Victor Davis Hanson has thoughts on the wrong reasons to support Obama:
Aside from the obvious point that we should not pick our presidents on the basis of whether those in mostly autocratic, non-democratic societies approve, there is something very tribal and racialist about all this chauvinism.
If a white male Christian of European ancestry were suddenly a likely successor to the Mubarak dictatorship, or were next in line to take over the Mugabe kleptocracy, or were stealing Venezuela from Hugo Chavez, or were going to be elected the next leader of South Africa, it would be of less than zero importance to me, and I would hope to other Americans of similar backgrounds. And I think most of us would shudder should an Englishman or Australian say "I just hope your next President is another white male Christian like McCain." I was in Greece in 1988 when the socialist liberal Greeks went ga-ga over Mike Dukakis solely on the basis on his shared ethnic background and it seemed pretty absurd, especially when many promised they would change their dark view of Reagan's America if a Greek-American were elected President.
So, one, I don't see what is so great when a foreigner tells an American journalist that his view of America might change should we elect a person closer to his own perceived racial or religious self-image. Seems instead illiberal, tribal, and retrograde. And two, if Egyptians, Iranians, Congolese, or Bolivians want real changes in their own lives, then they should look to their own autocratic systems, not the United States that can do little to alleviate their mostly self-inflicted miseries other than to continue to shell out hundreds of billions in petrodollars and ever more humanitarian aid.
It's all about the identity politics. You know, that "new politics" we've been hearing so much about.
Hanson's comment ignores slavery, ignores Jim Crow, ignores outright racial prejudice.
Look at the latest Tom Friedman column in the NYT, which quotes the reactions of various Egyptians to the possibility of an Obama Presidency. They say, with wonder, "only in America" and "It couldn't happen here", and, as Friedman makes clear, what they are getting at is the idea that only our meritocratic culture and our democratic system makes it possible for someone from a minority group which has been institutionally discriminated against in the recent past, and socially marginalized in the present, to become a leader. The wonder foreigners express is not necessarily illiberal, tribal, and retrograde but instead a very modern admiration of the superiority of the American system.
Here is Friedman's column: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/11/opinion/11friedman.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
I agree with Hanson. Our next President should be like Owen Cargol, a typical Republican slime-ball.
In his own words, a man who fancies himself "a rub-your-belly, grab-your-balls, give-you-a-hug, slap-your-back, pull-your-dick, squeeze-your-hand, cheek-your-face, and pat-your-thigh kind of guy."
Owen Cargol - Hanson's choice! The kind of guy we need to educate the WORLD. Even enough slime for a Simberg to feel proud!
Yes it's tribalism, but there's a darker aspect, which Professor Hanson in particular as a classicist should know: at this point in history, all eyes turn to "Rome," so to speak, for solutions. That did not end well in 400 AD, and it is not likely to end well now. But one of the symptoms is a strong interest in the "provincials" in who becomes "emperor," and a natural preference for one of their own.
Incidentally, I personally don't think there's anything wrong with a modest dose of tribalism. That is, it's a sign of ordinary psychological health and reasonable self-pride to, all other things being equal, prefer someone of your own sex, age, ethnicity, skin color, hair color, religion, or native language as your leader, or the world's leader.
It's true if that becomes your only criterion -- you won't even consider someone obviously superior who doesn't fit -- then you're an idiot. But going to the other extreme, and saying all these major factors that influence personality and outlook don't matter at all is a sign of morbid self-contempt. Which, alas, is fairly endemic in the Western world today. Probably why we'll be replaced by Hispanic and Islamic cultures, neither of which have this problem.
Islamists don't suffer from self-contempt? IMO, all religionists suffer from self-contempt (perhaps latent, rather than overt)–that's why they need/look to God/Allah/Spaghetti Monster for redemption.
ignores slavery, ignores Jim Crow, ignores outright racial prejudice.
It's all fine and dandy that the Democrats want to atone for over a century's worth of past sins that they committed, but why do they need to inflict this lighweight, self-hating (his white half), narcissistic (his black half) Chicago political hack on the rest of us who aren't guilty of those sins?
Don't hold back, Raoul, tell us what you really think of Senator Obama! ;-)
The Spaghetti Monster does not offer redemption, but if you add holy olive oil he will save you from a sticky blob of pasta.
