After intense coverage of everything Rev. Wright and after Obama's complete distancing of himself from Rev. Wright, it appears Obama's numbers that had been lagging are now resurgent.
I think this is because of two things: 1) I truly think that Rev. Wright's performances last week (whether orchestrated in concert with the Obama campaign as I cheekily suggested, or not) were so over-the-top that it was helpful to Obama. Even people who don't love Obama don't believe that he is that crazy or over the top and I think Rev. Wright, on his own, separated himself from Obama and I think that Obama did his part well and 'nipped the issue in the bud'. 2) Obama's message of change resonates with people and a lot of people are looking for reasons to LIKE him as opposed to looking for reasons not to like him. He is a likeable guy and he is new. There is at least some segment of the population that is yearning for change and when faced with the prospect of another Clinton in the White House-- they blink.
This is why I think Obama will win North Carolina and be close enough to make it of no difference in Indiana.
At that point--what is the Clinton argument?
Monday, May 5, 2008
Friday, May 2, 2008
Greenfield on Orwell and Obama
I am always fascinated by anyone using the always relevant Orwell as a point of comparison with today's society. Usually, it is my favorite writer Hitchens who is employing Orwell. But here, Jeff Greenfield at Slate.com compares Orwell to the current Democratic primary--to great effect. Some samples:
Substitute liberal or progressive for socialist, and the text often reads as though Orwell were covering American politics today.
"Everyone who uses his brain knows that Socialism, is a way out [of the worldwide depression,]" Orwell writes. "It would at least ensure our getting enough to eat, even if it deprived us of everything else. Indeed, from one point of view, Socialism is such an elementary common sense that I am sometimes amazed that it has not established itself already." And yet, he adds, "the average thinking person nowadays is merely not a Socialist, he is actively hostile to Socialism. … Socialism … has about it something inherently distasteful—something that drives away the very people who ought to be flocking it its support."
One key to the movement's lack of popularity, Orwell argues, is its supporters. "As with the Christian religion," he writes, "the worst advertisement for Socialism is its adherents." Then he wheels out the heavy rhetorical artillery. The typical socialist, according to Orwell, "is either a youthful snob-Bolshevik who in five years time will quite probably have made a wealthy marriage and been converted to Roman Catholicism, or, still more typically, a prim little man with a white-collar job, usually a secret teetotaler, and often with vegetarian leanings … with a social position he has no intention of forfeiting. … One sometimes gets the impression that the mere words 'Socialism' and 'Communism' draw towards them with magnetic force every fruit-juice drinker, nudist, sandal-wearer, sex-maniac, Quaker, 'Nature Cure' quack, pacifist and feminist in England." (Think "organic food lover," "militant nonsmoker," and "environmentalist with a private jet" for a more contemporary list.)
The perennial struggle of Democratic contenders to appeal to ordinary Americans seems very much of a piece with Orwell's sharp descriptions. Election after election, Democrats argue that once Joe and Jane Sixpack fully grasp the wisdom of the latest six-point college-loan program, or of an 800-page health-care scheme, they will come to wave the Democratic banner. And, sometimes, these voters do just that—provided that the candidate in question has demonstrated a sense that he or she is not treating them as the subject of an anthropological study. Bill Clinton had a full steamer trunk of domestic programs; he also was a product of Georgetown, Oxford, and Yale Law School. But his 18 years in the vineyards of Arkansas politics gave him the tools to compete for support on a more visceral level. Then there were Clinton's obvious tastes for earthly pleasures—from Big Macs to more intimate diversions—which made it very hard to label him as an aloof elitist.
For Democrats at the moment, it is no doubt exasperating to watch working-class voters choose candidates whose economic tastes run to comforting the comfortable. And it may be cold comfort to learn that such impulses are not confined to time and place. But if you want to court these voters in a way that will resonate with them, you could do a lot worse than heeding the cautionary words of George Orwell.
And Barack? Ix-nay on the egg-white omelets.
Substitute liberal or progressive for socialist, and the text often reads as though Orwell were covering American politics today.
