Why We Shouldn’t Oppose Obama
Several decades ago, the incumbent governor of a Southern state was visited during his reelection campaign by a poor mother, three young children in tow. The woman asked the governor to please pardon her husband who was doing time in state prison. The governor saw a chance to win a vote and maybe some time on the evening news, so he asked the woman what her husband had been jailed for. “Stealing a pig,” she said. The governor then inquired, “Was your man a good father and a good husband?” She answered, “No, he beat me all the time and scared the children!” “Than why in the world would you want him released?!” the governor exclaimed. “Well,” the woman replied, “we are out of pork again.”
Unfortunately we conservatives reveal our lack of political principle in the way we oppose a candidate like Barack Obama. Anything seems to go in the hurly-burly of current politics. Perhaps this tendency is the natural result of the anonymity offered by the internet or the direct proportion between inflamatory language and the likelihood of being heard.
Not all the blame can be shifted to yellow journalism. News outlets dig up and report sensational stories because they sell…the consumer is as much to blame as Al Franken or Rupert Murdoch. So what reasons have conservatives articulated to explain their opposition to Barack Obama?
I have heard people scoff at his slogan/book title, The Audacity of Hope. A conversation with a friend about Barack’s claim to epitomize a new path for America went something like this: “Obama only offers hope to inner city crack dealers and welfare moms.”
Now, I don’t personally know many welfare moms or crack dealers, but I’m pretty sure the groups aren’t synonymous. Also, it is hard to argue against “hope.” I might as well try and argue against apple pie, babies, and global peace. But the fact that Obama chose a fuzzy feeling vague slogan to rally his peeps with is not a reason to oppose his candidacy. Remember Bush and his “Compassionate Conservatism?” Anywho, I rather doubt that Barack woke up one morning, rolled out of bed, and said, “You know Michelle, I think I’ll focus my campaign on drug dealers and poor mothers.” When you actually listen to the (few) details of Obama’s platform, he proposes tax cuts aimed at the working poor and the middle class.
Another way of stirring opposition is to go ad hom on Mr. Obama. One day someone spreads an internet rumor that little Barack was educated in a radical Islamic madrassa. The next time a picture of Obama in traditional Islamic garb is floated on Drudgereport. Let me put it simply; I despise these dirty tricks. Unfortunately conservatives tend to protest loudly when unfair accusations are leveled at their candidates (remember the Bush DUI scandal right before the 2000 election), but are willing to acquiesce to similar attacks on liberal reputations.
Recently another avenue of attack has been presented. The Reverend Jeremiah Wright, Obama’s spiritual mentor, was revealed to have made some comments that were as inane as Fox News’s coverage of Anna Nichole Smith. Why should Wright’s admittedly idiotic comments impact our opposition to Obama? Once you get past Wright’s incindiery language, he is only purporting the same government-backed social justice movement as most liberals. I don’t think that a candidate’s pastor should be a significant factor in our opposition.
So why should we oppose Barack Obama? There are two criteria that are useful in determing whether a candidate would make a good President: 1) His character. 2) His ideology.
In all the talk we have heard about Obama recently, his character, as yet, has remained largely inviolate. He has not been accused of anything more than the usual level of dishonesty found among politicians, and unless his connections to a shady former Chicago associate are substantiated, Obama seems a pretty decent guy. So, my opposition to Obama is not based upon any major flaw in his personal integrity.
I believe Barack Obama would make a poor President because of his ideology. During his time in Illinois politics and in the US Senate, Obama has proven his hardcore liberal positions. Obama would raise the tax burden for those most responsible for creating wealth and stimulating the economy while increasing the size and expense of government. He has said he would quickly pull all American soldiers out of Iraq. He supports national healthcare insurance, affirmative action, and a form of the Kyoto treaty. He opposes privatizing social security and expanding free trade.
These are substantial reasons to oppose Obama’s candidacy. So why do we spend the overwhelming majority of our time discussing the incidental? I am sick of hearing about his wife, his pastor, and his image. Let’s talk policy for once.
If more people were willing to look at the candidates, their records, their positions, their agendas, and their actual words, we might have intelligent voting. I disagree with some of Sen. Obama’s positions, but not all of them. I believe they deserve honest evaluation, just like Sen. Clinton’s and Sen. McCain’s do.
Jeni read Sen. Obama’s book and was glad that she did. She appreciated it on many levels, from a purely literary perspective to an insight into the senator.
Eric
No, no, and no. You (and Jess) don’t put the candor in the cupboard when I express my political opinions, and I won’t do the same when you express yours.
You love analogies, so here’s one.
Scenario 1: a kid in the science department at Temple walks up to you and says, “The earth is a billion years old.” Surely, you would respond kindly to this kid. Nonetheless, you would employ both sound logic and raw scientific data to crush his assertion.
