How odd it is that we in the West seem to have only two ways of thinking about politics – either supreme cynicism or supreme credulousness.
– David Aranovich, who is not entirely impressed by the Barack Obama phenomenon. Count me in on that.
|
|||||
|
We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people. Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house] Authors
Arts, Tech & CultureCivil LibertiesCommentary
EconomicsSamizdatistas |
Samizdata quote of the dayJanuary 8th, 2008 |
 32 comments to Samizdata quote of the day |
Who Are We?The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling. We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe. CategoriesArchivesFeed This PageLink Icons   |
|||
All content on this website (including text, photographs, audio files, and any other original works), unless otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons License. |
|||||
The gist of the article though, is that Hillary does not stand a chance merely because she is a woman. What utter nonsense.
Second that. There may be barriers to entry for women in American politics – but people dislike Hillary Clinton because she’s evil, not because she’s female. Aranovich’s column is crap.
Taking just the quote at face value – the inverse of a Bell Curve … what a dichotomous reality
I think that prejudice against Hillary is likely to be the result of her marriage to Bill, who many Democrats distrust after his own leadership. It’s hard to even attempt to adopt a progressive stance after your spouse did the same and immediately turned his back on it.
Aaronovitch essentially borrowed from this none too subtle quote by Bill Clinton,
“”We can’t be a new story,” he said. “I can’t make her younger, taller, male.””
Has the man even realised that of the two of them it’s Hillary that’s being considered?
That side of the argument may be rubbish, but Aaro has a point in questioning some of the more wild-eyed enthusiasm for Obama, which seems to overlook his rather boilerplate big-govt. liberalism.
I got the impression that the article was essentially about Hillary, Obama being a side point, but I could be wrong.
Isn’t part of this the fact that the average US voter isn’t too enamoured with the idea of the presidency going to someone called “Bush” and someone called “Clinton” ad nauseum on some kind of demented rotation basis?
Sorry, but how does “Politics” in the “West” differ from the same human interactions elsewhere in cynicisn or credulity.
Is this just the London Times way of asking “Why do we have roaches?”
I take a chance and make a prediction:
Obama, as a Northern ultra-liberal, will not get elected, paving the way for the next president to be a Republican, unless the republican candidate is Huck.
Just a month ago nobody would have bet on the Rep. keepig the presidency. I’m willing to do that now (though only at a modest stake).
All libertarians are to be cynical and skeptical about those who wield political power.
Well, right, but just questioning it isn’t very useful. I don’t think you get points for “seeing through” Obama (easily achieved, really) unless you’ve got some insight to offer about his appeal.
Aranovich’s “insight” amounts to:
which could only come close to being a reasonable analysis if Edwards and his total lack of blackness weren’t still an available choice and if we could somehow all be drugged and brainwashed into believing that Iowa’s voting history were even remotely representative of the US as a whole.
I think he has a point that part of Obama’s appeal is his total lack of substance. But rather than exploring that a bit (which would require mentioning Huckabee, who has edged ahead on the Republican side for similar reasons, probably), he prefers to tell us that his choices for Prez are (apparently in this order) (1) HRC, (2) McCain, (3) Obama. Which disqualifies him for most readers here, I’m sure.
I think somewhere in the world there has got to be another column that dissects Obama and comes up with something we didn’t already know – or at least something based on American politics as they really are, rather than what he read in “American Stereotypes for Dummies.” This one doesn’t seem to be that column.
By ‘cynical’ and ‘skeptical’ do you mean vigilant that the Law of the Land is being followed? Otherwise it’s “All anarchists …” right (the von Mises site has a new Daily Article, that was by Murray Rothbard, explaining the distinction perfectly)
“Just a month ago nobody would have bet on the Rep. keepig the presidency. I’m willing to do that now (though only at a modest stake).”
Though another republican president is the last thing I want, I kind of agree.
I read somewhere (forget where) that Obama’s basically following the McGovern strategy (whip up the young crowd in to get the nomination) without seriously considering how that ended up.
For the record, if I had to vote today I’d vote for president today I’d vote for HRC. I’m not a Clinton fan by any means, and I’d be against a fair amount of what she wanted to do, I just think that she’d do the best day-in day-out job of the major democratic candidates and the republican field is just too ghastly to contemplate.
I would argue that Obama is popular precisely because of how boiler plate blank his rhetoric is. All the different factions can read what they want. This is what you get when you elevate symbolism over results, intentions over effects.
I have no great insight to offer, Joshua, other than my own impression that he is as I described. I was simply agreeing with the point of the original article that there seems to be an awful lot of blind adulation at the moment. I expect this phase to pass.
There is another point that I am sure has been mentioned before, and that’s that his blackness is an asset more than it is a liability when white voters are concerned..
I love women. I have voted for women at most levels of government (not yet for US Senate or President – because, where I live, none have been nominated yet whose politics remotely agree with mine).
An American version of Maggie Thatcher would have her sign in my front yard and her bumper stickers on my cars.
I detest Hilary – both on the basis of her politics (which I oppose fervently) and her personality (she is a horrible person – ask anyone who has ever been around her for any length of time).
