Why keep Pelosi?

The New Neo Posted on by

Here’s a piece in Politico that purports to explain why the Democrats are refusing to ditch Pelosi.

Before I read it, my own opinion was that the biggest motivator is that they’re scared of her. And that happens to be reason number three in the article, which refers to it as “the fear factor:”

There’s a hangover effect, described to POLITICO by one senior Democratic aide this way: “People woke up the day after the election as afraid of Nancy Pelosi as they were the Monday before. And they shouldn’t be.” Of course, that aide, fearing retribution from the speaker, asked to be quoted without attribution.

The fear may not only reflect the fact (as the article emphasizes) that Pelosi could dole out both rewards and punishments to those who toe the line and those who defy her. Because doesn’t that depend on her retaining power, whether as Speaker or as Minority Leader? If she’s voted out, what can she do to harm them?

To answer my own question: in order to defy her and not be frightened about it, a Representative must have the conviction that there are enough votes to actually defeat her (as Machievelli said, if you strike at a king, strike to kill). And, since the Democrats in Congress are now more dominated then before by ultra-liberals in Pelosi’s camp, those who are against Pelosi probably perceive themselves as too small a group to prevail. And if they can’t win, they’d better shut up if they know what’s good for them. So the majority of them are doing just that, at least in public.

Another source of Pelosi-fear could be that she’s got the goods on them in other ways. Pelosi probably knows where all the skeletons are buried, and her revenge could take a number of forms, some of them independent of whether she holds onto formal power or not.

It’s also true, as the article points out, that there’s really no one else up for the job. What that says about the depth of the Democratic bench is self-evident.

Pelosi’s other skills—such as, for example, her tried-and-true ability to raise big bucks—would be an advantage to the Democrats, all else being equal. But all else is not equal. Her negatives are sky-high. Her continuation as head of Democrats in the House would send a huge f-you message to the American people, one that probably will not go unnoticed and is unlikely to be appreciated.

[ADDENDUM: Pelosi won. No surprise there.]

There’s nothing Freudian about these Obama slips

The New Neo Posted on by

Keith Koffler’s opinion piece at Politico discusses the fact that Obama has made a number of unguarded, unscripted, and therefore very revealing comments that seem to indicate he is both an extreme leftist tilt and a man who demonizes the opposition.

However, it’s puzzling that Koffler refers to these remarks of Obama’s as “Freudian slips,” and compares them to Reagan’s jokes that were intended to be off-mike but were broadcast by error, or Bush unintentionally reading his note cards aloud. Those are slips, although not Freudian; they are errors in which the meant-to-be-private inadvertently becomes public.

Obama’s remarks were very different. They were purposeful and extemporaneous, but he certainly meant to say them and to have them be heard. They were not errors, except perhaps errors of judgment that he later regretted because of the furor they caused.

A Freudian slip, on the other hand, is an actual slip of the tongue that can be revealing. For example, when a husband calls his wife by the name of an ex-girlfriend, that’s a Freudian slip. Or this one from Wiki:

She: ‘What would you like — bread and butter, or cake?’ He: ‘Bed and butter… Whoops!’

Obama’s “bitter clingers” and “enemies” are nothing like that. He said what he meant and he meant what he said.

No other president in my memory has been caught in this particular type of slip-up, as far as I can recall. The reason it keeps happening to Obama is that he’s the first president who appears to be hiding who he actually is, politically speaking, and what he intends and thinks in general.

Therefore when he is unscripted, when he lets down his guard and speaks his mind, he often speaks the truth, and it is often at variance with the persona he is trying to present to the public. It’s happened enough times now that the mask is at least half off, if not fully removed.

Obama: to quit or not to quit

The New Neo Posted on by

Despite Cadell and Schoen’s recent column suggesting to Obama that he announce he won’t run in 2012, Byron York doesn’t think Obama will listen, and neither do I. It’s not in his nature, nor is it to his advantage.

