Jump To » Mobile / Confirm Them / Right Shelf / Sports / State Blogs / About / Contact / Help / Posting Rules / Conservative Book Club / Human Events
Barry Obama Discovers the Limits of His Experience
In Politics, Never Tell The Truth
By blackhedd Posted in Breaking News | Guns and God | Obama | San Francisco — Comments (20) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
By his own standards, young Barry Obama is more than experienced enough to be President of the United States. We know all about his childhood travels to Indonesia, Pakistan, and other places.
But of course, with his remarks in San Francisco, he inadvertently reminded us of the low bar he has set in regard to experience. His desultory damage control ("Hmm, from your reaction, it seems I expressed myself badly") only reinforce the image of out-of-touch elitism he has now constructed for himself.
Obama's campaign is based on his quite correct recognition that politics and politicians are hated because they never tell the truth. He set about producing a product that would meet this underserved need.
He got the marketing right but the technology wrong. He lacks the experience to know that in politics, you never tell the truth. It just gives your opponents too much to work with. When Barry learns this, he'll be left with nothing but his not-inconsiderable style and charisma. And it so happens that these are the things that really drive electoral success in America.
But wait just a moment. There's something else in what Barry said in San Francisco, and it really matters, because it explicitly laid out the approach he would take as President. And you need to understand exactly what it was.
More...
Obama said, in so many words, that people who live in benighted places like Pennsylvania turn to guns, religion, racism, ageism, protectionism and xenophobia as an escape for their problems. But he also told us why they have done that: because they've learned to distrust that the government will give them what they need.
He said it. Oh yes, he did. From Helperin's transcript:
Here’s how it is: in a lot of these communities in big industrial states like Ohio and Pennsylvania, people have been beaten down so long. They feel so betrayed by government that when they hear a pitch that is premised on not being cynical about government, then a part of them just doesn’t buy it. And when it’s delivered by — it’s true that when it’s delivered by a 46-year-old black man named Barack Obama, then that adds another layer of skepticism.
But — so the questions you’re most likely to get about me, ‘Well, what is this guy going to do for me? What is the concrete thing?’ What they wanna hear is so we’ll give you talking points about what we’re proposing — to close tax loopholes, uh you know uh roll back the tax cuts for the top 1%, Obama’s gonna give tax breaks to uh middle-class folks and we’re gonna provide healthcare for every American.
But the truth is, is that, our challenge is to get people persuaded that we can make progress when there’s not evidence of that in their daily lives... it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain [sic] their frustrations.
Emphasis mine. Here, Obama is revealing another truth, which likely went down quite well with his disciples in San Francisco, but ought to alarm the rest of us:
The goal of an Obama Presidency will be to make "progress" via government action. He's accepting as a matter of unquestioned faith that this is the right thing to do. He has so much youthful confidence in his ability to do this, that he's waving away mountains of recent experience that government activism has unintended consequences.
And to him, the political problem he must overcome is simply skepticism that government actually can improve the material conditions of life in Ohio, Pennsylvania, and elsewhere.
This is truly noteworthy. What Obama is telling us, is that America needs CHANGE™ because the government has a bad reputation. He's glossing over all of the steps in the logic chain that implicitly led him to this view.
Let's examine them. First, Obama has learned his Leninism well. To him, government competes against religion and all of the other things that ordinary people value and cherish. But the rest of us know that government does not have a prior claim on what matters most in our lives. It's crushingly naive for Obama to suppose that religion enters after government has failed.
Second, can the government improve the material well-being of our citizens evenly and fairly? No, it probably can't, because it's susceptible to the fatal disease of power unchecked by alternatives or market forces: corruption.
Third, should the government even try to improve the material well-being of our citizens? Well, that depends on where you sit politically. Many young, well-educated people have no hesitation whatsoever in answering this question affirmatively. But many other people remember a past history in which Americans cherished their self-reliance and the power of their own communities. In fact, we had quite a discussion about whether we should have a King, after we fought a Revolution to free ourselves from another one. And we decided against it.
