Yes, I know; another article about what the outcome of the 2009 Presidential race meant is not exactly what the pundit-universe needs today. There are hundreds and hundreds of articles out there about this.
But please allow me to air my belated thoughts on this subject, based upon six months of actual governing by the winner, Barack Obama. FIRST: in terms of long-term significance, the race wasn’t between Barack Obama and John McCain; it was between Obama and the previous President, George W. Bush. SECOND: Obama won! Not a big surprise, given that the economy under President Bush was visibly collapsing during most of the election campaign. THIRD: The Democrats also had big Congressional wins. This indicates that the public had given Obama a mandate to move away from Bush’s neo-conservative policies, especially regarding domestic and economic issues, allowing him to implement the more government-centered, welfare-focused programs favored by liberals; FOURTH: Obama is an extraordinarily talented orator, and many American voters feel good about such orators. FIFTH: What I believe, however, is that the biggest significance of the 2009 election is that the public had tired of Bush’s intellectual aridity and wanted a highly intelligent man in the White House.
President Obama appears to believe that the THIRD factor is most important. He believes that the American public supports his vision of expanded government involvement in the economy (and also in private life; how can one not involve the other?). It will be interesting to see if this pans out. There are some early (but still unreliable) indications that a majority of voters do NOT feel they were giving Obama such a mandate. The mid-term Congressional elections in 2010 will be a key test on this issue.
FOOTNOTE: McCain’s strategy during the election was not terribly intelligent. Instead of appealing to the center (where his reputation as an honest reformer might have gained some traction), he decided to “move back to the base”, i.e. to pander to the neo-conservative and theo-conservative voting blocks around whom G.W. Bush crafted his election victories in 2000 and 2004. The key component of this “back to base-ics” plan was to select a Vice Presidential candidate who would greatly appeal to those right-wing groups, and yet help revive his image as a “maverick” or a “think-outside-the-box” guy. Obviously this strategy was fatally flawed; i.e., trying to stay “on base” and yet move “outside the box”. Box / base; what’s the difference? It all fell apart as it became clear to the public that Sarah Palin was NOT big-league material. And neither was McCain, as was apparent in his thinking that she was.
But leaving the Sarah Palin debacle aside and getting back to the present: even if America does not want the greatly expanded government network and welfare spending scheme that Obama currently proposes, we will still have a highly intelligent President. Hopefully, that prodigious intelligence will be applied by Mr. Obama to get things done and solve basic problems, in spite of having his vision rebuked.
Speaking of intelligent people, I recently read a short article about the acclaimed mid-20th century philosopher Martin Heidegger. This article made me think, How Can the Brilliant Be So Stupid? It was a review of a 1966 interview that Heidegger gave to the German magazine Der Spiegel, and it focused on Heidegger’s relationship during the 1930s with the Nazi Party. At one point, Heidegger started discussing the problem of humankind and technology; are we really in control of our machines? He said that the Nazi’s were aware of this danger, and were working towards “a satisfying relationship with technology”. He said that “technicity in its essence is something that man does not master by his own power”, but that through Nazism it could be mastered.
Yikes. Could Heidegger not see that the Nazi’s were having “a relationship with technology” for the purpose of killing? Could Heidegger not have realized that killing through technology unleashes even greater technology that will eventually destroy those who first set it on that path? It is ironic that Hitler, whose forces generally had better-designed weapons than the Allies, was eventually defeated in a low-tech fashion, i.e. overwhelmed by greater resources. But had Hitler somehow held out another year, his Reich would have then been buried by such greater technology, i.e. by the American atom bomb.
Heidegger allegedly never apologized for his pro-Nazi sentiments; he was never willing to admit that he was wrong. Again, how can the brilliant be so stupid? (P.S., I’m not referring to Obama here; I believe that he’s less brilliant, and also less stupid, than Heidegger was; and he’s also more brilliant than McCain, but it remains to be seen if he’s ultimately more astute).
Jim,
I generally agree with your tho'ts today.
