…between the people and the politicians:
Some years after The Road to Serfdom, Hayek wrote an essay called “Why I Am Not a Conservative.” In it, he describes “as liberal the position which I hold and which I believe differs as much from true conservatism as from socialism,” and he proceeds to argue that “the liberal today must more positively oppose some of the basic conceptions which most conservatives share with the socialists.” Of course, Hayek uses liberal in its classic sense, referring to someone whose aim is “to free the process of spontaneous growth from the obstacles and encumbrances that human folly has erected.” (John Galt couldn’t have put it better.)
Moreover, what Hayek says about conservatives applies equally well to many who today call themselves progressives:
“Conservatives are inclined to use the powers of government to prevent change or to limit its rate. . . . They lack the faith in the spontaneous forces of adjustment. . . . The conservative feels safe and content only if he is assured that some higher wisdom watches and supervises change, only if he knows that some authority is charged with keeping the change ‘orderly.’ “
In this view, neither today’s “progressives” nor today’s “conservatives” are liberal, which is to say committed, in Hayek’s words, to the “set of ideals that has consistently opposed all arbitrary power.”
Happily, a good many people in America remain committed to just those ideals, and what the burgeoning sales of books such as those by Hayek and Rand really suggest is that more and more of them are becoming aware that, precisely in regard to those ideals, there is a growing disconnect between the country’s political class and its citizens. It was manifestly on display last month when the House approved the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill, which in its final form was longer than Atlas Shrugged and which none of the members voting on it had read.
It’s a shame that the Atlas Shrugged movie won’t be out until after the 2010 elections. But it will be before the 2012 elections. Perhaps by then, having done it once, the people will have gotten the “how cool it is to vote for a black guy” thing out of their system.
[Early afternoon update]
A commenter expands on my thought above:
That will be a big problem for Obama’s reelection efforts. In 2008 it was a big deal to many people to take part in electing the first African American president, but that argument vanished on January 20. Taking part in assuring the first African American president gets an eight-year term doesn’t seem likely to pull as many voters, especially since his policies are now manifestly far to the left of the majority.
It’s ironic that the first black president got there via a form of affirmative action (as he did throughout his career). People who crow about his high approval ratings (which have nothing to do with his policies) forget that he only got 53% of the vote in a very Democratic year. Gerry Ferraro had it right–there’s no way someone with his thin resume would have been nominated if he’d been white.
I absolutely agree that this will be a big problem for his reelection (assuming he runs) in 2012. Of course, he might have a problem anyway, if he’s viewed as Jimmy Carter redux, on energy, fiscal policy and foreign policy. And that’s certainly the direction he’s headed.
O’ course, if the Hollyweird folks have their way, the movie will bear little resemblance to the book, and the message will be that individual initiative = individual ruination.
As the left has abandoned the word “liberal” after having tainted it with their illiberal ideas, perhaps it will soon be possible to reclaim the word to its classical meaning even in practical politics. That would be nice.
…Perhaps by then, having done it once, the people will have gotten the “how cool it is to vote for a black guy” thing out of their system.
That will be a big problem for Obama’s reelection efforts. In 2008 it was a big deal to many people to take part in electing the first African American president, but that argument vanished on January 20. Taking part in assuring the first African American president gets an eight-year term doesn’t seem likely to pull as many voters, especially since his policies are now manifestly far to the left of the majority.
Hope and change, 2012.
Newsweek is reporting that in the next few weeks the Attorney General is about to unleash several investigations/indictments with regards to the Bush Administration’s “brutal” interrogation policies of terrorists. That ought to do wonders to help Obama get his agenda passed in the next few months. After all, the American public is yearning for more political divisiveness out of Washington DC.
It’s a shame that the Atlas Shrugged movie won’t be out until after the 2010 elections.
As if a movie would make a difference. When a book, or movie, or idea has had a big impact one there’s a temptation to think that it would of course affect others the same way. Then when you discover that, for instance, Obama has read Hayek, the explanation must be that he did not understand it; because obviously anyone who did understand it would agree with its thesis.
Newsflash: Not all smart people of good will agree with Hayek, or Rand (either one), and it isn’t for lack of exposure to, or understanding of, the ideas they are rejecting.
It’s ironic that the first black president got there via a form of affirmative action (as he did throughout his career).
First of all, do you have any evidence that Obama benefitted from affirmative action “throughout his career,” or is this just your way of saying that you don’t believe a black man could have attended the schools he did and gotten the jobs he did without a boost from affirmative action?
