||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Sam Smith
Bill Clinton was right for a change. He used the phrase "fairy tale" to
describe something Barack Obama had said. He should know. The Clinton
story was one of the great fairy tales of our time, created by a pair of
the most cynical politicians in American history assisted by a gullible
press.
Clinton even tried the JF Kennedy shtick. Remember the photos of Clinton
shaking Kennedy's hand at the White House as a kid at Boy's Nation? It
didn't work and perhaps part of Clinton's resentment against Obama is
that the latter has made the shtick stick.
In fact, contrary to the fable, during the Clinton years life got worse
for many blacks and women, a stunning number of Democratic offices were
lost at the state and national level, the country's social welfare
program began being dismantled and a social democratic tradition of the
Democratic Party going back to FDR was tossed aside for a GOP Lite
philosophy that still dominates the party's thinking.
Of course, Kennedy was a fairy tale, too. Aside from the Peace Corps and
getting people excited about serving the public good he was a pretty run
of the mill. And he made some crummy decisions including the Bay of Pigs
and starting the Vietnam conflict. In fact, the only presidents to get
really excited about in modern times were Johnson (and only on the
domestic side) and Roosevelt. And both are hardly mentioned by the fairy
tale tellers.
There are two big problems with political fairy tales:
First, they usually turn out to be false and dangerously so. If the
media fails to warn you of the insecure machismo of the Harvard types
who surrounded JFK, you can find yourself in Vietnam. If it doesn't tell
you the easily available evidence of Clinton's corrupt and drug trade
connected politics in Arkansas, you can end up with the Whitewater
scandal. And if all it tells you about Barack Obama is that he's for
hope and is a JFK clone, you may end up with. . . . Stay tuned.
Second, these fairy tales reduce the supporting constituency to the role
of rock star groupies rather than active participants. These groupies
are used for the candidate's ends rather than the constituency using the
candidate for their ends. This is what happened in the Clinton years.
The liberal wing of the Democratic Party, even before the primaries were
over, had reduced itself to a servile sycophant of Clinton and never
recovered. There was no greater betrayal of the liberal tradition than
how its professed observers caved to the destructive Clinton machine.
In fact, Obama's greatest service to date is that he has already started
to replace the rotten Clinton fairy tale with a new one. The criticism
of the Clintons that has started to crop up recently from formerly
obeisant liberal quarters is something that hasn't been seen in 16
years. We can't underestimate the importance of closing the dismal
chapter of the Reagan-Bush-Clinton-Bush years with something, even if it
isn't everything we would like. At no time in American history has so
much damage been done to our reputation, Constitution and economy as
during the RBCB era. It is long past time to say good riddance.
That said, there is absolutely nothing to be gained by turning a fairly
ordinary Chicago politician into a saint. For one thing, he isn't. And
for another, groveling at the feet of any politician is the worse course
for a constituency. It is far better to keep politicians humble, to know
their faults, and to know how to work around them when you need to.
A good place to start is to stop talking about hope. Obama talking about
the audacity of hope is like a musician telling an audience that we need
the audacity of applause. . . before he plays anything worth applauding.
Besides, Obama has no copyright on hope and, even if he did, as has been
pointed out, hope don't pay the rent.
For Obama to put so much emphasis on hope suggests that he is either a
con artist or deeply policy deficient.
It is fine for a politician to offer us hope, but for it to be real it
has to be the byproduct of proposed policies or past actions and not the
beginning and end of one's platform.
There are two good reasons for voting for a candidate. One: the
candidate has done something for you. Two: the candidate promises to do
something for you.
No candidate meets the first criteria and only John Edwards meets the
second.
But Edwards is up against two competing fairy tales, which the media
much prefers to reality politics. Besides, if Edwards were to win, the
rules of the game would change and neither Washington nor the media
would like that very much. That's why they've been so hard on Edwards
from the start.
Far better to feel like something's going to happen because the
candidate is black or a woman. And so much easier.
In fact, if you want change in policies, including toward those that
would better favor the average black or women, you support Edwards. If
you want to change the gender or ethnicity of the person in the White
House without much change in policy, you support Obama or Clinton. It's
sort of like buying a car. Some people read Consumer Reports; others
think all they need is the hip brand.
Is there a definable difference between Obama and the Clintons?
Absolutely. Obama is more honest, decent and thoughtful as well as less
hypocritical by far. If you disagree with Obama, you'll get a
parsimonious argument and be mad. If you disagree with a Clinton, you
better watch your back.
Besides, there's always the Mae West principle: when faced with a choice
of two evils, she always picked the one she hadn't tried before.
But that doesn't mean there is anything to be gained by wagging your
tail every time Obama says the word "hope." In the end, those little
treats he gives you for your obsequiousness may be all you get for
lunch.
