Barack Obama has some genuine strengths: He is good looking, he is unusually serene for a man so young, and he seems decent and straight-talking for a politician. Also he is a man comfortable in his own skin, which is refreshing coming after people like Bill Clinton and Al Gore who are still "growing up" in their fifties.
Obama's weakness is that he is inexperienced. This shows in his numerous naive and inane statements which I will be blogging about in the months to come. But what intrigues me is Obama's insinuation that experience doesn't matter. Whever Hillary chides Obama with inexperience Obama basically replies, "Look where experience has gotten us."
There is some truth in this. Abraham Lincoln had no experience and yet he became America's greatest president. Nixon was experienced and yet his presidency ended in disgrace. Reagan had limited experience and yet his two terms were a triumph. Hillary's own experience is mainly in screwing up.
But this historical record cuts both ways. Eisenhower's experience in foreign policy contributed to American power and prosperity in the 1950s. Jimmy Carter's inexperience resulted in American abandonment of the Shah of Iran and brought us the Ayatollah Khomeini. George H. W. Bush's experience helped assemble an international coalition that won the Gulf War. His son's inexperience led to some serious mistakes in the early period of the Iraq war.
Obama's non-sequitur is that experienced people have screwed up, therefore experience is irrelevant. Apply this reasoning to other areas and its absurdity becomes obvious. Consider the following extensions of Obama's argument: "The experienced CEO made a bad investment, so let's replace him with the least experienced guy at the company." "The skilled skater fell during the Olympic trials, so let's put a guy on a team who has never skated before." "The general made a flawed maneuver, so let's turn over the company to Pee Wee Herman."
The Lincoln analogy--which others have applied to Obama--is flawed. The 1860 election was a single-issue election and focused on a grand struggle that would determine what kind of country America would be. That single issue was slavery. Lincoln had been an anti-slavery man all his life and on this issue he was thoroughly experienced. He had addressed the slavery issue in a series of profound debates with Stephen Douglas, debates that are still studied in classrooms today. Lincoln was inexperienced on matters like the economy, but those issues didn't matter very much.
So what is Obama's great issue? Where are his profound meditations on it? These may be forthcoming, but so far we have seen no signs of it, and my sense is that with Obama, what we've seen is what there is. Perhaps Gertrude Stein's words are applicable: "There is no 'there' there."
Reader Comments ( Page 1 of 40)
1. I guess if anyone knows about Non Sequiturs, it's Dinesh.
Ryan Anderson at 12:26PM on Mar 5th 2008
2. Given that Dinesh wrote the recent book, "What's So Great About Christianity," I would like to see more of what Dinesh might say, (as a Christian apologist), about some of Barack Obama's comments that greatly suggest that his brand of Christianity is very non-Biblical, and in my opinion completely bogus, a wolf in sheep's clothing.
For example, I heard a recent radio sound bite of Obama saying that "we" need to take Christianity back from evangelical conservatives who only care about abortion and same-sex marriage, then evangelical Democrats need to put the focus on global warming. He has also said that we shouldn't pay attention to an "obscure" reference in the book of Romans which condemns homosexual practices.
It shouldn't be hard to find a quotable reference for Dinesh to counter upon.
Christians in general should not be so willing to tolerate non-Christians who greatly contradict Bible teachings while claiming to be authentic "Christians." Real Christians don't reject the Bible.
Bryan Leed at 12:35PM on Mar 5th 2008
3. I think this might be taking it too literally. When Obama says, what has experience got us?, I think he is saying not that he is inexperienced, but that he is not a Washington insider, that he doesn't represent the old, established interests; that he is bringing new ideas rather than just upholding the status quo.
This blog seems awfully sober after the last two.
AndrewV at 12:46PM on Mar 5th 2008
4. Oh the irony of a person saying that good christians do not tolerate...
As a real christian; I wonder if you have ever worn clothing of mixed fibers, eaten shellfish or thought about committing a sin, even if not seriously.
If so. I hope you enjoy your hypocrasy.
Daniel at 12:52PM on Mar 5th 2008
5. good article,
i just hope hilary the hun and barrack hussien obama beat each other up very badly so mccain can put the shellack on their crack in november. i still the the hun and hussien teaming up for the knock out blow. imagine the possibilities, higher taxes,more goverment involvement,social medicine. wow!! can't wait for the H&H show coming to your town sooooon
brian at 12:49PM on Mar 5th 2008
6. andrew ,
thats just a cliche' worn out from years of abuse. he is saying nothing that all other politicians have said countless times. besides he still has to deal with old politicians
brian at 12:52PM on Mar 5th 2008
7. Daniel - I could not agree more and am grateful there are other people of faith who are worn from hearing the intolerance of some Christians.
Gwen at 1:12PM on Mar 5th 2008
8. Bryan Leed; just so you aren't misrepresenting Obama, what he said was that The Sermon on the Mount is more central to the message of Christianity than an obscure passage in Romans.
Obama is correct about that since the sermon on the mount represents the words of Jesus and the book of Romans represents the words of one of his followers, albeit the found of the church.
Ryan Anderson at 1:06PM on Mar 5th 2008
9. "The general made a flawed maneuver, so let's turn over the company to Pee Wee Herman."
The political hack writer-wannabe with seething hatred for gays, atheists, and "liberals" wrote a consistently shitty blog on AOL, so we turned it over to the cockroach watching from the wall.
I see the logic. Except in the above example, it'd be AN IMPROVEMENT.
brandon at 1:22PM on Mar 5th 2008
10. brian, McCain is not that different from Obama or Clinton. In fact his voting record may very well be more synonymous with Clinton and Obama then with the Bush admin and cronies.
Gwen at 1:25PM on Mar 5th 2008
11. Let me rephrase that. McCain is not so close to Obama and Clinton; however, he is a lot closer to their views then yours brian.
Gwen at 1:45PM on Mar 5th 2008
12. brian,
I see your usual great claim for being the most tolerant person on this blog is as usual. Perhaps brian you will enlighten me on your definition of tolerance.
Jerry Brown at 1:50PM on Mar 5th 2008
13. Obama never said experience does not count. What he did say that judgement is more important than experience. Hitler had a lot of experience, but poor judgement as has the present administration. DD you are not the only one who can compare apples to oranges to make a unrealistic point.
Jerry Brown at 2:01PM on Mar 5th 2008
14. Indeed, look where "experience" has gotten us. Look hard. Not sure what point Dinesh is trying to make, but it basically sounds like he deems Barack a greater threat to republicans than Clinton, and/or is assuming he'll get the nomination.
Let the unethical mudslinging begin!
Strados at 2:01PM on Mar 5th 2008
15. Obama is a good man. He would make an excellent VIce President! Together with Hillary, he will learn a lot, and be ready to be President after her 8 years.
So, why am I backing Hillary Clinton for President in 2008?
For my Great Grandmothers.
For my Grandmothers.
For my Mother and Mother-in-law.
For my Aunts.
For my Sisters.
For my Nieces.
For my Future Daughter-in-laws.
For my Future Granddaughters.
And for yours, too.
Nancy at 2:16PM on Mar 5th 2008