Geraghty points out the absurdity of the entire “Good Man” affectation adopted by many on both sides of the political aisle — the charge being to “criticize the policies but don’t attack the man/woman. Unless it’s some drooling teabagger with his racist code words and his self-aware assault weapons. In which case, go to town on those domestic terrorists and cultural anarchists, those revolting intolerant fringe extremists who, for the sake of the common good, should be forced to eat all manner of human waste.”:
“Obama’s Numbers Hit All-Time Low Agai — You Know, You’ve Heard This Before
Good morning, Mr. President:
Only four out of 10 Americans believe President Barack Obama can manage the federal government effectively, according to a new national poll.And a CNN/ORC International survey released Monday morning also indicates that 53% of Americans now believe that Obama is not honest and trustworthy, the first time that a clear majority in CNN polling has felt that way.
Fifty-six percent say he is not a person they admire, and an equal number say he does not agree with them on important issues. Fifty-six percent also say he does not inspire confidence, and 53% don’t view him as a strong and decisive leader. All of those figures are all-time records for Obama in CNN polling.
But seven in ten still say he’s “likeable”. . .
Average American: “I don’t trust him, he can’t manage, I don’t admire him, I don’t agree with him, I don’t have confidence in him, and he’s not strong and decisive. But I like him.”
Me, I write this off as a natural consequence of the entrenched relativism promoted by both PC and the left’s drive to make anti-foundationalism / postmodernist sensibilities the default pose and ethical stance of a populace more in fear of being labeled haters than willing to offer — and value — honest empirical assessment delivered in an unvarnished, no BS way.
Others call that “comity” and “taking the high ground.” But as the last 5 years have shown us, that stance — while I suppose born of a certain admirably quality (though often really just the product of ostentation sanctimony — is pretty much fucking retarding.
Dig a hole, throw it in, toss some dirt over it, and then have a priest exorcise the ground. Or, if you aren’t into that kinda bogus religious claptrap, hire a new agey Shaman to burn some sage bundles around it and bury a coin kissed by that one crying Indian from the 70s.
Either way, can we do away with the pretense now? Finally?
It’s the “It’s Not Personal” syndrome.
Either way, can we do away with the pretense now? Finally?
“What you mean ‘we’, whiteman? Us PC Washington
RedskinsEngine fans are just gettin’ rev’d up.”Why do we need to “like” or “hate” our politicians at all?
“He’s a moron” is a perfectly valid comment on a politician’s conduct, as are “he’s acting on principles I agree with,” “she doesn’t represent my point of view,” and “he’s a power-grabbing narcissist.”
Why does like or dislike need to enter the picture at all?
Like and dislike need to enter the picture because the left depend on visceral, emotional reactions to energize a substantial portion of their voting base.
Those voters who aren’t invented through fraud, that is.
Why does like or dislike need to enter the picture at all?
Possibly on account of an enduring human propensity toward eros, a more or less irreducible irrationality in human affairs.
“Why does like or dislike need to enter the picture at all?”
It’s the democratic/republican impulse–the idea that we elect our leaders from amongst ourselves. Specifically, people like ourselves. It’s the Jacksonian element in our national makeup.
Given that it’s increasingly untrue (our elites don’t want to rub elbows with us, but rather rule us), it’s both a sign of our decay and something we ought to divorce ourselves from.
Being liked is irrelevant in any case. What matters where a granting of power is concerned is trust. A lot of people can point to someone they like but whom they wouldn’t trust as far as they could throw a fully loaded freight train.
Obama’s “like” numbers are inflated by the Bradley Effect; if a politician of pallor were cratering this badly, voters of every shape, size and skin tone would be demanding his ouster forthwith.
I don’t respect the bastard. He doesn’t respect people like me.
Therefore, he can drop dead for all I care.
So they should all agree that he should resign or be impeached/convicted and then they can all go out with him for beers at a sports bar. They should watch out however, Ted Bundy and John Wayne Gacy were “likeable” democrats too. “Likeable” right up to the time that they weren’t anymore and it was too late then.
I guess Romney should have just called him lazy after all.
You ever notice how the “likeable” quotient only gets trotted out for Democrats, and then only after their approval numbers start dropping?
Right. Likeability may be of some use in diplomacy, but other than that it’s largely orthogonal to the ability to run a business or company.
I’m thinking of a guy I’ve known for nearly 30 years. Nice guy, smart guy, well-liked by almost everyone.
Would I let him handle my finances? Hell, no!
I’d trust him to back me up in a bar fight, but anything that requires long-term reliability? Nope, nope, nope.
Fortunately he’s a musician, not a politician.
“Business or country”, I meant to say.
Possibly on account of an enduring human propensity toward eros,
The Leah “it’s like your first time” Dunham effect, then.
Or the detailed aspect of the tripartite soul posited in Plato’s Republic, observed, varied and analyzed in the rest of his works, not least of which, the Symposium. Or even, if we glance at credited modernity, Weber’s charisma principle.
Funny, his “likeabilty” fell faster than other traits for me. Of course it did not need to fall that far.
http://www.economics21.org/commentary/no-grounds-claim-obamacare-lowers-healthcare-costs
“it’s like your first time”
My first time was a real mess and many mistakes were made (ow! You’re on my hair! Oh God, I’m sorry.) yet it was nowhere near as stupid as Obamacare has been.
OK, folkses:
It’s one thing to decide that religion and the God thing ain’t your cup o’ Joe. It’s a free country and I’m delighted that everyone (theoretically) has the right to chart his or her own course relative to the God thing. Having not walked in anyone else’s shoes but my own, I can’t come to a fair conclusion about why anyone takes the path they’re on, so I just figure people have their reasons just as I have mine and leave it at that.