Scenario 2: the same kid walks up to Joe Christian and makes the same claim about the earth. To the kid’s statement, Joe Christian replies, “No, it ain’t. The Bible says it ain’t, and that’s good enough for me, and that should be good enough for you.”
Who is right, you or Joe? Well, both of you are. You two simply answered the same question differently. Your response appears to have been more appropriate/relevant than Joe’s, and it probably would have been more effective. Regardless, both responses are valid, his even more absolutely than yours.
Now take the uneducated person’s claims against B. Hussein. They differ in rhyme and reason, and most exaggerate. However, for the most part, the quips from the uneducated contain a great deal of truth, some more than others. Sure, I’m not going to whip one out in a debate with one of B. Hussein’s supporters, but I’m not going to reject them wholesale either. There’s a certain point that I’ve emphasized a thousand times, especially in my defenses of Ann Coulter: style is NOT the same as substance.
Briefly, the label “compassionate conservative” is no more than a label that worked for Bush. It’s not a bad piece of propaganda, but it’s nothing more. In the same way, B. Hussein’s theme of “hope” is silly. Look at me. I’m a white, Christian, conservative law student. Do you think B. Hussein offers me any hope? No. Of course, do I even need hope? Good question, and no. So who needs hope? Say it. The inner-city crack dealers and the welfare moms are the ones looking for hope, right? The uneducated aren’t as stupid as they sound.
Finally, what we know about Jeremiah Wright is significant because we know little about B. Hussein. We know that he has the “most liberal” voting record in the senate (quasi-socialist), that his wife has never in her adult life been proud to be an American until her husband came on the scene (arrogant, at the least), and that his pastor is as radically anti-American as they come (divisive).
You can tell a lot about a person by looking at his friends. If your friends say a lot about you, then what does your wife say about you? What about your spiritual mentor and pastor of 20 years? If B. Hussein isn’t as radical as conservatives make him out to be, then why does he surround himself with those who are? I don’t need to answer that question because you know my answer.
Yes, B. Hussein’s ideology says a lot about him. But you’re missing the forest. You look at his voting record as though it’s the sole indication of his ideology. I would argue, most adamantly, that it isn’t. I believe that there is a lot more we can know about even an unknown like B. Hussein if we examine the choices he’s made, both on and off the floor of the Senate.
Tim, I think you’re helping to make Paul’s point. Using “B. Hussein” rather than the candidate’s last name is an ad hominem argument, and a transparent one at that.
It seems a little odd for someone to imply that it’s mainly “inner-city crack dealers and the welfare moms” that are hoping for change or that what Obama offers would be of interest only to them. Of the issues Obama says he wants to change, most deal with the kind of macroscopic problems that Americans are concerned about: a recent poll shows that Americans rank the economy, Iraq, and health care as their top three concerns, all of which are regular themes of Obama’s speeches.
Of course that doesn’t mean either that Obama proposes good solutions or that he would be capable of implementing those solutions, but what he talks about changing are subjects not just of interest to crack dealers and welfare moms. In fact, sometimes his proposals do seem to line up with what Americans say they want: another recent poll shows that 93% of Americans think it’s a big problem that millions of their fellow-citizens are uninsured, and a majority would support health insurance for all children, with about an even split on universal health insurance. Another survey from this month shows that 63% of Americans think the war in Iraq was not worth fighting, which puts most in agreement with Obama.
Thanks for the post. It brings to the surface a question I keep hearing over and over in moderate evangelical circles: what does a Christian do when the opposition’s decorum seems more Christian? I must admit that we currently (I speak for today, not tomorrow) face a political race between a very gentile/decorous (very) liberal politician (as politicians go) and a kind-of-gentile (kind of) conservative politician. I’m grieved to say too many moderate evangelical friends find this an impassable dilemma.
Why? Previous elections were successfully painted with clean—if excessively—concrete lines: evil/boorish man v. angel of light. The opposition not only stood for anemic policies but managed to prove less-than-decorous human beings as well (thus, conservatives and Christians felt [unjustly?] justified in publicly stripping these candidates of personal dignity). I fear that this probable yet often fallacious dichotomy will deprive an upcoming generation of voters from developing strong policy consciousness/discernment.
Again, the original question—what is a Christian to do—torments evangelical voters more than one might wish to believe. I cannot help but wonder if this would be less of a dilemma if more efforts were placed on attacking Obama’s positions rather than his dignity/person. For most Christians, an open evaluation of Obama’s policy/voting records is sufficient cause for disapproval. More than ever, we need to: (a) keep the arguments on a policy level when possible and (b) prevent our own decorum from proving more “conservative” than Christian.