And since when has Obama ever followed any advice Caddell and Schoen have ever given him?

On the other hand, the events of the last few months and especially November have dealt many blows to Obama’s substantial ego. And just because an ego is substantial doesn’t mean it’s not brittle at the same time. Too many blows and it might shatter.

This would not be a good thing. Until now, I have thought Obama impervious to setbacks. And perhaps he is. But the terrible week he just had on the international scene is a different story; it may have hit him where it hurts.

[NOTE: It should not escape notice that Schoen has been an adviser to both Bill and Hillary Clinton in their campaigns.]

I think Lisa Murkowski is at least partly right

The New Neo Posted on by

I think Lisa Murkowski is correct when she says that Sarah Palin isn’t big on “intellectual curiosity:”

Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowki told CBS News’ Katie Couric today that she would not support Sarah Palin for president because Palin lacks the …”intellectual curiosity” to craft great policy.

Of course, I’ve never seen a shred of evidence that Murkowski herself exhibits that trait. And wherever did she get the notion that intellectual curiosity is a necessary—or even a good—qualification for a president or for crafting policy?

And I say that as a person with a fair amount of intellectual curiosity myself. But I know it’s not synonymous with action, or good decision-making, and is rarely a needed qualification for holding office. In fact, it can be counter-productive.

What types of jobs require or are at least enhanced by intellectual curiosity? Professor or teacher, especially in the humanities and the sciences. Writer, perhaps. Inventor (although that’s not “intellectual” curiosity, necessarily; it’s curiosity about how things work in the real world, and how to make them work better). And those are about the only things I can come up with.

Not that intellectual curiosity’s bad, mind you. It can make for fun conversations, if you like that sort of thing. I happen to like that sort of thing, a lot. But your mileage may differ. And it’s hardly the only road to good conversations. I’d love to have a heart-to-heart with the un-intellectually curious Sarah Palin.

[NOTE: If you care to read more about the perils of intellectuals running things, read this from that superbly curious intellectual, Thomas Sowell.]

They left tried to refudiate it…

The New Neo Posted on by

…but Sarah Palin’s “refudiate” wins the title “word of the year” from the New Oxford American Dictionary.

And to top it all off, her new reality show about Alaska gets TLC’s highest ever ratings for a program’s premiere.

[NOTE: This lady is probably not all that pleased. In a piece that came out today in the Boston Herald before the other news stories appeared, she says the show is downright embarrassing, and ridicules Palin’s use of the word “refudiate.” It’s probably easier for her to discount the TLC audience’s choice, though, than to ridicule the decision of the dictionary doyens.]

Inside Sasha Abramsky’s brain: believing in Obama

The New Neo Posted on by

Sasha Abramsky is the author of a book called Inside Obama’s Brain. Maybe he’s spent too much time there, because he’s emerged befuddled.

In this Salon piece, Abramsky starts promisingly:

In 2008, candidate Barack Obama fashioned an appeal to independent voters and young adults based in large part not on specific policy pledges but on his promise to end the culture of hyper-partisan hyper-bickering that was poisoning the country’s political well.

Implicit in that promise was the assumption that through rational, consensus-building rhetoric and pragmatic policy solutions to America’s serious, and growing, social and economic problems he could reforge broken bonds of trust between the citizenry and its governing institutions.

No quarrel with that. It describes the “promise” of Obama quite nicely. And Abramsky even goes on to state with clarity one of the major flaws of Obama’s presidency so far:

In office, Obama’s failure to reestablish those bonds of trust, without which no major social policy reforms can command long-term, stable majority support, is the greatest calamity of his presidency.

How does Abramsky then segue to the rest of his article? His argument goes something like this:

(1) It is self-evident that only big government can cure what ails us.

(2) Obama made the mistake of thinking most people are smart and insightful enough to agree with him (and Abramsky) on that.

(3) His failure was therefore a failure (you know what’s coming) to properly communicate this to the American people.