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Sam Smith
Bill Clinton was right for a change. He used the phrase "fairy tale" to
describe something Barack Obama had said. He should know. The Clinton
story was one of the great fairy tales of our time, created by a pair of
the most cynical politicians in American history assisted by a gullible
press.
Clinton even tried the JF Kennedy shtick. Remember the photos of Clinton
shaking Kennedy's hand at the White House as a kid at Boy's Nation? It
didn't work and perhaps part of Clinton's resentment against Obama is
that the latter has made the shtick stick.
In fact, contrary to the fable, during the Clinton years life got worse
for many blacks and women, a stunning number of Democratic offices were
lost at the state and national level, the country's social welfare
program began being dismantled and a social democratic tradition of the
Democratic Party going back to FDR was tossed aside for a GOP Lite
philosophy that still dominates the party's thinking.
Of course, Kennedy was a fairy tale, too. Aside from the Peace Corps and
getting people excited about serving the public good he was a pretty run
of the mill. And he made some crummy decisions including the Bay of Pigs
and starting the Vietnam conflict. In fact, the only presidents to get
really excited about in modern times were Johnson (and only on the
domestic side) and Roosevelt. And both are hardly mentioned by the fairy
tale tellers.
There are two big problems with political fairy tales:
First, they usually turn out to be false and dangerously so. If the
media fails to warn you of the insecure machismo of the Harvard types
who surrounded JFK, you can find yourself in Vietnam. If it doesn't tell
you the easily available evidence of Clinton's corrupt and drug trade
connected politics in Arkansas, you can end up with the Whitewater
scandal. And if all it tells you about Barack Obama is that he's for
hope and is a JFK clone, you may end up with. . . . Stay tuned.
Second, these fairy tales reduce the supporting constituency to the role
of rock star groupies rather than active participants. These groupies
are used for the candidate's ends rather than the constituency using the
candidate for their ends. This is what happened in the Clinton years.
The liberal wing of the Democratic Party, even before the primaries were
over, had reduced itself to a servile sycophant of Clinton and never
recovered. There was no greater betrayal of the liberal tradition than
how its professed observers caved to the destructive Clinton machine.
In fact, Obama's greatest service to date is that he has already started
to replace the rotten Clinton fairy tale with a new one. The criticism
of the Clintons that has started to crop up recently from formerly
obeisant liberal quarters is something that hasn't been seen in 16
years. We can't underestimate the importance of closing the dismal
chapter of the Reagan-Bush-Clinton-Bush years with something, even if it
isn't everything we would like. At no time in American history has so
much damage been done to our reputation, Constitution and economy as
during the RBCB era. It is long past time to say good riddance.
That said, there is absolutely nothing to be gained by turning a fairly
ordinary Chicago politician into a saint. For one thing, he isn't. And
for another, groveling at the feet of any politician is the worse course
for a constituency. It is far better to keep politicians humble, to know
their faults, and to know how to work around them when you need to.
A good place to start is to stop talking about hope. Obama talking about
the audacity of hope is like a musician telling an audience that we need
the audacity of applause. . . before he plays anything worth applauding.
Besides, Obama has no copyright on hope and, even if he did, as has been
pointed out, hope don't pay the rent.
For Obama to put so much emphasis on hope suggests that he is either a
con artist or deeply policy deficient.
It is fine for a politician to offer us hope, but for it to be real it
has to be the byproduct of proposed policies or past actions and not the
beginning and end of one's platform.
There are two good reasons for voting for a candidate. One: the
candidate has done something for you. Two: the candidate promises to do
something for you.
No candidate meets the first criteria and only John Edwards meets the
second.
But Edwards is up against two competing fairy tales, which the media
much prefers to reality politics. Besides, if Edwards were to win, the
rules of the game would change and neither Washington nor the media
would like that very much. That's why they've been so hard on Edwards
from the start.
Far better to feel like something's going to happen because the
candidate is black or a woman. And so much easier.
In fact, if you want change in policies, including toward those that
would better favor the average black or women, you support Edwards. If
you want to change the gender or ethnicity of the person in the White
House without much change in policy, you support Obama or Clinton. It's
sort of like buying a car. Some people read Consumer Reports; others
think all they need is the hip brand.
Is there a definable difference between Obama and the Clintons?
Absolutely. Obama is more honest, decent and thoughtful as well as less
hypocritical by far. If you disagree with Obama, you'll get a
parsimonious argument and be mad. If you disagree with a Clinton, you
better watch your back.
Besides, there's always the Mae West principle: when faced with a choice
of two evils, she always picked the one she hadn't tried before.
But that doesn't mean there is anything to be gained by wagging your
tail every time Obama says the word "hope." In the end, those little
treats he gives you for your obsequiousness may be all you get for
lunch.
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
No comments:
Post a Comment