Christopher Hitchens on the rise of Obamania

Napoleon Bonaparte’s test for generalship was a very simple one. Of a man recommended by others for gallantry or fortitude or strategic genius he would inquire only: “But is he lucky?” By this standard, Senator Barack Obama is already the greatest political leader of his generation. From a starting-point in the state Senate in Illinois only a few years ago, he now bestrides the narrow world like a colossus and is already beginning to exhaust the superlatives of the political commentary class.

He has a few charismatic tactics that I suppose will soon begin to wear thin. When greeted by hosts who are heads of state, he places his hand firmly on their backs or their arms, as if to propel them forward, and this means that the resulting photograph makes him look more like the host (and the senior) than the guest (and the junior). That’s clever, and also shrewd in body-language terms. But it’s the luck that makes one whistle. Who would have thought that the dour Shi’ite machine politician, Nuri al-Maliki of Iraq, would time his own proposals on American troop withdrawal as if specifically to undermine his old defender John McCain, and simultaneously to elevate the anti-war candidate?

After that, Obama was able to arrive on European soil with a fair wind of statesmanship behind him, and to act as if the “surge” (which has made talk of withdrawal politically possible) was as much his idea as anyone else’s. The great Aneurin Bevan had an expression for this kind of political agility: he called it “wearing the medals of your defeats”. Obama wears them well, and with style.

I have nothing but respect for McCain the man. As a politician, he seems, well, an internationalist, and a relativist who would fit right in at the local coffee shop. Why in the world does the concept of borders so offend the leaders of both parties?

I also admire John McCain, the man. And having learned more and more about his policy positions and his vision, I'm admiring him as the next President, too.

Why in the world does the concept of borders so offend the leaders of both parties?

I'm not quite so sure the word "offend" really applies. When I lived in CA, in a very nice neighborhood; but yes, the houses were maybe 10-15 feet apart; too close, my home was positioned between two Democrat households. And when we would talk politics in my home, I had to regularly shhhh conversations. I wasn't worried about offending, I just didn't wanna start a neighborhood brawl; or of giving my neighbors any excuse to complain about my tree overhanging their yard, or that my cats sometimes used their land. In a word: Detente.

Now, I live in a place where my neighbors are both Dem and Repub. The biggest thing is, there's far more room between our homes; and therefore, a lot more give and take with regards to living besides each other.

This, to me, best represents the analogy of "borders", specifically with Mexico and Canada, and with the space between them metaphorically amounting to maybe 20 feet apart. It's too easy, being so close beside each other, for any excuse to be turned into a dust-devil have-at-it.

Napoleon Bonaparte’s test for generalship was a very simple one. Of a man recommended by others for gallantry or fortitude or strategic genius he would inquire only: “But is he lucky?”

The insane asylums are filled with Napoleons and Messiahs... all of which are lucky buggers.

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.