In which I respond to the sophisticates, both left and right, in re: Bill Ayers and Dreams [updated]
Look → I don’t think there’s any doubt that Ayers was involved in the writing of Dreams. The book was an essential part of the fashioning of the candidate, “Barack Obama,” and so, though presented as a memoir, it is more a foundational document upon which the Obama mythos was to built. As I noted back when this story was hot and Cashill was pursuing it in earnest, it could very well be the case that Obama simply plagiarized the tropes, or “borrowed” liberally from Ayers, in which case Ayers’ involvement is tangential. But it’s certainly no conspiracy to detail the very real similarities between the works of Ayers and the (supposed) writings of Obama — while also noting that Obama and Ayers knew each other, and that Ayers had helped launch Obama’s political career. Pretty soon, it seems to me, the persistent dismissal of this compelling body of circumstantial evidence — in an effort to avoid looking like a conspiracy kook — is where the real conspiratorial kookiness rests. It’s just more “good man” posturing. It’s a skeptic’s affectation for the sake of appearing nuanced.
Meanwhile, it’s nice to see that Rick Moran is still counseling us on how to look refined and in the know while we’re being bent over the setee for our “historical” buggering. How’d that work out for McCain again?
As someone who knows a thing or two about interpretation, I don’t need John Hawkins or Rick Moran to point out Ayers’ tone of sarcasm. What I’m interested in is the rather pointed tone of the sarcasm — it’s too deliberate, and the question seems too staged — and I’m suggesting that, while Ayers wants to joke it all away (to provide himself an out), he also very much wants credit. It’s who he is. It’s who they all are.
And honestly, would this be the first time in history someone used sarcasm to sustain plausible deniability? Is it really nuanced thinking to believe Ayers is just going to openly and without irony admit to his role in Dreams?
The left (along with certain “pragmatists” on the right) will label me a nut no matter what I posit. I’m not looking for their approval, so I don’t much care how they try to ironize evidence away. It’s predictable. And boring, frankly. Jon Stewart and Bill Maher have made careers out of it; yet who believes them anymore aside from those other leftists who share that same insular worldview and who adopt that same sneering posture as a rhetorical tool?
Yet here we are 3 years past the 2008 elections and certain “conservative” opinion drivers are still terrified of looking like “fringe” players. It’s sad, really.
Or pathetic. You decide.
update: Writes Moran, “It bears repeating – slowly for those with a reading comprehension deficit – McCain’s margin of defeat would have been larger if he had gotten “tough” on Obama.”
So — and forgive me here if I miss the mark (I’ve a reading comprehension deficit, it seems) — the argument on offer is that McCain would have lost anyway, but (and here’s where it gets curious) he could have lost while sticking to conservative principles and arguing for conservative policy — while perhaps encouraging (or even pressuring) the media to vet Obama more rigorously?
I’m sorry. I’m having a hard time understanding how this is a bad thing. But then, I admit the difficulty I’m having is colored by the November elections and the overwhelming success of the TEA Party, particularly on the local and state levels.
I must lack the requisite nuance.