David Brooks is the latest media type to espouse This Week’s Conventional Wisdom, which is to cast doubt on whether Barack Obama can deliver on all that hope he’s been dishing out.
Not that he trashes him or anything. When I first started reading this piece, which will be on tomorrow’s op-ed page, I thought it was yet another expression of Mr. Brooks’ fondness for Hillary Clinton. But then I read this sentence: "They see that her entire political strategy consists of waiting for primary states as boring as she is." Whoa. Way harsh, huh?
No, Mr. Brooks is just trying to keep us from building ourselves up for a disappointment with our Obamaphoria. And that’s a solid, conservative sort of thing to do, in the good, old-fashioned sense of "conservative."
But when he makes this point, he reminds me why I’m glad to be an Obamaniac:
And if he were president now, how would the High Deacon of Unity heal the breach that split the House last week?
You know what I had to do? I had to go down the hall and ask Mike what Mr. Brooks meant by that. (Mike knows stuff like that. Mikey will keep up with anything.)
It was just as I suspected. It was another one of those inside-the-Beltway, partisanship-for-partisanship things that happen to help interest groups raise money and give the blathering heads on 24/7 TV "news" something to blather about.
Mike explained that last week, all the Republicans in the House walked out over something the Democrats did having to do with Harriet Miers. That’s all I needed to know! Don’t tell me any more! This is obviously one of those things that I will cross the street to avoid knowing about. In fact, I immediately remembered having seen "Harriet Miers" in the headline of one of those hundreds of press releases from partisan warriors — I’m thinking it was John Boehner — that I delete without reading. Only Mr. Boehner says it was about something else altogether.
Don’t get me wrong, folks. The FISA Act, or the firings of federal prosecutors, or whatever this is purportedly about, is an important matter. But when it devolves into Democrats issuing contempt citations on Republicans, and Republicans trying to embarrass them right back by walking out over it, it just convinces me that ALL of them are wrong, and I wish they would all walk out, and not come back. And take Harriet Miers with you.
It just makes a sensible person want to sweep the board clean and start over.
And folks, that’s what we like about Obama. Every time Hillary Clinton speaks of her "35 years of experience," we know she means 35 years of this kind of stuff. And we don’t want any more.
In the end, Brooks puts his finger on the source of Obama’s appeal with great precision. We don’t care whether he’s demonstrated he can deliver on all the promises or not (something Hillary can’t do, either; think "health care reform"). As Mr. Brooks says, "At least this candidate seems likely to want to head in the right direction."
Related Posts
Let me start out by saying that Obama’s statement that he would provide everyone with as good medical insurance as senators get, and would do it in his first term, gave me a better belly laugh than I’ve had in a long time. Having said that, his whole platform is about involving the each and every person in the push for reform. And that’s what makes his candidacy so relevant and so meaningful. He’s seeking participatory, inclusive government, not secretive, one sided government. And he’s looking for a way to help everyone up, not just the ones who own the ocean going leisure craft. This guy is not a candidate of the POG. And that makes a lot of difference; whether the greed is for power or wealth or both, we don’t need those people running our government any more!
Karen … As the owner of an “ocean-going leisure craft,” I’m disappointed at your label-making. Nobody gave me the boat, nor do I derive any tax benefit from owning it. In fact, it represents considerable tax and other expense.
So far, Mr. Obama’s promises are as empty-headed as the health-care statement you chickle, and less funny than the implicit threat of increased taxation which underlies his intent. In fact, Obama is going to need “participatory, inclusive government” from us all to achieve anything he promises, and I don’t see him turning away financial contributions from boat owners or anyone else in his quest for the job or the $100+ million of other people’s money he’ll spend to get it. “Those people” (I can’t believe you use that term) you refer to are not all driven by greed, nor do they represent blanket opposition to Obama’s ideals. Having worked hard to enjoy a boat ride on occasion, I make no apologies for it or for what those pleasure represents. At this point, Obama still has my respect, for his willingness to dream out loud and inspire us to higher purpose. But it’s time that he show us how that might happen — with fairness to all, even those who have managed to succeed in top tax brackets.
I have spent many a night on a bar stool. I have used the same types of drivel as Obama…on the local women. I have had some success and some failure…but make no mistake about it…they, and I knew it was drivel. That America seems to believe in his empty promises says a lot more about us that about him.
They use terms like Inclusion, participatory, hopeful, relevant, meaningful …all those things and a buck will get u a cup of cheap coffee.
America has been tortured by the Republicans. The GOP has lost their way and will now have to pay the price. Obama, as president, is one hell of a high price…but I suppose we must pay it.
I remind myself we had to have Carter to get Reagan. Perhaps Obama will give us_______________. I can only hope.
