Generally, I enjoy James Lileks, the only conservative blogger I read regularly. He's several degrees to the right of me politically, but we're about the same age, both raised in the more-or-less rural Midwest, share the same cultural referents, and are geeky in many of the same ways.
But some days he just pisses me off. Today was one of them.
In his daily Bleat today, Lileks relates something he heard on both Michael Medved's and Hugh Hewitt's radio shows (he's a regular contributor to Hewitt):
On the radio today Medved and Hewitt both asked Obama supporters to call and say why they were supporting their man. Specifics, please. The replies were rather indistinct. He would end the division and bring us together by encouraging us all to talk about common problems, after which we would compromise. He will give us hope by giving us hope: for many, the appeal has the magical perfect logic of a tautology. It's a nice dream. But compromise is impossible when you have a fundamental differences about the proper way to solve a problem.
(That last sentence, by the way, tells you everything you need to know about the Republican approach to governance over the last seven-plus years: compromise is impossible. But I digress.)
Lileks, who admits later in the posting that he didn't listen to all of either show, then lists some of the responses, capping it off with a snarky comment:
Among the arguments offered by the callers:
* He will help save the planet by encouraging everyone to recycle cans and bottles and paper (the caller discussed a local drought, and said she did not think that recycling would stop it, but if everyone recycled - something she thought Obama would bring about through a general new era of ecological concern - future droughts would not occur.)
* He will pay for college tuition (the caller thought tuition was too expensive, and did not want to be burdened with loans)
* He will meet with the Iranians, personally, and conduct a frank personal interrogation about their nuclear intentions
* He will inspire the Youth of America to get involved in politics again
* He will prevent American companies from moving manufacturing overseas (The caller was unsure how this could be done, only that it would be done, because it should be done)
* He will not raise taxes on anyone except maybe millionaires (The caller was surprised to be asked if Obama would raise taxes; it was a strange, peculiar, irrelevant issue)
* He will give everyone health care (This would make American industry competitive, since companies would be freed of the obligation of making it an employee benefit)
* He will talk to the Europeans
And so on. There is tremendous faith in his ability to just wave a love-wand and get things done.
These sound like pretty specific reasons to me. True, they don't get into the nitty-gritty detail of how Mr. Obama would accomplish these goals - but that wasn't the question. The question was: Give us the specific reason you want to see Barack Obama elected president.
The underlying premise of the question, not to mention Lileks's snarky commentary, is that Obama's supporters also love unicorns and moonbeams - wide-eyed teens lying on their beds, heads cupped in hands, gazing upwards, sighing as they read the latest Tiger Beat spread on Obama: Isn't he just the dreamiest?
I can't begin to list everything that's wrong with this. For starters:
- Lileks assumes that every other candidate has come out with detailed plans on the specifics of what they're going to do on every plank of their platform. Have they? I don't know any specifics about McCain's plans other than that he wants to keep us in Iraq indefinitely (which is sad, because I think if he'd been president in 2001 he might never have attacked Iraq to begin with, and the fact that he's attaching himself to Bush's war at the hip disturbs me greatly - not to mention the fact that it pretty decisively scotches his "maverick" cred). And I'm willing to bet that if you went on the air and asked McCain supporters to provide "specifics, please" as to why they were supporting him, mostly you'd get a lot of variations on "maverick" and "independent." Which is another problem, because
- Lileks and Medved and Hewitt assume that every other candidate's supporters have detailed, well thought-out reasons for supporting them. I think that's demonstrably false. I think the vast majority of the electorate, no matter where they sit on the political spectrum, makes these decisions from the gut based largely on impressions and spin. But the premise of Medved and Hewitt even asking this question of Obama supporters - and only Obama supporters - is, "You guys are just a bunch of gullible kids taken in by a slick con artist with a gift for gab and no real substance." Which is the height of hypocrisy, because
- Lileks's (and Medved's, and Hewitt's) apparent candidate for Best. President. Ever. is the biggest empty suit ever elected to the White House. Are you telling me that people voted for George W. Bush because they favored his gravitas, his well-thought-out foreign policy ideas, his record of achievement both in government and in private industry? Or did they vote for him because "compassionate conservatism" sounded cool even though nobody knew what the hell it meant (and still don't know), and because he projected a tough cowboy image cultivated through photo ops of him clearing brush on the ranch he bought in 1999 for the express purpose of having a place to clear brush and look like Reagan? He's an old money, prep school, Ivy Leaguer twice over, son of a former president and grandson of a former senator, who painted himself as an aw-shucks regular beer-drinkin' guy and Washington outsider. He's a chickenhawk who gladly took advantage of the opportunity to sit out actual combat in the "Champagne Unit" of the Texas Air National Guard, but somehow had no problem letting others, on his behalf, rip into John Kerry's very real combat service. He's a feckless scion of a socially prominent family who spent most of his time until age 40 getting drunk until his embarrassed parents called in Billy Graham to straighten him out. He's the only member of his damn family who even has a freaking Texas accent. And people fell for his shtick, at least enough to make it a close election. And you tell me that Obama is all image and no substance?
And don't even get me started on this bit:
. . . since [dissent has] been established as the highest form of patriotism, I expect my arguments will be met with grave respect. Shhhh! He’s dissenting.
Nice. The assumption here is that once the Democrats have the White House, they will squelch all conservative dissent, that they're as bad as or worse than good rock-ribbed Republicans like Lileks. What a crock and, may I add, what a weak-assed bit of rhetoric from someone who reminds us all of his high school debate experience at least once a month. Of course Republicans will dissent if a Democrat's in the White House, and of course Democrats will argue back and pick apart their arguments. But I very, very much doubt that the reflexive Democratic first response to any Republican dissent will be, "They're dissenting! They're not patriotic Americans!" And I only hope we have the chance to find out for real. If (from my lips to God's ears) Barack Obama is elected president, and his White House labels Republican or conservative dissent to be tantamount to treason, James, then you may point it out to me and I will apologize handsomely. But somehow the dissent = unpatriotic equation has always seemed to be GOP property, and never more than since 9/11/2001.
Lileks wraps up this part of his argument thusly:
And I do find it interesting that people who have decried the shallow, theatrical, emotion-based nature of contemporary politics are now so effusive in their praise for someone’s ability to move crowds. Perhaps they don’t mind a fellow on a white horse if he promises to nationalize the stables.
To which I can only say, again, remove the ginormous plank in your own party's eye before you point out the splinter in mine. What was "Mission Accomplished," strutting on the deck of an aircraft carrier in a flight suit that inspired tumescence in no less a conservative light than G. Gordon Liddy, if not "shallow, theatrical, and emotion-based?" And I might buy into the "ability to move crowds, minus substance" argument - if I didn't know that Barack Obama has excelled at virtually everything he's tried in his life, and has assembled an admirable track record of accomplishment. And all this by an age at which George W. Bush had barely been sober.
So please. You want to attack Barack Obama's policies or his record, bring it on. But don't think you'll get anywhere with me by dismissing his supporters as hairless innocents who've been fooled by some oratorical Svengali. I already know what people look like who believe anything said by a substance-free, marginally intelligent play-actor who'll do or say anything to get elected. They're called "Republicans."