The Case Against Obama . . .

. . . couldn't be put more concisely and sensibly than by Mark Steyn.  If I were an Obama supporter, I'd have to stick my fingers in my ears and go "La la la la la" not to have my mind changed by it.  So don't read it if you don't want your mind changed.  At least, don't read it with an open mind.

Maybe people like Steyn are all wrong and Obama has just been waiting for the moment when he could reinvent himself as a centrist.  His economic advisers are certainly a sober, mainstream bunch.  The thing is, all we have to go on is . . . hope. 

Comments

[jason]

"...offering his biography in lieu of policy and accomplishments."

Sounds familiar, as if one had pondered the same concerns about the author of the article.

The rest is even more senseless... More subjective doting on anti-Obama-for-the-sake-of-being-anti-Obama silliness.

Talk about putting fingers in the ears and mumbling "La-la-la-la-la" as opposed to facing issues and dealing with reality. Question his courage, his manliness! Question his ability, his worthiness! Question his Americanism!

Yawn.

I find nothing compelling in this piece, Annie. What I do find is the "let's declare 'hope' as an abomination to sound thinking" campaign.

Not that 'hope' in and of itself means anything anymore, but using it as a blunt instrument against the political enemy has become even more meaningless. "Hope" because he has no courage (as though McCain's POW experience means courage any more than that of those in Gitmo or prison, all due respect to American heroes notwithstanding). "Hope" because he has no experience meaningful to being president, as though anyone who hasn't been president can claim such experience. "Hope" because most of the country likes him and you don't, as though a true evaluator of the facts would give a damn about what others think. "Hope" blah blah blah...

In truth, this kind of gibberish has swayed me to Obama. Unfortunately. Like you--or at least as you claim--I dislike the man, dislike his green nature, dislike some of his views. On the other hand, I dislike more this kind of hollow, empty garbage that is supposed to mean something, as much as calling Obama a terrorist and a Muslim is supposed to mean something.

If I vote for that two-dimensional Obama, it's because I could no longer stand the one-dimensional bias of those in charge and those who pretend to be interested in anything other than slant and skew and swindle.

I still don't know how I'll vote Tuesday. I'm still making up my mind. Nevertheless, these past many months of posts like this have helped swing me in the direction opposite McCain. And that scares me.

[amba]

Like you--or at least as you claim--I dislike the man

I've said many times that I like him. I find him appealing. I identify with him. When I hear him talking to an interviewer, I'd like to have him as a friend. There's just very little to go on to know what kind of president he will make ... except hope. That's a huge risk to take. In the case of McCain, we know more.

[Meade]

If someone can explain to me specifically how Steyn has it wrong here, I'll consider voting for Obama on Tuesday.

[Danny]

No finger in ears necessary...I guess that means I don't have an open mind. I admit it's hard for my mind to be completely open while reading someone who regularly appears on Rush Limbaugh's show, who is a fan of Ann Coulter and a huge supporter of George W. Bush, and who was instrumental in spreading the lies that Barack Obama is a secret Muslim who was raised in a madrassah by radical Islamic fundamentalists. Steyn despises liberals (and muslims) and if HE has an open mind, then I am Barack Obama's fundamentalist imam. Salaam aleichem, y'all.

(I do find Steyn occasionally funny, when he isn't turning my stomach. And I did enjoy his book on Broadway musicals. What is he...gay or something?)

[amba]

What does it say that I find Steyn's case in this article persuasive without knowing all that much about Steyn? I know he's a conservative. If I had known he admired Ann Coulter would I then have discounted what he said? Unfortunately it's the argument I find hard to dismiss, not the author. I wish somebody would take up Meade's challenge and explain exactly where Steyn is wrong, rather than just try to kill the messenger.

[mtraven]

Steyn's article is terrible; it's nothing but a hodgepodge of vague insinuations. Thus it can't be proved "wrong", it doesn't say anything. I can't believe anyone would hold this up as something persuasive. If there's something in there that would qualify as an argument, I can't see it. If that's the best case against Obama, it's no wonder he is poised for a landslide.

If you can pull out some specific actual assertions, as opposed to insinuations, from this mess, I would be happy to address it if there is a chance of affecting your vote.

