|
Why are conservatives attacking Obama, while giving Hillary a pass?
(See further comments from readers below who are very displeased with me on this issue, and my replies.)
The blogger Vanishing American writes:
[Lawrence] Auster has been devoting considerable attention to Obama and his qualities as a candidate. I am nonplussed by Auster’s seemingly somewhat favorable opinion of Obama; he certainly seems to be “praising him with faint damns,” willing to give him much more credit than I would expect to be given a liberal candidate who seems to be a proponent of multiculturalism and the proposition nation.
I like that phrase “praising with faint damns,” which I had never heard before. I admit I’ve been piqued by Obama’s good qualities, not only because he is a fresh and intriguing figure in himself, but, more importantly—and this is the point that Vanishing American and other conservative critics seem to have missed entirely—because he offers an alternative to what had seemed like the Hillary Inevitability. Would the conservatives who are dumping on Obama, would the conservatives who want nothing said about Obama that is not negative, actually prefer that the Dragon Lady be the Democratic nominee and possibly the president, with the Clintons and all the horror that they represent returning to the White House?
- end of initial entry -
Larry G. writes:
“ … the Hillary Inevitability”.
Hillary is inEVITAble.
Mark P. writes:
You wrote:
“Would the conservatives who are dumping on Obama, would the conservatives who want nothing said about Obama that is not negative, actually prefer that the Dragon Lady be the Democratic nominee and possibly the president, with the Clintons and all the horror that they represent returning to the White House?”
In a word, YES!!
Obama’s politics are indistinguishable from Hillary’s. In addition, Obama’s race probably makes it easier for him to pass those liberal policies. A Dragon Lady like Hillary is a target you can fight without being called racist.
Steve Sailer paints a disturbing picture of Obama as a man still “struggling” with his race and angry at whites for the ills of the world. A stealth traitor such as this does not belong in the White House.
Carl Simpson writes:
I think the reason many conservatives have this gut reaction to Obama was summed up by one of VFR’s readers in a previous thread: He’s every bit the one-world utopian statist that Hillary is, but is far better at appearing “moderate” and “reasonable.” Hillary’s scales, by contrast, show through even to some of the otherwise clueless now and again. This naturally makes him a far more dangerous opponent. Of course, I guess a good rejoinder to at least some of these conservatives might be something like: Why can’t you admit that Republicans like Giuliani and Bush are just as dangerous as Obama, and maybe even more so?
Here’s a guy who attends a church that could only be described as black supremacist, yet has every self-hating liberalism-inibriated white person in the country falling all over themselves in and orgy of praise and worship. It’s almost like something out of the Book of Revelation. His record is one of near-nothingness, he has some very questionable ties to Farrakhan’s Nation of Islam (through his “church”) and real Islam (though his stepfather), and George Soros, yet he’s getting all this media promotion with no one out there ever daring to ask a hard question.
Obama is the perfect Manchurian candidate. He will fuel the fires of the anti-racists in a way that Hillary could only dream of. He wouldn’t even have to say or do anything directly to fire them up either! His mere presence in the office of President would be sufficient. It’s not really Obama per se that’s scary, it’s the realization of what anti-racists will do with him at the helm to give what they regard as moral legitimacy for their self-righteous insanity plus the full power of the Federal Security-State leviathan backing them that send a chill down the spine.
My prediction is that he will end up as Hillary’s running mate. I just can’t see the Lizard Queen ever accepting second chair to an upstart like Obama. They will be unbeatable against whatever laughable farce those who own the Republican party plan to run to keep up the appearance that our elections actually mean anything.
David B. writes:
I just read your piece on Steve Sailer’s Obama article. It is much like most of Sailer’s writings. He goes around and around while letting us know how expert he is on the subject of blacks. Sailer is right on one thing. Many white people are desperate to find someone black they can identify with. In my liberal period in college, I was glad to know some black fellow students I could talk to and be friendly with. In adulthood, I had many black acquaintances at my place of work. Many of them would come to me for answers to questions about sports when they learned that I knew a lot about sports history and trivia.
