Recently in Campaign 2008 Category

I don't pretend to be an objective journalist. I'm an opinionated commentator. Not a movement or party activist like some political commentators, but an unobjective, biased analyst nonetheless.

My biases have been pro-Obama, but I'm concerned about the arrogance that he's been exhibiting in recent months, a "l'etat, c'est moi" hubris that seems to keep him from grasping why his numbers are falling.

I saw John McCain having a very warm, civilized conversation with Conan O'Brien last night about the need for finding bipartisan approaches to healthcare and other issues. McCain also praised Ted Kennedy's ability to model an ability to reach across the table.

Frankly, that sort of conversation should be led by Obama, not by a comedian. Obama may be too full of himself to grasp that a large number of Americans can be predisposed to think of him as "not one of us," either as a foreign-born Muslim or a Marxist or a just plain elitist pointy-head Ivy Leaguer.

He promised to lead all of the US, not just the blue sections, and he needs to start leading. That includes less deference to the party's most liberal elements, who will only get the party exiled yet again if they move too far too fast.

As for his public image, he should take the time to engage publicly with those who respectfully disagree, in order to eclipse the images of the gun-toting wackos who disrespectfully disagree. Is his ego too large to live up to that campaign promise? I don't think so. Though his sense of self is grand, he still seems a pragmatist above all.

But if he keeps using televised addresses to convince the American people through solely his own charisma that the deficit won't be swollen by his programs, he'll continue to stagnate in coming months.

What was up with that tepid poem that followed Obama's inaugural speech? I had to switch off the radio, at this line "A woman and her son wait for the bus." It was such a let down. I expected a rising tempo, a heartfelt celebration. And got people waiting for the bus and kids taking out pencils.

Eh.

I'm sure Elizabeth Alexander is a fine person and admirable poet, but still, was Maya Angelou busy?

I can still remember Clinton's inauguration in 1993 with crystal clarity, down to what I was seeing out of the car windshield as a hurtled down Interstate 60 in Moreno Valley headed for who knows where. It was memorable not because of anything anyone said, and not because of Clinton, but because of Angelou's "On the Pulse of the Morning" which was the most exciting part of the morning.

Wouldn't have Angelou's "Stilll I Rise" been perfect for today?

You may shoot me with your words,

You may cut me with your eyes,

You may kill me with your hatefulness,

But still, like air, I'll rise

"In a world wracked by angry rivalry," the trailer voice-over could go, "one man stepped forward to forge a better way. That man is.... OBAMA."

India isn't the only place where restraint is needed. It's needed within contemporary American politics, which Fareed Zakaria, in The Post-American World, denounced as dysfunctionally partisan at exactly the wrong time in our history.

So Obama's choices of deputies show great restraint. Staunch liberals will be disappointed, but they need to be realistic. America is a moderate-to-slightly-conservative nation. Even if Obama intends to take it to the left, he'd need to do so in savvy and measured steps. The way you do that is by finding middle ground and by finding lieutenants who are palatable for the opposition.

So far, his transition has been very impressive.

****

On another note, I continue to fume about the various government plans to stabilize home prices. Let's get personal: Home prices were out of my reach for many years, because I did not have $60,000 handy to serve as a 20% down payment on a $300,000 house. Credit loosened up enough that other people got into such houses for almost nothing. That helped drive the prices up to $600,000.

I now want those prices to come back down to $300,000, because I'm now ready to put down 20%. But the government wants to use my tax money to keep prices up. I can't win, can I?

That's one main reason why I'm skeptical that bailouts will help the fundamentals of American productivity. These sorts of bailouts violate principles of responsibility and discipline.

Those are powerful points, Paula. But actually, Earl's photo may well be relevant here. African-Americans, and supporters of other ethnicities, found various ways of working for black freedom in the slavery and civil-rights eras. It seems fair to say that some of the more, um, vigorous and hostile approaches spurred backlashes that were counterproductive.

When al-Zawahiri jabbed at Obama for being a "house negro," he was attempting to invoke Malcolm X's militance. But history has shown that X's anger, while cathartic, was not nearly as efficacious as MLK's grace. Is there nothing to be learned there....?