My comment is at best only tangential to the post. But I want to take a little bit of an issue with something Timmy argued. Mainly that “style is not the same as substance.”
By the way, I would prefer the word “content” over “substance” as the latter seems to be make an already determined (positive) conclusion regarding the content. But substance works too. Not a big deal…
I think to create a dichotomy between style and substance is at least imprecise, if not erroneous. I believe that while style is not technically the same as substance it will ALWAYS affect the substance (content). Your choice of style has the ability to strenghten and/or undermine your message. Recent illustration…
Emergent church is a big deal. Mark Driscoll is emergent. He speaks at John Piper’s church and says that he holds all the major core doctrines in his right hand (the “fundamentals)-he holds them tenaciously and would essentially die for them. All the rest (ministerial philosophy, evangelism techniques, worship styles, etc) are in his left hand-he holds these loosely and essentially believes “whatever works/anything goes.” (thus, he’ll go to a gay western cowboy bar to witness, curse in the pulpit, etc.) John Piper gets up after his message and says that one thing Driscoll is discounting is that what he holds in his left hand will AFFECT what he is holding in his right hand. In other words, some of his style may undermine the substance of his message-the Gospel.
I think he was right on, and that this applies to your comment. I believe that Paul’s reply to the Temple geek is superior, because the manner in which he chose to respond supports and strengthens his claim. Joe Christian’s chose of style to communicate the truth does nothing to support his claim, and I would argue, undermines it. The inherent truth claim is not falsified, but it is lost for Temple Geek. Rendered ineffective by Joe Christian’s manner of communicating.
I would contend the same holds true for Anne Coulter. I would acknowledge that technically of course, there is not a one for one equivalence between her style and substance, but I would maintain that her style affects her substance to such a strong degree that her point is often lost.
There is also a pragmatic reason to avoid attacking Obama below the belt. Obama’s speech today ended up making him look more gracious than ever while conservatives are left playing in the muck.
Timmy, the realization that “Compassionate Conservatism” and “Audacious Hope” mean nothing is precisely my point. If our opposition to Obama centers on his sweeping but empty rhetoric than we have missed what really matters: his core beliefs.
I agree that Obama is liberal, but his version of tired liberalism is rather out-dated, not radical…unless you think DOS is still cool. He promotes the same knee jerk governmental intervention that went out of style after Johnson’s “Great” Society. I do not doubt his sincere desire to help people, he is just choosing the wrong path to do so.
I think Lincoln and Dave summed up the style/substance rebuttal pretty nicely. I would only add that I like to hold my friends and allies to a higher standard in political dialogue. True discussion is meant to persuade someone to agree or sympathize with your point of view. Being nasty only alienates your opponents…and gets millions of people to listen to your radio spots and Foxnews Network guest appearances.
I understand your argument about knowing a man based on his company and I cede it to you, up to a point. What you say would be true if we were actually learning anything useful about his wife and his pastor.
All we have learned is that several years ago the Rev. Wright said some inflamatory things. If we took a few comments out of context [or even in context for that matter] that some of the Dr. Bob’s have made over the years would we have an accurate indication of their core beliefs? So I’m inclined to give Wright a pass.
Also, Michelle Obama recently commented that she has not been proud of America until now [that her husband is doing well in the campaign]. Her people essentially later said she mispoke, which is not unbelievable; with the amount of public speaking candidates and their wives do it is unsurprising that they get caught saying nuffy things on tape every once in a while. And even if she meant to say that I don’t find it unreasonable for a liberal to complain about the course of America over the past two decades. Michelle reached adulthood in 1982…a hardcore liberal finds little to commend from the past 25 years (Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush).
A few things, but before I commence, I’d like to throw a thought. I’m basically echoing what is being written by the premier conservative commentators (Thomas Sowell, David Limbaugh, and Brent Bozell, to name a select few). And yet, conservatives have disagreed with my (and Sowell’s, Limbaugh’s, Bozell’s, Malkin’s, etc.) conclusions. I’m just waiting for Lincoln to slip and say that he’s happy Elian Gonzalez is back in Cuba with his dad. Well, make your own conclusions. Not an argument; just an interesting thought.
Quickly, I didn’t spell out the style v. substance argument because I thought it would be understandable, considered, and then agreed upon. Apparently, and depressingly, it was not.
First, substance is the same as content. Sure, the words “substance” and “content” COULD carry different meanings, but if I’m using them interchangeably, then WHY does that even matter?
First def. of “substance”: that of which a thing consists.
First def. of “content”: something that is contained.
(The above is a completely unnecessary argument. It could have been assumed, should have been assumed, but was purposely disregarded. Why? I don’t know.)