More bad economic news. This from the USA Today:
WASHINGTON — The latest batch of economic reports provided little good news Thursday, with a gauge of future economic activity dropping for a fourth month, contraction in Mid-Atlantic factory production and the four-week average for new jobless claims hitting the highest level since October 2005.
So why should we elect a man, McCain, who openly admits that he knows very little about economic matters? At this time in our history we need a person of vision who can lead our nation back to the greatness it was during the Clinton years. Perhaps more Clinton years would be good. Obama might even be better. Given the multiple recession economies that we suffer through every time a Republican is elected President how can anyone seriously consider yet another GOP candidate who sees only phantom threats from abroad as part of his presidential agenda?
Here’s the BBC’s account of Clinton’s legacy, bud. Sure you want more? …
Inequality
The US has the highest rate of inequality of any industrialised country, and that inequality increased during Mr Clinton’s years in office.
It was only in the last few years of the boom that economic growth percolated down, as average wages began to rise and unemployment fell among minority communities.
Mr Clinton was unable, or unwilling, to do much to combat that inequality.
Some of the policies he embraced, such as the expansion of the earned income tax credit, were designed to redistribute money to working families.
But others, such as welfare reform, meant that even less government support was likely for poor people at the bottom of the income distribution.
Here are a few handy numbers concerning the number of Americans below the poverty line. Note how there were over 39 million in Clinton’s first year in office declining to 31 million in his last. Sadly, the Bush administration and his toady GOP congress turned that progress around and largely erased the progress made under Clinton. At least now with Democrats in charge of congress these numbers should start to drop again.
2006…… 36,460
2000……. 31,581
1993……. 39,265
The official poverty line is 50% higher for 2006 than it was in 1993.
There are 20,000,000 more illegal aliens in the US in 2007 than there were in 1993. They sneaked in here with nothing, most are illiterate, and working low-paying jobs, and came here to get welfare ($120 BILLION of it in 2007).
McCain admits he knows little about economics.
Obama and Hillary demonstrate they know nothing about economic policy.
Gordon, I’m glad you have your boat, and i hope you enjoy it. I’m just looking for a person who is looking to include all, not just you (I’m sorry my image of the very rich offended you, but I’m even sorrier that for the last 8 years that they are the only ones who had any voice in government). Monetarily speaking, I’m not rich, but I’m not suffering, either. I thank God, that I’ve got enough to give, and that I was lucky enough to have parents who were able to give me the love and discipline that I needed as a child to grow to be a functional adult. Meanwhile riches I have–friends, work I enjoy, a church family and a relationship to God. What more can I ask for?
Karen, I’m not rich either, nor do I wish for. Family, friends, church, faith. Those are the important things. … My boat is 20 years, and a rehab project of sorts. It’s something I’ve always dreamed of. I worked two jobs to put myself through school, and 30 years later I’m still working two jobs. So is my wife. And, because we own our businesses businesses, we end up paying almost 40 percent of our income in taxes — more if you count employment or other taxes paid by the businesses themselves. What rubbed me the wrong way in your post is the growing sense of entitlement espoused by Obama, and the Clintons. Well, somebody has to pay for all their promises, and it’s not going to be people on the receiving end of their programs. Based on experience, it’s going to be people like me, who already carry the majority of our nation’s tax burden. I’m also worn out on the suggestion that there is something inherently evil or corrupt about wealth. We used to look up to “self-made” men and women. Now it’s somehow become source of suspicion and mistrust for a person to succeed financially. Even though it is harder than ever to succeed, especially in small businesses such as those I’m involved in. For example, tax accounting is our third-largest expense after rent and payroll. If taxes were not a factor, we could manage our books without assistance. I’ll spend 40-60 hours in the next month preparing information for tax reporting, before paying thousands of dollars more for accountants to file those taxes. Then I’ll work almost five months a year to pay those taxes, while our presidential candidates line up to make that six or more months through “redistribution” programs. That’s just plain wrong. I will not vote for give-away government, no matter how inspiring Mr. Obama may be. I’ll pay for more-better education, yes. For assitance that leads to employment, yes. For health care for the disabled, yes. But, for able-bodied citizens, the solution is work. Let’s see a candidate stand up and tell us the truth: If you want something, better health care included, get a job and earn it. There are no free rides in America. There is no promise of economic equality. There will always be haves and have-nots, so long as some people are willing to work, and others wait for a government check in the mail. … Old fashioned? Damn straight.
According to liberal theology, there are no “self-made men” (or women). Anyone who succeeds, couldn’t possibly be smarter, or worked harder than those less well off. They had to have stolen it from the masses, or inherited from Daddy or Grandpappy who stole it.
That makes everyone who is lower on the ladder of success feel better. It isn’t their fault they aren’t rich because they don’t work hard at a job which rewards hard work. All that money belongs to everyone, and good politicians will divide it up evenly, because health care is a birhtright, a nice house is birthright, an education is birthright, etc ad nauseum.