Continuing on the the previous post.... I'm something of a contrarian. And I also have a heart for what I perceive to be the underdog. Four or five years from now, I may well be sitting with conservative friends, agreeing strongly about how the Democrats messed up the country with bad ideas and overreaching.

But that hasn't happened yet. What has happened was that I spent the past 6+ years writing columns and talking to friends about how excessive partisanship was a big problem and that we needed to find middle ground. The response of my conservative readers and friends was, "To hell with compromise, we've got a job to do."

So conservatives took firm command of the wheel, refused to share driving duties or to listen to navigational advice from others, drove drunkenly in the wrong direction for thousands of miles at a time, and crashed the car a few times for good measure.

When 75% of the public said, "We really would like to change drivers, thank you," that 25% minority got belligerent and said, "Look, we're on the right track, and those other guys will reeeeaaaally get you lost. We mean it. Those liberals are the worst drivers ever." And many conservatives are out-of-their-minds furious that the American public could dare to pull them from the wheel.

If the GOP said, "Holy cow, this didn't go well, I guess it's time for some rehab and for us to find some new conservative approaches that are appropriate for these new times," I'd have more respect for them. Instead, they're saying, "Give me that wheel back! How dare you?!?!"

I don't much respect that. The American people got more than enough opportunity to hear the Ayers accusations and the Rev. Wright issues, and still decided that it's time to give the other guys a chance to drive. If my conservative friends are convinced Obama will wreck the car even worse, they'll just have to let that play out. But in the meantime, I don't believe them when they insist that this road trip was going to turn out well if we just stayed the course.

When the Iraq war had just started, a group of friends debated the matter. I argued against the war, while most of the rest of the group passionately defended it. I complained about how President Bush had promised a "humbler" approach to foreign policy. One friend exclaimed: "Humility will come later. It's not the time for humility now."

That humility never seemed to come. It's still not here, even after 360 electoral votes against them. Conservatives have been court-ordered to rehab, but other than perhaps a few people like Gov. Bobby Jindal, they still insist that they don't have a problem, "only our rivals do." As they say in AA, you can't get better until you admit that you have a problem, and you can't admit you have a problem till you hit rock bottom. What's it going to take for conservatives to hit rock bottom....?

Supporters of Proposition 8 are angry at various acts of protest against the measure's passing, the Daily News reports here.

"Our opponents do not like the outcome and that is to be respected. They fought hard and they feel defeated and that is understandable," said Frank Schubert, co-manager of the Yes on 8 campaign. "What they do not have the right to do, however, is to harass and intimidate people. And they do not have the right to commit acts of domestic terrorism against our supporters."

What? Actually they do. That's as much a constitutional right as voting your conscience or expressing your opinion. In fact, that is expressing your opinion. Again, there is a difference between my freedom to express my opinion and someone else's duty to respect it. Are gay activists supposed to be compelled to keep eating at El Coyote?

It would be far better if we could all discuss these issues in a civil and respectful way; instead we've got angry activists doing anthrax hoaxes on one side and, on the other side, Sarah Palin complaining about how media scrutiny violates her 1st amendment right to slander her rivals. Neither side is clean here.

But there's a difference between "what's right" to an ideologue and "what a right is." There is always a right to boycott within our system.

This is a proud moment for me: An old friend and protege, Kirk Wimberley, had his first op-ed published today, in the Seattle Press-Intelligencer. He discusses his reflections on a rowdy, pro-Obama party on election night.

Some salient passages:

Sniggers and sneers accompanied McCain's parting words as conversation bubbled up around me; their reactions were bitter and their words were cutting. They were no better than the dejected naysayers in Arizona....

I struggled to hear McCain's speech, but sensed his courage to stand humbly before an America that didn't want him to be president. Even he acknowledged the historical significance of Obama's victory. I felt sympathy for McCain....

Later, during his acceptance speech, Obama confirmed his campaign demeanor by saying, "I will listen to you especially when we disagree." Back at the election night party, I encountered the opposite sentiment. The celebrating politicos reminded me of the entrenched divisions still thriving in America. If we don't put aside our bitter differences, Obama's historical triumph will be reversed and we the people will have failed -- plunging us further into cynicism.