My own case against Obama, if you could call it that, is that he would pursue the same policies as a white liberal. Most white liberals will be for racial preferences, open borders, homosexual “rights,” and the entire cultural liberal agenda. Many white liberals are “anti-white”, as some on the Right say. They try to please their voters (which “conservatives” like GWB do not). Does Mr. Obama give any indication of being any different? Furthermore, he will be cheered on by the media even more than Hillary.
An example of the “anti-white” white liberal is the Durham DA Mike Nifong. He tried very hard to put three white men he had to know were innocent in prison for 30 years. Why was he doing it? In order to pander to blacks. You, yourself, called Nifong “an evil man.”
Regarding Obama’s family history, his version of it is less than truthful. He depicts his father, whom he never knew, as a Great Man fighting against injustice. He was actually very mediocre, at best, which means Obama is giving a false account. What else is he being untruthful about?
Getting back to my above comment about my own interaction with blacks, talking sports is really a common ground. However, I found real racial differences even here. When talking about, for instance, a football game, I might point out that a famous black player had a bad game. Invariably, and I mean invariably, my black friend would start making excuses. “Earl Campbell wasn’t getting any blocking,” I recall from a sports conversation over 25 years ago. This happened all the time. Blacks do not like to admit any faults, or that they have done something wrong. The tendency of blacks to support criminals who assault and murder white people is an example of this you have written about.
I would summarize (again) by saying that Obama would be more harmful than even Hillary Clinton. In a previous email I said that Hillary as President, would stimulate a strong conservative reaction. Obama would be nothing but disastrous, worse for us than Hillary or Edwards. Not the same thing perhaps, but do you remember who used to the most popular sports figure in America? O.J. Simpson. He was just what the media and corporations were looking for.
Alex K. writes:
I think your comments on Obama have been perfectly appropriate. I don’t mind saying that I am annoyed and even saddened by the unfair combination of Obama’s many attractive qualities and his totally unacceptable political record. It’s one thing to have the typical hack time-servers (of both parties, but esp. the Dems) try to force their awful policies on us, but with a guy who it really must be said (so far at least) has the relatively nice points that you’ve mentioned, it’s very frustrating. Plus, imagine if he does win—from the point of view of someone who *likes* his politics, he’s the messiah, so we’ll never hear the end of what a great president we have and once had. It’ll make the liberal memory of JFK look like LBJ.
If, through some incredible political-pressure-induced 180 degree turn of the kind Peter Brimelow often likes to fantasize about, Obama became a hardliner on immigration but otherwise changed none of his politics, I would gladly support him. But I would also consider supporting him if he found a way to reunite the Beatles, which is as likely as his becoming an immigration restrictionist.
Michael Jose writes:
I don’t think that conservatives are “giving Hillary a pass.” They just assume that Hillary’s negatives are already well-known while Obama’s aren’t. Therefore, for those people who will be swing voters in the general election, it is more important to make certain that they are told Obama’s negatives rather than Hillary’s.
Derek D. writes:
Why conservatives are giving Rodham a free pass even as they obsess over Obama’s (real and imagined) offenses is simple: Because the former isn’t even a contender while the latter, as you more often than not so obsequiously observe, has a very real chance at the presidency. Obama is Cicero’s sly whisperer; Hillary betrays her collectivism and contempt for the common man with every snap of her beak.
You continue to maintain that you don’t endorse Obama. This is a position which is becoming increasingly transparent and untenable. Being “fresh and intriguing” and having some “good qualities” doesn’t make him any less of an unapologetic, unmitigated socialist liberal—and therefore, not an option, nor an “alternative.” No argument required. You of all people should know this. Please advise me if I am misinterpreting your views.