"Everyone who uses his brain knows that Socialism, is a way out [of the worldwide depression,]" Orwell writes. "It would at least ensure our getting enough to eat, even if it deprived us of everything else. Indeed, from one point of view, Socialism is such an elementary common sense that I am sometimes amazed that it has not established itself already." And yet, he adds, "the average thinking person nowadays is merely not a Socialist, he is actively hostile to Socialism. … Socialism … has about it something inherently distasteful—something that drives away the very people who ought to be flocking it its support."
One key to the movement's lack of popularity, Orwell argues, is its supporters. "As with the Christian religion," he writes, "the worst advertisement for Socialism is its adherents." Then he wheels out the heavy rhetorical artillery. The typical socialist, according to Orwell, "is either a youthful snob-Bolshevik who in five years time will quite probably have made a wealthy marriage and been converted to Roman Catholicism, or, still more typically, a prim little man with a white-collar job, usually a secret teetotaler, and often with vegetarian leanings … with a social position he has no intention of forfeiting. … One sometimes gets the impression that the mere words 'Socialism' and 'Communism' draw towards them with magnetic force every fruit-juice drinker, nudist, sandal-wearer, sex-maniac, Quaker, 'Nature Cure' quack, pacifist and feminist in England." (Think "organic food lover," "militant nonsmoker," and "environmentalist with a private jet" for a more contemporary list.)
The perennial struggle of Democratic contenders to appeal to ordinary Americans seems very much of a piece with Orwell's sharp descriptions. Election after election, Democrats argue that once Joe and Jane Sixpack fully grasp the wisdom of the latest six-point college-loan program, or of an 800-page health-care scheme, they will come to wave the Democratic banner. And, sometimes, these voters do just that—provided that the candidate in question has demonstrated a sense that he or she is not treating them as the subject of an anthropological study. Bill Clinton had a full steamer trunk of domestic programs; he also was a product of Georgetown, Oxford, and Yale Law School. But his 18 years in the vineyards of Arkansas politics gave him the tools to compete for support on a more visceral level. Then there were Clinton's obvious tastes for earthly pleasures—from Big Macs to more intimate diversions—which made it very hard to label him as an aloof elitist.
For Democrats at the moment, it is no doubt exasperating to watch working-class voters choose candidates whose economic tastes run to comforting the comfortable. And it may be cold comfort to learn that such impulses are not confined to time and place. But if you want to court these voters in a way that will resonate with them, you could do a lot worse than heeding the cautionary words of George Orwell.
And Barack? Ix-nay on the egg-white omelets.
Catholics for Hillary
I think this is interesting and I think it is disturbing. Yet, in a twisted way that Melinda Henneberger only barely touches upon, it make sense by and large.
Hillary is a comfortable choice.
On the "life issues," Hillary has been around a lot longer, and has learned how to deal with the issue better. Of course she has the upper hand here. After all, her husband basically created the most sensi(tive v. bile) argument for legalized abortion when he said "Abortion should be legal, safe and rare." Thats a lot more difficult to argue with than Obama's "I don't want my daughters punished with a baby."
Still, on virtually every other social or economic issue that the Catholic Church has teachings on-- Obama is the FAR superior candidate and his track record (short though it may be) is much more in line with what one would think Catholic voters would be looking for.
Hillary is a comfortable choice.
On the "life issues," Hillary has been around a lot longer, and has learned how to deal with the issue better. Of course she has the upper hand here. After all, her husband basically created the most sensi(tive v. bile) argument for legalized abortion when he said "Abortion should be legal, safe and rare." Thats a lot more difficult to argue with than Obama's "I don't want my daughters punished with a baby."
Still, on virtually every other social or economic issue that the Catholic Church has teachings on-- Obama is the FAR superior candidate and his track record (short though it may be) is much more in line with what one would think Catholic voters would be looking for.
H.S. Principal Outing Gay Students?
Here is an interesting story.
If you read this and have an opinion on it, I would really love to hear it.