First, I do think McCain was gracious and humble in his concession, as was Palin in defeat, but that alone bothers me. They weren't gracious or humble in continually suggesting that Obama was a dangerous wacko leftist who would destroy the fabric of American society. They were either insincere in their concessions or insincere in their attacks. It's more likely the latter. But that cynical campaign strategy helped escalate a certain hatred of Obama that's counterproductive for us all working together.

Perhaps my many conservative friends who won't talk to me these days are more sincere and consistent than McCain/Palin in their muted, heartbroken reactions to Obama's victory. Yet I'll confess I'm a little peeved about how I really don't believe I avoided them for so many days after a Reagan or a Bush won re-election.
That, to me does show that Kirk is right. Both pro-Obama hubris and anti-Obama seething are dangers to our effort to show that democracy really is a system worth infusing into other nations. And I like how Kirk closes his piece:

Make a renewed commitment to work together, to honor the innate dignity in others and to meet on common ground. Each one of us, regardless of political affiliation, is responsible for that mission in the coming years.

Amen to that.

And there's another reason for conservatives to come in off the ledge. Here's a governor willing to make tough choices in cutting spending for social services and education due to economic constraints. And he's a Democrat. A good omen...?

Here's a little gloating from the Family Research Council. I do wish the FRC people wouldn't characterize yesterday's West Hollywood demonstrations as "anti-family rioting." These protesters aren't really trying to break up Ward & June Cleaver's brood.

The anger on both sides often baffles me. I heard people on the radio this morning talking about how we had laws for so long against interracial marriage. And I thought to myself, "Wow, if that right were being voted on, I'd fight really hard to keep it." Then I realized that I don't particularly want to get married. But it's an interesting psychology, isn't it?

I'm still not sure why both sides have to fight over this. But frankly, if we're going to make the law mirror the vows involved in marriage, we need to make it lifelong, and to ban divorce. That'll make lots of people realize it's a right they can probably do without....

Thanks a lot, Jonathan for bringing up this lovely third-rail issue.

They have no peace in the Middle East because neither side is sufficiently "pro-peace" (think suicide bombers on one side and illegal settlements run by occasionally violent groups on the other side). Amidst this mess, many Arabs are angry that we Americans are just not "fair and balanced" in our potential mediating role. As the great Jewish sage, Jon Stewart, notes, loyal Israeli citizens and politicians can criticize Israeli policies without threat to their careers -- but American politicians cannot.

Obama's mere election will cheer many people in that part of the world who feel that, while the U.S. will continue to tilt toward Israel, a man is in charge here who seems to understand the nuances of the matter. That, for Israelis and Arabs alike, should be seen as a helpful step along the road to peace, not as a reason for fear (even if Joe the Opportunistic Plumber sees this issue differently).

A few years ago, we started to see Democracy Hypocrisy -- when neoconservatives would demand that other societies hold elections, but cut off those societies if they elected the "wrong" person. We're seeing that again in our own nation, if you look at some of the comments posted on this site about Obama's victory.

The right-wing is angry that Americans have been seemingly brainwashed into voting for a supposed Marxist, becaue of our evil media and university system. So if you're saying that the American voter can't be trusted, are you suggesting a takeover by force...?

Personally, I would love to see some other conservatives comment about whether they agree with the specific comment I highlighted above from "JenK."

***

Speaking of our universities, the other paper has an interesting article here about UCLA students not being required anymore to take small seminar course, due to costs and space constraints. Seems like they need their own Prop 2, to protect their wingspace.

***

But again, I want to come back to the schizophrenic aspect of modern conservatism. The Bush administration was convinced it was bringing "the deepest longing of humanity" to the world, and was rosily idealistic about the chance to make a better world. Most conservatives though have seemed quite disillusioned about the world and how rotten it is.

That means that, while we were occupying Iraq, President Bush said it was to make it better while many conservatives said it was because we need to step on the throats of all the lousy people beyond our shores. That sent quite a mixed message to the rest o the world. So those conservatives who do believe in engagement overseas need to acknowledge that the many JenK's in their movement have given them a certain reputation around the world.