LA replies:
If the nominees were Hillary and Giuliani, then the only way this “certain” Hillary defeat that Derek expects could occur would be by Republicans and conservatives voting for Giuliani and making him president. Now, does Derek himself currently plan to vote for Giuliani for president? I know I don’t, just as I did not vote for Dole in ‘96 or for Bush in 2000 and 2004. Since each of us casts our vote under the Kantian assumption that our own vote is the correct vote for everyone, my refusal to vote for Giuliani would mean that I am accepting the election of Hillary, just as, in 2004, I was saying that a Bush defeat, though disastrous for the country in the long run by bringing Kerry to the White House, would be better for the country in the long run. Now up to this point (though it’s entirely possible my mind could change on the subject on the basis of new evidence that comes to my attention, such as is posted at VFR today), my thought has been that a Hillary presidency would be a more horrific event for the country than an Obama presidency, and therefore it would better to have Obama rather than Hillary as the Democratic alternative to Giuliani. This does not mean that I am endorsing or supporting Obama for the presidency. It means that if a Democrat is to be elected in 2008, which is highly possible, my sense has been that Obama would be less horrendous than Hillary.
RWM writes:
You write: “I carry no brief for Obama. I’m completely open to the idea that he is an anti-white ‘race man,’ as many right-wingers keep telling me he is. I just haven’t seen the evidence for it.”
As you know, the burden is on any black to show he is not racist. Moreover, even if this particular candidate were not anti-white, his candidacy should be vigorously opposed because if he wins, the dangerous precedent would be set that “black presidents are just as good as white presidents.” Our historical high regard for the office would end. Knowing what you know , why must you await “evidence” particular to this man? You already know he’s a liberal. Because he’s black, he has more moral authority to berate us on race issues. You know that it is a rare black person who is not anti-white, at least in the political-social realm. What more do you need?
Re your question about why conservatives are focusing on Obama and giving Hillary a pass, from my view, no woman can take the office so long as American women believe the world is dangerous. Besides, they despise this shrill harpy. For these reasons, I don’t see her as a threat in a general election. You might have to leave NYC to see the vehemence of feminine opposition to Hillary.
LA replies:
RWM’s position comes down to this: Even if Obama has said nothing that was anti-white, his race makes him anti-white. Because of his race, I must see no positive qualities in him, period.
Also, Derek and RMD are living in a fantasy land when they assert to positively that Hillary if nominated could not win the presidency. If Hillary is nominated, only one thing could stop her from becoming president: a good Republican candidate who wins more votes than she. There is no certainty that such a Republican will be nominated.
Derek takes a swipe at my residence in New York City. But as a New Yorker, I know something he perhaps doesn’t: that in 2000 Republicans in New York acted as if Hillary’s flaws were so obvious to everyone that she could be easily defeated.
Derek D. writes:
As I suspected, a little pointed criticism of you endorsement-non-endorsement of Obama would raise your hackles.
“Derek takes a swipe at my residence in New York City. “
No Derek doesn’t. I intended no such thing, nor am I clear what you are responding to. I suspect it was my comment that “you should know better”; however that was aimed at your apparent unwillingness—his “good qualities” and charisma, and polished demeanor aside—to refrain from pretending that Obama is, even by a matter of degrees, a lesser evil than Hillary—he’s not, and it had nothing to do with New York City. And furthermore…
“But as a New Yorker, I know something he perhaps doesn’t: that in 2000 Republicans in New York acted as if Hillary’s flaws were so obvious to everyone that she could be easily defeated. “
As a fellow New Yorker (Midwest transplant) it seems I know something you don’t: New York ISN’T America. And “Republicans in New York” speaks for itself.
“Also, Derek and RMD are living in a fantasy land when they assert to positively that Hillary if nominated could not win the presidency. If Hillary is nominated, only one thing could stop her from becoming president: a good Republican candidate who wins more votes than she. There is no certainty that such a Republican will be nominated. “
That one thing that would prevent Hillary from being president is not a good Republican, but Hillary herself. In any event, very little of this had to do with my original criticism of your position (or non-position, whichever you prefer) on Obama, so if your aim was diversion: Bravo. I was simply reacting to—more like my gorge was rising at—your very obvious fawning (please don’t make me express myself in Coulterese) over Obama. If I was unclear before, let me restate my position: Regardless of how sparkly his teeth are or what his position on Iraq is, Obama is in no way preferable to Hillary or McCain or Guiliani or any other nation killer that will raise their head during this contest for the presidency. Granted, one of these foes will win the prized seat; that however doesn’t mean we should invest even a scintilla of support in any of them. And given the fact that Obama is not so much black-and-white as he is Red, I’ll say it again, you should know better.
