(4/13: A commenter gives an interesting example of the anti-Obama triumphalism.)
Note to mainstream conservative establishment: you have got to stop this constant excited overstatement of every little indication that Obama’s popularity is dropping. Thus in a piece by David Freddoso in the Washington Examiner today, the headline is:
Obama’s numbers in a post-healthcare tailspin?Excuse me, but a tailspin means that an airplane is out of control and is rapidly descending to the earth where it will crash and everyone on board will be killed.
Yet the actual news reported in the body of Freddoso’s article is that Obama’s approval rating is in the mid 40s. Listen, I think it ought to be 30. It ought to be 20. But it’s not. It’s 45. And the reality is that an approval rating of 45 is not a disaster for a president. It is common.
Conservatives’ opposition to Obama and his program has got to consist of opposition to Obama and his program. It must not consist of conservative media figures masturbating each other at the thought of how Obama is doomed, doomed, doomed, he’s in free fall, the American people have turned against him, he has a terrible personality, everyone hates him, the Democrats are facing to a shattering defeat in November …
Turn on Hannity, and that’s what you see. He’s not informing his viewers, he’s jerking them into a hyped-up emotional state about how Obama is doomed, doomed, doomed. Conservatives have got to do better than this.
(Even some L-dotters are criticizing on the conservative anti-Obama hype.)
Michael M. writes:
From time to time, I comment on the message board of David Goldman, who of course used to write under the pseudonym “Spengler” for the Asia Times (it persists at First Things, but it feels like its time has passed).LA replies:
His first point is inapposite because the loss of Obama’s former popularity is now at least eight months old. It’s an old story. Yet notwithstanding the loss of his former popularity he’s still in power, still doing all kinds of things. Someone who pushed through the health care bill after everyone thought it was dead, against the will of the country, and by using legislative tricks never seen before is hardly an ineffectual leader. He’s imposing his will on one thing after another. That’s ineffectual? That’s the “end of Obamunism”? Maybe Obamunism will be ended after January 3 when a new Congress is seated, but until then the Obamunists are wreaking as much damage on the country as they can. To be chortling in victory when all these terrible things are going on certainly evinces a state of triumphalist delusion. How about waiting until AFTER the hoped for Democratic electoral disaster occurs before doing a sack dance? No. Republicans and mainstream conservatives always do a sack dance BEFORE they have won, in the mere anticipation that they are going to win. This is a phenomenon I have written about over and over.Michael M. replies:
I believe the “don’t dish it out if you can’t take it” was a thrust against the imagined opposition, and was intended to portray the triumphalist stance as a political necessity, even if it was not justified by the facts (i.e., the 46% approval rating). In this way of looking at things, liberals under George W. Bush behaved so poorly and luridly that any criticism of Obama is now justified, and any method of making him appear weak and ridiculous is a strategic requirement.LA replies:
Do you mean that he was seeing you (and me) as being on the left, because you (and I) were criticizing the anti-Obama triumphalism?
Posted by Lawrence Auster at April 12, 2010 12:10 PM | Send