My opinion boils down to this-- I think what the Principal did was wrong, and I think the method she chose to deal with, what she obviously perceived as a problem, is not likely going to be successful. or legitimate answer to the problem. I also don't believe it was discriminatory, nor do I think it was unconstitutional.
It also bothers me that the ACLU is so quick to jump in. My Consiglieri asked me why it bothers me that the ACLU is getting involved and the reason is this: I don't think this is a constitutional issue and it undermines the good work the ACLU does when they haphazardly jump into these issues.
So, well . . . that is my opinion-- I am definitely interested in hearing yours!
If you read this and have an opinion on it, I would really love to hear it.
My opinion boils down to this-- I think what the Principal did was wrong, and I think the method she chose to deal with, what she obviously perceived as a problem, is not likely going to be successful. or legitimate answer to the problem. I also don't believe it was discriminatory, nor do I think it was unconstitutional.
It also bothers me that the ACLU is so quick to jump in. My Consiglieri asked me why it bothers me that the ACLU is getting involved and the reason is this: I don't think this is a constitutional issue and it undermines the good work the ACLU does when they haphazardly jump into these issues.
So, well . . . that is my opinion-- I am definitely interested in hearing yours!
The Globalization Paradigm
Another article worth a read!
The globalization paradigm has turned out to be very convenient for politicians. It allows them to blame foreigners for economic woes. It allows them to pretend that by rewriting trade deals, they can assuage economic anxiety. It allows them to treat economic and social change as a great mercantilist competition, with various teams competing for global supremacy, and with politicians starring as the commanding generals. But there’s a problem with the way the globalization paradigm has evolved. It doesn’t really explain most of what is happening in the world.
The globalization paradigm emphasizes the fact that information can now travel 15,000 miles in an instant. But the most important part of information’s journey is the last few inches — the space between a person’s eyes or ears and the various regions of the brain. Does the individual have the capacity to understand the information? Does he or she have the training to exploit it? Are there cultural assumptions that distort the way it is perceived?
It’s not that globalization and the skills revolution are contradictory processes. But which paradigm you embrace determines which facts and remedies you emphasize. Politicians, especially Democratic ones, have fallen in love with the globalization paradigm. It’s time to move beyond it.
The globalization paradigm has turned out to be very convenient for politicians. It allows them to blame foreigners for economic woes. It allows them to pretend that by rewriting trade deals, they can assuage economic anxiety. It allows them to treat economic and social change as a great mercantilist competition, with various teams competing for global supremacy, and with politicians starring as the commanding generals. But there’s a problem with the way the globalization paradigm has evolved. It doesn’t really explain most of what is happening in the world.
The globalization paradigm emphasizes the fact that information can now travel 15,000 miles in an instant. But the most important part of information’s journey is the last few inches — the space between a person’s eyes or ears and the various regions of the brain. Does the individual have the capacity to understand the information? Does he or she have the training to exploit it? Are there cultural assumptions that distort the way it is perceived?
It’s not that globalization and the skills revolution are contradictory processes. But which paradigm you embrace determines which facts and remedies you emphasize. Politicians, especially Democratic ones, have fallen in love with the globalization paradigm. It’s time to move beyond it.
The Most Thoughtful Comment on Rev. Wright
Leave it to former Reagan speechwriter, Peggy Noonan to put the Rev. Wright issue into perspective.
She captures the issue in a very understandable and well-stated manner. Here are some samples:
I also think that if Hillary Clinton wins because of the Wright scandal, it will leave a sad taste in the mouths of many. Mr. Obama reveals many things in his books, speeches and interviews but polarity and a tropism toward the extreme are not among them. What happened with Mr. Wright should not determine the race. Mr. Obama's stands, his ability to convince us he can make good change, his ability to be "one of us," that great challenge for a national politician in a varied nation, should determine the race.