There is the insinuation that Obama would be a big spender: in fact, it's Republican administrations who have spent the country into penury, with the Bush administration being the worst of the lot. War is extremely expensive (aside from its other downsides, like killing people), and McCain promises more endless war. There is the gubbish about redistribution -- all government programs are redistributionist, so there is nothing in Obama's program that is any different from what the government has done in the past.

[amba]

Vague? It looks pretty factual to me. There is what Barack says, and then there's where he's been and what he's done. There's not a lot of basis, yet, in the latter for the former. That causes some people to think he's dishonest. I'm more inclined to think he's a work in progress. I think he probably is evolving towards the center (you'd have to, at least to some extent, to be elected and then to govern in America). But the Oval Office is where he's going to be evolving?? Sure -- every president does.

If your political beliefs are to the left then you'd have no problem with his political beliefs being to the left -- on the contrary. Since I am not on the right but in the center, I am not terrified or horrified by the prospect of an Obama presidency. But I see more hard evidence of centrism in McCain, despite the big pander to the base he's had to do to become the Republican nominee. Because I believe actions more than words, I am going to vote for the candidate whose actions, not words, say what I want to hear.

[Peter Hoh]

I didn't find Steyn's piece persuasive. For what it's worth, I didn't know the facts of Steyn's biography, as detailed by Danny.

Parts come off as rhetorical overkill, such as when Steyn takes Obama's remark about not looking like “all those other presidents on the dollar bills,” and then goes on to suggest that Obama is planning to add his head to Mt. Rushmore.

This would be appropriate in a humor column, perhaps, or when speaking to partisans on one's own side. Otherwise, it falls flat, suggesting that the writer is desperate to create the appearance of a strong argument when such is sorely lacking.

Steyn relies on a two-dimensional (and incomplete) framing of Obama's words with Joe Wurzelbacher. Steyn's paragraph about communism is laughable, considering the ongoing bailout. If Steyn could make the case that the bailout was not "the government confiscating your Elmo to 'share' it with someone of its choice" I might be more sympathetic. Furthermore, McCain's idea of supporting those who are falling behind on their mortgages sounds like the sort of thing Steyn would snort at, were Obama proposing it.

Next 'graph leads with "The Senator is a wealthy man" (is Steyn talking about McCain or Obama?) "mainly on the strength of two bestselling books" (oh, he must be talking about Obama, as McCain has five bestselling books) "offering his biography in lieu of policy and accomplishments" (that works for both of them).

Steyn wants us to scrutinize Obama. That's fair, but it's also fair to look closely at McCain -- a task Steyn does not seem to acknowledge.

Voters have to judge both candidates, warts and all.

Steyn is the one creating two-dimensional figures. In his world, Obama backers are cartoon characters. Their support can only be attributed to naivete or a desire to elect a black man.

It doesn't take much skill to eviscerate a cartoon character of your own creation. I'd like to see Steyn make his case opposite Francis Fukuyama or Jeffrey Hart.

McCain and Obama have exactly the same amount of executive experience. Both men have run a presidential campaign. One has run a tight ship, with a consistent message, and in the primaries, overturned the presidential aspirations of the leading contender in his party. The other candidate won his party's nomination by default. He has run a chaotic campaign that has jumped in fits and starts, abandoning its strongest argument in late August.

McCain has benefited from the "Joe the plumber" incident, but nobody can argue that he planned it.

Should McCain win Tuesday, it will be because of luck. If Obama wins, it will be because he successfully executed the strategy that he and his advisors crafted months in advance.

Who do you want in charge?

[Donna B.]

I disagree that Obama has the same executive experience as McCain. But then, I'm inclined to include military commands in that category. Most 2LTs have more leadership training and executive experience than Obama.

[Peter Hoh]

Fair criticism, Donna. I went over the top by describing them as having "exactly the same amount of executive experience."

I should have said that neither candidate has much executive experience, but this campaign has given us a chance to compare their leadership styles, side-by-side.

[Michael Reynolds]

Amba:

You're kidding, right? This is about as compelling as that other content-free rant you were pushing the other day. I mean, there's literally nothing here. Zero.