(4) Those nasty Republicans finished the job by blocking his efforts (no mention of the overwhelming majorities Obama had in Congress, and the fact that he was actually stymied by Democrats who wouldn’t come along for the Big Government ride).

Abramsky’s article has a title that says a great deal about this mode of thinking: “Obama’s toughest task: make us believe again.”

As though “belief” were the answer, and as though it is disconnected from results. But Obama can’t ride on his early promise anymore; he can’t ask us to believe in him by the mere power of his rhetoric. Results are what counts, and his toughest task is to actually produce some that aren’t disastrous.

Bush and Clinton are buddies

The New Neo Posted on by

This amused me:

“Listen, [Bill] Clinton and I are buddies,” the former president [Bush II] said. “First of all, we’re born one month apart. We’re now members of the former presidents club. We have done speaking engagements together. And I generally like him.”

I don’t think it’s BS either; I think it’s true. Their values in their personal life may be worlds apart, but here’s what they have in common, in addition to the things Bush mentioned: a background in the South, a connection to Yale, a genuine conviviality and gregariousness—and even (this was a great surprise to me, because Bush was a jock and Clinton decidedly not) experience as rugby players, a sport known for its toughness.

I can actually imagine them being “buddies”—although not drinking buddies, not anymore. Contrast that to the White House’s present occupant. I can’t really imagine him being “buddies” with anyone.

[NOTE: If you don’t believe me about Clinton and the rugby, take a look at this

Upon graduation, he won a Rhodes Scholarship to University College, Oxford where he studied Philosophy, Politics and Economics, though as a result of switching programs and leaving early for Yale, he did not obtain a degree there. He developed an interest in rugby union, playing at Oxford and later for the Little Rock Rugby club in Arkansas.

As for Bush:

Bush attended Yale University from 1964 to 1968, graduating with a Bachelor of Arts degree in history. During this time, he was a member of Delta Kappa Epsilon, being elected the fraternity’s president during his senior year. Bush also became a member of the Skull and Bones society as a senior. Bush was a keen rugby union player, and was on Yale’s 1st XV.]

Bush derangement syndrome vs. Obama derangement syndrome?

The New Neo Posted on by

There was a discussion in the comments section of Thursday’s post about the widespread hatred of President Bush known as Bush Derangement Syndrome. Here are some remarks from commenter “kolnai” describing the attitude of a group of liberal friends of his toward Bush:

Whenever the subject of Bush comes up – I never do it, but they can’t help themselves – it always ends badly. The conversation gets ugly, and even my most hipsterish, cynical, ironical Jon Stewarty-friends turn gravely serious and actually get steamed. Not too long ago, one of them emailed me and in the course of our exchange he slipped up and called me crazy, despicable, and hateful. It came within a few words of ending the relationship for good.

The scariest thing of all is that these very intelligent people really do believe that evil did not truly exist in the world until George W. Bush “stole” the 2000 election…

The insanity is mind-boggling. It’s as though they sincerely believe that on the one hand there was Hitler, but then there was a true monster, named Bush”¦

And here’s more from commenter “Mrs Whatsit:”

…[M]y otherwise gentle and civilized family of origin ”” well-educated liberal Democrats all ”” were ready to stage an intervention with me simply because I said I didn’t hate Bush. It wasn’t enough to disagree with him. It wasn’t enough that I didn’t vote for him (the first time around, at least ”” I kept quiet about the second time!) No, I had to hate him, or they gazed at me with brows creased with worry and whispered anxiously to one another whenever I left the room. These are NOT hateful people. They brought me up teaching me very carefully not to hate ”” which is partly why I ended up fleeing the Democrats when they turned so venomous ”” but when I try to remind them of this, it doesn’t seem to make sense to them. I didn’t get it then and still don’t get it now…

Time has not dulled the sharp edge of Bush-hatred, as many of us have discovered. And I think that all of us stand with Mrs Whatsit in saying that we don’t “get it,” not really, not totally.