And finally, what about all the things the government has already done to destroy the material well-being of our communities? Economies, like people, are flexible. They adapt readily to changing circumstances. But by overregulating trade and overtaxing capital and income, the government has dampened this flexibility, and done much to cause or exacerbate the economic distress in places like Ohio and Pennsylvania. Obama has already promised much more of the same poison.
The people for whom Obama has so much condescension, which is all the more grating for its benignity ("I'm from the government, and I'm here to help you!"), see very clearly the flaws in the logic which underlies his faith. They know that for all his naive talk, Obama actually is just this generation's embodiment of the infatuation with government technocracy which has wrought so much ill in their lives.
Obama is not a new thing. He's the same old thing, wrapped up in a new package.
-Francis Cianfrocca ("blackhedd")
« Toward an Understanding of the Obamian Language — Comments (4) | Sistani "Outs" Mookie — Comments (32) »
Barry Obama Discovers the Limits of His Experience 20 Comments (0 topical, 20 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
Obama's candidacy is a protest candidacy
by sinz52
While Obama preaches "hope" and "unity" and "consensus" for the rest of us, the core of his support comes from the Left which is bitter as hell.
Obama would be an also-ran if it weren't for the powerful antiwar movement. He is their candidate, much as Huckabee was the candidate of evangelicals.
And the antiwar movement is just furious: Furious at Bush for allegedly "stealing" the 2000 election (they haven't gotten over that one). Furious at the Iraq War. Furious that America remains the world's greatest superpower and won't take orders from the U.N. And most of all, furious that the allegedly ignorant and primitive yahoos in Middle America just don't follow their "enlightened" leadership:
Ignorance and bloodlust have a long tradition in the United States, especially in the red states....The error that progressives have consistently committed over the years is to underestimate the vitality of ignorance in America. Listen to what the red state citizens say about themselves, the songs they write, and the sermons they flock to. They know who they are—they are full of original sin and they have a taste for violence....when life grows difficult or fearsome, they (politicians, preachers, pundits) encourage you to cling to your ignorance with even more fervor.
-- Jane Smiley, 2004
http://www.slate.com/id/2109218/
[Now that last part has a familiar ring to it, doesn't it? There's that "clinging to religion" meme again.]
From stuff like this, it's clear that the political Left are the most bitter Americans of all.
He got the marketing right
by sinz52
He got the marketing right but the technology wrong. He lacks the experience to know that in politics, you never tell the truth.
That's a very cynical view.
I remember the 1980 campaign. I did NOT get the feeling that either Carter or Reagan were hiding the truth (as each saw it) from the American voters. In fact, what attracted many voters to Reagan was his steadfast, crystal-clear defense of certain principles.
The problem with Obama is not that he's telling the truth as he sees it. He should do that, and voters do respect him for it.
The problem is that voters won't agree that his view of the truth is the correct one. Not that he's lying, but that he is honestly wrong.
That was how the 1980 campaign ended up: Voters did NOT reject Carter because they thought Carter had lied to them. They rejected Carter because they thought Carter was honestly, sincerely espousing a course for the nation that they could not endorse anymore.
In politics, you never tell the truth?
by Cheetah772
blackhedd,
You said, "...in politics, you never tell the truth." I disagree with this statement. I'm not naive, but neither do I think all politicians of any stripe should tell lies all the time. The last thing we need is another Clinton.
I'm not an idealist, but at times I do think honesty and selflessness in politics should be encouraged and appreciated. Politicians aren't above us, they're just like us, and if we let them get away with corruption and lies, then we're really no better than them either.
Finally, based on your statement, does that mean a McCain presidency shouldn't tell the truth, as painful it may be at times, all the time? If so, then may God help all of us, for we reap what we sow.
Please feel free to tell me if I am wrong.
------------
Daniel 2:20 And he [God] changeth the times and seasons: he removeth kings, and setteth up kings: he giveth wisdom unto the wise, and knowledge to them that know understanding.
I think part of Bobby Jindal's appeal is that he is (as far as I can tell) an extremely ethical, hardworking man who doesn't lie or sugarcoat issues, and doesn't pretend that he can make life perfect with more government programs. An honest, virtuous man telling the truth can be extremely refreshing to voters tired of honey-tongued promises from crooks or condescending elitists. The difference is, Obama's honesty reveals a snobby, incoherent marxist who is eager to steal money from half of the country and give it to his followers. The inspiration this seems to inspire in voters is fleeting, I hope.