Respectfully, I am &c.
LA replies:
First, on “swipe,” I was replying to both you and RWM at the same time, I meant to say RWM. Clearly it was a swipe.
Apart from that, I’m not in the mood for dealing with e-mails written in this insulting tone. I’ve replied to your and other arguments on Obama and I am interested in having this discussion. I’m not interested in the hostility in this e-mail, the suggestion that I am engaged in a “diversion,” and all the rest of it. If you re-write this e-mail eliminating the unpleasant tone and focusing on the issues, we can continue the discussion. If not, not.
And please don’t be so dishonest as to say that your signoff, “Respectfully,” cancels out the insulting nature of the rest of the e-mail.
LA continues:
For an example of how conservatives can disagree on this issue without being unnecessarily unpleasant about it, see Vanishing American’s reply to me at his website. Here are two comments I posted at his site:
(First comment)
I appreciate the civil tone of Vanishing American’s disagreement with me on the Obama issue. While his post is too long to reply to in detail, I’d like to make a couple of points.
First, a quibble. I think it is an overstatement to say that I have a “conviction” that Obama would be far less harmful than Hillary. I have a feeling, a sense, an intuition, that he would be less harmful than she, and that sense of things is correctible by further evidence (some of which is posted at VFR today).
Second, Vanishing American writes:
“We have never had a non-white President; it might be an acceptable idea in a truly colorblind world, which of course does not exist. But in our race-obsessed world, Obama would not be held to the same standard; he would be placed above criticism, and I think many people would be reluctant to oppose him or hold him accountable.”
But this is precisely what I fear about Hillary, that she has been made above accountability and criticism, as seen ever since her Senate run in 2000. As I wrote once, she is the living, breathing abolition of politics:
http://www.amnation.com/vfr/arch…ves/ 001527.html
Next, it seems to me that in order to focus on Obama as the worse alternative, conservatives must claim that Hillary would have no chance at all in the general election. In the realm of politics, there is no basis for such certainty. She could win. Therefore conservatives ought to think seriously about which of these two would be worse for the country.
Finally, I respect conservatives’ arguments that Obama because of his race would be more undermining of America than Hillary. I’m not convinced yet that it’s true.
In any case, it will be the Democrats who choose their nominee, not us.
Lawrence Auster | Homepage | 03.17.07—2:41 pm | #
(Second comment)
Here’s a point that occurs to me where there are grounds for believing that Hillary would be more damaging to the country than Obama. Hillary is a dictator type. Since she entered electoral politics, she has “managed” all her appearances to avoid ever facing real questioning. To the extent she could carry it off with media support, she would turn the U.S. government into something like the EU, invisible and unaccountable. Obama does not have the dictatorial, controlling aspect of Hillary. He is affable and rational where she is controlling and robotic. Debate and criticism would remain possible in an Obama administration in a way that it would not be possible in a Hillary administration.
Lawrence Auster | Homepage | 03.17.07—2:51 pm |
LA continues:
Let us also remember a couple of points that will keep this Obama discussion in perspective:
1. Both Hillary and Obama would be very bad for America.
2. The debate about which of them would be worse is speculative.
3. We who are having this discussion have no influence over whom the Democratis will nominate.
4. The only point at which this discussion takes on a practical aspect would be in the general election. Suppose Giuliani is the GOP nominee, and a large number of conservatives plan to withhold their vote from him and vote for a third-party candidate, which could possibly tilt the election to the Democrats. Now, if these conservatives withhold their vote from Giuliani regardless of who the Democratic nominee is, then our present debate about Obama versus Hillary would continue to have no practical consequences. However, suppose these abstaining conservatives plan to withhold their vote from Giuliani only in the event that Hillary is the nominee, because they do not mind Hillary very much, but fear Obama so much that they would given in and vote for Giuliani if Obama were the nominee? Alternatively, suppose these conservatives plan to withhold their vote from Giuliani only in the event that Obama is the nominee, because they do not mind Obama very much, but fear Hillary so much that they would give in and vote for Giuliani if Hillary were the nominee? In either of the two latter scenarios, there could well be a bitter debate among conservatives. But we are very far from that point now, and it may never arise.
