pro-abortion, pro-shamnesty butts on the way out,” righteously shouted at them as they leave.
No, grackle, that was not argumentum ad hominem. I was appealing to a standard among the readers. I think your rhetoric is exaggerated and overheated, and that isn’t helpful for conversation or analysis.
You believe I am misinterpreting your position. I think your policy preferences are quite clear, and I can’t imagine what I could be misinterpeting. I have tried to clarify where I was perhaps too cryptic, but apparently I haven’t succeeded. You can’t seem to understand my point here, which is not to review the merits of small government (which I endorse) or to make an argument in favor of name-calling on moral issues (which I agree is counterproductive).
You and I are talking at cross purposes. I believe you are in earnest, and I respect and understand your point.
Neo would not disapprove of our behavior here.
No, grackle, that was not argumentum ad hominem. I was appealing to a standard among the readers.
I ask the readers to review the writer’s words:
It[grackle’s premise] is not in the party platform. That premise I do not accept, and no fair-minded and well-informed person should.
To state that my “premise” should not be accepted by any “fair-minded” or “well-informed person” is to imply that I am not fair-minded or well-informed. After all, I obviously accept my own premises.
I think your rhetoric is exaggerated and overheated, and that isn’t helpful for conversation or analysis.
Here are a couple of vague, unspecified accusations. What part of my “rhetoric” is “exaggerated and overheated” and “isn’t helpful”? We do not know since the writer does not see fit to provide a quote.
You believe I am misinterpreting your position. I think your policy preferences are quite clear, and I can’t imagine what I could be misinterpeting.
The writer wrote that I made assertions which I did not make. To my mind that comes under the category of misinterpretation of my comment. The writer refers to my “policy preferences;” but does not specify what he believes these preferences to be. How “clear” is that?
I have tried to clarify where I was perhaps too cryptic, but apparently I haven’t succeeded. You can’t seem to understand my point here, which is not to review the merits of small government (which I endorse) or to make an argument in favor of name-calling on moral issues (which I agree is counterproductive).
But I never claimed the writer was against “small government” or that he ever put forth “an argument in favor of name-calling on moral issues.” The writer is denying assertions I never made.
You and I are talking at cross purposes.
Another bit of vagueness.
I believe you are in earnest, and I respect and understand your point.
The writer insinuates I am not “fair-minded” or “well-informed.” He accuses me of “exaggerated and overheated” rhetoric without quoting anything I have written. He refers to my “policy preferences” without bothering to specify what believes them to be. He goes on to deny assertions that I never made. But near the end of all this he makes certain to issue a disclaimer about believing in my earnestness, respecting me and understanding me.
Neo would not disapprove of our behavior here.
That’s for Neo to say.
grackle, I have offered the olive branch. It is up to you whether or not you wish to accept it, but I am finished here.
A passerby sees some flames coming from a red house. Upon closer examination he sees that some angry occupants of the house are the cause of the flames. They are using burning sticks to prod some other occupants out of the house, which is causing flames to ignite in the foundation of the house. The prodders either don’t realize or don’t care that their prodding is causing fire; they are too busy prodding, all the while yelling, “Prod the residents in name only!”
The bystander notices that many of the residents in name only, their fresh scorch-marks throbbing in pain, are knocking on the door of a neighboring blue house — a house that won last month’s Neighborhood Association Award — a sign proclaiming the victory displayed in the front yard.
The slender owner of the blue house is at the doorway, smiling, speaking glibly of the benefits of residing in the blue house and motioning for them to cross the threshold. Dazed by their ordeal and wanting some balm for their burns, some of them walk inside.
“Fire!” The bystander shouts, “Fire!” This makes one of the occupants of the red house uncomfortable. He confronts the bystander. “Stop your shouting,” he says, “It’s making me angry.”
“But your house is catching fire,” says the bystander.
“As far as I know that’s not true; what is really happening some of our occupants are improving our house by making it a brighter shade of red,” replies the red house occupant, “Isn’t it pretty?”
“That brighter redness is a reflection of the flames that are breaking out because some of your fellow occupants are prodding some others with burning sticks,” says the bystander.
“No fair-minded or well-informed person would ever believe such a thing,” mutters the occupant.
“But I can see that the burning stick occupants are depleting your house’s population with all the prodding,” points out the bystander.
“A little prodding never hurt any house,” retorts the red house occupant, “anyway, the residents you see leaving are residents in name only because they are soft on some things some of us find infuriating and a lot of us don’t like that, therefore the residents in name only are bringing this on themselves. If you can’t get really, really angry about certain things, you do not belong in our house. You belong in that irritatingly blue house down the street.
“But your red house never had these rules before. In past days all kinds of residents with all kinds of beliefs were tolerated in your house, as long as they were loyal to the 3 Golden Principles of Governance,” objects the bystander.
“That is beside the point. What is important is to make the house as red as possible,” says the occupant.
“Even if it burns your house down?” questions the bystander.
Producing a burning stick, the occupant says, “I think your rhetoric is exaggerated and overheated, and that isn’t helpful for conversation or analysis. I’m also realizing your policy preferences are highly suspicious.”
The occupant then begins desperately swiping at the bystander with the burning stick, but always missing.
Exhausted, arms weary, finally the occupant pants out, “I have offered the olive branch. It is up to you whether or not you wish to accept it, but I am finished here,” and turns back toward the red house.