When little lies have big consequences.
I've been writing for The Intellectual Conservative for several years now. You know my beliefs from the various articles I've written, but what do you actually know about me?
In addition to the Ph.D. I earned at the University of Chicago, I hold honorary Ph.D's from Harvard, Yale and Columbia University. Three of the novels I've written have been optioned for feature films by major Hollywood producers, and are scheduled for release in the summer of 2009. I retired at 35 because I won both the New York State and Florida lotteries, making me a gazillionaire. My devilishly handsome good looks have put me on the cover of GQ magazine six times in the last three years. My trophy wife Bambi is a former Playboy Bunny (Miss October), and in three weeks I'm off to spend a weekend with Brad and Angelina at their private getaway in the Caribbean.
Okay. Was it the extra Ph/D's that gave me away, my trophy wife Bambi, the Hollywood movie options, or something more mundane like my "devilishly handsome good looks"? If it wasn't obvious before, it certainly is now that except for the real Ph.D. I have from Chicago, and the fact that I've written a couple of moderately-successful novels, none of the above is true. So why lie? Why augment the truth, or in other circumstances, deny the truth of a matter all together?
Why indeed? For a person like me, there's no real point in embellishing my looks, net worth, or social calendar, because enough people know what I look like (and who I like to pal around with) to quickly put a lie to anything I'd say. As far as my wife "Bambi" is concerned, the fact that I have a wife of 30-plus years makes it unlikely that I'm trying to score a date on Facebook with an assumed photo and made-up profile. So, in short, there's nothing to be gained for me by massaging the truth until it's no longer recognizable.
But what about those people who do lie about important issues where the stakes are much higher than their social reputation alone? Let me think of a good example to illustrate this point. You know, someone like, oh, the Democrat presidential nominee in the 2008 election.
At this point the moral relativists will jump in and scream "everybody lies, especially politicians." Yes, they do. But like an example I've used before, it's theft to steal a ream of paper from the office and bring it home for your kid to draw on, and it's theft to embezzle $750,000 from the office pension fund. But not every act of thievery has the same implications, and not every lie has the same motivations — or consequences — and to excuse one by citing the other is to play another kind of game with words.
Now, unlike my friends on the Left, I don't instinctively condemn a politician for changing his position when circumstances dictate. With regard to President-elect Obama, there's a qualitative difference between backing away from the immediate, draconian tax increases he proposed while campaigning in 2008, and the reality he faces in dealing with the worst economy since the Carter Administration. While Obama still publicly maintains that he's going to increase the taxes of the most productive Americans, he and his surrogates are no longer stating this fact emphatically, and are beginning to whisper about making the changes somewhere around 2010. This is not the same thing as Bill Clinton promising a middle class tax cut in 1992, and then jettisoning it immediately upon taking office in 1993.
What I'm addressing in this essay is Obama's own characterization of a minor, allegedly insignificant point during the 2008 campaign; namely, his relationship to a man who did some very naughty things when Obama was 8 years old. I'm sure many of my friends — er, I mean neighborhood acquaintances — did naughty things too forty or fifty years ago, and I'd hate to be held accountable for their actions because they live on my block, or I passed them in the hall while going to and from some meeting we both attended.
Or, to put it in Obama's own words regarding his relationship to domestic terrorist — I mean, former peace activist — Bill Ayers [April 2008 presidential debate]:
This is a guy who lives in my neighborhood, who's a professor of English in Chicago, who I know and who I have not received some official endorsement from. He's not somebody who I exchange ideas from on a regular basis. And the notion that somehow as a consequence of me knowing somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago when I was 8 years old, somehow reflects on me and my values, doesn't make much sense, George.
Right-Wing Republicans quickly reacted to this statement by pointing out that, "Senator Obama served on a board with Mr. Ayers for a period of time, the Woods Foundation, which was a paid directorship position. And if I'm not mistaken, that relationship with Mr. Ayers on this board continued after 9/11 . . .."
We can dismiss these partisan slurs that Obama was withholding the complete truth because they were made by kook fringe conservatives, and therefore had no basis in fact. The discussion of Obama's truthfulness will now end here. Oh wait, I just re-read the transcript, and it appears that it was Hillary Clinton who authored this statement, so we must continue because these charges now have inherent credibility. (In politics today, a fact is not a fact until a Democrat or the mainstream media says it is. Until then, the same identical act/charge either doesn't exist, didn't actually happen, or doesn't have any significance. I'm just playing by the established rules, so please don't hate me.)
So where is the truth of the matter? Two Democrats have made opposing charges. Was Ayers just a guy in Obama's neighborhood, not a friend and supporter? Was Obama more than a passing acquaintance of Ayers, or not?
This conundrum would normally be relegated to the deep, dark depths of academic trivia, were it not for the recent comments of Mr. Ayers himself. From a report by the Chicago Sun Times:
In a new afterword to his 2001 book, Bill Ayers, former leader of the 1960s radical group Weather Underground, describes President-elect Barack Obama as a ‘family friend' . . .
Hmmm. That sounds like a little more than "a guy who lives in my neighborhood." As Ayers explains, "We . . . knew one another as neighbors and family friends, held an initial fund-raiser at my house, where I'd made a small donation to his earliest political campaign . . ."
Hmmm again. I don't have any neighbors who've knocked on my door and offered to raise money for my pet projects, particularly people who I don't regard as "friends." Even some of my "official" friends looked the other way when my kid went around the neighborhood raising money for her school, selling girl scout cookies, etc. And this is in the friendly South. I actually lived in Hyde Park for 5 years back in the late 70s and early 80s, where the Obamas resided prior to Tony Rezko buying them a new house. There were bars on most of the windows, and big loud dogs that liked to bite people in many of the homes.
In a community where families arrange "play dates" for their children instead of just letting them go outside and make new friends, Obama wants us to believe that some neighborhood guy he barely knew held a fund raiser at his (Ayers') house and donated money to Obama out of his own pocket? This doesn't pass the smell test. Some guy, out of the blue, randomly picks Obama to help launch his political career. They serve on the same board, but according to Obama Ayers is "not somebody who I exchange ideas with on a regular basis."
