Saturday, March 12, 2011
Fool me once
At this point, I can't see an image of Barack Obama, or hear his voice, without an almost physical revulsion. Since his election, joy has turned to puzzlement, to concern, to frustration, to anger, and as of now my sentiments is about an equal mixture of despair, shame, and contempt. The latest contributions to this process are his pathetic sophistry regarding the shocking treatment of Bradley Manning, and his crouching passivity, masquerading as sophistication and nuance, as he prepares to all but completely abandon Libya to slaughter.
It is more or less completely clear now that this man is a pure transactionalist, who is largely unmoored from a moral or policy center, whose interest is in winning as much as possible with the least risk. Never mind what is the substance of such victories, of course, so long as he can burnish himself with them. Obama would call this "pragmatism"; what it means in reality is giving up challenging the existing condition even before joining the battle.
I wonder now what made me support him so ardently during the last election. I conclude that it was largely for tribal reasons rooted in sentiment; after all his policy differences with Clinton was small, and I would have supported any Democrat against Palin & McCain. Obama's personal charisma and rhetorical powers are undeniable, but I think I supported him largely because I thought we were in the same tribe: liberal academic types who value intellectual rigor and sophistication, and read the New York Review of Books. Obama may still read the NYRB, I don't know, although it has been pretty hard on him.
It says something about modern political campaigns that even after a long and grueling primary, all I had to really go on were these sentiments. It also says even someone who fancies himself to be too sophisticated, too grand, to be confined to mere tribes, can nevertheless be easily fooled by such tribal feelings.
Well, I have certainly learned my lesson: Paul Krugman is always right. Obama doesn't deserve to hold the office of Washington and Lincoln; he certainly doesn't deserve to be reelected. I hope never to be so fooled, and so fool myself, again.
It is more or less completely clear now that this man is a pure transactionalist, who is largely unmoored from a moral or policy center, whose interest is in winning as much as possible with the least risk. Never mind what is the substance of such victories, of course, so long as he can burnish himself with them. Obama would call this "pragmatism"; what it means in reality is giving up challenging the existing condition even before joining the battle.
I wonder now what made me support him so ardently during the last election. I conclude that it was largely for tribal reasons rooted in sentiment; after all his policy differences with Clinton was small, and I would have supported any Democrat against Palin & McCain. Obama's personal charisma and rhetorical powers are undeniable, but I think I supported him largely because I thought we were in the same tribe: liberal academic types who value intellectual rigor and sophistication, and read the New York Review of Books. Obama may still read the NYRB, I don't know, although it has been pretty hard on him.
It says something about modern political campaigns that even after a long and grueling primary, all I had to really go on were these sentiments. It also says even someone who fancies himself to be too sophisticated, too grand, to be confined to mere tribes, can nevertheless be easily fooled by such tribal feelings.
Well, I have certainly learned my lesson: Paul Krugman is always right. Obama doesn't deserve to hold the office of Washington and Lincoln; he certainly doesn't deserve to be reelected. I hope never to be so fooled, and so fool myself, again.
The resistance, I suppose, the futile resistance on the part of the tyrant, that is what is sickening, pathetic. | commented 🕸️ on Sunday, March 13, 2011
Unlike Krugman, the president does not have the liberty to sulk or grandstand, and I am happy to have a president who appears to grasp this. At the beginning of these revolts, he had every opportunity to grab the cameras, and instead he ducked them. I think Hitchens is exactly wrong on this, and that this is what he should have done | commented Tim on Sunday, March 13, 2011