Moving on, style can affect substance, but only quantitatively. This should be understandable on face, but I’ll elaborate. First def. of “affect”: to produce an effect or change in. If I have a sermon, written out word-for-word, it doesn’t matter if I scream it, sing it, or whisper it—I’m saying the same thing. Until I affect/change/modify the actual content/substance/words of what I’m saying, you can disagree only with HOW I’m preaching, not with WHAT I’m preaching. (I know what you’re thinking, and the paragraph that begins “I will concede” is where, I believe, you’ll find satisfaction).
Furthermore, the Piper analogy does not apply because it illustrates rather than argues. Logic demands that we don’t derive our premises from our conclusions. You can’t just conclude that style is the same as substance and prove it by giving an illustration of someone who also concludes that style is the same as substance. Using the definitions we’re working with, that person’s style isn’t really style, and it’s deceiving to term it as such. His style (curse words in a sermon) is actually his substance (the substance of his sermon).
The only way style can affect substance is quantifiably. A style that is concise contrasts with a style that is long-winded. Obviously, the rambler will say more than the conciser (aside: the word “conciser” is not yet an actual word; sadly, until it becomes a word, “rambler” will be left all alone, without a synonym). However, it does not follow that because he says more, he will say something qualitatively different from you. He COULD, but it would not result from his rambling. Rather, it would result from his affecting the substance of his message.
I will concede that one’s style can effect (the verb) different results, but I already ceded this in my previous post (e.g., Paul’s response to the Temple kid would be more appropriate, relevant, and effective than Joe’s). Nonetheless, I thought it necessary to repeat this point because I think this is what you all are advocating. So there you go.
At this point, I’m going to quote David Crabb, but only to show that he and I are actually on the same page. “Joe Christian’s choice of style to communicate the truth does nothing to support his claim, and I would argue, undermines it.” Absolutely. To elaborate, Joe’s response isn’t relevant and, as a result, Joe not only won’t connect with the Temple kid, but also will put up a wall between himself and the Temple kid. This is why style is important, and that’s a truth that got lost in translation, so I’ll emphasize: STYLE MATTERS. Style effects reactions, so what good is substance is its effect is lost by its poor style?
Perhaps that paragraph is EXACTLY my point in this entirely too lengthy post: it appears that all of you wish to disagree with me, but the substance of your posts is entirely supportive of my own positions. Except for Paul. He’s simply crazy. Chapter 22 of My Good Friend Paul will be entitled “Crazy Paul.”
To Paul: Would that you were true to your history heart. Just tell the story as it is. Yes, Obama’s speech was a theatrical masterpiece; that’s a fact. So why do you follow it by claiming that conservatives are “playing in the muck”? You sound like a reporter from the NY Times, and that’s a fact.
Further, empty rhetoric says a lot about a person, primarily that he lacks substance. I choose to oppose Obama for precisely that reason because, tangentially, it speaks volumes about his character (deceptive) and his ideology (unknown).
Your agreeing with David’s and Lincoln’s responses to the style v. substance debate simply confirms that you, in fact, agree with me. You know, man, it’s good to hold ourselves and our friends to a higher standard than others, but it gets dangerous when you come across sounding one-sided. Yes, conservatives say a lot of stupid things, but if you consistently lambaste conservatives (and support John McCain) and leave liberals alone (which you have), people are going to start to wonder if you have turned to the left. Of course, all you’d have to do is write another hagiography, this time on Jim Berg, and everyone would realize that you’re still all right.
Finally, do NOT compare any of the Dr. Bobs to Wright. To be frank, that’s second-class. Dr. Bob might have said some stupid stuff, but it doesn’t even get close to the idiocy and radicalism of Wright. As crazy as Dr. Bob may have been, he never preached anything remotely similar to Wright’s “God damn America!” sermon. You can’t just dole out free passes to liberals and not to conservatives. Additionally, you excuse Wright and Michelle for no good reason; although they neither justified nor retracted their comments, you would choose to ignore the comments. Why? Because you, Paul Matzko, are certain that they didn’t really mean what they said. Surprise, kiddo! Sometimes people use the vehicle of speech to express how they feel. Imagine that.
And, lastly, I shall dispose of Lincoln Mullen, because he is my friend.
Lincoln, your comment is backwards. Through it, you evidence a despicable western prejudice, bordering on elitism. It would seem that you have a problem with Obama’s middle name, which happens to be quite popular in the Middle East. Certainly, Dr. Lewis taught you to be tolerant of those unlike yourself, those with different names and from different cultures. After all, not everyone can be named after a famous American president
. . . only kidding, but it was fun to write.