[Peter Hoh]

Just read this from Daniel Larison (emphasis mine):

The candidate and the staff are hard to extricate from one another: McCain chose the staffers and agreed to heed their advice, and they crafted a message-free campaign that they thought suited a candidate defined by his biography. To accuse Palin, as some McCain insiders have done anonymously, of having gone “off message” is meaningless–there has been no message from which she could have departed.

[amba]

Steyn is something of a humorist, actually.

[amba]

So much for his "Mt. Rushmore" wisecrack. I don't think that was straight-faced. Still, good arguing, Peter.

The fact remains, we know more about McCain's strengths and weaknesses in situations other than a political campaign. It's ridiculous that we're reduced to judging candidates' executive chops on how well they sold themselves. Like we're electing the Marketer-in-Chief. Then again, in the age of "the permanent campaign," maybe it's not so inappropriate, since every potential two-termer hits the ground campaigning for his second term.

At this point we're all just justifying our choices to ourselves. Whistling in the dark, spitting in the wind. We'll find out all too soon what kind of president one of them makes. As Michael said earlier, let's just hope whoever it is doesn't fuck things up worse than they already are.

[amba]

every potential two-termer hits the ground campaigning for his second term.

Advantage McCain on that one.

[Michael Reynolds]

I don't agree that we're all justifying our decisions.

The Economist endorsed Obama. The Financial Times endorsed Obama. Warren Buffet the Sage of Omaha supports Obama. Republicans like Colin Powell and Ken Duberstein and William Weld support Obama. Paul Volcker and Robert Rubin support Obama.

You're left to assume that each of these very small "c" conservative people or institutions has been bamboozled by a socialist. That you are somehow seeing through a veil that has mystified them.

So, either you have to believe that you have a clearer view of economic policy than Warren Buffet, Paul Volcker and Robert Rubin or you have to believe that they are part of a secret socialist conspiracy.

Annie, the very people (like Steyn) making these hysterical arguments don't actually believe them. They're just partisan con-men. They know better. They know they're just trash-talking and you're taking it seriously. As I pointed out the other day, even Pat Buchanan admits Obama will govern from the center.

This is all fantasy.

[Tom Strong]

Sigh.

I think this story is probably worth knowing about, but given what little is actually known yet, the insinuations in Steyn's piece are pretty ugly.

In particular, the Obamas give quite a bit to charity. Steyn's accusation that they've neglected their Kenyan relatives based on either miserliness or Marxist devotion doesn't square with this, if it were that easy.

[karen]

Colin Powell is a Republican? I did not know this.

"McCain has benefited from the "Joe the plumber" incident, but nobody can argue that he planned it."

No, he took advantage of B.Obama's slippage of the tongue. How could he have planned anything before the meeting of a Plumber and a Campaign Organizer- uh- Candidate?

There is so much slant in the media(i've got CBS This Morning on, right now). Veiled shots and all that. If McCain wins, do you know how many people are going to feel like they've been slapped in the face?

[karen]

Uh, maybe i misread the gist of Peter's ~planning it~ sentence? Right. Didn't plan it--- right?

:0).

[Ally]

Thank God this is almost over. There is more I want to say but I will bite my tongue, as a good winner should.

[amba]

What's all fantasy? Obama's "Present" votes or his party-line votes? All a matter of record. It's fine with you insofar as you are party-line. I'm not. That's all. He's making bipartisan or centrist promises, which hopefully his advisors (some of whom hopefully will become his cabinet) will help hold him to. He has no record of actions to back it up. Just words, which sound wonderful. That's what convinces me, not some "socialist conspiracy." I don't think Obama's a socialist. Just, by his record, a rather unoriginal left liberal. I don't think the policies of economic left liberals worked very well. Bill Clinton's worked insofar as he stole conservative ideas and wove them inventively together with liberal ones. If you think Obama's turning into a "new democrat," I'm good with that. The evidence, however, is all verbal.

[realpc]

Amba, I think that article is wrong. I just started reading Obama's book The Audacity of Hope. Darn, I wish I had started sooner so I could finish it before voting tomorrow.

From the 30 pages I read so far I can reassure you that Obama is just like us! I mean, everything he says is something I already thought! He understands why people liked Reagan, and why the excesses of 60s liberalism are such a turn off. He could never understand the stupid insane hatred between Democrats and Republicans.

