Filed under: Author - ACG, Politics | Tags: Election 2008, Elitism, Join or Die, Law, Political symbols
About half of the internet has been trying to sort out and properly react to Barack Obama’s alleged turn to center on FISA, the death penalty, and a few other issues.
The other half would’ve joined the party, but they were busy captioning pictures of cats.
I’ve resolved the issue to my personal satisfaction by reasoning that Obama’s “rightward turn” might be partly attributed to a heartfelt desire to reach across the aisle and be every person’s president, and partly chalked up to simple politics, both of which are fine by me. But why listen to a law student when you could listen to a law professor? Kyron Huigens of Cardozo Law reasons that Obama’s turn is not a turn at all, but rather explained by his principled beliefs in the way the law works. I think he’s probably on the right path.
And this, my friends, is why you want an “elitist” as a president. The Bush years have so blinded us by partisan gamesmanship that we’re looking for spin when there may not be any: “what’s that crazy Obama kid trying to prove?” For once, we might just have a candidate who’s researched the issues, thought long and hard about them, and reached an intellectual conclusion. He may not be as fun to sit down and have a beer with as George W. Bush, but when the tab comes, at least Barack Obama can calculate the tip.
12 Comments so far
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <pre> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
The other half would’ve joined the party, but they were busy captioning pictures of cats.
Wait, what?
Ahem.
Meritocracy is a good thing, indeed.
Comment by James F July 17, 2008 @ 12:15 amI have to agree with Huigens. When I listen to, or read all of what Obama said, instead of just the clips available on the nightly news, his positions are well-reasoned and consistent, even though I don’t always agree with him. But why should we agree on everything? And why should I assume he’s pandering to get elected when we do disagree? It’s tempting, when we agree on so many things, to assume we agree on everything, and feel betrayed when we discover we don’t agree and that I think is where the charges of ‘turning to the right’ are coming from.
Comment by shadowcatdancing July 17, 2008 @ 12:27 amI think a more realistic position is to recognize that no candidate is going to agree with me on everything, and I have to make the best choice available.
As for buying him a beer, I would far rather have a beer with Obama than Bush or McCain, or even Hillary, the candidate I supported in the primaries. It would be a far more interesting conversation.
On FISA, Obama’s opinion also seems to be consistent with the majority of Americans.
Comment by Progressive Conservative July 17, 2008 @ 8:35 am1. News flash: BHO is not running against GWB.
2. I kept waiting for the author to say he’d known Obama personally, either at HLS or somewhere. Alas, he’s never personally observed Obama’s legal mind in action. The basis of the article is that this professor at a second-tier law school “has a sense” that he “know[s] Obama’s mind” from a distance. Where do I sign up to write an article?
3. This is exactly how Democrats tried to define Kerry against Bush in 04. Now, of course, in that case, Kerry’s Yale grades didn’t turn out to be all that sterling either. Even though the “intellectual . . . nuanced . . . contemplative” characterization is more justified here than it was in Kerry’s case, is there any evidence that that wins elections? Not recently. I’m concluding that it’s simply something the left enjoys hearing about its candidates.
Comment by Collin July 17, 2008 @ 10:21 am1. Nor did I suggest this was relevant to the general election viz. McCain. It’s just relevant in that I’ll be glad to have a president who values intelligence over partisanship.
Comment by Ames July 17, 2008 @ 11:45 am2. Sure, this is persuasive authority at best. But it shows that his opinions bear the fingerprints of legal reasoning.
3. I don’t think it DOES win elections, but it SHOULD. And it should be something we all enjoy hearing about our candidates. Why the hell does the right not enjoy hearing about their candidates’ intellect, Collin?
“1″ would hold a lot more water if McCain (whom I desperately wanted to vote for in 2000, not GWB) would stop aligning himself with GWB’s policies. You can point to distinctions, sure, but there were more when he started.
“2″ – http://www.wordpress.com. Knock yourself out! :)
“3″ – if you rub off the later characterizations of him from his time as President, you may recall that Bill Clinton ran on his intellectual bona fides. I also can’t help noting that scant paragraphs after dismissing GWB as not being relevant, you bring up Kerry to knock the knees out from under pro-intellectualism.