Oh, we know some elements that seem to trigger BDS: the perceived frat-boy persona, the Texas twang, the close-set eyes, the swagger, the Iraq war without the WMDs. But still, there is something extra and intangible and even indescribable there, something mysterious about the intensity of the whole thing.

Bush-haters actually do believe that he lied about Iraq, that he is a troglodyte who is against science, that he loves war and seeks it out, that he stole the 2000 election, that he is stupid and perhaps even mentally handicapped, and that he evaded his National Guard service.

In the end, it seems to be a gut thing that occurred almost instantaneously on seeing and hearing the man (physical characteristics and speech patterns are a huge part of it), and was then egged on by like-minded people talking amongst themselves. It became a group identity, one that powerfully reinforced the entire edifice; “Smart and good people hate Bush; I am a smart and good person because I hate Bush; we are smart and good people who hate Bush; therefore I am one of you.”

These same people believe not only that their hatred of Bush is every bit as rational as hatred of Hitler, but many of them also believe that we on this board and others like it have an irrational hatred of Obama. That is one of the reasons that every criticism of Obama is met with charges of “racist,” rather than a focus on the policy arguments being made (the latter are too rational). That is why the more irrational segments of the birther movement are emphasized so much by the left.

I am not suggesting that dislike of Obama’s policies and Bush-hatred are parallel. For example, I have no particular hatred for Obama. What’s more, when I first observed him, I don’t recall feeling any negative feelings or opinions about him at all, except what I would feel towards any liberal: disagreement with policy. My profound distrust of him took a long time to build, was arrived at reluctantly, and was based on my own observations of his actions in the public sphere. And I don’t think I’m atypical of the majority of people who have come to have grave reservations about Obama, and to consider him both a knave and a fool.

I suspect, however, that if you were to query many of the people who suffer from BDS, they would tell a rather different tale: that what they feel for Bush is actually hatred, that they felt it almost instantaneously, that they are proud of it rather than sad or reluctant about it, and that their hatred focuses more on personal characteristics of speech or manner than on actual policy disagreements, although the latter are certainly part of it. Nor do they feel the need to explain it to others, as I might my disapproval of Obama; they think the reasons for it are self-evident to any thinking person. What’s more, they tend to become visibly angry at those who don’t share it.

The more I think about these phenomena, the more mysterious it all becomes, not less.

[NOTE: See my previous posts on the subject, here and here.]

Hollywood actors morph

The New Neo Posted on by

I love those YouTube morph things.

Here’s one that features Hollywood actors. When I first watched it, I noticed that—even though I’m not a huge moviegoer—I still recognized the majority (although not all) of the actors.

During the video, my attention was riveted on the eyes, which appear to lead the transformations before the rest of the face follows. Most of the actors seem to naturally fall into one of several categories: pretty boys with dead eyes; less-pretty men with lively, mischievous eyes; guys with angry eyes; and a few sad-eyed or puzzled chaps.

Take a look:

My favorite category is that second one: less-pretty men with lively, mischievous eyes. Two of the best exemplars are the young James Cagney (at 0:10); Clark Cable with a crooked grin (at 0:25); and, most particularly, Steve McQueen at the height of his fame (1:41).

And speaking of eyes:

Pelosi hangs on

The New Neo Posted on by

It seems that any challenge to Nancy Pelosi’s leadership of the Democrats has faded away.

And the linked article answers a question I’ve been wondering about: is Pelosi’s insistence on staying in power after the Dems’ defeat somewhat unique in recent Speaker history? The answer is “yes:”

Not since Tip O’Neill retired in 1987, now five speakers ago, has there been a graceful and voluntary exit from the big chair at the front of the House chamber. Everyone since, whether giving up the gavel in electoral defeat or scandal, has done the expected thing and disappeared from the Capitol.

Nancy is made of sterner stuff.