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 6 of 40)
76. Tiny Tim, says;
No conservative is an ethical egoist; if he were, he wouldn't be a conservative (calling a conservative an ethical egoist would be akin to saying that a Christian doesn't have any beliefs about Jesus or his teachings).
What are these beliefs conservatives have about Jesus' teachings? Most people have some kind of beliefs about Jesus, and his teachings, does that qualify or condemn them to be conservatives?
Jerry Brown at 6:49PM on Mar 5th 2008
77. Ethical egotism is not relevant, as you no doubt know.
The quote is not implying that conservatives believe that it is ethical to act in their own self-interest, it says that they think, incorrectly, that they're being ethical AS they act in their own self-interest and will thus cite moral points to justify their acting selfishly, never admitting of course that they're acting selfishly in the first place. They lie about it. To themselves, even. They want desperately to somehow find a moral justification to act as they wish to act, which is selfishly, rather than realizing that they themselves need to change and not be selfish. They often look to the Bible for this, and find it in it's mazy obscurity.
Godless Heathen Brian at 6:54PM on Mar 5th 2008
78. brian; you can believe whatever you want to believe (i.e. what you've read in Ann Coulter's book). It doesn't make it right.
I have a strong supicious you've never met a Muslim.
Ryan Anderson at 6:59PM on Mar 5th 2008
79. I need to clarify. An ethical egotist believes that self-interest is ethical. A conservative would not say that to themselves, believing themselves instead, perfectly ethical and non-egotistical AS THEY ACT SELFISHLY AND EGOTISTICALLY. Thus, they deceive themselves, where the ethical egotist does not.
Then they look to find loopholes in morality for themselves. Since they are, in their minds, moral and ethical, SURELY it is out there somewhere.....
There. I think I've captured the difference now.
Godless Heathen Brian at 7:04PM on Mar 5th 2008
80. Being a Christian does not mean that we must tolerate Christian impostors, nor should we tolerate ongoing and serious errors concerning the Bible.
Being a Christian also means that we should be Biblically mature enough to recognize mistaken Bible teachings and correct the error so that nobody strays into wicked ways by accident while claiming to be a Christian.
When I say "not tolerate," I just mean to point out the error, not to deal out punishment. A false teaching about the Bible must be corrected.
The wicked forsake Bible teachings but the righteous shall contend with them.
For instance, it would it be fair for me to say I am an Obama supporter and tell people that Obama is in favor of keeping US troops in Iraq permanently? That would be teaching error! Would true Obama supporters want to correct my statement, so that I do not misrepresent Obama's views? Of course.
Let the holy be holy still, and let the wicked be wicked still (if they insist). Let Bible believers call themselves Christians and let Obama believers call themselves Democrats.
Don't let non-believers try to redefine Bible teachings without correction from Bible-believing Christians.
Revelation 3:16 says lukewarm believers are rejected by Christ. The hot are serious about spreading the Gospel and getting people Saved, while the cold are the unsaved non-believers. The moderate, lukewarm, which Christ rejects, are those who claim to be Christians but teach error, like saying homosexual practices are not condemned in the Bible, or it is a trivial detail. The lukewarm are just getting in the way of the hot believers who are trying to reach the cold unSaved people, since the lukewarm are living and teaching error.
Paul says we cannot avoid being around the unSaved world, because we are surrounded by them, instead we should be trying to get them Saved with urgency.
As for those who claim to be Christians but teach and live in error, especially intentionally and refusing correction, don't hang around them, don't even eat meals with them, or else others may get the impression that you agree with their wicked ways.
Paul is picky about false believers, which we should expose and/or avoid, while telling us to keep going after the unSaved. Those who claim to be Christians are expected to be held to a higher Biblical standard, while the unSaved should not surprise us if they are going against Bible teachings -- they are not Saved, so they don't know any better yet. If they don't get Saved, they are hellbound.
If other folks know where Dinesh can find the texts of Obama's comments about the Bible, they would be helpful to forward that to Dinesh. I purposely, briefly paraphrased the gist of Obama's comments as a tip off to the situation, but I knew I could not accurately quote his comments verbatim, and I did not want Dinesh to comment on Obama without having a reliable news source of Obama's exact words concerning Bible teachings.
Bryan Leed at 7:44PM on Mar 5th 2008
81. Bryan Leed,
It sounds like you are saying we should believe that Jesus would endorse what the bible says as being the word of God, and teaches nothing but the truth. I say, if that is what you say, that you are wrong, and are trying to teach false ideas about God. Where do you get the idea we need saved except in the false teachings of Christianity? Jesus never taught such garbage. God loves his creation, and to teach otherwise is evil.
Jerry Brown at 8:00PM on Mar 5th 2008
82. byran leed = Tomas de torquemada
Ryan Anderson at 8:14PM on Mar 5th 2008
83. everyone overlooks the fact that this is typical drivel written by d'sousa, when is he going to figure that he and his kind are now irrelevant.
RONP at 11:38AM on Mar 6th 2008
84. Chuckle! Chuckle! Dinesh is at it again. I wonder why people like him, pretty much in the line of Limbaugh, Hannity and Savage, love os much to get involved in other peoples' business. Have they none of their own?
If I had to pick between Dinesh and Obama as to substance, I would pick Obama hands down. The fact that Dinesh cannot comprehend what Obama is about is his own fault, not Obama's.
Get an education Dinesh. Increased comprehension can only assist in the credibility of your opinions and conclusions. Until such time, you are always good for a laugh.
rlaitres at 8:54PM on Mar 5th 2008
85. ryan,
i have never read an ann coulter book ever. and i would not read one either. she is just stirring the pot like DD is doing except DDis more masterful at it than she. though she is better looking and that sells!! but the reason i use obama's middle name is that i like it so much. i like it better than obama. i mean whay would his wife call him obaby!! obaby bama ohbar-rack my bama momma??? its hard for me to do this where is mo when needed, oh mo oh mo you there mo? come out of hiding.
besides using his middle name is well-swell
brian at 9:10PM on Mar 5th 2008
86. bryan leed,
i am formally little b,
on this blog i am hounded day and night. i am berated for my tolerant views by the atheist community here at DDville. i have few friends here and lots of enemies because i speak the truth and the atheist bloggers get angry easily as you will see if you hang around long enough. you will find quiet a few personalities on this board. the atheist are rather hostile when it comes to religion. the are very protective of their liberal ways and quickly cut you to pieces in the name of tolerance if you disagree. hang tough
brian at 9:15PM on Mar 5th 2008
87. This is why I'm backing BARRACK OBAMA for President.
For my Grandfather.
For my Father.
For my Brothers.
For men of all races and creeds, of all Colors and religions...
For your Husband...
And for your sons...
------------------------------------------------
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.
The New American at 9:17PM on Mar 5th 2008
88. brian; I go by my middle name. That's my choice. Obviously, Barak Obama opts to go by his first name.
You are just a bigot towards Muslims but too cowardly to come out with it. Instead you refer to him as Hussein and hope that people take your meaning.
Ryan Anderson at 9:21PM on Mar 5th 2008
89. For you Christians out there, this is what Tolerance means:
-- That people of the same sex should be able to marry.
-- That people DO NOT have to practice religion if they don't want too.
-- That people of ALL COLORS should be able to live, work and be happy in the same environment.
-- That AMNESTY should be granted to illegal immigrants.
The New American at 9:28PM on Mar 5th 2008
90. "and quickly cut you to pieces"
Indeed, brian, indeed.
But when you're made of wax paper, the cutting is easy, isn't it?
brandon at 9:26PM on Mar 5th 2008