Congeries of cross connected concepts
A bit of an interesting discussion about Senator Obama and his lapel pin problems. What I think is that Obama created this problem because he just could not help being condescending and mean, if not bitter. He couldn’t just explain his own action, he felt it necessary to defame others who were different. Had he just said “different people express their patriotism in different ways, some with lapel pins, others by … “. OK, I start see the problem. But, ignoring the issue of coming up with an example of Obama demonstrating patriotism, I think this is a classic of how so much of the MAL is, at a basic level, highly intolerant of difference. It’s exactly the same philosophical defect that led to the “bitter clinging to God and guns” comment. People can’t just be different, they must be wrong. And, of course, punished for it.
Yet people still bitterly cling to happy thoughts about Obama. I couldn’t believe the positive reaction among nominal Obama detractors to his interview on Fox. Does not the possibility that he was faking in order to pander to his presumed audience not occur to people? It’s not a matter of different emphasis (which is quite legitimate) but outright contradiction to his previous (as little as they were) policies and actions. When he tells the same thing to his billionaire friends, then I will be willing to consider the possibility that he means it.
But that’s not just among the conservatives — much of the Obama phenomenon is people not just suspending but launching in to orbit their disbelief. I ran in to this one today, by someone who’s normally clueful for a progressive. The basic thesis is “Sure, Obama’s an ambitious politician, but I’ll still take just his word over any evidence”. And the root of that is that Obama wants us to “talk”. Well, yes, that’s true. But I agree with those who think the he wants us to “talk” the way a cult leader does, in self criticism and abject agreement. One need merely observe any instance in which Obama is confronted with strong, principled dissent from his party line to see what he really thinks of what normal people call “talking”. Or one could quote any number of Michelle Obama statements. Heck, Obama apparently couldn’t even have one good, down to earth talk to his much admired, spiritually advising pastor in 20 years! The author even notes
The kind of insane beliefs that Wright espouses wouldn’t stand up to an honest discussion in the light of day
yet doesn’t twig to Obama never managing such an honest discussion.
The more standard socialist blindness bit is discussing Obama’s sordid past —
[.…] what I want is a politician like Tom L Johnson - who is idealistic at core, but willing to get his hands dirty in the back and forth of the reality of politics.
I can see that, but Obama has the no omelets problem. What, exactly, did he accomplish while getting his hands dirty? Besides the mansion, the $4.2M last year, and the $300K/year job for his wife.
| Robert Duquette Saturday, 03 May 2008 at 10:47 |  |
From the “no omelets” link:
“As with Robespierre, no omelets came from the egg-breaking efforts of Lenin, Mao, Pol Pot, Adolf Hitler, and Benito Mussolini either.”
But is that really true? Lenin and Stalin after him built the Soviet Union into a world superpower. Mao industrialized China, and his heirs are building it into an economic, and soon to be military, superpower. For regimes without omelets, we spent an awful lot of money and manpower to counteract the effects of their cholesterol seepage.
Saying that they killed and brutalized millions doesn’t deny them omelette status. That’s acknowledged in the metaphor of cracking eggs. You can say that the Soviet empire was unsustainable, but so was the British empire, but noone says that the British empire wasn’t an omelette. They cracked their fair share of eggs too, and a lot of them were Chinese eggs.
| Annoying Old Guy Saturday, 03 May 2008 at 11:01 | |
Yet those things aren’t the omelets that any of those figures claimed they were making. If one reads the claims of their apologists and fellow travelers today, those are not the claimed accomplishments either.
There is also the problem of alternate histories — given the resource and populations of Russia and China, it’s not clear that they wouldn’t have been even more industrialized and powerful without Stalin and Mao. China was certainly industrializing well before Mao conquered it, and there isn’t a good reason to presume that trend would have stopped absent Mao.
There’s also the case that no one is holding up the British Empire as a model to emulate, as is done so often with modern day Socialists. The British Imperialists didn’t spend much time claiming to be doing anything more than furthering Britian. And what claims they did make (see Kipling) are at least not directly contradicted by the historical record (one need only look at the fate of former British colonies vs. those of other European powers).
| cjm Saturday, 03 May 2008 at 17:25 | |
the cccp was a super poer in the sense they had to get their food (and everything else) from us. i think the phrase you want to use is “paper tiger”. soviet industry actually subtracted value when they manufactured things; i.e. the produced goods had a lower market value than the raw inputs. china is never going to be a super power. i agree with aog that all the countries that went communist actually devolved from where they were when the comrades took over. come on now, there has never been a bigger bunch of bunglers in the history of the world, than your modern day leftists.
| Steven Wood Monday, 19 May 2008 at 16:22 | |
The British Imperialists didn’t spend much time claiming to be doing anything more than furthering Britian. And what claims they did make (see Kipling) are at least not directly contradicted by the historical record (one need only look at the fate of former British colonies vs. those of other European powers).
They infact spent most of their time claiming to be doing quite the opposite. Do you actually read any history books about the british empire, or are you just making glib comments to substantiate your blinkered views ?
| Annoying Old Guy Monday, 19 May 2008 at 18:30 | |
That’s why they called it the British Empire, right? Because it wasn’t about Britain, or ruling an empire?