He's sane, he's rational, thoughtful, moderate. At least that's my impression from the first 30 pages. I have to skip ahead to the religion chapter so I can try to find out if he's one of those liberal pseudo-Christians (oh I hope not).

And he is such a good writer! You really can't learn anything about politicians from their campaigns, certainly not from their supporters. You have to read their book if they happen to be a writer (and of course most are not).

[Elyas]

"In the case of McCain, we know more."

Your entire rationale for voting McCain seems to rest on the assumption that he will govern like the McCain of old. Refresh your browser, Amba, because McCain 2.0 is very different from the McCain of 2000 or even 2006.

Take his VP selection. He wanted to pick a centrist--Lieberman and Ridge were his supposed favorites--but the base wouldn't allow it, so he made a last-minute decision to pick an untested social conservative. Do you think he'll govern any differently? If he has any interest in a second term, the "base" will put a lot of pressure on him to govern from the right, and he hasn't shown a recent willingness to stand up to them.

[amba]

My point exactly: sounds wonderful! Don't you wish that he had taken some time to demonstrate all that -- to show how it might be put into action -- before running for president?

[realpc]

"I don't think Obama's a socialist. Just, by his record, a rather unoriginal left liberal. I don't think the policies of economic left liberals worked very well."

Yes but no one's economic policies have worked well. The economy does more or less what it wants. How badly can Obama screw up an economy that is already in the ditch?

The danger I do see with him, which is I guess what you see, is that he might start believing his worshipers and lose his sane and modest thoughtfulness.

[amba]

That comment was (obviously) directed at real.

Elyas, I doubt that McCain would run for a second term, for age reasons. He has aged visibly in the last 8 years, what do you think 4 years of the stress of the presidency would do to him, presuming he survives them?

The Republican Party is splitting apart. McCain's choice of Palin just barely held it together (but the strains are very visible). I've also heard he wanted Lieberman, but that would have cleaved the party in two right there.

Anyway, it's not necessary to convince me. Mine is just one vote. It's not going to stop the irresistible rush of history if that's the way it's going.

[RW Rogers]

So, in one of those bizarre jokes that history sometimes plays, the United States is apparently about to choose as president the most inexperienced, untried and virtually unknowable (because there is so little to know) candidate who has ever run for that office at a time of unquantifiable international risk and unprecedented economic instability: a candidate who, as Bill Clinton revealed in a wonderfully back-handed "tribute", responded to the banking collapse by ringing every expert he could find (including Bill) to ask them what he should be saying.

- Janet Daley, The Telegraph

[Peter Hoh]

A couple of clarifications.

ANNIE: Of course I realize that Steyn was being satirical about Rushmore, but when he does that, it dilutes the seriousness of his column, rendering it less persuasive. Some writers can get away with that sort of thing; Steyn failed in this instance.

KAREN: I think you got it, but just to be clear, I'll try again.

I am not arguing that Joe Wurzelbacher was a plant. Obama spoke with Joe too long, and eventually said something that has been used against him.

At this point, Joe the Plumber is the best thing that's happened to McCain since the convention, and quite possibly the thing that wins him the election, if he wins.

Winning in this manner is about getting lucky rather than executing a plan.

I have a feeling that McCain or Palin would make a similar blunder if they tried to give a long answer to a regular person who was critical or skeptical of their policy proposals. But that hasn't happened, has it?

[realpc]

Barak Obama came to visit at a college, and lost in the crowd was a small paralyzed girl in a wheel chair. Instead of just ignoring her, Barak picked her up and hugged her and said "When I become president things will be better for you." This showed the candidate's immense compassion, proving again that he is a typical Democrat. We MUST vote for Barak and he MUST win!!!

Pass this message along.

Haha, just kidding, but that is the gist of a real email circulating among Democrats right now. Democrats who until quite recently had barely heard of Obama and were idolizing Edwards. Democrats who I'm sure never read Obama's book and don't know what he thinks about anything. He is now their god-like hero.

How does that story differ, really, from the New Testament stories about Jesus' wondrous compassionate miracle-working?

Yes, I know, Amba, I am just saying what you already warned us about.