Why? Because by telling what he sincerely believes allows me to RUN away from him like a dreadful plague. If he were a better liar, then we'd be reaping at least four years of Obama presidency with a lot of grievances and regrets.
------------
Daniel 2:20 And he [God] changeth the times and seasons: he removeth kings, and setteth up kings: he giveth wisdom unto the wise, and knowledge to them that know understanding.
If he were a better liar ...
by skorrent
He'd be Bill Clinton. He'd be telling us he favors a "middle class cut", ... and we'd believe it!
I agree 100 percent
by adrienned
His honesty reveals the scary person he really is, so it's a strategy that will fail him in the end. I just don't see the much touted "charisma." He seems so much less charismatic, than, say, Bill Clinton. But clearly I'm in the minority in not thinking he is charismatic -- his "eloquence" just makes my skin crawl because it's all like a nice, big, flowery, love poem to big government. Ughh.
...when it damages his standing vis-a-vis his opponents.
That's a value-neutral statement, and I think you'd be hard-pressed to disagree with it. And Obama certainly fell into the trap. I don't believe he's a good liar. I also don't think he's a particularly good thinker. In fact, I think he's managed to slide on charm and charisma his whole life, so he's never needed to become either a good liar, a coherent thinker, or both.
Well, doesn't that betoken a cynical view of what an elected official should be? Yes, it does. Of course, our elected officials should work for us, and operate with an informed view of what is best for America and Americans.
Does that mean they do it? As God is my witness, no it does not. With some exceptions (and I believe McCain may be one), politicians are interested in acquiring and wielding power, and that's just about all they're interested in.
I've thought long and hard about history and about leadership for a great many years. I have essentially no faith whatsoever that the American electoral process is good at producing great leaders.
Neither did the Founders, who structured the government so as to limit its power.
Am I cynical about leadership in general? Absolutely not. But great leaders emerge naturally in many realms. And the Founders recognized this also, which is why they did nothing to curtail the wealth of strong private institutions that has always been the unique mark of American political culture, and which has been endangered for decades by the project of empowering the government.
So why am I involved in electoral politics? Primarily to limit the damage.
Well put!
by skorrent
But a skillful politician will also avoid telling an outright lie. Obama has demonstrated neither skill. Ithink that's where the political term "spin" comes from. It describes the course of a politician's campaign between the shoals of detrimental truth and outright lie.
Excellent
by kowalski
Having personally known many of the people who supported Barry when nobody knew him, I can vouch for your analysis personally.
Now he's trying to backtrack and say that he didn't put it as well as he should have when the evidence that I rely on tells me that it was a very, very accurate statement of his views. Those words were the unvarnished opinion of the man. On the way out of his mouth they missed their trip through the Spiniglottis and emerged exactly as the speaker's mind intended them.
These are the kinds of statements that could sink the tenure track of an Assistant Professor if they were uttered during a promotion and tenure review. If Barack Obama honestly expects the country to continue supporting him for President after this, we should tell him in the clearest and most unambiguous way we can: "Go back to school, Barack. You missed your calling as an Assistant Professor."
One small gripe
by kowalski
I think politicans can tell the truth and probably should, at least to a reasonable approximation, particularly when they're untested Johnny-come-latelys who have virtually no record of achievement and yet are running on a messianic campaign to capture the Presidency of the most powerful nation in the free world. But that's just my old-fashioned anachronism showing. Still in many ways I think Obama did tell the "subjective truth" of the way he really thinks. It made perfect sense to me considering the source.
I remember when...
by zeebeach
the country truly wanted "change" and elected Jimmy Carter as POTUS. Jimmy, however, was viewed (at that time) as a conservative democrat. Ultimately, we discovered as a nation that while his administration was certainly a "change", unfortunately, he was incompetent. Now, the country again wants "change", but I believe most people are coming to the realization that Obama would not only be incompetent, but he has absolutely no connection with most Americans - he truly "doesn't get it". With the GWOT ongoing, I believe the country will rally behind John McCain in the ballot booths. I am truly amazed at how far left the democratic party has tacked, to their own detriment. Works for me, though (supporting McCain in '08).