On the other hand, holding so many of your fellow citizens in contempt because of the path they’re on relative to the God thing can’t be healthy.
“In the gall of bitterness and the bonds of iniquity” is the phrase that came to mind after reading the letters linked above.
I see you, and raise you (you weren’t even in me yet).
lie the gallstones of regret?
I don’t know dicentra.
Reminds me of the concept of “gay panic” where someone freaks out because a homosexual made a pass at them and it is supposed to be because they are not really confident in their own sexuality.
I’ll call it “Christian panic” for “true unbelievers” who freak out when encountering a person of faith.
Brian is probably going to be surprised by how many Magical Sky Dude Believers there are in Nebraska.
That’s good, bgbear. I’ll have to remember that one.
Was Reid always such a trooper or did they put a wire in his head? I mean they can’t put a wire in your head that’s sci-fi but I’ve never seen a naturally occurring toad who hops so good. They must have some SERIOUS dirt on that man. Otherwise how do you get the head of the senate to castrate the senate all just before he’s at risk of losing it?
Nebraska is about 82% Christian, according to Pew’s statistics.
Was Reid always such a trooper or did they put a wire in his head?
Heard On Beck™: A fellow politician or a reporter (can’t remember which) asked Reid whether he were for or against something and Reid said he “needed to check.”
Also, some on the inside say that Reid seems to be losing his marbles.
Looks like a man who has been so fully compromised that he didn’t complain when they inserted the brass ring in his nose.
Like virtually all Nevada politicians, Reid is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Chicago Outfit.
When I was a kid I knew someone like that, who insisted on playing marbles with rocks.
We are the 55%
Mitt Romney Was Wrong About Obama’s 47% Floor
Mitt Romney was wrong about a lot of things.
Which is why the only person calling him “Mr. President” is Mrs. Romney. And then only rarely; and he usually has to buy her something small and very expensive first.
You have to say you like him, or else you’re raaaaacist.
Jeff makes a great point that the “Good Man” affectation doesn’t keep people from smearing the Tea Party, and I think that points to a very clear test for where a person stands.
If, after half a decade, somebody is still more likely to give the benefit of the doubt to Obama than to a Tea Partier, he’s part of the problem. If he’s ignorant or misinformed, he can be helped, but too many on the ostensible right have no excuse.
Consider the opening to yesterday’s article by Kevin Williamson, at NRO.
“His social circle includes an alarming number of authentic radicals, but the president’s politics are utterly conventional managerial liberalism. His manner is aloof, but he is too plainly a child of the middle class to succumb to the regal pretensions that the Kennedys suffered from, even if his household entourage does resemble the Ringling Bros. Circus as reimagined by Imelda Marcos when it moves about from Kailua Beach to Blue Heron Farm.”
That’s absurd, to deny all the evidence that Obama really is (in Stanley Kurtz’ words) the Radical-in-Chief, but Williamson doesn’t hedge his bets when describing the “fever swamps” with “all that ridiculous Kenyan-Muslim hokum.”
He’s surely aware that an early publisher of Obama’s included a blurb about his Kenyan origins, but the facts don’t matter.
Obama == conventional liberal
And it’s the Tea Party types who are extreme.
To hell with people like Williamson.
The golf story left me… eh. 1) It’s about golf. Golf. A game. I’m sorry, no I’m not sorry, yeah I sorry for, no I’m not sorry for not having sympathy, oh, your poor little golf. See? I tried. Golf big money. Gone. Big chance. Gone. eh, still no sympathy. I just cannot do it. Why? Because golf.
2) A scripture so profound it is emblazoned for all to see. It’s nice! Televised even to people who would object, a scripture to live by, a scripture that is a guiding light, a scripture about spiritual confidence in facing adversity. Fine. Live it. Show us how that scripture is lived by facing adversity and quit your media whinging.
3) golf.
That’s where it tuns into a recurring looped circle it seems and the words bleed off the page and I know I cannot go on with it. Seeing the photo and I’m right back to eh while the whole time recalling my own work experiences and any sympathy and all interest evaporate. Get a job.
Golf.
I’m turning the sports page and catching up on croquet.
You might want to ask yourself, what if Williamson is right, Obama is a conventional liberal?
Wouldn’t that imply that your run of the mill liberal is firmly in the I love America in theory/I hate America in practice (q.v.) camp?
Kind of like how Ike loved the Ideal of Tina that he’d invented for himself, and had to beat the living shit of the Real Tina for not living up to his expectations.
For her own good of course. How else was she supposed to improve herself?
Looks to me like Ernst has got hold of the nub of the phenomena. The only difference (between ObaZma) and the conventional liberal being, ClownDisaster has all-too-real power in his hands, and the conventional liberal remains (unbeknownst to himself) an isolated peon.
Neil Munro, covering ObaZma in LaLaLand: *** “Kindness covers all of my political beliefs,” *** “Kindness; empathy — that sense that I have a stake in your success,” said Obama, who told supporters during the November election “Don’t boo. Vote. Voting is the best revenge.” ***
“Conventional managerial liberalism” in action. Or how to make the the narrative, “It’s Vietnam,” come true with classified, secretive, “conventional managerial liberalism,” so that in the end you can declare how you were correct all along.
Trilling, you magnificent bastard, I read
your bookan essay on the continuing relevance of your book!In a flourish of devious interpretation, I’d suggest that in fact “kindness” covers all his political deceptions, since his solitary political beliefs are never displayed by him openly and (in so doing), open to question or criticism. We, of necessity, must work with a black box.
A kind of kindness for certain values of kind which Obama seems to embrace.
Kind with the kine — where, under the necessity, that is, the kine can’t be avoided altogether.