It's Bill Clinton time again. Okay, the exchange of ideas wasn't "regular" (every Tuesday at 4:00 pm). One week it was Monday at 5:00, the next week Wednesday at 2:00, then alternate Tuesdays throughout the month of May. Ayers was just a really, really, really strong acquaintance, not a "friend." Ayers opens his home to Obama, but doesn't use the word "official" when he endorses him, so it's just another random, unconnected act.
The election is over, so why is any of this an issue? It isn't if you don't care whether the President is telling you the truth or not. But as we've learned from the Left during the past 8 years, if the President says it's 2:00 pm and it's really 2:01 pm, he's "lying." So, I intend to hold President Obama to a similar — albeit more realistic — standard.
Obama lied to us about his relationship with Bill Ayers. He did this because he believed it was important to his election effort. It doesn't matter whether he lied because he feared Republicans would distort the relationship; Hillary Clinton is the one who raised the issue while they were both vying for the nomination. He lied to beat her, and he lied to beat McCain. Any further rationalizing of the act is an interesting historical tidbit, but it doesn't obviate the fact that Obama repeatedly and consistently lied about Ayers.
The Left has reminded us for years that the end does not justify the means when it comes to fake lying (i.e. their charges about Bush and Iraq). So, it more than stands to reason that real lying cannot be justified either, even when the lie is deemed necessary to defeat other Democrats and the Republican Party nominee.
Why is this lie an issue, then? If Obama was willing to repeatedly lie about this supposedly "insignificant" matter, why should we think he'll tell the truth when a genuinely important issue is at hand?
Hi, Phil.
I've noticed this for some time now: people being found out in a lie or a misrepresentation, and immediately using the "but they do it too!" argument, as if it nullifies the lie.
It's all quite juvenile, really.
LAM: It's all part of the moral equivalency mantra of the Left. There is no right or wrong because to say so would be to offer a judgment, and it's politically incorrect to judge other people (unless they're conservatives or Republicans).
My friends and acquaintances all agree – perhaps we're just all fuddy-duddy old school about this – that your word is your bond. If nothing else, it's who you are, what you are. And when your word is no longer any good, who are you, really?
I personally believe this form of moral relativism will be what destroys us all in the end.
Judging people: during the election cycle now past, I found that countless Liberals would express OUTRAGE to me for daring to say such simple things as, "I wish Mister Obama had more experience." Outrage. Think on that. Someone telling a taxpaying American voting Citizen that they had no right, how dare they say such things, about a political candidate. As if I had no fundamental right to question.
How ironic is that?! The self-same people who rail against those with religious beliefs themselves acting out in some sort of hypnotic lockstep pseudo-religious fervor over their political pick, and treating everyone with a divergent opinion as if they were heretics.
This is damned certain no longer the America I grew up in.
LAM,
As frustrated as you must feel, your mistake is that you are appealing to fairness and decency to make your case. The other side has no such boundaries. Leftists will do or say anything to obtain and keep political power.
They don't care about tolerance, unless someone can be branded as intolerant against them. They don't care about democracy, unless they win the election. They don't care about truth, unless it can be used as a bludgeon against their opponent.
They don't care about choice, until someone tries to make a choice they don't approve of. They don't want debate, unless they are the ones talking.
The objective is not to have the best man win. Leftists aren't interested in discussion, compromise, or bipartisanship.
It's time we stopped expecting that leftists will play by the rules. There are no rules for leftists, and we aren't even playing in their league by expecting some sort of moral or legal standard of behavior from them.
You have rightly assessed the double standard, the religious fervor, and the intolerance of the left. Case made. But we can't expect them to agree with us just because we are right.
That is key. They will never, ever, agree that they have on any point been wrong. Think about it. When was the last time you heard a leftist apologize and admit fault?
Here;s a nice little tie-in with my "Farewell, Israel" essay and this current essay.
***
NRO Online 11/11/08
Robert Malley Surfaces Again [Mark Hemingway]
Last December, when the Obama campaign put out a press release listing Robert Malley as a campaign advisor, there was a small uproar. Though Malley had worked on Middle East issues for the Clinton campaign, he was viewed with a great deal of suspicion by the Jewish community — Malley's father, journalist Simon Malley, was a friend of Arafat's and generally seen as a PLO sympathizer.
Well, after he left the Clinton administration he wrote a series of essays for the New York Review of Books that were widely viewed as anti-Israel. Marty Peretz called Malley "deceitful" and said he is "a rabid hater of Israel. No question about it."
After it became known Malley was working on the campaign and the ensuing backlash, the Obama campaign immediately issued a statement saying Malley was only giving the campaign "informal advice."
Then in May, the London Times reported that Malley — who wasn't supposed to be working on the campaign — had been sacked from a post on the campaign's Middle East advisory council because he had recently held meetings with Palestinian terrorist group Hamas.
Well now sources are reporting "Aides said Obama had sent senior foreign policy adviser Robert Malley to Egypt and Syria over the last few weeks to outline the Democratic candidate's policy on the Middle East."
That Malley would be working on Middle East policy for the new administration is troubling enough, but the fact they've now repeatedly been dishonest about his involvement in the campaign makes it much worse.
Phil:
A poster on another site wrote, “It really is quite amazing. A solid, known centrist entity can't even beat an unknown radical Left-wing extremist with connections to known domestic terrorists.”
How does one explain this phenomenon other than to posit that all the 0bama planets lined up at the critical time, charm being the Jovian giant? And as Tyrone Power once said, “The secret of charm is bullshit.”
Phil:
A poster on another site wrote, “It really is quite amazing. A solid, known centrist entity can't even beat an unknown radical Left-wing extremist with connections to known domestic terrorists.”