Therefore, for the present, we can have this discussion in the cool light of contemplative reason.
RWM writes:
You said:
RWM’s position comes down to this: Even if Obama has said nothing that was anti-white, his race makes him anti-white. Because of his race, I must see no positive qualities in him, period.
Also, Derek and RMD are living in a fantasy land when they assert to positively that Hillary if nominated could not win the presidency. If Hillary is nominated, only one thing could stop her from becoming president: a good Republican candidate who wins more votes than she. There is no certainty that such a Republican will be nominated.
[RWM] takes a swipe at my residence in New York City. But as a New Yorker, I know something he perhaps doesn’t: that in 2000 Republicans in New York acted as if Hillary’s flaws were so obvious to everyone that she could be easily defeated.
Truly, I was making a point about NYC. So you know, I check your site regularly through the week, and I prize your views. What I meant was, this particular manifestation of feminine opposition is seen on the street, not on the blogs. From what I have seen, women react to Hillary in a way that to men appears to be some form of extreme “cattiness,” which is not to say that the sentiment is weak. It is something that in itself transcends partisanship or ideology. I am most surprised to receive this reaction from avowed Democrat voters, who are unable satisfactorily to articulate the basis of their opposition. Based on this, I was shocked that Hillary was elected to the Senate. Either my first impression was incorrect about women and Hillary, or there is something unique about New York. Based on the fact that Hillary selected New York (to whic h she formerly had no connection) as her place of “residence” from which to run, I think she perceived something unique about New York, too. So my sincere remark to you about NYC was that based on my observations from afar, it MAY be the case that you have not been able to see this non-partisan reaction from women, as it might not exist as such there. However, your point is well taken that the Republican field is yet so weak, and the base is so fed up (particularly over immigration, I believe), that a Hillary victory is possible.
I am troubled at your characterization of my views of Obama as a black candidate. I most certainly did not state or imply that you cannot find any positive qualities about him because he is black. I was specifically addressing your statement that conservatives have no “evidence” that he is anti-white. To me this is a marvelous position, which prompted me to write (usually I am content to learn). Perhaps I was too glib, but my point is that there is plenty of evidence, if you do not insist on viewing this particular black candidate in a vacuum. What would you do if you continued to hold your views, but were a black candidate? Would you remain silent on the issue of race, or would you vigorously seek to demonstrate that you are not anti-white? It is not only fair to say, but nearly certain that if a black candidate does not affirmatively distinguish himself from the pervasive anti-white sentiment held by blacks, he embraces it. I know that you have noted the tendency to hysterical groupthink among blacks (witness O.J., Katrina). It is absolutely the burden of any black candidate to demonstrate he is not anti-white, because absent specific and strong evidence to the contrary, the probability is overwhelming that he is. You ignored the link I sent you. It lists the afro-centric and necessarily anti-white ideological basis of Obama’s church. I remain surprised that you believe you have no evidence that Obama is anti-white (if that is what you meant by a “race man”). It may be mostly circumstantial (and what is not, absent statements directly on point?), but it is strong.
LA replies:
I didn’t include your link to Obama’s church because it was’t referred to in the text of your comment, and because I have already linked it and discussed it in the past. Here it is again.
You write: “It is absolutely the burden of any black candidate to demonstrate he is not anti-white, because absent specific and strong evidence to the contrary, the probability is overwhelming that he is.”
This completely ignores the fact that he has repeatedly distingished himself from racial thinking, calling himself a universalist as distinguished from others (the implication is blacks) who emphasize race. Maybe his non-racial words and demeanor are not enough to satisfy you or me, and maybe they are hypocritical given various aspects of his record, and maybe he needs to say a lot more; and certainly someone is going to have to hold his feet to the fire on his church membership and what it means. But to act as if Obama has said nothing to distinguish himself from black anti-white attitudes and is presumptively anti-white is incorrect. After all, it’s the absence in him of any overt or subliminal racial message that is one of his main appeals.