Yours,
Wince
Raoul,
Obama isn't an example of Democrats atoning. Obama shows that racism is being overcome, to America's credit. Americans shouldn't vote for Obama because of the color of his skin, but foreigners should admire America for its ability to overcome faults that were all pervasive not so long ago. As Friedman pointed out, in too many countries around the world, no such self-correction and modernization is possible, while in America, progress is taken for granted. Good for us.
Americans shouldn't vote for Obama because of the color of his skin, but foreigners should admire America for its ability to overcome faults that were all pervasive not so long ago.
But there's an implicit premise in this statement. "Foreigners" admiring America is a good thing. Thus the (hoped for) conclusion: "and therefore this is a reason to vote for Obama." And moreover, if we don't vote for Obama, we're showing that we're still a racist nation.
Sorry, no. No sale.
Robert,
I can think of no better way to admit that racism is alive and well than to vote for Obama merely because of his skin color. Lets be blunt, if Obama were white he would get not a second glance from anyone and you know it. To call him an empty suit is an insult to the American garment industry, and pretending otherwise is risible at best. That, my friend, is racism at its worst, and to suggest that we can cleanse ourselves of this sin by offering up some ritual sacrifice (i.e. voting for this lightweight) is utterly unconvincing and offers nothing but confirmation for the notion that on this (as many other issues) the Democratic party is profoundly unserious.
As Rand said...no sale
Mr. Empty Suit graduated near the top of his class at Harvard (as opposed to McSame who was number five from the bottom), is clearly a brilliant politician, has enough charisma to move seasoned pros off the fence, attracts even a large number of conservatives who don't agree with his positions but simply find him inspiring, just concluded a remarkable primary campaign in which he outraised and outsmarted Simberg's Lady Inevitable.
Yeah, I know...it's only because he is black. Simberg and his friends here are more than blind, they are effing seriously out of touch. Maybe you morons should think about the fact that he's made it thus far in spite of being black. Bray Milenkovic's little dance about Obama's Minstrel show a few months ago says it all about where you folks are coming from.
Mr. Empty Suit graduated near the top of his class at Harvard (as opposed to McSame who was number five from the bottom)
Am I supposed to care about that?
...is clearly a brilliant politician, has enough charisma to move seasoned pros off the fence, attracts even a large number of conservatives who don't agree with his positions but simply find him inspiring
What "conservatives" are those (not that I care about "conservatives," not being one myself)
...just concluded a remarkable primary campaign in which he outraised and outsmarted Simberg's Lady Inevitable.
My "Lady Inevitable"?
From what planet of clueless idiots is this being posted?
Scott, you and Rand are reading things into what I said that I didn't say, and that I don't think. I'm just making the rather bland point that foreigners can admire America for being a place where social progress can be made. As the Friedman piece pointed out -- Saudi Arabia isn't a place where where a Shiite could become a national leader, Egypt isn't a place where a Copt could become a national leader, etc. That's all I'm saying. All the other vile stuff you and Rand read into it says something about you, not me.
Scott, you and Rand are reading things into what I said that I didn't say, and that I don't think.
You have quite an ego, Robert. Did we say you did?
This post was about the the fawning stories in the press about how wonderful foreigners would think our benighted nation would be if we elected Barack Obama.
Rand, you said But there's an implicit premise in this statement. "Foreigners" admiring America is a good thing. Thus the (hoped for) conclusion: "and therefore this is a reason to vote for Obama." And moreover, if we don't vote for Obama, we're showing that we're still a racist nation.
I didn't want this to be about me, but who was supposed to be making the premise, and who was hoping for the conclusion, if not me?
Anyway, this thread was educational, I guess. I had never heard of the verb "to felch" until you started using it, with regard to anonymous commenters and, um, elephants. I just googled it. Yuck. Thanks for educating me.
I didn't want this to be about me, but who was supposed to be making the premise, and who was hoping for the conclusion, if not me?
Ummmm...the people whom the post was about? If you didn't want to make it about you, why did you? If the shoe doesn't fit, don't wear it.
Thanks for educating me.
Hey, that's what we're here for. If we can just educate one person, it's worth it. Well, that, and to discourage atavistic morons from posting anonymously...