How does one explain this phenomenon other than to posit that all the 0bama planets lined up at the critical time, charm being the Jovian giant? And as Tyrone Power once said, “The secret of charm is bullsh!t.”
MM: You are of course correct. I truly cannot recollect a single Lefty I have proven wrong agree that they were in fact wrong. What they do is change the subject. Or say that I am not worth speaking to. Or condemn me for being a "fascist" or a "Bigot" or some other label. Anything but acknowledge the truth.
I really hate people who are dishonest about themselves. No one has a monopoly on the truth, but that's what they seem to believe. They are all Oracles of Delphi.
LAM:
Re: "No one has a monopoly on the truth…"
Yes, they do. Teachers colleges for one:
http://www.thefire.org/index.php/article/5692.html
Sedona:
Centrists don't mobilize their base, and they run lousy campaigns.
An unknown "radical" remains simply an unknown "person" when the media substitutes tingles up their legs for real journalism.
"Hope" and "change" trump reality in a collapsing economy with no obvious foreign threats, thanks to the success of the current administration.
I could have beaten McCain in 2008 with that kind of help.
Phil:
That's one reason why I am no longer a Centrist. There's no real direction or purpose to it, it's all just just trying to gather together the varied skeins of both sides into some sort of functional whole. And you know what? It doesn't work. Or more correctly, under a Reagan/Tip O'neil dynamic it might worked, but certainly not now.
Tingles: what was the line about getting a Ham Sandwich elected to office?
Er, "might have worked."
I hate typos. Second only to no edit function.
I think we can reasonably expect that in the next four years, Obama will lie to us regularly when it suits his agenda. All the more reason for us to keep our eyes and ears open and decide for ourselves what to believe. Whatever we do, deriving our information from the illuminati MSM is a horrible idea, because they'll be lying for Obama even before he opens his mouth.
I have to give you conservatives points for consistency in application of your double standard.
You assume Obama has lied about his association with Ayers with no evidence to back your assumption up, and even get all huffy and indignant about it, yet where is your outrage now that it was been demonstrated that Bush lied about outing Valerie Plame? At how many press conferences in 2004 did we watch him blather on about a full investigation and taking care of whoever leaked, when it turns out that it was in fact himself? One of many such Bush lies, this one was a crime, perhaps even treason, which negatively affected our national security. So where is your outrage? (cue the crickets) Oh, he's your guy, so he can do no wrong.
Back to Ayers, have any of you bothered to read the interviews with him? I suppose you think he is lying too, which makes it a conspiracy between them. Fortunately, the majority of the electorate either didn't agree with your wingnuttery or thought that there are more important issues to be dealt with than exactly how close an inspiring presidential candidate was to a former war protester against whom federal charges were dropped, and such a pillar of the community that the City of Chicago named him Citizen of the Year in 1997.
How does his commentary now invalidate his own prior actions? He is a failed murderer, and in his own words. And Obama has a close association with him; this much is well-known.
Federal charges were dropped because they botched the investigation. Does that make the acts by Ayers suddenly "go away?" It does not.
Merely because a legal action fails doesn't mean the actual acts "go away." Get a freaking grip. Ayers is a failed murderer, and he defacto admits it.
Dr. K,
Case in point. Thank you for the demonstration of evasion and blaming when confronted with reality.
By the way, I thought it was the Dark Master Dick Cheney who leaked Plame to that right wing fascist Bob Novak in retaliation for Joe Wilson's heroic exposure of the Nigerian yellowcake scam? Could you try to stick to just one fabricated scandal to cling to for one administration?
Dr. K:
Once again you've demonstrated that you cannot participate in an honest debate.
“and even get all huffy and indignant about it, yet where is your outrage now that it was been demonstrated that Bush lied about outing Valerie Plame?”
*** It Was Colin Powell’s butt-boy Armitage, not Bush. Who did this.
“You assume Obama has lied about his association with Ayers with no evidence to back your assumption up.”
It helps if you actually read the essay. To quote the great Dan rather, if it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it’s not a turkey.
[To] put it in Obama's own words regarding his relationship to domestic terrorist — I mean, former peace activist — Bill Ayers [April 2008 presidential debate]: "This is a guy who lives in my neighborhood, who's a professor of English in Chicago, who I know and who I have not received some official endorsement from. He's not somebody who I exchange ideas from on a regular basis. And the notion that somehow as a consequence of me knowing somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago when I was 8 years old, somehow reflects on me and my values, doesn't make much sense, George."
Right-Wing Republicans quickly reacted to this statement by pointing out that, "Senator Obama served on a board with Mr. Ayers for a period of time, the Woods Foundation, which was a paid directorship position. And if I'm not mistaken, that relationship with Mr. Ayers on this board continued after 9/11 . . .."
We can dismiss these partisan slurs that Obama was withholding the complete truth because they were made by kook fringe conservatives, and therefore had no basis in fact. The discussion of Obama's truthfulness will now end here. Oh wait, I just re-read the transcript, and it appears that it was Hillary Clinton who authored this statement, so we must continue because these charges now have inherent credibility. (In politics today, a fact is not a fact until a Democrat or the mainstream media says it is. Until then, the same identical act/charge either doesn't exist, didn't actually happen, or doesn't have any significance. I'm just playing by the established rules, so please don't hate me.)
So where is the truth of the matter? Two Democrats have made opposing charges. Was Ayers just a guy in Obama's neighborhood, not a friend and supporter? Was Obama more than a passing acquaintance of Ayers, or not?
This conundrum would normally be relegated to the deep, dark depths of academic trivia, were it not for the recent comments of Mr. Ayers himself. From a report by the Chicago Sun Times:
In a new afterword to his 2001 book, Bill Ayers, former leader of the 1960s radical group Weather Underground, describes President-elect Barack Obama as a ‘family friend' . . .
Hmmm. That sounds like a little more than "a guy who lives in my neighborhood." As Ayers explains, "We . . . knew one another as neighbors and family friends, held an initial fund-raiser at my house, where I'd made a small donation to his earliest political campaign . . ."