The first concrete evidence I have seen that he is anti-white, from his own words and actions, and not from speculation relating to his race or his church membership, is the tv interview that reader KPA brought to my attention today. For Obama to indicate, by his silence and his demeanor, agreement with his wife’s statement that blacks are in danger from white violence in America, when the truth is just the oppostite, is very bad. However, to restore some context here, what white Democrat would have reacted differently? If the Clintons were being interviewed and Bill said what Mrs. Obama said, would Hillary disagree with Bill? For that matter, what white conservative Republican would disagree with Mrs. Obama? In order to disagree with her, the conservative would have to point out the truths about race and crime in America, and NO mainstream politician, Democrat or Republican, ever does that. Seen in this light, are we still sure that Obama’s anti-white atttitudes and assumptions are any worse than anyone else’s in mainstream American politics?
Race-conscious conservatives who are especially exercised over Obama’s presumed anti-whiteness keep forgetting that liberalism, including anti-whiteness, is the ruling ideology of the whole modern Western world.
It seems to me that the deeper and more difficult question we need to discuss, the question that gets at the real concern of pro-white Western civilization conservatives, is this: Assuming for the sake of argument the very best about Obama and race, assuming he has no anti-white aspect at all, even assuming he is not a leftist, what would be the impact on American national consciousness, culture, and politics of having a non-white as president? If Obama were the greatest guy in the world, would his presidency still be more harmful to America and the white West than the presidency of a white anti-American feminist harpy would-be dictator married to a treasonous and morally depraved ex-president?
Carl Simpson writes:
I think I’m going to have to agree at least somewhat with RWM here. Obama’s so-called church is basically nothing more than a re-packaging of the Nation of Islam’s anti-white ideology in “Christian” (liberation theology and social gospel) terms. The burden of proof is therefore upon him to disassociate himself from the black supremacist leftist ideology preached by his spiritual mentor. By associating himself with this organization, Obama has already made a de-facto statement of his opinion of whites and their responsibility for the dysfunction, lawlessness, mayhem and evil of blacks not only in America, but the entire world. (Not that any white—even so-called conservatives—would ever dream of questioning him bluntly about this issue—it’s just not permitted in the kabuki that passes for political debate here.)
As stated in my earlier post, I think an Obama presidency would likely unleash the forces of anti-racism, which you have described in great detail for your outstanding Frontpage article “Anti-racism—the Mailed Fist of Multiculturalism,” in a way that the Lizard Queen would possibly not be able to. An Obama win will virtually guarantee a fast-track for tax-payer funded reparations for slavery—complete with the Republicans jumping on the bandwagon. I also beginning to think that Giuliani also might be worse than the LQ, albeit for different reasons. Even so, at the end of the day, what we’re discussing here are the relative virtues of cyanide vs. sarin nerve gas vs. a .45 ACP to the back of the skull. It hardly matters. All three (Obama, Giuliani, and the Lizard Queen) hate traditional America, believe in destroying what’s left of the place through open borders, gun control, the sodomite agenda, the NAU, rule by judicial fiat, etc., etc., etc. Dhimmitude is appearing more survivable (ultimately the only thing that matters) every single day.
As always, an extremely interesting discussion that is to be found nowhere else on the web.
LA replies:
I affirm that Obama must be required to give a full accounting of the meaning of his membership in that church, and that he must be asked hard questions about his views on questions such as reparations. But I would suggest that, instead of our side saying things like, “Obama’s anti-white,” a statement for which I continue to believe there is no hard evidence (that is, in any sense beyond the sense in which all liberals in today’s world are anti-white), our side would do better to use language along the lines of,
“Obama belongs to a church with an anti-white racial ideology. In the absence of strong statements and actions by him to the contrary, possibly including his dissociation of himself from that church, it must assumed he shares that ideology, and therefore is unqualified to be president of the United States.”
Carl Simpson writes:
Your phrasing is exactly how I think the question should be put. I dare any big name conservative commentator to ask this—even rhetorically. My bet is that this will not take place. Instead, the mainstream conservatariat will grasp at various Islamic straws from Obama’s background in a lame attempt to cast doubt on Mr. Affability. They’ll be labeled racists regardless, so why not ask the hard questions point blank?