“Style” is important for a Christian. We are commanded to point out sin, but we are told to do it love, to examine our own lives for sin, to not allow our good to be evil spoken of. God is very clear that He has a way He wants things done. “Style” is also important because it often is the mere outgrowth of our true feelings and motivations. My youngest daughter was downtown a few months ago and ran into a man holding a sign God
Abhors
You
He was clear in his condemnation of homosexuality. My daughter also views homosexuality Biblically. When she attempted to engage him in conversation on the matter, all he wanted to do was to vehemently denounce the filth that was walking around downtown.(filth being his characterization) She came away from the encounter saddened by the realization that the man’s whole purpose was to rail against the evil doers, and not to lead them to the Saviour. This man’s “style” exposed his substance.
I would suggest looking into Aristotle’s Rhetoric for better insight into the style versus substance argument.
Barring that, you could of course look at my thee part series on rhetoric and Obama (where Obama is simply representative sample of all politicians).
There is no denying that conservatives are far more skilled at and use far more often the politics of personal destruction–even on their own kind. Need I remind my old friends at Bob Jones how a certain professor helped pushpollers destroy McCain in 2000 by perpetuating a baseless story about him having “sired” an illegitimate—wait for it—black baby. To deny this rot in the foundation of conservative politics is cognitive dissonance at best an utter dishonesty at worst.
But I happen to think this is simply the nature of politics, and I don’t dare have the audacity of hope that it will ever be different.
Paul, I hope you’re doing well, by the way—all the best from your Webelos hiking companion of yore.
Paul, awesome post. I am a huge Obama fan, democrat, liberal yadda yadda and found this post through Tim’s facebook (we go to school together). So I bet you don’t get much of us Yankee, New Yorker, democrat, liberal Italians posting on here, so here you go:
I felt the biggest problem with the Wright controversy is that people are using guilt by association in order to perform a political assassination, and it isn’t just some conservatives or fox news. Watching some of the blogs on Politico, Democrats, Hillary supporters, are doing the SAME thing. As a Democrat I find it disgusting. Look, if you are part of my party the only thing that will be important once the nominee is elected will be defeating John McCain, who i respect, however wouldn’t vote for because of his aligning with Bush’s policies, some of which he used to oppose.
I find that this Wright controversy has done the awful thing of making Barack into the “black” candidate and has scared some whites, which i feel is an unfortunate view into racism and ignorance being at a higher level than thought before.
I also felt that his speech on Tuesday was a remarkably candid response to race. One that has never been said out in the open by a politician and I believe Barack is probably the only politician that could have said what he has, because he is African-American and in a remarkable presidential race. What he also did was remind America that he is also white, raised by whites, and that he has more of a balanced view on race than most Americans can.
Unfortunately, for some, Obama not throwing his pastor under the bus, lighting him on fire and then blowing him up with a hand grenade means that he, of course, agrees with the pastor’s anti-American views, instead of looking at what Wright said. Wright is a man of God, who brought Obama to the church, yet he is a man of contradiction. He is an African American born out of the Civil Rights movement with a social view that white America just cannot understand (no matter how much people like me may say we do). Obama loves the man for his religion, but vehemently disagrees with his social views and I, and others, respect the fact that he cannot disown him.
I myself, have or had, plenty of racist older relatives, who I love but thought some of their views were disgusting.
When it comes to the election, if Obama is the nominee, I know that McCain will not bring up Wright and will stick to the issues. The “swift-boat” groups, however, are a different unfortunate story. I feel that when conservatives put the kind of spin on this story that you have mentioned, it displays racism and breeds an ignorance of people to be caught up in what is being said without a broad look at its context and the fact that Obama doesn’t feel the same way.
When it comes to the issues you have brought up the exact differences between McCain and Obama:
Iraq: I feel that ending the war in a responsible way is what he will do. He has said that it would take 16 months in a best case scenario to take out troops. He won’t just remove them immediately, something i feel Hillary may do, but instead look at whats going on before acting. This war has been proven to be one that we got into for the wrong reasons. There were no WMD’s and there was no Al Queda link, but we were led to believe that and now we’re in a mess. Yes, it is great that Saddam is out of power, but there are plenty of dictators that we do not go after.
Economy: But not only are we in a messy war, but also a messy economy, and I feel that the 500 billion + spent in this war has obviously helped us towards this. Taking this money and investing in our country is what needs to be done and Obama will do this. I also don’t agree with the Bush tax cuts, which are, as you say, supposed to help those that stimulate the economy. This was a good argument, but the position we are in today shows that the fiscal conservative way isn’t working as well as the Clinton democratic way of doing things 8 years ago. Now, whether that is actually because of Bush’s plans or because of differing circumstances out of his control are unfortunately in the minds of Americans irrelevant. They just see and say “Last Dem. Pres. = great economy, This Republican Pres. = Bad economy.