Hi krm:-)
I take exception to the quote unless he means for most they are both at the same time. I find most people deeply cynical in certain aspects of government, but completely credulous in others. I find very few people who are revolted by the use of force other than to protect life and property from clear and present threats. Most people are a double standarded hybrid picking and choosing when they are affronted and when they are moony-eyed.
I don’t know. Some whites will vote for him because of his color, others will vote against him for the same reason. I don’t know which group is bigger.
There is also the third group – those who don’t vote based on color… again, I don’t know how many they are.
Seems to me that Southern Democrats, who vote traditionally D because they hate the party of Lincoln, will not vote for Obama.
As to women, well… some of my best friends are women… but not of the Hillary type…
The fight between Hillary and Obama for the Democratic nomination will ensure that neither one can win the presidency. They are two of a kind and evenly matched. They will fight the dirtiest campaign you have ever seen. They are Saul Alinsky’s legacy.
Every one else will see their caimpaign, making them both unelectable.
This assumes the stupid party (Republican) doesn’t get really stupid and throw their chance away.
From the IBD:
“Obama to this point has been a stealth candidate, not hiding but not emphasizing his deep liberal beliefs, content to ride the wave of adulation that has carried him to this point. But is he the next John F. Kennedy, or merely the next Jimmy Carter?
Former Clinton guru Dick Morris thinks he’s the latter — “a Jimmy Carter, running for president on his personal moral outlook, his background and making a virtue out of his limited knowledge of how American government works.” We all know how the Carter administration turned out.”
I do: it’s the ones who will vote for him because of his color.
So do I, but will it pass before or after the election? That’s the important question.
Jacob: I should have written some whites. I don’t know which group is bigger either, but, like Joshua, I tend to think it’s those who will vote for him because of him being black. These are the people who will feel very good about themselves, and the world in general f they vote for a black man. Truth is, I cannot blame them. If I were faced with two candidates I favored, that were absolutely identical in every way, other than one of them being black (or a woman, or a Jew), I’d choose the one that represents one of those “minorities”, just to stick it to the racists, the misogynists and the anti-semites, and to encourage other “minorities” members.
The man seems to know little about American politics.
He complains about Senator Obama’s spending plans – and he is right to do so (the idea that increasing top tax rates would bring in lot of revenue to pay for them is utterly absurd).
But he says not a word about Senator Clinton’s even wilder spending plans.
Instead Senator Clinton is treated as a wonderful deep thinker who is trouble because she is a women – well New Hampshire showed that is utter nonsense.
By the way the “iron my shirts” protesters at the last big Senator Clinton rally were most likely put there by proClinton people.
Why do politicians organize such stunts?
Because whilst most voters may not be morons a lot of voters are (who will fall for the fake “victim” tactic).
People who looked at the film of the rally (or the film of the fake almost-in-tears thing which was also in the last 24 hours before the vote) and said “oh no the Clinton machine is at it again” were not going to vote for the Senator anyway.
The point of such tactics is to reach out to the people who, only a few hours from the vote, are still confused and undecided – i.e. to reach out to the morons.
I watch a lot of TV. Quite a lot of that invloves seeing people. Quite a few of these are women. I still have a TV rather than a wrecked set of electronics on the garden path because a surprisingly large proportion of those women are not Hilary Clinton, Hazel Blears or Harriet Harman. This isn’t even political or about looks. Anne Widdecombe is hardly eye-candy and I disagree strongly with her on many issues but there is an integrity about her that doesn’t make me want to defenestrate the telly.
There is something just utterly repugnant about Clinton and some of Blair’s “babes” which I can’t quite identify beyond knowing full well that whilst there is a certain class of people I disagree with and could debate with and respect I would actually want to do these folk actual bodily harm. It’s not about them being women because David Milliband has the same effect on me, as did John Prescott and many, many others. Is it possible to watch Zac Goldsmith wittering on about carbon trading and not want to take him outside and give him a sound thrashing?
What is amazing is that we freely elect people we wouldn’t lend a fiver to to run the country. I wouldn’t lend Gordan Brown a quid and yet he’s got the control codes to our Trident missiles!
Who are Blair’s “babes”?
In such an “everything equal” case I would choose according to Parkinson’s suggestion: the better looking one.
Alisa.
“Blair’s babes” were the result of a rule introduced in the Labour party when he was leader that a certain number of candidates had to be women.
This led to a lot of local Labour Associations (or “local parties” as they put it) acting as if the following was their position “we must have a female candidate, it does not matter what female candidate – as long as the candidate is female, hey this one seems harmless and docile”.
In the Labour party landslide of 1997 a lot of these people were elected (the individual gets few votes in Britain – poltitical party is what matters).
Mr Blair, to show how P.C. he was, even made some of them Ministers.
They became know for being stupid and clueless – even by the low standards of politicians.
Almost needless to say talented women tended to be left out.
I note that Comrade Clinton has proposed another 150 BILLION Dollars of government spending – on top of all her other spending promises.
Perhaps David …… will attack this wild spending, or perhaps he will not.
A lot of “serious” people (including a lot of people in the financial industry – both the Financial Times crowd in Britain and many of the Wall Street people in the United States) treat Hillary Clinton as a “serious thinker” also.
Senator Clinton may be “serious” in the sense that she has as little sense of homour and human warmth as, well ME, but she is also a moron.
And people who do not understand that Hillary is a moron are morons themselves – no matter how much money they have got.