Second, if affirmative action is responsible for Obama getting into the schools he attended, and getting the jobs he’s had, then that strikes me as a very powerful argument in favor of affirmative action. The whole point of affirmative action is to put women and minorities in schools and jobs where they will excel. Obama’s excelled at everything he’s ever done. Are you really arguing that one of the rejected white male applicants that year (a group of which I’m a member) would have done more with a slot at Harvard Law than he did? For that matter, did any of the white male applicants who were accepted for HLS ’90 do more with their law degrees than he did?
If it took affirmative action to get Obama into Harvard Law School, thank God for affirmative action.
Gerry Ferraro had it right–there’s no way someone with his thin resume would have been nominated if he’d been white.
By this reasoning John Edwards had less than no chance in 2004, when his resume was even thinner than Obama’s in 2008; in fact Edwards was the runner-up, and would have been the nominee if something had happened to Kerry in the home stretch. Ferraro’s statement was an expression of simple whitism.
Obama lost a lot of votes for being black, and he gained a lot. I’m not sure he won more than he lost.
Another thing he lost votes for was his relative inexperience. It’s a leap of faith for a voter to say, of someone they first heard of during the campaign, “this guy should be the most powerful person on earth.” That’s a hurdle Obama won’t have in 2012.
First of all, do you have any evidence that Obama benefitted from affirmative action “throughout his career,” or is this just your way of saying that you don’t believe a black man could have attended the schools he did and gotten the jobs he did without a boost from affirmative action?
I believe that many black men could. I just have trouble believing that this particular one could. Particularly since he continues to release his transcripts.
Obama’s excelled at everything he’s ever done.
Really? What did he do that was so wonderful with the Annenberg Challenge? In what way did he “excel” as a Senator at either the state or federal level? What did he do in any of those positions other than run for the next one? The only thing that he has ever “excelled” at is conning people into supporting him.
By this reasoning John Edwards had less than no chance in 2004, when his resume was even thinner than Obama’s in 2008
At least Edwards had a successful legal career, and wasn’t just a “community organizer.”
Ferraro’s statement was an expression of simple whitism.
No, but your statements are an expression of pure Obamaism.
There are those on the far left that are desperately hoping that Obama stop listening to his neo-liberal theocrats. They want him to go ahead and feel as though it is safe to really start the Hope and Change -tm.
Occam’s razor would suggest that Obama only got in because of some cheesy identity politics. It is scary to think how many voters choose a candidate off of one or 2 simple perceptions. When one really looks closely appears to have a number of traits of an ineffective a leader. It is really mind blowing to realize how much power he has at his disposal to poorly implement.
Up at my work there is a poster called the Ladder of accountability.
http://web.uvic.ca/hr/hrhandbook/organizdev/ladderofaccountability.pdf
Obama is stuck on the first few rungs. We should see a real leader up at the top.
I just have trouble believing that this particular one could.
So he could be president of the Harvard Law Review, and graduate magna cum laude, but he wasn’t smart enough to get in without help? How did all those white men who didn’t make law review or graduate with honors ever get in?
What did he do that was so wonderful with the Annenberg Challenge?
I’m not familiar with the specifics, but I don’t recall hearing that anyone at Annenberg was unhappy with his performance.
In what way did he “excel” as a Senator at either the state or federal level?
In Illinois he authored a widely hailed death penalty reform, a breakthrough ethics bill, and expanded children’s health coverage. As a junior U.S. Senator he authored another ethics bill and got it passed over the opposition of his party leadership, made earmarks transparent, and wrote a significant arms control law.
At least Edwards had a successful legal career
As did Obama. In addition to his own practice, he was an outstanding teacher at U. Chicago, where they offered him tenure. He wrote two bestselling books. He won Grammys reading those books.
At the 2004 Iowa Caucus John Edwards was a successful lawyer and with one year as a U.S. Senator under his belt; he had no other government experience, and had authored no legislation. At the 2008 Iowa Caucus Obama had been a U.S. Senator for three years, during which time he had passed a number of significant laws, in addition to eight years in the Illinois Senate, and a successful legal career. Both men won.
Given those facts, to conclude that Obama only went on to win the nomination because he was black, because no white man could be nominated with his resume, is textbook racism.
So he could be president of the Harvard Law Review, and graduate magna cum laude, but he wasn’t smart enough to get in without help?
A lot of people are smart enough to get in without help. But there is a finite number of slots for them.
wrote a significant arms control law.
Hilarious. Significant to whom?
He wrote two bestselling books. He won Grammys reading those books.
No one ever said he wasn’t good at reading aloud. It’s how he became president.