Health care: It is deplorable that we as the “strongest nation in the world” have some of the worst health care in industrialized nations. Universal health care, Obama’s plan being more realistic than Hillary’s, is the path to getting Americans better health care and improving our life expectancies, standards of living and child mortality and morbidity.
Immigration: This is a problem that doesn’t disappear, but also one that I think McCain and Obama agree with. Busing out 12 million illegals is impossible and way to costly so ignoring the problem and just screaming “get out,” as many conservatives do, does nothing. Better border security coupled with a pathway to legalization/documentation/citizenship is the only practical way to tackle the problem. Holding down an immigrant population affects our economy in a negative way and will only create an underclass, which is disgraceful.
Many say his policies will be impossible to pay for, however, according the Wall Street Journal, his policies are realistically within our economic reach. The past 8 years have seen some of the worst foreign policy and economic policy. Bush will go down in history as one of the worst, and this is something that not only democrats are saying.
I feel, and so do the democrats, that McCain will continue an overwhelmingly unpopular war, instead of taking out combat troops, leaving peace troops to maintain peace with the right to strike Al Queda targets - like Obama will do. The fact is that Bush has hurt the republican party more than anyone else. The polls clearly show that what the democrats are talking about and how they want to change the status quo is what a majority of Americans prefer. Republicans may scream that its socialist, unrealistic, to expensive and that their way is better, but the proof is in the pudding. This compassionate conservative has done nothing but worsen the problem for the average American, who may not hold the offices of power, but controls who enters into them.
P.S. - Tim, the Earth is actually 4.5 billion years old, but we will never agree on that one
It’s rather absurd to claim that conservatives are “far more skilled at and use far more often the politics of personal destruction” when publications such as the New York Times and the Washington Post are still in business. It’s a little worse than absurd, though. It’s entirely unfair because it’s entirely unfounded.
Just break down that paragraph. It’s quintessential liberal rhetoric. Sentence 1: unfounded claim clothed in pretty rhetoric. Sentence 2: dramatic illustration. Sentence 3: unfounded conclusion, again, clothed in pretty rhetoric. Sound as pretty as you want, but at least say something substantive! Shall we forget McCain’s rumored affair that the NY Times ran for days after McCain the Republican nominee? Shall we also forget the report of Bush’s decades-old DUI that the liberal media broke days before the ’04 election?
Don’t get me wrong. I’m attacking the message, not the messenger, and I’m not arguing that either conservatives or liberals are “far more skilled at and use far more often the politics of personal destruction.” I’m arguing precisely that it’s impossible to make a claim either way without substantial evidence, especially a claim so dogmatic and one-sided.
However, I’ve always thought liberals were the better politicians. That’s just my opinion, and I have my reasons. If personal attacks are simply the nature of politics, then it would seem to follow that liberals would be more skilled at and use with greater frequency personal attacks because they’re better politicians. Granted, that conclusion flows from an opinion, but I think it’s a fair observation.
Finally, a phrase like the following should not be ignored because, although wonderfully written, it evidences a complete ignorance of conservatism: “To deny this rot in the foundation of conservative politics is cognitive dissonance at best and utter dishonesty at worst.” The sentence is empty rhetoric, at best, and complete error, at worst. First, it asserts that if you disagree with its author’s position, you’re an idiot. No reason given. You’re simply either cognitively dissonant or utterly dishonest. Second, and more significantly, it misuses the phrase “foundation of conservative politics.” The foundations of conservative politics would be stuff like the preservation of freedom, the separation of governmental powers, or a judiciary that says what the law is and not what it should be. Of course, those foundations have no relevance is the context of that sentence or, even, that paragraph.
So what does that sentence even mean? Well, probably nothing. Its style is rather coercive, and it would seem that its language attempts to pressure its reader into agreeing with the position of its author. Although deceptive, the technique is not rare and is found, often, in the newsrooms at ABC, NBC, and CBS, as well as in the classrooms of liberal professors at secular universities all across America.
Tim, for the sake of time I wish you could be a little terser. And if nothing else, stop using the word “rhetoric” when you really mean prose, discourse, or perhaps sophistry. Aristotle and I would thank you.
1. My claim that conservatives are far more likely and able to use politics of personal destruction is indeed an empirical one. I’m confident that any reasonable look at political contests in the past 25 years would absolutely support my claim. I am, however, too lazy to see if such work has actually been done. But my claim is neither dogmatic, one-sided, nor unfounded.
2. I thank you for your praise of my prose—indeed, I’m quite proud of it myself. However, my joy is tempered by your apparent misinterpretation of what I wrote. I said the rot is at the base of conservative politics, not conservative principles, as you seem to interpret.