[Callimachus]

We must be inhabiting separate universes. I just read the article, and I found nothing that answered to the description of "Question his courage, his manliness! Question his ability, his worthiness! Question his Americanism!" except on "ability." Which seems a legitimate thing to question.

I'm familiar with Steyn and his style. I'm also familiar with the way two people committed to some proposition can read the same words and think they say radically different things.

But then some commenters also seem to think Steyn compared Obama to McCain. He didn't. The only time McCain enters the article is when Obama is talking about him.

Which is part of the reason it's strong. McCain's flaws and virtues don't have to figure into it.

I'd be more interested in reading Obama's biography if he had written it before he decided to be president.

"For 20 years in Illinois, Obama has marinated in the swamps of the Chicago political machine and the campus radicalism of William Ayers and Rashid Khalidi. In such a world, the redistributive urge is more or less a minimum entry qualification."

...

"[A conservative for Obama is] “hoping” that Obama will buck not just Nancy Pelosi, Barney Frank, and the rest of the gang but also his voting record, his personal address book, and his entire adult life. Good luck betting the future on that."

Those two quips get pretty close to how I feel about it. The enthusiastic popular Obama support is based on a great big fuzzy feeling based on unrealistic expectations of what a president can do.

The gut-response rejection of him, including mine, is also necessarily based on thin stuff: We can only guess what he's going to do; thanks to a lack of serious investigation, we don't even know a lot about what he's already done.

Lucky for me my state seems to be safely in the blue category this year, so I don't have to worry that my vote will make a difference and I can simply vote principles. In this case, my principle is divided government. I'll vote GOP for president and Democrat for Congressman. They'll both lose. I'll have a kind of inner peace.

Michael always tends to argue by repeatedly publishing a list of reputable people who agree with him on that point, with no indication that he ever pays any attention to what they think when he doesn't happen to agree with them.

[Callimachus]

Positive endorsements, as opposed to negative ones like Steyn's, are going to be odd things in this campaign. Here are two dug up by Dave S. at the Glittering Eye:

An eccentric Andrew Sullivan piece for Obama that talks mainly about Bush. Without seeming to consider what Obama would have done in the same cases (different, certainly; better?) and succumbing to the "world was perfect and America was loved and respected until Dick Cheney drove us all from the Garden of Eden" fallacy.

Then this for McCain which is a fine, artful job that carefully steps on exactly the right spots and tilts each phrase to shade out any unwelcome glare. It at least attempts to compare the candidates. Really a crafty job.

The problem is, in the end, you have to vote for somebody.

[Simon]

realpc:

He understands why people liked Reagan, and why the excesses of 60s liberalism are such a turn off. He could never understand the stupid insane hatred between Democrats and Republicans.

Yes, he understands "why the excesses of 60s liberalism are such a turn off," but the problem is that instead of concluding that 60s liberalism is the problem, and that it ought to be abandoned, he just wants to find a way to slip it past us in such a way that it won't have a chance to turn people off. He and his cohorts are setting out to pick up in the afternoon of January 20th 2009 where they left off in the morning of January 20th 1969. Nothing has changed in their minds and their worldview; they still cling bitterly to the same outdated, discredited dogma, come what may - all that has changed is the packaging.

As to a "good writer" - yeesh! I'm getting pretty tired of people telling me that Obama's eloquent and a good writer. How low the bar of expectations has dropped since we all got used to Bush when this grade c hamburger is being pushed as steak! "The fierce urgency of now" sounds like a cross between a Depends commercial and a particularly sharp parody of a Tony Blair speech.

[amba]

Cal, my fault; they're conflating it with another piece I linked to, by Gerard Vanderleun, which questioned Obama's courage and put it in terms of macho vs. metrosexual.

[amba]

It sure is lonely to opt out of mass hypnosis. (No, I don't mean to imply that Obama is using NLP techniques, or something. It's self-hypnosis, mostly, on the part of his followers.) Creepy, too, to watch it from the outside. Good thing for me I'm not one of those who believes it's leading someplace awful. Just someplace bound to be disappointing and at times nerve-racking.