That is absolutely right on
by TheRepublican
That is absolutely right on point. Obama has convinced a lot of people that he's moderate by shying away from what he knows is not a popular idealogy, but every day it peaks through with the crap he comes up with to belittle regular americans.
A Familiar Resemblance To The Past!
by GeneralAl
However he sounds, Obama should remember the old statment about fooling some of the people some of the time. You don't have to be a Rhoades Scholar to recognize genuine Marxism for what it is. The sad part is that the American voters like to hear nice things and for the most part Obama says nice things. An old preacher friend of mine once told me how he could "tickle"
his congregation's ears and have many in the pews on Sunday on the way to Hell or anger a few with the truth and help them obtain safe passage to Heaven. The Devil promises us all good things until we meet our final destination and end up in eternal torment. I'm not saying Obama is evil but his promise of a land flowing with milk and honey will only result in the loss of our security, our independence, and ultimately our lifestyles. The sadder part of this whole scenario is that as usual, those in government will be exempted from the mandates put forth by a President Obama. We will be forced to accept his terms. The old Japanese thug Tojo's idea of choking the sheep to make him swallow the medicine will be invoked. After all, they will claim, your government knows what medicine is best for you. The blind sheep following Obama haven't got a clue about whats in store for them!
This is what bothered me
by roxer
"And when it’s delivered by — it’s true that when it’s delivered by a 46-year-old black man named Barack Obama, then that adds another layer of skepticism."
Seems he is doing the "stereotypical white person" thing again. Color never had to be mentioned here, but then he couldn't get in his dig. Why didn't he just say rednecks?
--roxer
A politician is only restricted from telling the truth
by itrytobenice
when their earnest desire is to restrict your freedom, confiscate your $, control your employer, your health care, and your life.
In other words, if said politician is a democrat. Because, even though they try to keep the mask in place and only tell you that they are on your side, sometimes, the truth comes out. Then we are stuck hearing "apologies" about how they misspoke.
I meant what I said and I said what I meant. An elephant's faithful 100 percent.
Barry's right
by chemjeff2
about what your typical latte liberal thinks. They cannot accept that conservatives reject liberalism on principle. It is always some excuse. We are ignorant, we are bitter, we haven't yet seen the light of the True Path, or - if you are Dick Cheney or George Bush - because you are evil. They are so absorbed in their own self-righteousness. Some days it makes me want to quit being a professor.
I have an acquaintance who is a college professor....
by St. Louis Conservative
....and she actually told me that she "wants a president who hates the country a little bit". She felt someone like that would have a more "global perspective". This is honestly how some of these people think.
“.....women and minorities hardest hit”
blog advertising is good for you
Human Events
Recent comments
Specific Program for the Aged
by Rod PatrickSquandering People's Money
by Rod PatrickLIES OF THE DEVIL
by Rod PatrickMaybe not a Typical Politician
by MikeOYou haven't made your case, I'm afraid
by civil truthObama, c'est un poseur!
by streetwiseGore does claim the earth will be destroyed if
by streetwiseI appreciate it though
by Darin HNow that's a definition of genius. What an ear. n/t
by bantamwaitYes, but McCain's war, while genuinely heroic,
by bantamwaitA shorter way
by simpson316Good point, boychik!
by bantamwaitMass produced thin film
by moderichGotcha. Thanks.
by simpson316Actually, he was just lashing out.
by Moe LaneHow did I not figure this out??
by bantamwaitCatsandbeer may have been here for less than a week, but
by bantamwaitThat's a plan right there
by E Pluribus UnumRemember, kids: Obama supporter. <NT>
by Moe Lane
blog advertising is good for you
get your job site
at simplyhired.com
Obama is not a new thing. He's the same old thing, wrapped up in a new package.
It is utterly conceited of Obama to assume that he is the one that will be able to put into place failed policies and make them work. He truly believes that he is the one that can accomplish the impossible: make unabashed socialism work.
Fighting for conservatism one day at a time.