3. As for the substance of my last comment, though citing one example is hardly a Q.E.D, I thought it was illustrative enough for my point to be persuasive. In the interest of bolstering my case though, I’d ask one only to consider Lee Atwater a South Carolina native, and the unquestionable father of modern Republican political tactics—and its subsequent rot. A case that the “liberal media” has influenced electoral outcomes more than his brand of politics could perhaps be made, but I doubt it. I take it as an uplifting sign that his influence seems to be waning.
Anyway, that’s all from me. After reading Tim’s comments I’m reminded at how debates with him in high school over lunch were wearisome and never edifying, and sometimes ended with him physically striking me and/or throwing greasy Snack Shop food at me. Though thousands of miles apart and the communication purely electronic, I can’t help but feel the similar
in the utter pointlessness of it all and, slumping in my office chair, my nose seems to detect the aroma of French fries wafting in the air…
two words…Karl Rove
This is my draft of Chapter 97 (”Friends of the Historian Formerly Known as Paul: Nuffy Timmy”) in my autobiography.
Thanks Jeff for providing the link to your blog post on Obama, Rhetoric, Aristotle, and Plato; it is as thought provoking as it is humourous.
Thanks Eric for reminding me that rhetoric, especially for the believer, is not only the means to the end. Our choice of speech/style has eternal significance in and of itself because it has the capacity to dishonor or honor Christ. The end (substance, content) does not always justify the means (style, rhetoric).
Timmy, I used the Dr. Bob’s as an example because: 1) I actually like them and have something of a reputation of a BJ apologist. So by using them as an example I hoped to reveal a willingness to play fair…both liberals and conservatives can say pretty stupid things. 2) The Dr Bob’s have also rarely retracted or apologized for their inflammatory comments (ie Betty Ford as the whore of Babylon, Bush Sr as the ally of the Anti-Christ). Their rhetoric was merely a way to express the intensity of their displeasure. I am willing to give Rev. Wright similar latitude even though he clearly is as opposite from Dr. Bob as it is possible to be!
I think it somewhat unfair to say that I’ve been unfair in my coverage of conservatives. The preponderance of my political posts up till now have sought to prove that John McCain was (mostly) a conservative and I applauded his most conservative positions. Indeed, the post I’ve been thinking of writing next deals with a libertarian understanding of educational systems. I’m not becoming “more liberal” though I may be becoming more libertarian.
At the same time, I may very well post more about common ground with liberals/moderates simply because that is somewhat untread ground. If you want a constant diet of reactionary conservative vitriol, than maybe I’m not the best blog to check (though I hope you do because you say the funniest things about me!).
Nick, thanks for joining the discussion! A diversity of opinion makes for good clash (Mr. Nicholas would be proud) in a discussion. Unfortunately, you are still a male WASP like the rest of us, with the exception my fiancee, who is half Puerto Rican. Allow me to respond to your observations point by point.
1) “I find that this Wright controversy has done the awful thing of making Barack into the “black” candidate.” - I don’t think that Barack’s transformation into the “black” candidate was a result of Wright. If you crunch the exit poll data from early on in the race, at least up to South Carolina, Obama’s numerical base has been black voters. In South Carolina between 3/4 and 4/5 of black people voted for Obama. As the primaries went on the gap increased until by states like Alabama and Mississippi the proportion was more like 9/10. Obama’s momentum was built on black votes. White votes have been relatively evenly divided between the Hillary and Obama until recently. I would go so far as to nearly agree with Ferraro that Obama’s blackness, and thus his black appeal, is what made his candidacy viable. This is a bit tangential, but I find it ironic that white democratic voters appear statistically more color blind than black democratic voters.
2) Iraq is a mess, certainly. We were mistaken about WMD, the troop strength required, and the cost of the war. That cost has been ruinous…war is NEVER healthy for the economy since it is inherently destructive of wealth. At the same time, to pull out either immediately or within a year or two could undo the shaky infrastructure created at the cost of thousands of American lives and billions of dollars. Even if I cede that it may have been “wrong” to go into Iraq, that doesn’t mean we should make things worse by pulling out. We cracked the eggs and so we have some moral duty to make the best omelet we can.
3) The Clinton “Democratic way” was more conservative than it was liberal. He actually managed to decrease the size of government by cutting welfare benefits and general government spending…a bit too laissez-faire for most hardcore liberals. Admittedly Clinton was a finger in the wind style politician and was signing most of what the Contract With America Congress put in front of him.