I do not feel a sense of honest anger or violation at his remarks, in part because I don't think his views carry deep implications for our country. I have been watching America up close for many years – if you count a bright childhood, for half a century. I have seen, heard and respected the pain of a people who were forced to come here when they did not want to and made to live in a way that no one would want to. Who could deny them their grief or anger?
Please read the whole article. It is definitely a worth-while read.
She captures the issue in a very understandable and well-stated manner. Here are some samples:
I also think that if Hillary Clinton wins because of the Wright scandal, it will leave a sad taste in the mouths of many. Mr. Obama reveals many things in his books, speeches and interviews but polarity and a tropism toward the extreme are not among them. What happened with Mr. Wright should not determine the race. Mr. Obama's stands, his ability to convince us he can make good change, his ability to be "one of us," that great challenge for a national politician in a varied nation, should determine the race.
I do not feel a sense of honest anger or violation at his remarks, in part because I don't think his views carry deep implications for our country. I have been watching America up close for many years – if you count a bright childhood, for half a century. I have seen, heard and respected the pain of a people who were forced to come here when they did not want to and made to live in a way that no one would want to. Who could deny them their grief or anger?
Please read the whole article. It is definitely a worth-while read.
An Ode to Sports
For those of us from Detroit, these have been trying times. Michigan, our state, seems to be in a one state recession. Detroit itself, is wrapped up in scandal as I talked about earlier this week. However, we have one bright spot-- and that is our sports teams. Last night the Detroit Tigers pulled off a sweep of the Evil Empire New York Yankees--on the road, in their last series in Yankee Stadium in the Bronx. This is a feat the Tigers have not managed since 1966! Last night the Detroit Pistons defeated the Philadelphia 76ers 100-77 in Game 6 of their first round series to advance to the Eastern Conference semifinals against the Orlando Magic. Finally, also last night, and into the early morning on the East coast, the Detroit Red Wings beat the Colorado Avalanche 8-2 to sweep their Western Conference semifinal and advance to the conference finals for the second year in a row.
I am not knowledgable enough to know whether this is unprecedented or not. What I do know is that this is tremendously exciting. Last year was similarly exciting as both the Pistons and Red Wings each reached the conference finals. We are in a period of Detroit sports where 3 of our 4 major professional teams are playing at high, sometimes dominant levels. They are all competitors for the championship in their respective sports and it is great to be a Detroit sports fan.
I think that in the difficult times that the state of Michigan and Detroit are undergoing, it is important to have sports to unite and uplift the city. And that is the power of sports. While many see it as a frivolous or tangential to societal issues, I see it as crucial. Not merely as an opiate of the masses, or merely as a distraction, but probably yes to both of those accusations as well. Sports has a chance to unify and uplift an area when times are down. Sports stadiums, like Comerica Park in downtown Detroit, have the power to be a driving force in revitalizing a downtown area. Sports, in the final analysis, is a soothing cocktail at the end of a long hard week. It is a couch for you to plop yourself down on and relax. These may be distractions but they are good distractions, and I think we can all agree that times like these, Detroit needs the distractions.
I am not knowledgable enough to know whether this is unprecedented or not. What I do know is that this is tremendously exciting. Last year was similarly exciting as both the Pistons and Red Wings each reached the conference finals. We are in a period of Detroit sports where 3 of our 4 major professional teams are playing at high, sometimes dominant levels. They are all competitors for the championship in their respective sports and it is great to be a Detroit sports fan.
I think that in the difficult times that the state of Michigan and Detroit are undergoing, it is important to have sports to unite and uplift the city. And that is the power of sports. While many see it as a frivolous or tangential to societal issues, I see it as crucial. Not merely as an opiate of the masses, or merely as a distraction, but probably yes to both of those accusations as well. Sports has a chance to unify and uplift an area when times are down. Sports stadiums, like Comerica Park in downtown Detroit, have the power to be a driving force in revitalizing a downtown area. Sports, in the final analysis, is a soothing cocktail at the end of a long hard week. It is a couch for you to plop yourself down on and relax. These may be distractions but they are good distractions, and I think we can all agree that times like these, Detroit needs the distractions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)