Correction: John Edwards had been in the Senate 5 years in 2004.
But there is a finite number of slots for them.
And your evidence that Obama did not get one of those slots is what, exactly?
Hilarious. Significant to whom?
Richard Lugar, for one. Or anyone who cares about weapons proliferation.
And your evidence that Obama did not get one of those slots is what, exactly?
And your evidence that I claim that he did not is what, exactly?
Richard Lugar, for one.
[laughing]
And your evidence that I claim that he did not is what, exactly?
Your statement that you “just have trouble believing that this particular one could [get into Harvard Law School without a boost from affirmative action].”
You haven’t responded to my other point, which is that if Obama only got into HLS with affirmative action, it’s a potent justification for affirmative action. If HLS had two admissions criteria, one for white men (X) and one for black men (Y), and Obama would have been rejected under X but was accepted under Y, then clearly Y was a better predictor of his future success. Most of the applicants accepted under X did not write well enough to make law review, did not network and persuade well enough to be elected president of law review, and did not get good enough grades to graduate magna cum laude; Obama did.
And your evidence that I claim that he did not is what, exactly?
Your statement that you “just have trouble believing that this particular one could [get into Harvard Law School without a boost from affirmative action].”
You haven’t responded to my other point, which is that if Obama only got into HLS with affirmative action, it’s a potent justification for affirmative action. If HLS had two admissions criteria, one for white men (X) and one for black men (Y), and Obama would have been rejected under X but was accepted under Y, then clearly Y was a better predictor of his future success. Most of the applicants accepted under X did not write well enough to make law review, did not network and persuade well enough to be elected president of law review, and did not get good enough grades to graduate magna cum laude; Obama did.
Your statement that you “just have trouble believing that this particular one could [get into Harvard Law School without a boost from affirmative action].”
That’s not saying he didn’t get a slot.
You haven’t responded to my other point, which is that if Obama only got into HLS with affirmative action, it’s a potent justification for affirmative action.
How do we know that someone even better than Obama (I know you have trouble believing that such a divine miracle could exist) wouldn’t have gotten his slot instead?
Most of the applicants accepted under X did not write well enough to make law review
Where are the writing samples that justified making him editor of the Law Review?
How do we know that someone even better than Obama (I know you have trouble believing that such a divine miracle could exist) wouldn’t have gotten his slot instead?
If such a person existed, the slot she should have gotten was one that instead went to someone who didn’t make law review or graduate with honors; i.e., not Obama’s slot.
How can you square your low opinion of Obama’s abilities with the fact that he was more successful at Harvard Law School than most if not all of his classmates?
Where are the writing samples that justified making him editor of the Law Review?
To clarify, writing samples (and grades) are used to pick the members of the law review; the presidency is determined by election. I don’t know where those samples go, but I’m amused at the notion that you would be a better judge of their quality than the people who did evaluate them.
How can you square your low opinion of Obama’s abilities with the fact that he was more successful at Harvard Law School than most if not all of his classmates?
I never said that his low abilities included his ability to snow people. In any event, I never said his abilities were “low.” Just that there may have been others whose were higher, but didn’t get selected because he did.
Jim, you continue to beg the question.
I never said that his low abilities included his ability to snow people.
So he snowed them into giving him good grades, and he snowed them into liking his writing, and snowed them into electing him president of the law review. I take it that the only evidence of Obama’s academic success you would buy would be a standardized test score. As it happens, I applied to that HLS class with a 48 on the LSAT, which was at that time the highest score. So Obama either had the same score, or a lower one. Do you really think, based on the writing and reasoning I’ve exhibited here, that I’m better qualified to be a law student than Obama was?
I take it that the only evidence of Obama’s academic success you would buy would be a standardized test score. As it happens, I applied to that HLS class with a 48 on the LSAT, which was at that time the highest score. So Obama either had the same score, or a lower one. Do you really think, based on the writing and reasoning I’ve exhibited here, that I’m better qualified to be a law student than Obama was?
Yes, FWIW, I think that you could very well be. Though I don’t think that an LSAT score by itself is that predictive. By the way, if you really did that well, surely you understand what the phrase “beg the question” means?
surely you understand what the phrase “beg the question” means?
I know of two meanings, the original (to make the question pointless) and the more common one today (to prompt a question). I honestly don’t know which you meant.
Though I don’t think that an LSAT score by itself is that predictive.
Me neither, but in your mind it seems to be the only sort of assessment that Obama couldn’t “snow.”
I mean the one where you assume the premise as part of the argument. Look it up under “logical fallacies.”