It is true, only time will really tell if Obama will meet the expectations the American people have about him. I would say, however, that Obama, undoubtedly, will not meet the expectations of a quick and complete and total cure-all of the nations problems. After all, in the end he's simply another human being.
However, I'd much rather take a chance on a guy who would reach too high and fall short than on a guy who has no reach at all because he cannot think beyond the limits of his being rich and raised rich and beyond his addictive mentality that must hold on to what he "believes" and refuses to THINK beyond what he believes. (Can be compared to those in religion who simply must accept this or that teaching without asking questions about the teaching.) I am not here trying to demean the need for addicts to hold on to their beliefs, only stating that, as I see it, such an approach for the general population is limiting.
As to Sarah Palin, notice how she has simply disappeared off the radar since her resignation. Of course anyone is entitled to a few months' vacation. Yet, I find myself wondering: Is she secluding herself to write the book she said she would write, as she likely has a serious need for money to pay lawyers for her upcoming court cases? Is she negotiating contracts for TV/radio programs, etc.? Are the rumors true that her marriage is in trouble and a divorce is imminent? Has she simply decided to take a break from public life for a time? Or will she simply fade away from the public consciousness? Any of these? All of these?
One comment: In the "Vanity Fair" article on her made me stop and think about her more generally than usual. Specifically, she was quoted as saying (I paraphrase): I hear all these people I debate quoting statistics that just seem to easily trip off the end of their tongues, and I wonder: Is it REALLY necessary to know all that stuff? (I don't think my paraphrase is too far off.) That statement scared me because it indicates that Palin sees "leadership" as the ability to manipulate the public using the media by looking good and sounding good; no substance necessary. So looking good, having catchy phrases that people can latch on to, how things look on the surface are much more important than substance.
At least with Obama, whatever his faults may be/will turn out to be, we can be sure that his approach to the problems of the country and the world are based on substance.
MCS
Comment by MCS — August 4, 2009 @ 10:49 am
Jim,
I generally agree with your tho'ts today.
It is true, only time will really tell if Obama will meet the expectations the American people have about him. I would say, however, that Obama, undoubtedly, will not meet the expectations of a quick and complete and total cure-all of the nations problems. After all, in the end he's simply another human being.
However, I'd much rather take a chance on a guy who would reach too high and fall short than on a guy who has no reach at all because he cannot think beyond the limits of his being rich and raised rich and beyond his addictive mentality that must hold on to what he "believes" and refuses to THINK beyond what he believes. (Can be compared to those in religion who simply must accept this or that teaching without asking questions about the teaching.) I am not here trying to demean the need for addicts to hold on to their beliefs, only stating that, as I see it, such an approach for the general population is limiting.
As to Sarah Palin, notice how she has simply disappeared off the radar since her resignation. Of course anyone is entitled to a few months' vacation. Yet, I find myself wondering: Is she secluding herself to write the book she said she would write, as she likely has a serious need for money to pay lawyers for her upcoming court cases? Is she negotiating contracts for TV/radio programs, etc.? Are the rumors true that her marriage is in trouble and a divorce is imminent? Has she simply decided to take a break from public life for a time? Or will she simply fade away from the public consciousness? Any of these? All of these?
One comment: In the "Vanity Fair" article on her made me stop and think about her more generally than usual. Specifically, she was quoted as saying (I paraphrase): I hear all these people I debate quoting statistics that just seem to easily trip off the end of their tongues, and I wonder: Is it REALLY necessary to know all that stuff? (I don't think my paraphrase is too far off.) That statement scared me because it indicates that Palin sees "leadership" as the ability to manipulate the public using the media by looking good and sounding good; no substance necessary. So looking good, having catchy phrases that people can latch on to, how things look on the surface are much more important than substance.
At least with Obama, whatever his faults may be/will turn out to be, we can be sure that his approach to the problems of the country and the world are based on substance.
MCS
Comment by MCS — August 4, 2009 @ 10:49 am