[amba]

But you know, the silver lining is, the best cure for infatuation is marriage. Maybe everyone is getting what they deserve: the Republicans a weight-loss spa in the desert, the Democrats the headaches and blame that come with coveted power. They believe they can make the country better? OK, let's see. Shut up and put up.

[Callimachus]

Well, yes, I think there's going to be a severe morning-after hangover for many of the starry-eyed Obama voters. Not black Americans, however, for whom the mere election will be a mountaintop moment, and I congratulate them (prematurely) and share their pleasure in that.

But unfortunately for me, "shut up and put up" won't apply to my circle, which has all the passion of the Obama zealots but none of the positive focus, none of the icing of "hope" on the dry cake. It's all pure bitter partisan bile of the inverted-Limbaugh school, and should Obama win and falter, they won't feel any responsibility. They'll just keep talking about how it's all Bush's fault, or make more Sarah Palin jokes. ["Joke" = say 'youbetcha' a lot.]

[amba]

Pretty ironic, Andrew's epigraph from Orwell: "To see what is in front of one's nose needs a constant struggle."

[Danny]

I am so so tired of the "people who support Obama are part of some kind of mass hypnosis since he's just an empty suit who talks well" drumbeat. I've never felt part of that nor do most of the people I know. OF COURSE Obama's time in office will have lots of moments of disappointment and will be nerve-wracking and give the people who think he is the anti-Christ (not you, amba, I know!) plenty of fodder. But yes, I am so very grateful NOT to have McCain and Palin in office (God-willing) and...dare I say the dreaded "h" word...hopeful that Obama will rise to the challenge and do a great job despite the hordes of Americans who will be hoping that he fails even to their own detriment (again, I know not you!). I realize such a comment adds nothing to the discussion and is just an expression of my weariness at being lobbed into some group of glassy-eyed Kool-Aid drinkers worshipping at Cult Obama. Is it wrong to vote for someone because of your strong belief that they represent the issues that are important to you so much more strongly than the other candidate?

I've been wondering today how all of this would have gone down if we were facing a race between Clinton and Giuliani. Remember, not so long ago, when that seemed like a fait accompli?

[Danny]

P.S. to Callimachus: Get some new friends! The picture you paint of your Democratic cohorts sounds hideous.

[amba]

Clinton vs. Giuliani! A gimpse of an alternate universe. And much more of an old, tired one. No, this is now a race within Obama's and Palin's generation. The two of them are in many ways timeless politicians, yet there is something fresh about them too. There would have been a hackery about Hillary vs. Rudy, those leathery old warhorses. This is about a tipping point between zealotry and pragmatism. It's about people young enough to be fervent but old enough to start becoming practical.

[RW Rogers]

Danny, those cohorts described are his co-workers, the people providing you with your daily news.

[Ally]

I second Danny. You, Amba, who are so good with words, are carelessly painting Obama supporters with a broad brush. I find it insulting and demeaning. If we're hypnotized then you all are a bunch of....oh, never mind.

[amba]

And, Danny, I'm sorry. How could I forget? Much of the enthusiasm for Obama is nothing more or less than the liberal/progressive/blue part of the country rejoicing at its worldview coming back into power. It's ideological agreement, which is different from hypnosis (except insofar as one equates the inculcation of all culture with hypnosis).

[amba]

Wrote that before Ally went after my ass. But it's true: if you're a Democrat, Obama is a good candidate -- not least because he can actually get elected.

[RW Rogers]

As both of you have either tarred the GOP supporters with your own broad brushes or stood by and said nothing as others did in vile fashion, it is a bit disingenuous for either of you to complain now about Annie allegedly doing so.

[amba]

And most of the hostility to Obama is just ideology, too. If you're liberal, you hope he'll be a good president; if you're conservative, you fear he'll be a terrible one. It's mostly those of us in the middle who are seasick.

[amba]

Right, Randy, there is quite a bit of a double standard at work. But it's the same phenomenon. Part of having a worldview is incredulity that anyone can sincerely hold an opposing one without being a nut, a moron, or a zombie.

[amba]

Of course you are going to play up someone's good qualities and play down his or her iffy qualities if he or she largely agrees with you.

[RW Rogers]

Yes, that reminds me of this post about getting out more.

[amba]

It's poignant that Obama's grandmother died today, huh?