« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Small Clarifiaction
I draw my share of flack because I don't imbibe the Kool-Aid on Obama, and I'd like to clarify this a bit.
The problem here, as I see it, isn't really Obama, as it isn't really Bush, they are just symptoms.
America and Americans give the impression at this moment of wandering through history aided only by a white cane.
On one hand people reelect someone who was already clearly incompetent in 2004 and now they are about to elect someone without any practical experience of government.
Not just that, but a lot of things don't make sense.
Look at the reaction of the Chinese people (not just their government) to the earthquake and then look at the reaction of the American people (not just their government) to Katrina.
50 years ago, I think Americans would have responded like the Chinese. The Chinese reaction seems to me the normal reaction of a great people to a terrible tragedy, the American reaction seems to me both autistic and decadent and America didn't get to the position it occupies by being either autistic or decadent... and it certainly won't/isn't keeping that position by being autistic and decadent.
So, the problem in my view is not Obama, the problem is not the leaders.
In a Democracy, even a flawed one like America's, the leaders are only symptoms, the problem is in the society and that is where the work has to be done.
I think the country has been somehow hollowed out.








Comments (14)
First I'm struck by your cynicism, If there were ever a year to have some hope it's this year. We've had more young people be involved than ever before on both sides of the isle. Even Ron Paul has been huge in his groundswell of support. This is also the most educated young electorate we've ever had. Certainly you have to have a little confidence America is at least starting to head in the right direction.
Secondly I would like to know how you square Clinton's vote for the war? If you are not a Clinton supporter who do you support?
May 21, 2008 3:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Don't mind Seaton. He's just here to cast aspersions.
May 21, 2008 3:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
hehehe It's always good to see your face subotai!
May 21, 2008 4:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
He who is without synonyms, let him cast the first aspersions.
May 21, 2008 6:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
First the secondly:
And firstly the secondly of the secondly.
I am not a "Hillary supporter", although I like the idea of a woman president (of any color).
I think that by far the best candidate this year would have been Al Gore: experience, vision, right on the war, great international prestige based on action, not "charisma"... It still might happen in a hung convention, but the Democrats are the Democrats...
And secondly the secondly of the firstly:
Really, do I have to? Four years ago, in perfect good faith, the American people reelected a war criminal who had proved to be totally incompetent... even as a war criminal. Now they are ready to elect president a community organizer under the patronage of Dick Daley, with no experience relevant to managing the affairs of a superpower... pure Frank Capra, "Mr Smith Goes to Washington". Really do I have to have confidence?
And thirdly the secondly or perhaps the thirdly of the secondly.
Actually I support myself, eating my bread in the sweat of my brow. As to the presidency.
I see different scenarios:
I really like what Obama says and I am horrified by the things McCain says, however, as you have noted, I am rather cynical (the Spanish say that the devil knows more because of his age than because he is the devil) I pay little attention to anything a politician says when running for office and much attention to what he or she has actually done when in office. In this case as Obama has done practically nothing, I am left with what he says. In the case of McCain, he has a very long record, some of it is quite attractive and some less. It does give you the feeling that there won't be many nasty surprises and there might be some pleasant ones.
But since I would vote absentee from Illinois and the Land of Lincoln, will surely adorn itself with leis and hula skirts to vote massively for its favorite son, voting even for Ralph Nader would be a waste of time, so I probably will sit this one out.
May 21, 2008 6:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Optimism on America heading in the right direction? Well, one would have hoped for a few results after the 2006 elections, say some actual Congressional investigations of White House figures and K Street cronies, but all of those have been stonewalled and basically not much has happened since then. Retroactive immunity has been delayed at least (might I say it's my first time proud of America this Congressional session?), there's finally finally some movement towards defunding the war, and I guess at least we haven't invaded Iran yet.
Should I be overly optimistic and bet that it gets better under a Democratic Administration? We'll see, our karma frequently runs over our dogma, especially under economic stress (i.e. every chance it gets)
May 21, 2008 7:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh wait, my first time proud was with Patrick Fitzgerald, even though he wasn't in Congress.
May 21, 2008 7:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
It is interesting to note that only the Democratic US Congress with 21% has a lower approval rating than Bush. I think probably Herr Fritzl of Austria has a higher rating than 21%.
May 21, 2008 8:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
"I draw my share of flack because I don't imbibe the Kool-Aid on Obama, and I'd like to clarify this a bit."
If you take the time to read the responses to your posts, you will find that you mainly draw flack because your tone is condescending and you come across as a complete cynic who enjoys heaping contempt upon Americans (politicians and electorate alike). Your ideas in themselves may be worthy of discussion, but your tone and the attitude you project are repellent to most who read your posts here.
Take the time to review some of the other posts/comments on TPM. You will find that people are willing to discuss the merits of ideas they are not fond of, if the person presenting those ideas does so in a respectful manner that invites discussion.
May 21, 2008 8:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
May 21, 2008 10:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
We may not have re-elected the idiot in 2004---that is still disputed. And we did not have a strong candidate against him. And it's an old trick but an effective one to have a war handy to rally the less-attentive voters. Americans are not particularly stupider than the aggregate citizenry of other countries.
We could be perhaps a bit better informed as a whole if the Clinton administration had not enabled media concentration, but you claim to be well informed. Why, then, do you incorrectly conflate Senator Clinton's residency in the White House with experience?
And you will not win arguments by disparaging the intelligence of those you wish to persuade.
May 21, 2008 10:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
May 21, 2008 10:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
And if I think Americans are stupid, that's cool. I'm an American and that makes me stupid too... n'est pas?
May 21, 2008 10:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
While I could not agree more with your final conclusion, I think your reasoning springs from a number of false premises and distortions.
Perhaps this is further (better) evidence of the truth of your final conclusion.
June 6, 2008 10:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment