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 4 of 40)
46. i am just as elegant as jerry. in fact we were having a civil discussion i think
brian at 4:52PM on Mar 5th 2008
This is your sense of humor again right?
Gwen at 4:57PM on Mar 5th 2008
47. brian; it's obvious from your posts that you've never been to the "arab world". You are just parroting something O'reilly, Hannity, or Coulter said.
I think it's Coulter, mainly because you've taken to calling Barak Obama by his middle name alone.
From my experience, the Muslims I've met have loved our culture and been very excited to learn more. They were all unanimously pissed off about our foreign policy though. Go figure.
Ryan Anderson at 4:58PM on Mar 5th 2008
48. brian,
All physical things that exist have structure. All beliefs have structure,and create boxes, as thinking within a box. The idea of thinking outside the box is impossible, although one can increase the size of the box he/she previously thought in. Belief systems handed down from previous generations are confined to the size of the box used by our ancestors. If civilization is to go forward from the belief systems of the past, the boxes of the past must give way to larger boxes. Many, perhaps most, find increasing the size of the box handed down from ancestors somewhat unsettling. A label for those who want to increase the size of their box is liberal. A label for those who want to stay with the same size box of their ancestors are conservative. Often the liberal, and the conservative disagree, sometimes to violence, even to killing each other. They do not seem to understand the value that both viewpoints are most desirable for the growth of mankind. The new ideas that will increase the size of the box that all mankind lives in, is necessary for the advancement of mankind. This is the part the liberal plays in the advancement of civilization. There is no guide going into the unknown so to keep the whole of mankind on a steady guided course into the future a ruder is necessary. This is the job of the conservative. Progress is at its best when the liberal, and the conservative know their job, and respect each other while working together. A balance between the two results in maximum growth, and happiness for all concerned. When we get to far to the liberal or conservative side we become unbalanced, and growth is slowed to reflect the degree of unbalance.
Jerry Brown at 5:02PM on Mar 5th 2008
49. gwen,
i believe it was don quixhotie? who said i would rather be insane in a sane world that sane in an insane world. so i am a nut, ok
brian at 5:03PM on Mar 5th 2008
50. And for the record, Osama bin Laden's main complaint and stated motive for 9/11 was that we had a military presence in Saudi Arabia, the home of Mecca and Medina.
It was not the fact that Disney hosts a "gay pride day", or that abortions are legal. That does get the baptists riled up though.
Ryan Anderson at 5:05PM on Mar 5th 2008
51. "toss the far left idealogy out the window and the party would be better off"
What, and be sphincter-plugged assholes like the Repukes?
brandon at 5:07PM on Mar 5th 2008
52. And newsflash, brian, oh uneducated one: The Dems are NOT far left. Not even close. Hillary and Obama are even more right of center than Bill Clinton was, and that's not much further left than Nixon was.
It's just that we've gone so far to the right, towards the brink of fascism, that any reprieve from that nightmare seems pleasant.
brandon at 5:11PM on Mar 5th 2008
53. rryan,
and you are soooo gullible to believe that crock of poop? you have selective quoting power. 9/11 was caused by alot of things not the least of the muslims hatred of our decadent lifestyle. our exported smut. our lack of back-bone in world affairs ie. when clinton was in office. the left refusal to do anything with how many UN mandates? i mean the list is endless of the lefts atrocities. have you been having tea with ben?
brian at 5:18PM on Mar 5th 2008
54. I think Obama's quest for 'hope' and 'change' are a novel idea but have not heard nor read any plans or ways of attaining this once in office. It is a generalized statement that means nothing to the average person. I'm not downtrodden nor over educated just the average joe working hard for my family and doing what I can to live morally and happily. Regardless of who wins this election, I and those like me will keep living exactly the same way we always have and shrug our shoulders at this pony show and do whatever the hell we intended to do anyway. Unless of course this Nostradamus business is applicable in which case I still have a pretty good chance. No hatered or anything here just history has shown Nostradamus to be true in predicitons and this one may fit a little to snugly.
zupu at 6:07PM on Mar 5th 2008
55. "Pee Wee Herman" --Dinesh D'Souza
_________________
How dare you mention Pee Wee Herman! This is the lowest of the lowest level of low depravity for you, Dinesh!
I'm contacting my legal team. And I will notify the Pee Wee Herman fan club of your callous use of his name in your blog.
He's not even a real person! He's just a television character from the 80s and you have absolutely NO REGARD for his spiritual well-being!
And just for the hell of it, Dinesh, let me mention the Founding Fathers, the space-time continuum, nitrogen, Nebuchadnezzar, and kimchee, because I'm sure there's a good point somewhere in my mentioning them.
There...that oughta shut you up for a while.
I demand an immediate response!
Paul at 5:24PM on Mar 5th 2008
56. brian,
One thing that I would like to ask is, why do you use Obama's middle name instead of either his first or his last? While the argument that I've heard is, "it's his name and why can't I use it?" but at the same time, would you use anybody else's middle name unless they specifically said that they went by it? Also, how often do you see people going by their full names? Very rarely do you here somebody's middle name come up in conversation or at all for that matter. The only reason I can see you or anybody else using it is with a malicious intent and it is just as childish as kids on a playground making fun of the kid who happens to be named Dick.
Along with that, I would have to say that I disagree with most of your arguments right now. For one thing, it isn't the liberal left that has pissed off the Muslim world, it is the conservative right. While some of the very radical muslims do not like our way of life, they don't care as long as we don't shove it upon them. They'll just see us as sinners who will rot in hell. However, when the conservative right decided to go and attack the Middle East under the guise of fighting terrorism, then they got pissed off. The War in Iraq has angered them the most I'd say since it was unjustified and considered internationally illegal.
James at 5:25PM on Mar 5th 2008
57. brandon,
You might add the poster guy for the right, Reagan raised taxes, and promoted amnesty. He would be considered liberal by today's standard except letting every thief in the country fill their pockets with tax money in the S&L , and HUD debacle. The later was a usual conservative move.
Jerry Brown at 5:25PM on Mar 5th 2008
58. "The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishenss."
- Kenneth Galbraith
---------------------
I love that quote. So true. So true.
Godless Heathen Brian at 5:33PM on Mar 5th 2008
59. Wow,
All he has to say for Geroge W Bush's lack of experience is,
"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."
I cannot stomach a man that is so transparent in his political beliefs that he praises George H.W. bush, Ronald Reagan and lets Junior of the hook for all of his mistakes, but says,
"Hillary's own experience is mainly in screwing up."
Expalin her screw ups Dinesh.
Erik at 5:40PM on Mar 5th 2008
60. Hillary need 2 take off the kid gloves abd bitch slap Obama down!!!
REGINA MARTIN at 5:56PM on Mar 5th 2008