Derek D. continues in e-mails to make personal complaints about me, including the charge that I have been suppressing a true discussion about Obama, but mixed with his complaints he actually makes a substantive point on the issue at hand that is worth posting. He writes:
The focus in this discussion has overwhelming been on whether Obama is anti-white, on racial consciousness issues. These are perfectly valid, of course, but as I pointed out previously this argument should not be so much about black-and-white as about red; and as Obama is unabashedly socialist in political mien, whether or not Hillary will wreck America in less time than he, is irrelevant. There is not a candidate for the presidency, (thus far, or even that will be permitted to emerge), that will lead this country to the place where it needs to go.
What I am trying to say is that pretending there is any real value in a choice between even a lesser of two evils is just that, an illusion. What we don’t already know about Obama, we can infer conclusively from his rhetoric—the man is not an option. And, again, as I pointed out before, whereas one of these nation killers will be elected, we as a people shouldn’t feel the slightest bit obligated to make even the most insignificant show of support for one or the other simply because their ascendancy is inevitable. A stand—even a failed one—is what is required now, not grudging compliance. Otherwise the Behemoth will continue to trudge along, gorging itself on the middle class, stamping out the traditional values and political traditions of America; and whereas we might still be able to pride ourselves on our civic responsibility, casting votes for individuals for the sake of casting votes will have accomplished nothing save our own dissolution as a nation.
Ed L. writes:
Obama has been flippantly dismissive of the experience question. On election day next year, he will have had only 1/3 as much experience in government as Quayle had in 1988. When asked about this, Obama demurred and remarked that Lincoln ostensibly had similarly little “experience” before assuming the presidency.
This is the sort of inane wise-guy analogy that neo-conservatives are wont to make. Lincoln and the Civil War lie completely outside the scope of all contemporary living memory; it has zero relevance for modern times and is wholly inappropriate.
LA replies:
I don’t see how it’s inane and wise-guy. It’s a fair and reasonable point and one that you would expect a person in Obama’s situation to use. Lincoln, one of our most prominent presidents, had less experience in high public office than any other president, a total of one term in the House ten years previously.
What Obama leaves out is that Lincoln attained national prominence because of his outstanding leadership on the spread-of-slavery issue, not because he had a good personality and a good speaking voice.
What could be argued is wise-guy and flippant is not his response to the question about his shortage of experience or of any demonstrated leadership or accomplishment, but rather his very decision to run for president given his lack of experience. That he would presume to be ready to be president, given that lack, ought to make people question his readiness to lead.
In trying to understand Obama’s own motivations, I think he has a lot of confidence in himself, and in his ability to deal with people and gain their support, and I think that’s why he thinks he can be president. From his point of view, it’s not a matter of how much experience he’s had in office, but of his exceptional “smoothness” and self-confidence. He feels he can handle anything. But has he ever handled anything?
Of course, these conventional political musings are silly and irrelevant from the point of view of the larger concerns that conservatives have about him.
LA writes:
In response to Derek D.’s comment, I don’t think anyone here is contemplating voting for Obama. Derek says that no one on the right should make the slightest gesture of preference for Hillary or Obama. I respect that point and acknowledge that Derek’s position on this may be better than mine and that perhaps at some point I will see that he is correct. But at the moment I do not see things that way. My position is, if I have negative things to say about Obama that I think are interesting or useful to say, I will say them; if I have positive things to say about him that are interesting or useful to say, I will say them. I am not a member of a party and I am not going to subject my thoughts and my speech to a party line.
RB writes:
No one has dared consider the behavior of Obama’s eccentric mother. She apparently had, to put the matter delicately, a fixation with marrying non-white Muslims from the third world. Before the powers that be inflicted the present occupant of the White House on us, we had a president raised by a dysfunctional mother. He was young and very charismatic and fooled a lot of people into thinking that he was a new moderate Democrat with empathy for all—even the white working class. However, instead of minding the store he spent most of his time exorcising his childhood demons in a series of affairs with and harassments of female staff members. The result was that China obtained our sensitive military technology and our Islamic enemies, having murdered Americans a number of times with impunity, were allowed to roam the country freely plotting and training for their next attack.
What might we expect of President Obama?
Posted by Lawrence Auster at March 16, 2007 02:21 PM | Send
|