The misery election

Great post, Rod.

What strikes me about the coach's stance with regard to Obama is how different it is from Obama's stance with regard to the coach and people like him.

The coach is willing to acknowledge the shortcomings of people like himself and to consider respectfully the points of view of those who are not like him, to consider their points of view as if they might in fact have some legitimacy.

So far, Obama has shown no capacity to do that in turn.

There is no reciprocity involved in his call for others -- the key word here being *others* -- to overcome their self-involvement and their self-regard, for the greater good.

Middle-Americans, working-class whites, small-town-hunters-who-go-to-church, Kansans, Pennsylvanians, et. al. must repent for their manifold sins.

But Brother Superior must not -- indeed *cannot* -- for he himself has *not* sinned, nor has anyone among the choir he preaches to.

To put it mildly, this doesn't seem to me like a political -- let alone a *moral* -- stance that's conducive to "hope" or to "change."

We are all les miserables now.

Sorry the 9:22 AM post was by me.

David W L

Comments like Brooks's annoy me, to be honest. He's a major political journalist; it's his JOB to suss out the candidates and figure out who they really are behind the carefully constructed campaign facades. And he's just now figuring out that Obama is a standard "latte liberal," and all that "change" stuff was just talk? He could have read Obama's memoirs when the candidate first came on the scene over a year ago, like Sailer did, and been on top of this revelation all along. If a random voter like me could make time to skim Obama's book, isn't that the least we should expect from people who make a living telling us what to think about him in major newspapers?

"Conventional Republicans and Democrats": that's a good way to put it, Rod---although why not just refer to them as American National Socialists and have done with it ? It is, after all, what they are.

It seems to me that the 2008 election is going to be all about who can make the most reassuring noises to the populace while preserving the Provider State for as long as possible. Obama gets to make his "civil rights" noises, while McCain gets to sound off about how great this country still is, regardless of what the actual economic conditions we face really are. As for Hillary, she gets to sound off about how she is entitled to the White House, has worked hard to get to the White House and dam-ed if anyone is going to deprive her of the White House.
As long as we're focussed on which of these insincere whiners and mountebanks is going to annoy the voting public the least, no one has to think---and if "think" isn't the dirtiest word in American society and politics today, I'd be hard-pressed to find a dirtier--about the entitlements crash coming, or the Mexican invasion, or the collapse of the family.

It would all be quite funny, if there weren't real lives at stake. But I'll laugh anyway. After all, in this world, real value for one's entertainment dollar is hard to come by.

Your servant,

Lord Karth

Oh dang, you're right. Never trust memory. Correction made.

Many bloggers have been saying since January that Barack Obama was deludedly being perceived by many as a "magical negro" (see Wikipedia), and all that's happened is that the facade has fallen off. He's a politician of the less-than-admirable kind, nothing more, nothing less.

Joel:

Your conclusion is based on the assumption that an election-swaying number of people are as upset with Bush as the media have portrayed people as being and/or that they would be happier with Obama (or Clinton) than with Bush 2.5 or Bush 3.0.

I think your assumption may be invalid, and I don't think James Dobson is going to persuade significant numbers of people to not vote for McCain.

There is not one red state that Obama will turn blue, it's simple demographics. And, as the electoral college numbers will not change until the 2012 election, it is impossible for Obama to win.

In any event, Obama's followers give the Republicans a campaign ad (if they have the brains to use it) that would destroy him. It would only be run once, it would only need to be and then the media and youtube would run it forever. The ad starts with footage of a Nazi party march, something out of Triumph of Will, and ends with, instead of Hitler, Obama. And the voiceover "This is what movements bring."

Amen. It's breathtaking how ignorant Brooks pretends to be. He is a smart, experienced guy, so there is zero chance he doesn't know the truth. He merely won't write about it, because it could get him in PC trouble. Safer just to slum for the NYT.

You're way overthinking this. I don't know Brooks, but you assume a level of omniscience that no reporter, and no human being, can have. Is it possible that Brooks simply didn't see what was there in Obama because he didn't want to see? We are all subject to selective interpretation. Believe me, David Brooks could work for whoever he wants to; he doesn't have to please anybody at the NYT.

Farrakan.

Nation of Islam.

White people were created from monkeys by an evil scientist.

Awarded/recognized by TUCC.

'Nuf said.

It seems to me that the 2008 election is going to be all about who can make the most reassuring noises to the populace while preserving the Provider State for as long as possible.

...and this is different, how, from the last 50 years (or more)?

Rod and Joe,

Mhoram said it best: [Brooks] could have read Obama's memoirs when the candidate first came on the scene over a year ago, like Sailer did, and been on top of this revelation all along.

This is hardly a case of "he just wanted to believe" or "assuming a level of omniscience." Those books have been out for years. What is this, rocket science? What kind of national political columnist wouldn't examine the books of the biggest political news in decades?

I wouldn't even consider writing an in-depth column about Obama for national consumption unless I at least skimmed those books, and I would bet a serious amount of cash that Brooks has done so, and he knows the truth about Obama. Besides, I know Brooks knows because he reads Sailer (he must, because he copies him from time to time). Heck, I've also read Brooks' books, and I assure you that guy is plenty smart and knows how to read between the lines.

The truth: at the Times, Brooks writes for a select audience who don't want their nice little pretend latte world tainted with too much reality. That's what Brooks is paid to do. He does it well. If you want the truth, just read Sailer.

Gimme a break, Rod. You probably wrote this while you were getting a manicure.

Joe, What do you consider the truth about Obama

I'm still quoting Mhoram, that Obama is a standard "latte liberal," and all that "change" stuff was just talk.

But I would add: he is not somebody who will bring people together on the race issue; in fact, just the opposite. Read Sailer; he's got all the quotes that really give insight into how Obama thinks.

Had the media done its job and dared to tell the truth, Obama would have never been nominated. But everyone was either dazed by hope or afraid of being called a racist.

For the record, I believe the first pundit to raise the inner anthropologist meme was not Noonan, but the pseudonymous Spengler that Rod often refers to. It is now a common-place of the election commentary.

I believe this was Spengler's first entry on this meme:

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/JB26Aa01.html

(Feb. 26!)