Saturday, February 09, 2008

When McCain Wins the Presidency, Part I

When John McCain wins the Presidency, and those not poisoned by the GOP Kool-Aid resignedly gear up for vainly counseling against (among other things) war with Iran and a Radical Conservative Shift on the Supreme Court: there will be much "analysis" about how the Democrats managed to snatch defeat out of the jaws of victory, this time.

Highlighted, of course, will be the Democrats clusterfuck primary, which probably won't be settled until the Denver convention. And after it is settled you can expect significant numbers to take their metaphoric balls and go home, since their candidate did not get in. But for his part, Harrogate will look back on this election year as a moment when he learned never to underestimate the degree of moral and intellectual vacuousness to which Americans of all persuasions will stoop at even the gentlest prodding.

Take, first, Hillary Clinton's decision to run in the first place, knowing full well that while she commanded the resources and name recognition to drive good candidates out of the race, she is also a Target of unprecedented proportions--indeed, the only American politico that it is fully sanctioned for the MSM, the intellectual elite, the Talk Radio Blowhard, and the rural redneck to openly bash on a base personal level.

It is without any grounds whatever, but Hillary Clinton is hated by a hell of a lot of people. Knowing this, the right thing to have done, for the country, would have been to fight for good things in the Senate.

And then of course, take an entire nation winking and nodding and participating in the attacks on this woman. Perhaps the Obama cult should include in its Talking Points:

To heighten our chances of getting what we want, can we find it within ourselves to countenance, and even stoop to the level of employing, the discourses of Hannity and Limbaugh and Coulter?

YES WE CAN!!!!!


There is what is coming to look more and more like a Cult movement surrounding Barack Obama. Harrogate has made it clear that he likes Obama very much: Obama inspires with his advocacies for decency in government, his ability to articulate the importance of imagination in government, and the like. But as the months progress it is becoming increasingly evident that Team Obama is quite willing to deliver this nation back into the hands of the GOP. Michelle Obama's comment that she would need to "think about" whether to support a Hillary Clinton candidacy is only a blip on the screen. More representative is what you see when you tour the blogosphere: Obama supporters crying racism while charging the Clintons with playing the race card simultaneously, all the while sounding more like Republican Pundits every day in the way they discuss not only Hillary Clinton, but increasingly, national policy as well.

Many of them have gone too far to reverse course now.


Finally, and perhaps most damningly of all, there is a television and Print Media that acts as though the last seven years have not happened, as if this election is taking place outside of any context whatsoever. A refusal to let the election be any kind of referendum. Instead, such drivel as, 'well that's the past Administration, we're electing a new President now': but has anyone learned anything from the past seven years, or shall we repeat them? Will the punditocracy finally acknowledge the pattern when the drums of war with Iran begin in 2010, just before the midterm elections? Of course not because they will be the ones beating the drums.

Ah, the joys of venting. Now back to hoping against hope that the GOP albatross hangs heavier on McCain's neck than Harrogate supposes.

3 comments:

solon said...

Sigh...

I find it some what disheartening and irrational that Obama supporters do not possesses the rational capacity to determine the strengths and weaknesses of a candidate, but are overcome by a charismatic leader and now support a cult. It seems to be the same with opposition to Clinton: all attacks are personal, the media is biased or empty, etc. etc. etc.

But, from your posts, I am no longer sure: (1) What a good candidate would be, (2) why you support a candidate (3) why you object to a candidate, and (4) what reasonable criticisms of a candidate or campaign would be.

I have spent more than enough time trying to lay out a case as to why one candidate would be better than another and why support of one part y, no matter the candidate is dangerous. Yet, I have not received the same.

If you want to improve the intellectual conversation about candidates, then you must put forth a reasonable argument and debate the merits. Bemoaning the problems of the world will not help this. Scapegoating or victimizing someone or something (an opponent's supporters, the media) does not add to the intellectual climate.

solon said...

Yet, maybe rational debate without the predominance of interests is not fully possible. Certainly, incommensurability exists and dialogue and debate cannot overcome some interests. Historically, the South was not about to give up slavery because it altered every aspect of Southern Society.

Certainly, the media will be controversial and not fair because (1) as a business it needs to make money and (2) the people involved have their own interests. No one can every escape that. The Clinton and Obama campaigns want their supporters to be partisan and the campaigns will exploit their supports for their own gain. These campaigns do not always want the media to be fair to them because they can use it as a rhetorical strategy to gain more supporter. Of course, this means the campaigns are being unethical to their own supporters to gain an extra advantage. The political camps want their supporters to be angry, to be passionate, and to avoid rationality. To be rational may mean you may not support a candidate or a party.

But this is the nature of politics, right? If you wanted to be an ethicist, you would study philosophy and not political campaigns.

harrogate said...

Harrogate all along has been laying out reasons why both Clinton and Obama are far superior candidates to anyone the GOIP has offered. And he has also defended his preference for Hillary Clinton, of the two.

So, you are misrepresenting Harrogate. You have indeed "received the same."

Harrogate has ALSO maintained all along his wish that Hillary Clinton had never entered, and that Obama (who has done nothing but run for President since ascending to the Senate), if he must run, would run as a Democrat, rather than as a me-or-nothing candidate.

As for improving the intellectual quality of the discourse, this is not possible, has never really been possible, with respect to Hillary Clinton. You prove this as well as anyone, with your willingness to countenance any comment about her, however beneath the proverbial belt.

It will be interesting, the spin you put on McCain's victory, in its wake.