Hmmm again. I don't have any neighbors who've knocked on my door and offered to raise money for my pet projects, particularly people who I don't regard as "friends." Even some of my "official" friends looked the other way when my kid went around the neighborhood raising money for her school, selling girl scout cookies, etc. And this is in the friendly South. I actually lived in Hyde Park for 5 years back in the late 70s and early 80s, where the Obamas resided prior to Tony Rezko buying them a new house. There were bars on most of the windows, and big loud dogs that liked to bite people in many of the homes.
In a community where families arrange "play dates" for their children instead of just letting them go outside and make new friends, Obama wants us to believe that some neighborhood guy he barely knew held a fund raiser at his (Ayers') house and donated money to Obama out of his own pocket? This doesn't pass the smell test. Some guy, out of the blue, randomly picks Obama to help launch his political career. They serve on the same board, but according to Obama Ayers is "not somebody who I exchange ideas with on a regular basis."
It's Bill Clinton time again. Okay, the exchange of ideas wasn't "regular" (every Tuesday at 4:00 pm). One week it was Monday at 5:00, the next week Wednesday at 2:00, then alternate Tuesdays throughout the month of May. Ayers was just a really, really, really strong acquaintance, not a "friend." Ayers opens his home to Obama, but doesn't use the word "official" when he endorses him, so it's just another random, unconnected act.
Once again, because Dr. K doesn't bother to read anything before he announces his outrage, her's another example of an Obama lie.
NRO Online 11/11/08
Robert Malley Surfaces Again [Mark Hemingway]
Last December, when the Obama campaign put out a press release listing Robert Malley as a campaign advisor, there was a small uproar. Though Malley had worked on Middle East issues for the Clinton campaign, he was viewed with a great deal of suspicion by the Jewish community — Malley's father, journalist Simon Malley, was a friend of Arafat's and generally seen as a PLO sympathizer.
Well, after he left the Clinton administration he wrote a series of essays for the New York Review of Books that were widely viewed as anti-Israel. Marty Peretz called Malley "deceitful" and said he is "a rabid hater of Israel. No question about it."
After it became known Malley was working on the campaign and the ensuing backlash, the Obama campaign immediately issued a statement saying Malley was only giving the campaign "informal advice."
Then in May, the London Times reported that Malley — who wasn't supposed to be working on the campaign — had been sacked from a post on the campaign's Middle East advisory council because he had recently held meetings with Palestinian terrorist group Hamas.
Well now sources are reporting "Aides said Obama had sent senior foreign policy adviser Robert Malley to Egypt and Syria over the last few weeks to outline the Democratic candidate's policy on the Middle East."
That Malley would be working on Middle East policy for the new administration is troubling enough, but the fact they've now repeatedly been dishonest about his involvement in the campaign makes it much worse.
Breathlessly awaiting Dr K's post that he was mistaken and he apologizes.
MM: Don't hold your breath. I'm still waiting for him to acknowledge the stupidity of his comments about Vietnam a few months ago after Bob Stapler spanked him.
People like DK aren't interested in, or capable of, legitimate debate and discussion. The best they can do is offer a platitude or two, draw some line of moral equivalency like I pointed out in my essay, then run away when confronted because they can't actually sustain an intelligent conversation.
The only time DK actually backed away from a stupid remark he made was when he thought the remark was being construed as politically incorrect. He didn't want to be tagged with being a bad liberal, so he apologized for having said something that could be construed as insensitive and offensive. After that it was back to his inane non sequiturs.
This is why I won’t take anything he says seriously, unlike the way I’ll react to things that people like Yonkel will say. While Yonkel and I don’t always agree, he’s at least thoughtful and intelligent in his commentary.
Or, to summarive everything I’ve said above:
1. Obama lies.
2. Dr. K. isn’t a real Ph.D.
3. Notice the pattern.
Dr K still actually believes that Plame was outed by Bush, after all this time! I find that incredible.
But of course we know that liberals are smarted, better informed, and more compassionate. Check out this video for proof: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mm1KOBMg1Y8
Phil:
Re: "Well, after he left the Clinton administration he wrote a series of essays for the New York Review of Books that were widely viewed as anti-Israel. Marty Peretz called Malley 'deceitful' and said he is 'a rabid hater of Israel'. No question about it. … After it became known Malley was working on the campaign and the ensuing backlash, the Obama campaign immediately issued a statement saying Malley was only giving the campaign 'informal advice'."
Sowell is more succinct:
“In politics, the clearer a statement is, the more certain it is to be followed by a ‘clarification,’ when people react
adversely to what was plainly said.”
P.S. It's Bill "I-Didn't-Have-Sex-With-That-Woman" Clinton time again.
Phil:
Re: “Centrists don't mobilize their base, and they run lousy campaigns.”
I think this is because they don’t “evoke emotion” that is required to motivate enough people to come out to vote for them. Also, the nature of our political system, built on compromise, is one reason a centrist, and politicians in general, is/are disliked. As we saw with slavery and are now seeing with abortion, some issues don’t lend themselves to compromise. Considering myself an ultra-conservative, I would have more respect for a Leftist who was firmly convinced he was right than a centrist who stands for nothing really. I suspect a lot of others would too. Ronald Reagan must have believed this, which would have explained his firm stand on conservative issues.
Take care.
Sedona — right on point!
It came out during Billy and Hillies presidency, from all areas of the Left Wing, senators, congresspersons, media, that if they "lie" to get the results they want, (for the benifit of the America people, so they say) then it is okay to lie.
Phil, the lies are good for business. Enough fear has been rightfully developed that demand for a new generation of security firm is apparent. Every family will need a security plan, home modifications, training, and other implementation assistance. Think of the potential and the great trainers we have rotating from Iraq and Afghanistan. Couple this with a few survivalists for training in food supply and defensible housing and you come up with a business plan that can't fail.
alaskatony:
"…if they 'lie' to get the results they want, (for the benifit of the America people, so they say) then it is okay to lie."