All that being said, I think his stance on FISA is moo-poo, and it has seriously compromised my faith in his ability to do the right thing. It hasn’t decided my vote, yet, but I’m a lot less solid than I was.
~ John
Comment by John July 17, 2008 @ 1:24 pmI appreciate your responses.
On “Why don’t Republicans want their candidates to be smart?” I have a few thoughts.
I grew up watching TV shows paint Republicans as yacht-club, champange-sipping elitists. Think of the Bush 41 Newsweek “Wimp Factor” cover. Or the bumper sticker “I’m too poor to vote Republican.”
At some point, Republicans got tired of being labeled (sigh) elitist and decided to go on a conquest. Voters who had been LBJ Democrats became Reagan Republicans. And that demographic has been very fertile ground. The GOP’s success in capturing Joe Six-Pack has been the story of the party, if not of American electoral politics, at least since Bush 43, probably since Reagan.
So bragging about how smart Republican candidates are does not help the GOP with its new bread-and-butter demographic. It would alienate them and put the GOP back in the yacht-club box.
And here’s incredibly Candid observation from me. Look at the candidates who have come down the pipeline for the GOP recently. There’s not a lot of intellectual cred to brag about. (I’d hasten to point out that Richard Nixon was too smart for his own (and possibly everyone else’s) good and that there have been and can be smart Republicans.)
John McCain: went to “about 20 schools” through high school and thus didn’t take school seriously. Graduates Annapolis ranked 894 out of 899.
GWB: Graduates Yale with GPA of 2.35.
(GHWB: graduates Yale in 2.5 years, PBK degree in Economics. Lost Joe Six Pack to Clinton in 92.)
Reagan: said that attending Eureka College was a great chance for him to play football for a few more years.
Comment by Collin July 17, 2008 @ 5:06 pmI just heard a really fascinating interview with the authors of “The Grand New Party” on Fresh Air yesterday. They spoke about how liberals tend to focus on the poorest of America. The rich don’t really need a lot of attention (insert liberal complaints about tax cuts for the wealthy here). So the GOp has been successful by focusing on the ‘forgotten man’ as FDR once put it i.e. the middle class and middle class values. They went on to say that the key to a GOP renewal is to listen to the middle class and address their needs because liberalism just isn’t getting the job done.
Non-elitist GOP candidates were vital to that strategy for years and may continue to be.
Comment by Progressive Conservative July 17, 2008 @ 7:26 pmI am biased but I feel like the Republicans are getting themselves in trouble with the “middle class”.
The reasons being is that the Republicans have come off as very unconcerned with the plight of the middle class during the “recession”. As recently as April McCain was saying it was in everyone’s head. They’ve been really reluctant to help out any families during the mortgage crisis as well.
And many of the things that Democrats have been advocating for, which could have been said to been aimed at the lower income families, will start helping out middle class families if there is trouble.
I feel like these things make it harder for the GOP to reconnect with the middle class, and appear non elitist.
Comment by oneiroi July 18, 2008 @ 9:37 amOneiroi, I agree the GOP has perception issues, but that’s just what it is, perception. A lot of it is PR, reminding people that GOP reforms have actually helped the middle class and pointing out how. We spent too much time focusing on cultural issues under Bush. Going forward we need to speak more towards economic and non-wedge domestic issues, which can be strengths.
And many of the things that Democrats have been advocating for, which could have been said to been aimed at the lower income families, will start helping out middle class families if there is trouble.
Are you referring to social safety nets like unemployment insurance or welfare? Yes, those things will help if there’s trouble but what liberal policies help an average middle class family that is doing pretty well? Not many. Conservative policies tend to be more concerned with maintaining what works while liberal policies tend to be more concerned with preparing for if it doesn’t. Maybe that’s a good balance.
Comment by Progressive Conservative July 18, 2008 @ 11:07 amGays are Mean
Comment by Mean People Suck July 15, 2009 @ 11:35 pm?
Comment by ACG July 15, 2009 @ 11:37 pm