4) Healthcare is a bit of a quality v. quantity argument. Universal healthcare sounds great in theory (or in a Michael Moore video), but in practice, based on my personal experience in Australia, it provides pretty shoddy, though universal, service for the general population while the wealthy come to America for better healthcare. Even if universal healthcare worked, it is still ruinously, and I don’t use that term lightly, expensive. The Continent is already beginning to have massive shortfalls as they fail to meet their healthcare promises. I would like to learn from their negative example rather than only focusing on their positives as Moore does. His healthcare plan may be feasible now, but it won’t be in another 10-20 years as the boomers age and our workforce shrinks as a proportion of the population.
5) Immigration is a bright spot in Obama’s platform. Yet I would still go with McCain because I fear Obama likely to agree to Democratic stipulations on required Union membership for all immigrant laborers. Artifical intervention in the market hinders the production of wealth.
Anywho, this has been a good lively debate!
1) “I don’t think that Barack’s transformation into the “black” candidate was a result of Wright. If you crunch the exit poll data from early on in the race, at least up to South Carolina, Obama’s numerical base has been black voters.”
-I think your making a mistake with that logic. Clinton gets a majority of the older votes, is she the old candidate? by this logic Obama is also the young candidate, the liberal yuppie candidate and so on. I think blacks are voting for him in such large numbers because they identify with him more and I’m sure some of it is just because he is black. Same with Kennedy and Catholics.
2) We did crack the eggs and it is messy. I don’t expect any president to pull out of Iraq irresponsibly, but how much is enough? I think we’ve been there long enough. Violence is down, however, at the same time we are paying extremists on both sides so they do not increase violence. So is the surge working? maybe, but i think us paying people off is also dropping levels of violence. We can’t keep combat troops there forever and the longer we do the less incentive the Iraqi’s have to support themselves. I think that the time has come to start deescalation. Again, I don’t expect Barack to take troops out if he knows there will be a disaster and he will base his actions on what the status is in 2009.
3) right, but Clinton also had a republican majority in the congress. Keeping him on the conservative side. The republicans are set to lose more seats this election as Bush has left a bad taste in the mouth of many. Democrats are challenging many republican incumbents again this year and the chances are high for them to win, and probably even higher with Obama at the top of the ticket.
4) Moore’s movie was obviously biased, focusing on the good only, I definitely agree with that. I feel this comes down to republicans and democrats just agreeing to disagree. There are positives and negatives with both private and public health care. We feel its time to shift to public health care and feel it will work, but the negatives and arguments against it are sound. We will have to see what happens here, just like Iraq.
5) I haven’t heard about him having them join unions…not in any speech or talking point I have ever heard him say on immigration. But I think all the candidates have the right stance on immigration.
-You make good counter arguments, we will just have to wait and see. I feel that the polls show the American people are swaying towards the democratic policies of health care and Iraq. Again, I feel that Bush has severely crippled his party, which is obvious when McCain gets the nomination. The country has clearly shifted left a bit as I don’t think someone as liberal as Obama would be doing so good. 2008 is a point where our politics will change and I wouldn’t be surprised if a new party emerges, like a conservative party, as Americans take a left shift.
1) I was simply quoting you Nick with the “black” candidate bit. To some degree it is just a semantic game.
2) So we have a difference of opinion on how long is long enough to stay in Iraq. Since neither of us are expert witnesses I’m inclined to go with the opinion of General Petraeus. When it comes to the candidate who I trust most to back up the military opinion on the ground I would go with the war veteran John McCain rather than Mr. Obama. Interesting note: McCain is not some radical hawk. He initially was reluctant to go to war with Iraq, but once we got involved he intended to see it finished as best as possible. The same was true of McCain during the Kosovo/Serbian bombing campaign.
3) The only reason I brought Bill Clinton up was because you used him as an example of good economic policy-making. I agree that he did most of whatever the Republican Congress requested of him…thus the good economic decisions, like NAFTA and budget cutting, were because of Conservatism, not liberalism.
4) True, and I think the winds of popular opinion, pointed out by you and Austin, are on the side of government provided healthcare of some form, so we will get to see how it works out first hand.
5) It was originally in the Feingold half of McCain-Feingold last summer, but it got cut out in the compromise plan.
- You may very well be right about the split in the Republican party. Although I think if there was to be a formal split it would have happened already. The differences between fiscal conservatives and social conservatives has been a source of tension within the party ever since 1980, but although social conservatives are ticked at McCain I don’t think that they are that annoyed. They may not vote for him, but so far there haven’t been any rumblings of a third party for disaffected social conservatives, just for moderates like Mayor Bloomberg.
yea…it comes down to agreeing to disagree on what dems and repubs think are the right policies. What it shouldn’t be about is guilt by association, race, misspeaking, what a supporter says or does.
To Jeff, in loving memory of WFB . . .
Now listen, queer, you leave high school out of this or I’ll sock you in the face and you’ll stay plastered . . . And I might even push Richard Huss into a bush while I’m at it!
see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=li73RRLEyW8