I suspected they were Machiavellian.
Mickey: Actually, my wife has a better idea. She wants me to invest in funeral parlors because everybody dies — and thus they are recession proof.
Phil your wife is right, however our test market (used to salvage a failing construction company we owned a small part of)has worked beyond our wildest dreams. Would you believe that Kevlar wrap which will stop a .30 calber is a big attractant to buyers because it has never been introduced to the home marketplace but left for telcom buildings out in the woods. Right now we are selling survival training, security planning, weapons training (we have a great pool of Marines tested in both urban and countryside), and survivalist food planning. Everyone is a member or contrator of the virtual corporation hence no employees. 1099s rule the day.
We expect to bring the services to larger cities within the next 6 months but for us the construction company now has value and we could actually sell it without a loss. This fulfills the old saw "when life gives you lemons make lemonade". Some of my buddies from the local VFW are ready to join in as we expand so this may actually pay off beyond saving one small company.
Mickey: Be careful not to succeed too much under an Obama administration!
Failure reduces your income, but now too much success does too.
Phil, a great response. We are still refining our accounting on the latest venture. My belief is we will get fully out quickly selling to someone that thinks this is a long term opportunity instead of an opportune niche with very rich short term possibilities and convert to cash just as we have with our other ventures. Security will sell as long as there are people with their hands out thinking they should take what they want. However we expect to be flexible enough to relocate if things start looking dicey. We have held the intellectual properties for the technology stuff and even the ex-employees can't do much to mimic them since I and two other ex-IBMers were the architects for the products.
Success is failure. failure is success.
Orwell would be proud. And appalled.
In my family, political discussions, especially during a presidential campaign cycle almost always become anger-driven, incoherent and nasty. I suspect it's the same in most families. But this primary and election season was different.
My mother and father-in-law, conservative and registered republican, could not support McCain. (They thought he was short-tempered, too old, and not a true conservative.) I couldn't support Obama, even though I'm a registered democrat and consider myself somewhat liberal. Obama's limited experience and lack of record was a huge factor. And all those people being swept up in "Obamamania" really, I mean REALLY troubled me.
Suddenly, there we were, my wife's parents and I … standing on common ground after 28 years of total political disagreement! Our political discussions became civil and informative. They centered around a single theme: WHAT are we going to do? I found myself supporting McCain. And my conservative in-laws were actually considering Obama!
I don't know if they actually voted for the Illinois senator. (My record of voting 7 out of 9 times for the losing presidential candidate stands at 8 out of 10.) But now that Barack Obama is the president-elect, I know they wish him the best. In my mother-in-law's words, "Like it or not, Obama is our next president. And I don't want my president to fail. It hurts all of us." I agree.
Most importantly, I know my conservative in-laws understand the liberal perspective a little better than before. And I … the conservative. Like yin and yang, there's a little bit of each in the other.
No sane person wishes that Obama will fail, because the country fails with him. That kind of attitude characterized the political Left over the past 8 years. Whatever Bush was for, they were automatically against.
So far Obama is acting like a political moderate. He's nominating relatively sane people for top positions, and is hinting that he won't redistribute the wealth for at least another 2 years.
I don't see anyone in the IC attacking Obama simply because he's a Democrat, or wanting him to fail. This is not the same thing as analyzing Obama's actions/policies and predicting that they will fail (because they are wrong headed), or opposing specific policies he advocates. I strongly supported Bush's war on terrorism, but was a vocal critic of his immigration policies. There's no contradiction here.
There's nothing wrong with a vigorous debate in politics, even one that gets nasty at times — as long as there are real issues at stake, and not simply an objection to a person being president in the first place.
Obama will be severely criticized by the Right when he does or proposes thing that the Right objects to on policy grounds. But unlike the Left, the Right will not condemn Obama for being Obama, or automatically oppose everything he does. [I exclude the neo-Nazi fring from this assessment, but they hated Bush as well].
That's the difference between the last 8 years, and the next 4.
Mr. Ross,
While I congratulate you and your in-laws on finding common ground, I find it curious you only find this common ground in mutual frustration, each with his own party’s candidate. Both of you remain wedded to your ideas, so I have to suppose this ‘meeting of minds’ is limited to sympathy with the other’s frustration. Your parent’s frustration is with ‘McCain’s watered-down conservatism’ whereas yours seems more you are ‘unsure just what it is Obama is selling’ (you aren’t the only one by a long shot) rather than with his published beliefs; less unsure of than uncomfortable with him. To suppose otherwise would be to imagine you are hopelessly naive, which you don't quite seem. Possibly, you are also disturbed by his associations, secretiveness (regarding his past), and willingness to sacrifice others while justifying it with cant; raising questions in your mind regarding integrity and sincerity (which may be a negative to you, while offering us some hope his ‘values’ are part of the mask). I have seen this in my own family, though with less uncertainty. As a group, you liberals do have the greater tendency to idolize your candidates (as well as demonizing the opposition) out of all proportion; making any revelation of fraud upsetting. Of the two (you versus the in-laws), you have a lot more with which to grapple.
I, too, have noted this inability of people to hear what it is said by political opposites, substituting in their (our) own minds stereotypes for people with valid ideas; with the result we talk at rather than to each other. Do keep the dialog going, as you will be surprised how much you can learn from them and about your own long held assumptions by simply avoiding the stereotypes. Debate the ideas more, and which party advocates them less. Be more open to ideas and not just frustration and you will go a long way to transforming your own ideas from hackneyed beliefs into demonstrable principles; ones you won't need platitudes to defend.
A lot of conservatives seem to get hung up emotionally on ideology and don't realize there's more than one good way to reach a desired goal. My own political views are mostly the result of personal experience, a faith in the basic goodness of people while acknowledging our "dark" side, and careful analysis, including self-analysis. I rarely if ever hang my hat on lofty speeches (the reason Obama doesn't impress me), or what looks good on paper. I prefer actual results to wishful thinking, and doing to talking or watching. I always strive to keep an open mind. And I try not to engage the oneupmanship of "my mind is more open than yours."
My in-laws and I have always shared common ground in the more important areas beyond politics. Still, it's a big deal in our family when we can have a political discussion without someone getting mad and cutting off the debate. But that's not me. And I don't understand why a reasonable person would do that. Unless … he was afraid that a different point of view might disturb his political comfort zone, and force him or her to defend themselves.
I relish a good debate, civil or ugly. But I'm not a fact or statistics geek. Statistics can be manipulated to say whatever we want. And are facts really facts anymore? I prefer to present my point of view with a personal story, and speak from the heart. That's not to say facts and statistics can't be persuasive. It's just that these days you really have to be careful with that.
Neither side of the political divide has a lock on truth. Though I have had occasion to wonder if my conservative friends can appreciate that.
>A lot of conservatives seem to get hung up emotionally on ideology and don't realize there's more than one good way to reach a desired goal. … Neither side of the political divide has a lock on truth. Though I have had occasion to wonder if my conservative friends can appreciate that.
John. If you think that conservatives see the world through an ideological prism, and argue from emotion and not facts, you might want to compare the debate you find here with that found at the Huffington Post and Daily Kos.
Ideology ground and guides actions. It allows me to understand that the essence of morality is that it is immoral to deliberately harm an innocent human life. [See http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2007/07/13/the-true-nature-of-human-morality-a-response-to-the-critique-%e2%80%9cuniversal-morality-and-the-morality-of-the-universe%e2%80%9d/
From this, I can support or oppose policies that allow elective abortions at 19 weeks because an arbitrary political compromise has denied innocent human status to the developing embryo.
Now, you can agree or disagree with my proposition, but by me using a coherent view of reality to guide my decisions, you can’t simply reply with “we have a difference of opinion” and leave it at that. Without ideology, all we have are opinions, and opinions are just that — personal likes/dislikes/beliefs/wants/desires.
Neither side may have a lock on "truth". But debating emotions without a core phiolosophy to guide your thoughts is pure foolishness.
Phil, I was referring to the majority of conservatives I engage with personally. You're right about the Huffington Post and Daily Kos. And I should have included liberals as getting hung up emotionally on ideology. But let's not forget Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, Ann Coulter and Fox News.
Recently, a group of my friends were discussing the possibility of a universal health care system – since we'll have a democratic president and a democratic majority in congress. A conservative friend asked, "Where in the constitution does it state that the government should give you health insurance?" (His question was predictable. But his sudden anger took me aback.) I pointed out that our constitution was written over 200 years ago. Nobody had health insurance then. I also pointed out that I have a niece who is a teacher at the local public high school. The school tax we all pay here helps provide her with a five-star health care plan. Now why should the government "give" my niece, or anybody health insurance? I pay for my own, as a lot of Americans do. Twelve grand a year is a bit much for the average American family, I think. If a universal system is more cost-effective and works better than a private sector system, why not? Every other advanced nation in the world has one. Is ideology the only thing that stands in the way?
John Ross:
Re: "If a universal system is more cost-effective and works better than a private sector system, why not? … Is ideology the only thing that stands in the way?"
"If" is the biggest word in the English language. About 15 years ago, I saw an interview of George Soros [before he became politically active in the public eye], and he said, "Government does not give benefits to benefit the receiver but to benefit the giver."
If that's an ideological reason, then so be it. It's also reality.
My comment was submitted before I finished it! (Still getting used to this computer.)
The point I was trying to make was that my conservative friend's position on universal health care was based on emotion, stereotypes and ideology rather than reality. When I tried to tell him this, he just got angrier.
We deal with incredible complexity in our world today. And due mostly to technology and rising expectations, our world is turning faster and growing more complex by the nano second. Everything (and everyone) is connected in some way or another. Fix one thing here and I'll guarantee you screw up something somewhere else. My core philosophy has always been to work hard but also take the time to play, to be a little less judgmental, to seek out the good in people, to do what I can today and deal with what's here now rather than worry about the future. That's not to say we should approach the now with reckless abandon and foolishly increase our debt. We must always keep the future in mind but recognize that we never actually live in it. We have to learn and be willing to accept that it's often necessary to step back in order to move forward. Thoreau said, "Simplify, simplify, simplify." I think he was right. Predictably, another conservative friend had to say that Thoreau was nothing but a leech. Of course he was.
sedonaman, "If" the Soros statement is "reality," AND government is "by the the people, for the people and of the people," then we might also say that people do not give benefits to benefit other people, but to benefit themselves. And this is indeed true.
Everything we humans do, whether we're liberal or conservative is done because there's something in it for us. I'd like to see that change. Even "if" all that's in it for me is the satisfaction of a person helped or a job well done. I can't help believe that as long as the acquisition of material wealth remains the primary motivating force in our lives, we will only move laterally and never forward. We will only succeed in achieving an illusion of progress (our technology rather than our humanity), and endlessly recreate the jungle, ad infinitum. Is it any coincidence that the 20th century was the most technologically productive, and the bloodiest.
John Ross:
Re: "Everything (and everyone) is connected in some way or another."
So much for the liberal argument, "I can do whatever I want as long as it doesn't affect someone else."
>If a universal system is more cost-effective and works better than a private sector system, why not? … The point I was trying to make was that my conservative friend's position on universal health care was based on emotion, stereotypes and ideology rather than reality.
John: You seem like a nice guy, and I believe that you really want to find the truth of an issue, rather than just make inane drive-by comments like Dr K and others on the Left. So, I'll answer your question.
My mother lived until she was 84. She was a diabetic, with conjestive heart failure, nearly blind, and broke both her legs a year before she died of a stroke. Her medical needs were provided by her private health insurance. Rather than take overseas vacations when we were young, or buy the latest cars every year, my parents used their money to take care of these and other necessities. [It's not my neighbor's responsibility to feed me, house me, or care for my medical needs --- unless I'm destitute, at which point society recognizes this obligation. This is why we have medicare, medicaid, and public hospitals that care for the indigent.]
By contrast, her older sister lived in Canada. She needed a kidney transplant to survive beyond age 72. The universal health care system there operates on an economic triage system like all these systems do. It made no economic sense to give her a transplant at age 72, so my mother and I attended her funeral.
Like I said, you seem like a decent guy. But your analysis of issues is always emotion-based. It's how you feel about an issue, not how you understand that things actually work in the real world. You offer a universal health care option with effort to say how it will actually function (i.e. who will get what service, and who won't), whether it's the responsibility of government to provide this service to everyone (not your feelings, but why the American system is designed to function this way), etc.
You offer platitudes, not analysis. I know we've had this conversation before, but all you do is tell us how you feel about something (an opinion), then toss in a couple of hackneyed sayiongs like "everyone" is "connected" in "some way or another". Okay. I'm "connected" to Angelina Jolie and Kim Jung Ill. And what exactly does this have to do with anything? It a meaningless platitude unless you're willing to engage in an substantive analytical discussion of the issues.
John: One final point. Look into the fact that in canada, England and other "advanced" nations with a universal health care system, it takes an excessive amount of time to have even routine exams performed because universal health care means rationing health care.
My wife is a breast cancer survivor. She was diagnosed and operated on within three weeks. A woman she works with is a naturalized citizen from England. Her sister is in the US now to receive similar treatment? Why? Because in England, after diagnosis she was placed on a 10 month waiting list for treatment. The cancer wasn't "advanced enough" yet to operate on. By 10 months, it will be a mastactomy instead of a lumpectomy. Her life will be saved, but she'll lose a breast she doesn't need to.
So, like many foreigners, she'll ciome to the US and pay full price for an operation she can't get in her own country, or take out a supplimental insurance that will cover this type of operation in a non-Universal Health care country.
These are the real issues that go into this debate, which may help explain a conservative's :anger" when served up with a Rodney King version of reality ("can't we all just get along"), or some other meaningless, feel-good platitude.
Mr. Ross writes "A lot of conservatives seem to get hung up emotionally on ideology and don't realize there's more than one good way to reach a desired goal."
Talk about your kettle calling the pot black! Liberalism is an ideology, John. Conservatism is a reaction to that ideology run amok (hence, we're all a bunch of 'reactionaries', and proud of it). For this reason, William F. Buckeley described conservatism as "A man standing in the middle of the road shouting – STOP". Conservatism is about calling a time out to gather our collective wits before rushing into the next liberal demand for 'Change, Change, Change'. We like our country the way it is (or was before you liberals made such a mess of it), thank you very much. Yes, we like to change somethings back, but mainly we just want you liberal to cool it.
Of course, that over simplifies matters, but generally it is true of most conservatives. We do have our ideology, but it is a weak thing compared to the ideology of the left.
Mr. Ross writes “… my conservative friend's position on universal health care was based on emotion, stereotypes and ideology rather than reality. When I tried to tell him this, he just got angrier.”
First, all you’ve related here is your friend’s reaction to your proposition. You told us nothing of his arguments contrary to yours.
Second, the thing you insist is a ‘must have’ or a ‘right’ is, to a great many people, little short of theft and, therefore, enough to make any reasonable person seethe in frustration at one more liberal soaking the rest of us with the latest fad/scheme. You (effectively) told your friend you see nothing wrong in putting your hand deep in his pocket to take whatever it is you need to satisfy your wants; justifying this theft on the flimsy basis you can ill afford it. Suppose for a moment that, instead of healthcare, this is a decent car for you to commute to/from work because you regard the old clunker you now own risky and cars have become 'unreasonably expensive' (who says?). You demand a better car for yourself at taxpayer expense on the basis you have a ‘right to work, fetch home groceries and see to personal matters only a car can satisfy’, and see no reason you should either be a) forced to drive a car so old parts may fall off, b) ride public transit (which, of course, you liberals insisted we must have in order to eliminate cars, but which you now find undignified), or c) defer your wants until you can better afford them. You want 'decent' (not just adequate) stuff for yourselves, but expect the rest of us to pay for it and keep coming back for more and more. You want Cadillac care because the kind of care your parents got is no longer deemed good enough. Please tell me you don’t see there is, at least, a problem from our side of things as the ones footing the bill (Yes, I know you are also paying for it, but you demand this – not us).
Third, the fact our Constitution was written 221-years ago in no way supports your argument. The Constitution remains the pact (contract) we made with government granting it certain powers, but very deliberately denying it others. Therefore, anything ‘extra’ it takes away from us in the way of power is a usurpation and a breech-of-contract. Breech-of-contract means the deal is off and we go back to ‘every man for himself’, not ‘license-to-alter-the-deal-at-will’. If the Constitution no longer means what it is written in it (because “times have changed”), then it doesn’t mean anything and we are slaves to an arbitrary misrule.
Ross then wrote “… my conservative friend's position on universal health care was based on emotion, stereotypes and ideology rather than reality. When I tried to tell him this, he just got angrier.” Since we never got his friend’s position on UHC, we have only Ross’ word for that. However, knowing the weak argument he has so far presented in defense of UHC, we can say Ross’ whole proposition is based on “emotion” (I want/need/deserve), stereotypes (angry conservatives, most conservatives), and ideology (UHC has been a major plank of liberalism for decades). It is liberals who introduced the question of socialized- healthcare, so this is their ‘ideology’, not ours. The negative of an ideology is not, itself an ideology – it is an objection to it.
You could say that one man's "platitude" is another man's way of life or philosophy. But I suppose that's just another platitude.
As for UHC, apparently there is sudden interest in healthcare reform throughout the corporate world as rising costs have affected our ability to compete in the world economy. The auto industry in particular has been hard hit. And even the insurance companies themselves want in on the act. The plans and the analysis are out there. I'm no expert, so all I can offer is an opinion based on my own experience. But knowing that every other advanced nation in the world has some form of UHC, I think we ought to take a serious look at it. And Phil, we don't necessarily have to copy the Canadian model.
Now come on … you guys know exactly what I mean when I say "we're all connected!" No man is an island. Another platitude for sure, but it is true.
I'll have more to say about this later. But for now, I have to get back to work.
>You could say that one man's "platitude" is another man's way of life or philosophy. But I suppose that's just another platitude.
*** Correct
>you guys know exactly what I mean when I say "we're all connected!" No man is an island. Another platitude for sure, but it is true.
*** We're talking about government policy that touches on taxes, social policy, constitutional obligations (or lack thereof), etc. By offering nothing but a generalized truism, it's a meaningless contribution to this debate — particularly when you never define in concrete terms anything you say. I used Canada and England as concrete examples of a UHC to illustrate my position. You say we don't need to follow these examples, but offer nothing concrete to illustrate your position. You never get beyond generalized platitudes. To wit:
1. What is the constitutional responsibility of the US government to provide national health care?
2. What are the economic, social, and even health implications (my economic triage example) of providing UHC?
3. If your foundation for believing that UHC is a human rights requirement is that we're "all connected", then what isn't a government required need (a subsidized car (or bus passes in an urban setting), subsidized housing for everyone, subsidized food for everyone, a subsidized college education, etc. Why should you get to go to Harvard when not everyone can get the same level of education? Why should you live in a $150,000 house when others have to live in a $100,000 house. And if we are all connected, why is this discussion only limited to the US? Why aren't your tax dollars providing an equivalent UHC for the people of Kenya?
John, you have no core philosophy. You only have feeling expressed as generalized statements, and never relate any of your platitudes to real world conditions. This is why Obama the candidate could speak in platitudes about Iraq, UHC, and other feel-good issues, and why Obama the President-elect is backing away from these platitudes now that he has to actually operate in the real world.
Phil, have you actually read my posts? I'll say it again, I'm no expert in the field of healthcare. Is there a medical doctor in the house? A nurse perhaps?
All any of us offer are opinions and platitudes, including the experts. And they often disagree, even when analyzing the same facts and statistics. I recall a certain economist (I don't remember his name, so please don't hold that against me!) who, when asked about the current financial crisis responded by saying, "I'm not sure any of us really understands it." Great! Now, to the layman, it can get even more confusing. So, you have to bring in your own experiences, your instincts, your own nonexpert analysis, and yeah … your gut feelings about an issue. And sometimes you have to simplify things and resort to older wisdom and platitudes to help guide you through.
Where healthcare is concerned, I think everyone has a stake and a responsibility: businesses, individuals, the insurance companies and government. That's how we're connected. As I stated before, I get health insurance through my employer, and I have to pay for it myself. But that's not the problem. The problem, whether it be small businesses, the auto giants and other multi-national corporations, the local school district, or individuals like me is "how much." As I also stated in a previous post, exploding healthcare costs are limiting our ability to compete in the world economy. But those same exploding costs are also contributing to a decline in consumer spending here at home. You know it and I know it. Show me the best way; conservative, liberal, whatever … to bring those costs down and still maintain a high level of care, and I'm with you.
My wife works in the medical field. She deals with many of the insurance companies and their various rules, copays, etc. A doctor may have a standard fee for a particular procedure of say, $200. If I don't have insurance that's what it will cost. But if I have insurance, and my provider will reimburse the doctor up to $300 for the same procedure, then that's what the doctor charges. You could say that there are procedures in which the doctor is reimbursed for less than his standard fee, as in Medicaid cases, for example. But many doctors are saavy enough to get around that, or they figure out a way not to take on the patient in the first place. This is one example of something that needs to change if we're going to bring healthcare costs down. Another reality that has to change is the uninsured using the emergency room as a doctor's office. UHC or whatever reform of the system works best ought to be designed with its greatest emphasis on prevention. This means a requirement for regular checkups, and perhaps reduced rates as an incentive for those individuals, non-smokers, etc. who choose to do what they can to take care of themselves. This is my analysis, based mostly on personal experience. But it is also just an opinion.
The government has no present constitutional responsibility to provide National Health Care in the same way that it has no present constitutional responsibility to bail out the financial sector or the auto industry. The congress hasn't declared war, a constitutional responsibility, since 1941, and yet we have engaged several wars since then.
The economic implications of UHC or similar reform of the current system are lower costs resulting in greater flexibility for American corporations in the world economy. With everyone involved, the pool of young and healthy contributors would increase, thus lowering premiums. Such savings would reverberate positively in the economy. The insurance companies wouldn't also be interested if such reform didn't have the potential of increasing their bottom line.
As a matter of common decency, we already subsidize food and housing. Food and shelter are the most primary of human needs. I realize there are people who aren't doing everything they can to help themselves. There are people looking for free handouts who take advantage of, and yes, milk the system. But I think that's the minority. There are millions who use the federal foodstamp program, WIC and state and federal subsidies for housing legitimately. Like "innocent until proven guilty" (I hope that's not a platitude?), we accept the benefit of doubt and choose to err on the better side of human nature when considering these programs. Healthcare falls into the same "life and death" category as food and shelter. It would be wonderful if the need to subsidize food and shelter was no longer necessary. I hope that day comes. But as I said in an earlier post, in every economic system there are winners and losers. Each depends on the other. (Another way we're connected.)
Again, I'm still getting used to this computer. I accidently sent my post before I finished.
I'd just like to comment on my core philosophy, or lack of. I've always tried to put myself in the other person's shoes. I grew up in a poor family. My parents did the best they could. From my father I learned to look for the best in people. My mother gave me a strong work ethic. I try to set a good example for my peers, co-workers, my family and children. I congratulate the winners in the world. (Is that a line from a Steely Dan tune?) And I offer whatever I can to the less fortunate. It's a simple philosophy. But it has served me well.