Posted on 03/12/2010 6:20:15 AM PST by marshmallow
Stanley Fish at the New York Times predicted that by the end of Obama's first year an increasing number of voters would not only be disillusioned with his lackluster performance, but would actually be feeling nostalgic for George W. Bush. His opinionator column is here, and he makes some very interesting points.
He argues that one of Obama's main problems is that he promised much more than any President can deliver, much less a man as inexperienced as he is. The great change mantra and the idealistic and unrealistic promises to end the war, close Guatanamo, clean up Washington, reform health care etc. simply were not deliverable. He was elected on a starry eyed hope by people who believed his lofty rhetoric and charismatic Messianic style.
What good is such rhetoric? Well it does have a place. Lofty dreams and idealistic promises and inspiring messages are good for those who want to inspire the masses, but they are counter productive for politicians. A social or religious activist like Nelson Mandela or Martin Luther King Jr. or Ghandi or any number of leaders of essentially subversive well intentioned crusades should deal in vague, inspiring dreams, the language of hope and the vision of a better future. This is good stuff for rallying the troops, getting the grass roots off their backsides and starting a movement.
It's not good, however, for a politician. That's because his followers will expect him to deliver, and in our world most politicians simply don't have that much power. Politicians should deal in specific goals, objectives that can be met and sell the voters a concrete, believable and true political philosophy that can achieve the desired results. The result will still probably be a less than hoped, but at least the voters will not be quite so disappointed because they were never promised that much to start with.
This is why, when it comes to politics and politicians less is more. That is to say, I think a politician's job is to mind his own business and allow me to mind mine. I'm for less government, not more because I trust the ordinary citizen but I don't trust the ordinary politician. I think a politician should be not much more to me than my car mechanic. I want him to be a nice fellow who can help me understand what the problem is, and then propose a way to fix it that will not cost me much money, then go ahead and fix it. I don't want him to tell me what kind of car to buy, and I certainly don't want him to share with me his own idealistic dreams about how he wants to totally restore my car so that me and my car can change the world for him.
In other words I want a politician to be my servant. He's there to help me live my life as I wish in security and freedom. I don't want him to inspire me or preach to me or lead me to a promised land.
This is why, the secular (not)intelligentsia on both sides of the Atlantic despised Bush. They despised him not because he was inarticulate or because he wore a cowboy hat or because he belonged to a scheming and corrupt insider political system. They despised him because he didn't dream a dream and inspire the world with a brave, new ideology. They despised him because he was a meat and potatoes kind of politician who wanted to get things done and keep the show on the road and keep America in business. They despised him because he scorned their airy fairy ideologies and elitist dreams. In short, they scorned him because he was not a Messiah.
This is also why Sarah Palin has become the object of their violent hatred. They don't really hate her because she's inexperienced or because she sounds hokey or because she writes notes for her speeches on the palm of her hand. (Otherwise they'd also hate the inexperienced, hokey sounding, teleprompter addict Obama) No, they hate her because she seems like an ordinary person. They hate her because she doesn't deal much in great dreams to change the world. She is content with simple American patriotism, an appeal to the common folks and a call to let ordinary people get on with their lives and for government to scale back.
This is not to say that Bush was a great man or a great President or that I think Sarah Palin will make a great President. It's not even to support the Republican Party. It's simply to observe why the secular left really hate Bush and Palin.
Finally, G.K.Chesterton said every argument is a theological argument. The secular left hate Bush and Palin because they are not Messiah figures and that explains why they so adore Obama. They love him because the human soul needs a Messiah and being secularists and atheists they don't have any other Messiah, and will have to do with an ideologue.
They will always be disappointed and the most frighteningly ironic thing that is that (as history shows us) the level of abuse, torture, genocide and war is directly proportional to the amount of adulation the idealogue has regaled upon him. In other words, the more an ideologue promises Heaven on earth the more likely it is that the result of their regime will be Hell on earth.
Obama was a “mistake”...predicted by our forefathers..when there are more gimmee people than hard working americans.
What I do miss is having someone in the White House that is utterly trustworthy in order that I can get a good night's sleep!
George and the Republicrats paved the way for Obummer's triumphant ride down Pennsylvania Avenue in order that he begin his life's work of destroying our nation and our lives!
Father Longenecker gets my vote.
Of course I miss him already. Obama has been a nightmarish disaster. Oh how I miss those days of 5% unemployment.
The reason Bama is so lack luster is because he lies...
So a Ron Paul and the “true blue Americans” would have served the U.S. better, say after 9/11?
We are living it.
George Bush and the Republican Congressional majority (2001-2007) are the reason we are in the bind we are. Had they governed like true conservatives and reduced the size of government, we wouldn't have the Democratic control of the country that we do today. No more Bushes!
Yes indeed. Bush and a GOP Congress squandered so much if what was given them.
Bush tried to appoint Harriet Myers but had to be stopped in favor of Justice Roberts. Myers would have been another Souter or Breyer, another liberal on the court whose only qualification seemed to be a sharing of certain Christian values with GW.
I think most people are mixed about George Bush. He was and is a nice Christian man with good family values and he certainly had Dick Cheney lead him correctly in prosecuting the WOT. So he had his pros but his cons were massive.
I, myself, saw how he went after Ken Lay and the Enron miscreants and thought of him as a principled prosecutor, something I think is a vital role of the executive branch of government.
But in his 2nd term GW failed to prosecute so many miscreants such as Franklin Raines and other political people that deserved it, he failed to push the SEC to come down hard on Wall Street trading firms that were blatantly pilfering indirectly from invested retirement accounts, he allowed the lapse of ethical mortgage underwriting to go unpunished.
GW was a darling of Wall Street and the banking industry. His 2nd term echoed his father’s performance when the S&L crisis hit America. It was the result of allowing a casino type of environment to spring up around traditional investments.
And then there was GW’s spending....
And lastly I believe GW was influenced by the biggest liberal around him....Laura Bush.
Whether you miss him or not? Father Longenecker gets his point across!
Finally, G.K.Chesterton said every argument is a theological argument.
They will always be disappointed and the most frighteningly ironic thing that is that (as history shows us) the level of abuse, torture, genocide and war is directly proportional to the amount of adulation the idealogue has regaled upon him. In other words, the more an ideologue promises Heaven on earth the more likely it is that the result of their regime will be Hell on earth.
Is this not another way of saying, that if you don’t believe in anything, you are most likely to believe anything. I did like that Chesterton quote. I may need to read his works.
Great minds. Chesterton actually said something very similar to that. It's one of his more famous quotes.
I think it goes...."When people cease to believe in the one true God, they don't just believe in nothing.......they believe in anything."
It’s too late now. You’ll never know.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.