Think Anew, Act Anew

observations and opinion

“I welcome their hatred”

When I predicted, two weeks back, that the first Presidential debate would be a “Super Bore” it had not occurred to me that this would be true for one of the participants, or that his heavily-lidded performance would have such a seismic effect on the political landscape.  But President Obama snoozed through 90 minutes of Romney’s cheerful lying, triggering three simultaneous events which have re-drawn the map:

1.  Democratic supporters were shocked, disappointed and discouraged.

2.  Non-aligned voters (the tiny but crucial crew which lives between Obama’s 47% and Romney’s 47%) saw one potential President who was interested and awake, and one actual President who appeared to be neither.  Guess who impressed them the most?

3.  Republican activists, who literally hours before were moaning about the coming destruction of the GOP, got a jolt of hope and adrenaline.  Now they are happy warriors.

Such is politics, that a few minutes of reality TV gamesmanship can depress enough people, surprise a few and energize others into transforming the race.  Two weeks ago people were writing about whether the Democrats could pull enough House seats to put Pelosi back in the Speaker’s chair; today they’re writing about whether one Democrat can win one seat, namely the one in the Oval Office.

It is hard not to be disappointed in the people responding to opinion polls, for having so little cranial function that they might simply forget the 2009 economic crisis and all the present administration did to avert apocalypse.   And I am disappointed in them.  But they didn’t get to their current state of somnambulence on their own.  They were expertly coached into it by the huge GOP Alternative Reality Machine, while Democrats snoozed.  It is the task of politicians to communicate, to educate, to draw the neural maps in voters’ minds that take them from their current pre-occupations, to a memory of the past and a perspective on events.  The Republicans know that perfectly, but the Democrats seemingly, do not.

The Obama October collapse is more than a blip – it is a symptom of the fragility of the modern American liberal cause.   Liberalism was once embodied in the robust figures of JFK and RFK, the spunky Truman. the towering LBJ or the liberal god himself, FDR.   These were men who knew that a conscience was a human necessity, but that the creations of conscience must be fought for and paid for, over and over again.

When I say “fought for”, I mean explained, repeated, defended, pounded in like a man hammering metal into the shape of a drum.  This is when politicians defend what they believe, sneer at their opponents’ lies and and say of their enemies, as FDR did 76 years ago this month, “I welcome their hatred!”

When I say liberalism must be “paid for” I mean that the people fighting for a liberal solution must be prepared to give something up for it – not just taxpayers’ money, but other objectives (sacrificing some interests for the thing being done).  I also mean “paid for” in the sense that a liberal will be committed to the effort, even at personal, political cost.

The Founders of the United States pledged their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor to what was then (and is now) a fundamentally liberal cause:  the right of self-government, the recognition of a people as sovereign, the protection of private life and property from the usurping menace of a tyrannical king.   The Founders were just politicians themselves, subject in their day to the same criticisms (or worse) as they would be today.  But they were able to adopt an agenda and set in motion a revolution which altered not only their only lives, but re-shaped the world.   Because they were willing to fight and pay for it.

So let us scout the horizon for anyone out there, who both understands that liberalism is a moral cause and who is willing to march up hill to defend it.  There are many soldiers in the ranks – millions of present-day Americans volunteering their irreplaceable hours and dollars, reputations and labour, to social and political causes, in the service of their fellow countrymen.  But where is the officer corps, other than Hillary Clinton (on overseas duty), Bill Clinton (retired) and Joe Biden (God bless him)?  And where the hell is the Commander in Chief?

The spectacle of a President, detached and disinterested, unwilling to pledge even 90 minutes of his time to the cause, came as a sickening shock to the millions who have committed their work to his re-election.  It is awful to think that this obviously serious President, who has done quite a lot for his country already, could through his boredom and casualness be defeated and in the process, might squander the American recovery.   That one bad night on TV could lead to this, is a symptom of the failure of American liberals for decades, and the failure of the present Administration since 2009, to fashion a liberalism worth fighting for, and to fight for it.

Whose hatred would Barack Obama welcome?  Is he so desperate to find common ground, that he will imagine it when it is not there?  Is his commitment to being agreeable so profound, that he will agree with anything just to avoid the unseemly appearance of being argumentative? Is this man, who accomplished everything by polishing the edges off things, simply too blunt an instrument to puncture the cartoon bubble lies popping out of Romney’s mouth? It is difficult to know how Obama can slide down Mount Olympus and in to the muddy arena of real politics in the next two debates.  One prays he reveals the talents we have imagined in him.

By the end of the last debate, it was possible to wonder if the United States would be better off with a mercenary, dishonest, shape-shifting mountebank as President, rather than the current bored incumbent.  I don’t believe that is true, but however very unwelcome the question may be, liberals owe it to the country to face it.

Advertisements

4 comments on ““I welcome their hatred”

  1. scott
    October 14, 2012

    I totally agree (saw this on Kos), but get ready for the hate of the Obama true believers. Our liberal “leaders” suck at narrative and storytelling and find it boring or cheesily like “salesmanship,” something way too proletarian for a Harvard Law grad like Obama to engage in. It’s pretty funny actually, because a guy like Romney whom we know looks down on the rest of us still didn’t think it was beneath him to make his points and tell his stories. But apparently it was beneath Obama, who was either too bored or disinclined to do it. People are surprised at what happened, saying that Obama wasn’t disastrous or didn’t commit any gaffes, which misses the point. I would have accepted a few gaffes, and lots of the public would have too, if he had given them something, either a positive frame or vision or spirited contrasting with and rebuttal of Romney. Instead we got an embarrassingly typical Obama word salad, filled with unoffensive and meandering analysis that said explicitly that he didn’t differ that much from Romney. So we got nothing, a president that didn’t justify what he’d done, explain what he would do with a second term, or argue why the other guy is much worse. Nothing. Even a very little something from a shameless fraud like Romney beats nothing, at least on the principle that he gets credit for making an effort and breaking a sweat. Drew Westen made a similar point to yours back in August 2011 (for which he was duly crucified by prog pundit smartboyz like Jonathan Chait), wondering what exactly Obama was willing to stand for as his defining issues. He’s done better since then but decided last week that giving the public the rhetorical equivalent of a rice cake would beat an opponent offering raw meat. Um, no, and now he’s reaping what in retrospect should be the obvious consequences.

    Like

    • davidkeithlaw
      October 14, 2012

      Wow, did you call it. What a bloodbath on the Daily Kos. A whole lot of unwelcome attention!

      Like

      • scott
        October 15, 2012

        Yeah, I’ve learned that candid self-examination and an ability to look at painful truths on your own side aren’t qualities valued much at Kos, Balloon Juice, or Lawyers Guns and Money. It is all tribal, all the time now, especially since Obama (weirdly still revered almost as much as in 2008, despite his record) is under threat.

        Like

  2. Pingback: Mr. Smith goes to Bloggington | Law on Politics

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Information

This entry was posted on October 14, 2012 by in The U.S.A..
%d bloggers like this: