Dear Mr. Obama: Please, I Beg You, Stop Inspiring Me

[This first appeared at RedState.com this morning.]

Dear Mr. Obama,

You probably don't know that I am a relative new-comer to RedState, though my recent subscription, so to speak, does not mean that I am new to conservatism. If it means anything, it means that I am relatively new to expressing myself in an explicitly conservative forum. Hence, I ask for your patience as I, a conservative, struggle to make sense of the movement you've permitted to snowball around you. For surely it is a movement -- and not really a campaign -- and you have, indeed, fomented this fervor, this great adulation.

This morning I imagined running for president myself, which is perhaps my wont these days, since you and I are the same age and I can't resist feeling inadequate when I witness the phenomenon which is you. I can hardly manage the complexities of domestic living at my age; you, on the other hand, are ready to "issue in a new birth of freedom on this earth" (or so you said when you announced your presidency on 2.10.07). In my apparent weakness before your apparent strength, I wonder: How can this be, and are you really certain a presidential candidate should be talking about "new birth"? Are you here to help the world be born anew a second time?

Forgive the digression. As I said, I was imagining running for president myself. And part of my reverie included a debate between us; I imagined that great moment in the debate when I could make my concluding remarks:

"I am not here to save your souls, America; I am not even here to tell you that your souls are broken. But Mr. Obama has used such rhetoric, and hence I will as well, but only for a moment.

"I am here to tell you that we have forsaken the greater institutions of church and creed, of temple and Torah; we have rejected so much of the inherited wisdom of the ages that we have gutted our lives. The state, I am afraid to say, cannot fulfill you; political and public service will not give your life meaning and purpose. Meaning, as the prophets and poets have always told us, does not come from institutions or governments, nor does it come from prosperity. My opponent in this election, who has indeed invoked many times such imagery and metaphors that can only be described as religious, has offered you a hope that no prophet would promise: he has offered you hope in the very things the poets proclaim cannot give hope. God gives hope; Christianity proclaims that hope is in a Risen God. But there is no hope in hope; there is nothing optimistic in mere optimism. We need hope to come from something not only external to ourselves, it must be bigger than our own collectivized efforts. Hope is in transcendence; meaning's domicile is not in a group effort, it is in the transcendence of a personal relation with the God of the universe.

"Alas, forgive this foray into religion, but religion is what Mr. Obama is all about. Note that my political campaign is merely promising that I will work hard to execute the laws of the land, and the principles which you have entrusted to my care. I am not here to lead you; I am not taking you to a promised land. That land is already here; my job is to preserve this land so that YOU might enjoy the abundance at your fingertips. Moreover, I am not here to make your life easier; I am not here to remove barriers -- other than those that are unconstitutional or illegal -- that have thwarted your personal quest for purpose and fulfillment. I am not here to suck out of life all of its adventure and risk, which is what my liberal peers want to do; for I know a life worth living is only that which is filled with enough risk to make living interesting. That which is dynamic is so because it works against the forces that would knock it off course; a dynamic skier is one who utilizes the forces working against his success, turning them to his advantage. Modern liberalism wants to destroy what makes living dynamic; to the skier, Mr. Obama's promise is that he will remove gravity. To such noble pursuits, I say that Mr. Obama actually wants to destroy the skier's mountain.

"My job as president is to preserve the mountain I've inherited, one that is open to all, of all abilities. I will not make the mountain flat. I will merely make it public. For it already is public, and all you need is to take a risk and discover what makes that mountain so thrilling: It is up to you.

"Finally, I am here tonight to say that while Mr. Obama calls himself a Christian, I announce that I find his Christianity wanting. For any Christian would not permit the cult of adulation surrounding him (or her) to last a single minute. That Mr. Obama is seemingly blind to his deification does not bode well for his aspirations as president, for a man of clear vision should not be blind to such idolatry. A serious Christian would stop this enthusiasm, directing his admirers to the true deity this candidate claims is "redemptive."

"And a candidate for president would urge his supporters to show some degree of proportion: that what a president does is not as important as some -- even many -- believe.

"I am here because I am seeking inauguration, not coronation. I do not offer you inspiration, but I promise you my perspiration: I shall serve you with blood, sweat, and if necessary -- and may God spare us tragedy -- the tears of compassion and grace. I will not be your idol, nor shall I for any instant be idle. I am not like my counterpart -- who is building his Obama Nation. Instead I am here to serve a united nation, one united not in a "vision" but in a time-proven creed, the creed which is greater than any visionary, and yet not so great as to exclude anyone who has vision: that creed is the Constitution of the United States and its Bill of Rights. Permit me to serve you according to law, the laws WE have made, and I promise to execute the demands of this great nation with honesty, integrity and wisdom. But do not elect me if you want me to direct this nation according to some vision, some dream or hunch or audacious hope. Please, spare me that. I am seeking a presidency in a country ruled by law and an informed and free people. I am not seeking a crown and a throne, or a people I must lead to a coming kingdom.

"Thank you, and good night."

Of course, my reverie must come to an end. It ends, I think, with the realization that perhaps the only votes I could ever get would come from that very odd set: politically conservative downhill skiers.

And my daydream also ends with this simple fact, Mr. Obama: I don't want to be inspired, for it implies that I lack inspiration. I don't. But if I do, such business is none of yours.

Peace.

©Bill Gnade 2008/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.

How Sad This Is Funny†

[Let me begin by begging forgiveness: I know this set-up is too long, but what the heck.]

Boston radio talk-show god Jay Severin often says that "liberals always lie to get elected, while conservatives can only tell the truth, which often costs them elections." Well, he may not say exactly that, but my paraphrase is quite close to the pure Severin doctrine. Liberals conceal their true intent; to be transparent is to doom themselves to unelectability. Conservatives, on the other hand, do NOT conceal: they tell you what they will do, and what they believe, and this openness often proves politically fatal.

Note, then, how Severin's words seem to ring true in this general election cycle. Barack Obama, the apparent Democratic front runner, is chided for not being specific; he's accused of being all form and no substance. Of course, if Severin is right, then Mr. Obama, a true liberal, MUST be evasive; he must be veneer and can never be solid redwood.

John McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee, at least gives the appearance of substance, despite how much his more conservative peers disagree that he is one whit candid. But one can hardly think of a less appearance-oriented candidate: image CAN NEVER be John McCain's campaign strength. Moreover, McCain has told America what he thinks -- substantively -- on many issues, and his opinions (and actions) have hurt him. But few would say that McCain is from east to west all veneer. I may be wrong, but I don't think either Mitt Romney or Mike Huckabee has accused Mr. McCain of being all "hope" and no ideas, or all seduction but no commitment.

All this to say that perhaps Severin is right. Perhaps. But what this is really about is something James Taranto notes in yesterday's "Best of the Web": the media cannot tell the truth about Fidel Castro. At least here the Severin doctrine is found to be infallible and inerrant (nihil obstat!).

Check out item #4,"Who Was Fidel Castro?", at this link.

Rarely is something this sad so funny.

Peace.

©Bill Gnade 2008/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.

†This first appeared at RedState.com on 2.20.08

Obama's "Plagiarism": Shouldn't This Matter?

[This post first appeared at RedState.com on 2.20.08, with slight differences.]

Barack Obama's alleged plagiarism of Massachusetts governor Deval Patrick's 2006 campaign speech has been rather easily dismissed by many pundits, which surprises me. On Monday night's "The Special Report with Brit Hume", for example, The Weekly Standard's Fred Barnes and syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer snickered at the notion that Mr. Obama's failure to make due attribution was at all significant. Others I've listened to have also been rather dismissive.

Thankfully yesterday, James Taranto, the master of the brilliant "Best Of The Web Today" at the Wall Street Journal's website, at least treated Mr. Obama's deed -- or misdeed -- with more than a cupful of glee. Mr. Taranto said that what some folks failed to notice was that Mr. Obama (and Mr. Patrick) defended himself against the charge that he was all wind and no sail by giving us more wind. That the Clinton campaign failed to properly jump on this Mr. Taranto also notes; he avers that Mr. Obama's critics failed to quickly and effectively make the case that Mr. Obama's reliance on someone else's words proves that he is -- as the Clinton campaign has charged -- something of a breeze (a "fresh, clean" one, no doubt, in Joe Biden's mind).

(ALERT: Response from the Obama campaign: "The wind bloweth wheresoever it willeth. So it is every one who is born of the spirit ...")

But why would I bother here with this story? Surely it has nothing to do with me; surely we are outside this discussion, no?

First, I believe it is important because of what smacks of a double standard. Call me paranoid, or simply call me annoyed; but my sense is that if Mr. Obama was a conservative, we'd never hear the end of this story. If Mr. McCain lifted words from anyone, there would be countless discussions about his competency, trustworthiness, or moral authority.

Second, I believe it is important because of what is quite clearly overlooked, namely, that the Clinton campaign has again injected the race card into the presidential race. Surely you've heard of that other plagiarist, Martin Luther King Jr., no? You know, the one who apparently fudged most of his doctoral thesis at Boston University or lifted major portions of others' speeches for use in his own? No doubt the Clintons are disparaging Mr. Obama's penchant for borrowing phrases when they throw out the key word "plagiarist"; but they are also suggesting, are they not, that "black" leaders have a history of doing this?

Imagine if a conservative opponent to Mr. Obama had made a similar sort of accusation against him. "Racist" would be somewhere in every (related) headline in every major paper in the country ... for days. But since the accusation comes from a Democratic campaign, well, the issue can be largely ignored.

Finally, what also concerns me is that this sort of thing reveals the man behind the curtain: who we often elect is really the speech writer we never see. I recently read former George W. Bush speech writer Michael Gerson's book, Heroic Conservatism; the book made clear to me that Mr. Gerson was at times far more presidential than any president. This aspect of politics is troubling for what it suggests, namely, that who we see is more often a front man (or woman); more phantom than fact. (It is noted that among Mr. Obama's chief advisors is Deval Patrick's former campaign manager, indicating that Mr. Obama is perhaps not his own man.)

I am quick to accept Mr. Obama's explanation of what transpired: that he and Mr. Patrick are friends (they are) and that they exchange and share ideas all the time. I also accept that Mr. Obama admits that he should have given Mr. Patrick credit (though in a speech like Mr. Obama's, that can be somewhat awkward). What I fail to accept without some struggle is that this whole thing is rather insignificant.

Peace.

©Bill Gnade 2008/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.

Is Knowledge Midwife To Ignorance?

How Can It Be?

In Patricia Cohen's interesting New York Times article, "Dumb and Dumber: Are Americans Hostile to Knowledge?", writer Susan Jacoby ponders America's apparent penchant for anti-intellectualism or, perhaps more accurately, its antipathy toward knowledge. When dealing with such a topic as this, where hard-as-nails knowledge is concerned, we can expect to find some mention of Christian fundamentalism, and our expectations are indeed met. But how Christian fundamentalists have succeeded in convincing "nearly two-thirds" of the country to give equal weight to creationism is not something we can expect to explore in this sort of discussion. That omission is, sadly, something most of us could have also predicted.

Besides Ms. Jacoby's probably accurate but overstated charge against fundamentalism, she avers that the "failing educational system" is to blame (one wonders if Ms. Jacoby connects that deterioration with the largely liberal, largely Democratic teachers' unions), as are various progressive political goals in the restructuring of university academic policies in the post-civil rights era.

Though I admit that Ms. Jacoby may enlarge upon her thesis in her book, The Age of American Unreason, one suspects she ignores the utilitarian ethos that permeates the American dream. Utilitarianism is, in part, the personal pursuit of happiness as defined by each American; knowledge is useful insofar as it advances any person's particular pursuit. That "American Idol" finalist and successful country music singer Kellie Pickler deserves to be chided (by Ms. Cohen) for not knowing of the existence of Hungary, may indeed signify something, but surely it is not a sign that Ms. Pickler has been debilitated by her ignorance of European geography. Ms. Pickler's seemingly doing quite fine, and while she is not prone to writing books, she is no doubt au courant in those knowledge schemes that give her expertise in her field. To the frustration of many an intellectual, pragmatism often trumps idealism.

What seems to be lacking in Ms. Cohen's article is any query as to why knowledge -- however it is defined -- should matter. How DOES knowing of the existence of Hungary help anyone who will never travel to that fair land? What purpose does knowledge serve? Surely Ms. Pickler is an expert in her field; she might even be a country music genius. Does she really need to score well in a Trivial Pursuit match against her financially less-successful peers? What is the purpose of learning? Do we learn for knowledge's own sake -- or for our own edification -- or is learning tied to praxis, to what we will DO with our lives?

I bet Ms. Cohen and Ms. Jacoby both have some compelling reasons why knowledge matters, but we are not permitted access to those reasons here. Perhaps they believe knowledge prevents one from being deceived; perhaps knowledge is a great defensive weapon against the zeitgeist. Perhaps.

What is also lacking in this discussion is any apparent exploration of the elevation of expertise -- call it the apotheosis of expert witnesses, if you will -- that pervades intellectual life in America. One repercussion of this pervasive habit is the signal it sends: I don't need to know "it" -- some bit of knowledge -- because someone else does. Nary a day goes by, I am sure, when debates on a loading dock, or around a coffee kiosk, or on a sports bus, do not include some assertion made by an eager interlocutor who substantiates a bold claim by referring to "they say" or "everybody knows" or "I read somewhere," or some similar appeal to an external locus of control. Implicit in these statements is not just the self-interest in appearing right; what is also implied is that some other thing is all-knowing, authoritative, binding ... and right. Sadly, this other thing takes many a modern form: a panel or commission, an encyclopedia or news agency, a think-tank or the Internet, or a poll or survey or "peer-reviewed study." Why is this sad, you may ask? Because it reveals the deep disconnect modernity and prosperity have created: there is a divide between memory and knowledge stored. Once memory and knowledge were practically synonymous. But now, knowledge can be stored elsewhere, like in the brain of an expert, the opinions of a panel, or the servers of a search engine. One need not apply oneself as vigorously as in years past, since so much can be recalled with a few typed words.

One could say, then, that America's ignorance, if it is indeed so ignorant, is not the result of ignorance; America's ignorance is the result of its knowledge. After all, it is knowledge that has given us the edge over nature; it is the learned person who has given us all sorts of ways to live without needing to know how we do what we do. How many people understand the keyboard beneath their fingers, the screen before their eyes? Why memorize poetry when poetry can be this morning's digital wallpaper? All such things are given us by knowledge; it is the advances of the age that have allowed us to live unfettered by the annoying need to know. Finally, ignorance is bliss -- given to us by what we know. (It's all a twist on T.S. Eliot's line from "Choruses from 'The Rock'": All our knowledge brings us nearer to our ignorance...)

Lastly, we forget that the appeal to expertise -- which is what journalists and pundits and researchers and politicians do all the time -- is also the fallacy of appealing to authority. Surely not a few Americans are cynical and hip enough to know this fallacy intimately; surely too, the American pedagogical ideal of "questioning authority," an ideal that might even be foundational to postmodern liberalism, has unwittingly led to the broader disinterest in knowledge (and left children confused as schools parade authorities through every corridor). In other words, those allegedly declining schools to which Ms. Jacoby refers have given Americans -- especially young ones -- permission to be their own authorities ... on everything. (See Raphael Demos' quote here.) How we who are products of American pedagogy choose to exercise that authority is by definition personal and private, for it is all about our utilitarian pursuit of happiness.

Who's to say dumb is not happy?

Peace.

BG


©Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.

Twopence pensées, v.2

__________________

MIND YOUR S's and B's

St. Peter -- long before he was ever a saint -- denied Jesus Christ three times the night his Lord was arrested.

Not that this has anything to do with the gospel, but a reporter for Reuters seems to have "slurred" a new saint -- Barack Obama -- three times in one story. It is all rather innocent to me; I have made the same typing and editing mistake. And I've probably done it at least three times.

Really, writing Osama when you mean Obama is not that big a deal, is it? Well, to Jeff at Ohio Daily Blog it is a very big deal -- Reuters has no doubt surrendered to the far right.

_____________________

NOW, IF THIS WAS ABOUT A REPUBLICAN...

I don't pretend for a second that politics is a game where fairness prevails. There are no official referees holding politicians accountable, though one might make the case that the press is an unofficial judge. Unless you're talking about a leading Democrat. Untoward behavior? Yes, it makes the front page news for a cycle or two. But if such behavior is linked to a Republican, well there'd be no escaping the trope, "culture of corruption."

A $31.3 million secret donation to a library? Well, that's gotta be one amazing library.

Too bad you can't get what you need at the reference desk.

_____________________

A NEW DIRECTION CAMPAIGN SONG?†

Rumor -- that reliable correspondent -- has it that this was recently heard at a Barack Obama rally as the candidate walked out on stage (but rumor is rarely right).


When asked about it, campaign guru Oprah Winfrey said it was a mistake, but only if one took the lyrics "literally."

When shown the lyrics (which follow)

“And during the few moments that we have left, we want to talk, right down to
earth, in a language that everybody here can easily understand.” (Malcolm X)

Look in my eyes, what do you see?
the Cult of Personality
I know your anger, I know your dreams
I've been everything you wanna be ohhh…
I'm the Cult of Personality
Like Mussolini and Kennedy
I'm the Cult of Personality
the Cult of Personality
the Cult of Personality

Neon lights, Nobel Prize
When a mirror speaks, the reflection lies
You won't have to follow me
Only you can set me free

I sell the things you need to be
I'm the smiling face of your T.V. ohh…
I'm the Cult of Personality
I exploit you; still you love me
I tell you one and one makes three ohh…
I'm the Cult of Personality
Like Joseph Stalin and Gandhi ohh…
I'm the Cult of Personality
the Cult of Personality
the Cult of Personality

Neon lights, Nobel Prize
When a leader speaks, that leader dies
You won't have to follow me
Only you can set you free

(Guitar solo)

You gave me fortune, you gave me fame
You gave me power in your God's name
I'm every person you need to be ohh…
I'm, the, Cult, of, Per, Son, Al, Ity

I am the Cult of (x8)
Personality

“Ask not what your country can do for you…” (John F. Kennedy)
“The only thing we have to fear, is fear itself.” (Franklin D. Roosevelt)

...one Obama supporter said that he could not understand why the song should evoke any criticism.

"Mr. Obama is not a cult of personality. He is instead the inspiration for change."

When asked how he felt when he heard Mr. Obama's "We are the ones we’ve been waiting for... We are the change we seek," contrasted with Living Colour's "Only you can set you free," the supporter responded by asking if I was a member of the "fascist racist right wing." When asked if he thought Mr. Obama's

"We have to choose between change and more of the same. We have to choose between looking backwards and looking forwards. We have to choose between our future and our past."

was a fallacy of the false choice, he said that there was no reason to choose to believe it was. "Change is always imminent," he said. "And Barack Obama is that change, and he is pointing us toward our future."

What future is that, and how will we know when we get there? I asked.

"You'll know," he said, confident. "You'll know when the Obama Nation stands where we have been told we cannot stand ... in control of our own destiny as a country and even as a world."

†Written and performed by Living Colour, 1988

______________________
Peace.

BG

©Bill Gnade 2008/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.

The "Blessed" Won; Is Still Winning

When I read yesterday the Online Journal's James Taranto (See "Obama: A Love Story"), or ABC News' Jake Tapper (see "And Obama Wept"), or the comments of sundry analysts (not my analyst, of course), I shook my head in incredulity. "Where have you all been?" I asked.

The question, as you may know, refers to the religious, messianic dimensions of the Barack Obama phenomenon, and why so few have noted it until rather recently. Surely there is a blatant messianism playing out before our very eyes.

Needless to say, I noted this as far back as October 2006, long before Mr. Obama entered the race for the presidency. See my "A New Magnificat."

In December 2006, in "Blazing To The Top Of Charts," I wrote:

THE CULT OF PERSONALITY

I think it is important to note how many folks are indeed already committed to voting for Mr. Obama should he run. How can this be? He is hardly known, he is hardly seasoned in the public eye. On what are his enthusiasts basing their enthusiasm? I have already heard much about his charm and charisma. Is that it? I have heard Harold Ford Jr. describe Mr. Obama as brilliant. But is that all? And I know Mr. Obama has written a couple of books. But is that enough? Is this, at least right now, merely the cult of personality, the adoration of persona? Surely it is not the cult of substance, or the cult of strong political record, right? It is something other than these things. Is it more hosanna politics?

I wonder.

In January 2007, I wrote a piece about Mr. Obama's newness, and his positioning himself as a deliverer; the piece was called "A Newbie Attitude." The play on words should be evident to anyone familiar with Christ's beatitudes. A month later, I wrote a piece about Mr. Obama's imminent pronouncement of his candidacy called "Two Annunciations." The same February day, right as Mr. Obama made his candidacy official, I wrote this piece, "And Now The Presentation."

Any attentive Christian will know that these titles all refer to events around the birth and ministry of Jesus Christ; any attentive American will know that these essays point out the messianism of the Obama movement -- that it almost seems to plagiarize real religious events (and even American historical symbols, e.g., the steps of the Illinois legislature -- Lincoln's house). And I drafted these essays not for mere color or entertainment. I drafted them as warnings.

A few months ago, I attended an Obama event in which Mr. Obama's wife, Michelle, spoke with great passion and fervor. In her talk she said this:

"We are all broken. Every one of us is broken. ... And we all have a hole in our hearts, a hole that needs to be filled."

It would be imprudent of me to expect you not to notice the religious language here; I know you do. But I wonder how many of us hear what she is saying: that her husband can help fill the void. Millions of evangelicals have heard similar language describing the "God-shaped hole in the human heart." Does Ms. Obama mean to suggest that we have a Barack-shaped hole in our hearts, too?

Not long ago, Mr. Obama told the congregation in a South Carolina evangelical church, "I am confident that we can create a Kingdom right here on Earth." Surely this sort of language is richly religious. One would expect to hear some outcry from those on the left, particularly since the left generally berates such language when uttered by those on the right. Even weirder, perhaps, is that no one can name a viable Republican candidate who has ever said such a thing. At the very least, hoping that a democratic republic can establish a "kingdom on earth" sounds sufficiently Tory enough to launch an investigation into whether a rebellion to reestablish a monarchy is afoot.

So, all this to say that Hosanna Politics, as I have dubbed them, are at full force ... and that in the Obama campaign. Right-wingers are perennially chided for pushing theocratic ideas, with hardly any evidence that they push them at all. And yet today we have a candidate for president -- whose name means "Blessed" -- using biblical language and establishing religious parallels that hardly raises an eyebrow.

Mr. Obama's great promise from last February's Annunciation? "WE shall issue in a new birth of freedom on this earth." And you thought Bush and Co. were all about expansionism and American hegemony. Where Mr. Obama gets the idea that Americans need a leader to save the earth is a puzzle. That his supporters seemingly have no problem with his ambitions is really quite scary. He -- and they along with him -- shall heal the land.

Who, really, does not want to be known as a healer?

Peace.

©Bill Gnade 2008/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.

Super Shrove Tuesday And Following

It will be easy to forget, largely because Americans have been force-fed a steady diet of Super-sized media events for the last few weeks. First, it was Super Sunday, the annual national holiday involving two football teams, too much food, and countless TV sets. Then, this year, immediately following Super Bowl Sunday, 22 American states celebrate Super Tuesday, perhaps the most significant primary and caucus day in presidential politics. For days after Super Tuesday, the American media will drive Tuesday's events right into a Super-sized cliff.

All of this results in the diminution of the great Christian season of Lent. Tomorrow, Shrove or Fat Tuesday, marks the transition from feast to fast; the fast which begins Wednesday, Ash Wednesday, or the official start of the Lenten season of penitence, discipline, mortification, gratitude, hope, deliverance, resurrection, and triumphant rejoicing.

I would urge my Christian readers to remember this season with all due diligence. It is a season of wonders, a season of soft and salvific discipline. It is a reminder of all good things to come.

Peace.

BG

©Bill Gnade 2008/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.

Ex Libris Contratimes

I've read six books since Christmas, four of which were Christmas gifts and five of which I would like to recommend.

For readers interested in the atheism/theism debate, there is hardly a better book than There Is A God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed his Mind, by Antony Flew and Roy Abraham Varghese. Flew is the aforementioned notorious atheist, and I'll dare say his arguments will have atheists in a bind. I'll further state that his book -- even if ultimately wrong -- sets atheism back at least a decade ... once the full impact of what his book represents is realized.

Also, the appendices in the book are outstanding, particularly Church of England bishop N. T. Wright's wonderful defense of the resurrection of Christ. While the book is a great read, Wright's addition is a must-read.

Theodore Dalrymple's amazing little book, In Praise of Prejudice: The Necessity of Preconceived Ideas, is refreshing in its common sense and invigorating in its brisk walk through the pitfalls of prejudice, and the foolishness of most attempts to purge prejudice from the human mind. The quick pace of this finely-wrought work explores the silly ideal that the highest good of any man is to dwell on the land without prejudice. Dalrymple argues that even biology equips humans for survival's sake with the habit of prejudice; and while he notes that racial prejudice is a gross mistake, the far greater mistake is to think that the absence of prejudice of any kind is a sign of moral authenticity, health and superiority. It simply isn't it, and the absurdities around this allegedly noble goal lead us to all sorts of moral confusion, including excusing a man for being a crook or lout because he is free of prejudice.

Connected to Dalrymple's beautifully written work is Shelby Steele's White Guilt: How Blacks and Whites Together Destroyed the Promise of the Civil Rights Era. For me, this is the only book I've read in a long time that I would describe as transformative. I can hardly tell you what was good about it since the book has left me nearly speechless. If anything, let me say that it made me realize that I -- raised in the public school system in the 1960s in northern New Jersey and in the '70s in southwestern New Hampshire -- was sold a whole boat of load junk about the white and wise solution regarding racism. My "white guilt" is both misbegotten and misplaced; Shelby Steele -- a "conservative" black man born of a white mother -- has shattered something in me I did not know even existed. My eyes have been opened: They have been lying to us. And I've been lying to myself -- unwittingly!

Steele's book is not perfect; and although I think he creates a dilemma -- especially for white Americans -- that he does not see, his work is so brilliant, so beautifully and powerfully brilliant, I believe it deserves a place in the great books list. You will see things about yourself and American politics and education you did not see before. I promise.

What higher praise can I give a work than to say it transformed me? Perhaps I can say that it stopped me in my tracks. (My wife, who passed this book along to me, considers Steele one of the bravest men in America. I think she's right.)

Falling in perfect harmony with White Guilt is Michael Gerson's lucid and well-written Heroic Conservatism: Why Republicans Need to Embrace America's Ideals (And Why They Deserve To Fail if They Don't). Gerson, as some of you know, is the Wheaton College-educated former speechwriter for President George W. Bush. (If you are not aware, Wheaton [Ill.] College is arguably America's premier evangelical college, and is a great school.)

I liked most of this book, if for no other reason than it revealed to me the presidential power that a speechwriter possesses. Gerson is indeed a great speechwriter; but his influence on the presidency was nothing short of astounding. He, not Bush, is responsible for many of the most memorable phrases from the formative years of the Bush presidency: Bush, ultimately, may own these phrases, but Gerson (and his team) is the brain inside the teleprompter. And what an interesting, lucid brain it is! While I found myself disagreeing with Gerson in the book's opening chapters, I also found myself mostly swayed by him by book's end. In fact, by the time I finished his book, I was thinking of changing careers, of finding a noble cause for which to fight. It is an inspiring book, and is a trenchant analysis of conservatism's heart. Gerson convinces me that that heart is getting better in most of the right ways.

Also, Gerson's back room view of the Bush presidency (Gerson was witness to a lot of really inside stuff) is revelatory. His description of President Bush is not one-whit idolatrous. He is critical in all the right areas. It's just that he manages not only to humanize the president, he manages to show a man who is strikingly heroic in many ways and will never be noted for it among the media or ruling classes. After all, Bush policies -- at least his foreign efforts -- are some of the most noble and boldest in decades. The War on Terror -- which is really the institution of democracy and liberty everywhere neither is known -- is the most obvious of Bush's efforts; but his generous help in addressing poverty, malaria, and AIDS in Africa largely goes unnoticed. Gerson shows not only why these smaller things were necessary, but how good they are for our world.

Lastly, I very much liked Frederick Buechner's tiny little volume, Speak What We Feel (And Not What We Ought To Say). Buechner examines the key work of four writers -- poet and priest Gerard Manley Hopkins, William Shakespeare, Mark Twain, G.K. Chesterton -- exploring what it means for these men to have written their greatest works "in blood." Buechner delves into the darkest hours of these men, their great intellectual and spiritual struggles with demons past and present, and how they, in effect, wrote themselves free of all that threatened to bind them. The Twain chapter was very touching to me, as was the chapter on Chesterton. Great stuff about some of my very favorite writers.

In closing, all these books have one thing in common. I will read them again.

(The other book I read, if you are wondering, was G. K. Chesterton's glorious The Man Who Was Thursday. I have read it many times before.)

Peace this day.

©Bill Gnade 2008/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.

18-1: Man, Am I Glad It's Finally Over

(See? I am a mass of contradictions. I complained yesterday about watching the Super Bowl, and now I am writing about watching the Super Bowl.)

There is a problem with pursuing perfection: it's a vain and futile pursuit. And nearly any psychologist will inform you that perfectionism is a neurosis. Plus, it is a heavy burden to bear.

Good news. I can finally relax now that my hope for perfection has been smashed to the ground by a dominant defense, a composed quarterback, a miracle escape from a sack that had not quite closed, and a miracle one-handed-then-to-helmet-then-to-two-hands catch. Sweet relief! The New York Giants were the better team tonight.

Losing, in all honesty, has never felt so good.

As any football fan knows, a few losses in a season are no big deal. Many teams make it into the playoffs with 10-6 records (others have made it with worse records). But maintaining an undefeated season is wearying, or so it was for this fan. Going undefeated is not something the average fan, or player, or any coach expects or demands. And it becomes not merely an expectation but a annoying distraction. Weeks ago -- and I mean this -- I was ready for the Patriots to just lose, and maybe even lose again. Watching the games became more pain than pleasure. Rather than just expecting one's team to do well, there was this irresistible expectation that they must never lose. And then when the play-offs began, losing felt like it cost too much.

Obviously, they did lose, and they lost at the 'wrong' time.

As an armchair coach, I can only say that the Patriots' decision-making and play tonight seemed rather stunted. Brady needed to roll out of the pocket and not permit himself to play smash-mouth with a pretty sick pass rush. (The last two plays, Brady did roll right, finding time and passing lanes.) The Pats needed to develop their screen game (which had been one of the best in the NFL); they needed to remember that Donté Stallworth is on their team. They needed to finish the sack; they needed to bring down the interception or recover the fumble. They should have punched the Giants with a two-back set more often. And they probably needed to trust the leg of their field goal kicker one particular time, though it would have been a long-shot (which is what big games are about).

The numbers won't matter to the pundits, but the Patriots were not radically outplayed by a better team. They just lost, looking mediocre; worn out, perhaps, from the pressure of being perfect. Who wants to carry that mantle around anyway, other than Mercury Morris? The pass rush of the Giants was the best the Patriots have seen all year, I think; they were certainly outplayed on the line of scrimmage on many downs.

My hat is off to the Giants. I am a former fan of that legendary NY franchise. I think the Manning brothers are class acts; Eli's a great kid. The Giants played with fire in their bellies. I appreciate that.

But I predictably console myself with the simple observation that this year's Super Bowl champs had fewer wins and more losses than the Super Bowl losers. 18-1 is shockingly good, as are the many NFL records (Wes Welker's record-setting performance in tonight's game just one more great feat) the Patriots set. They remain the standard bearer; the NFL has been transformed in many ways by that curmudgeonly coach in the sideline hoodie.

One more thing: tonight's loss puts the end -- I mean THE END -- to the whole Spy-gate absurdity. So glad that sideshow is over.

Overall, trying to be objective, I think the Super Bowl was just OK -- at best. The last few minutes were interesting. But as I said last night, the NFL season is more interesting than its climax. It's perhaps the one case -- what REAL man dare say this?! -- where the courtship is more interesting and fun than the consummation.

EXTRAS

BEST COMMERCIALS: Coke's two ads, the parade balloons battling it out for a bottle of Coca-Cola (quite beautiful, really, so gentle and lyrical -- Go Charlie Brown!), and the bipartisan gem featuring James Carville and Bill Frist. Perfect. (Also, I liked the Toyota commercial with the Big Wheel races, though not for the SUV advertised, but for the fact that I want to race Big Wheels downhill. And the Hyundai Genesis is a sweet looking ride.)

The Budweiser Clydesdales are always a big hit with me; I am a sucker for those animals. Loved the dalmatian-as-trainer saving the career of one out-of-shape horse.

WORST COMMERCIAL: Can't say I liked the Jiminy Cricket-like creature (Pinocchio riff?) getting eaten by the spider; and I liked the baby on-line investor but the regurgitation was one step too far (the clown follow-up was cute, though.) And the corpulent dude clamping jumper cables to his nipples was initially funny, but was just plain crude by the end. (I know, I am a killjoy.)

BEST PROMO: The NFL's promotional about dreaming big dreams. I did not catch the names, but the piece about the two Houston Texans teammates -- one of whom is an oboe player -- was brilliant and sweet.

HALFTIME SHOW: Tom Petty and the HEARTbreakers. Not the best name for a band if you're a Patriots fan. But the little medley was decent enough. I am no Petty fan, so I must say that it is clear he's STILL running down a dream, and I am a bit weary of it. My guess is he hasn't played to such a large audience in a long, long time. I'll give the entertainment a 7.5.

NATIONAL ANTHEM: Wow. Stunning, I thought.

END OF GAME HANDSHAKE: Stay on the field, Bill. If only for one more second. (Dear NFL: Give him a 10-yard penalty to be assessed in the first game of next season). Uncool, sir.

PREDICTION: Patriots are in 2 of the next 5 Super Bowls, winning at least one. New York Giants struggle again to get into the play-offs next year; they might not even make the play-offs. They won't make it past the first round if they do.

(Gosh, I really AM an idiot.)

Peace, and good night.

©Bill Gnade 2008/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.

Twopence pensées

*

My wife and I recently purchased a large LCD flat-screen, high-definition television. After setting the thing upon our new entertainment center console (think Pottery Barn-esque), connecting the high-definition cables and 800-watt surround-sound system, and tweaking the settings till everything was just so, I sat on my couch, suddenly confused. For the whole structure before me was eerily familiar -- and remarkably misplaced. I was not looking at a high-end bit of technology. I was sitting in front of an altar.

So I got up and went outside.

Weird.

*

I am a fairly earnest professional football fan (for you Europeans, please emend), though I am really not a fanatic. And I am a New England Patriots enthusiast, though I am by no means well-informed about that fine team. All I can say is that I enjoy football in the regular season only to loathe the Super Bowl. I am loosely connected to the Patriots from September to December, and then I begin to fray after that.

This, I assure you, is not a good omen when there is an altar in my TV room devoted solely to such things.

*

Tomorrow will be a glorious day in the heavens; there will be tides and migrations and births and sunrises and sunsets and storms and even the end of storms, but I will hardly notice. I'll be too busy prepping for guests, for the big game.

*

I feel a bit like a postmodern Ben Franklin: I've tethered my satellite kite in the meadow; it gets struck by digital lightning, a lightning that rips a course through my little string, all to ground me in digital vibrancy to a spot in my new sort of pew.

*

Tomorrow I will again cringe at excess, my own mostly. I will see gratuitous consumption, grotesque displays of life lived too many steps beyond 'enough.' I will feel guilty about my relationship to myself -- feeling I've wasted mind and body and time. I will feel guilty about my relationship with others -- those poor who cannot watch the high-definition-privileged in their $10,000 Super Bowl seats, or the widow alone in her room -- or anyone else. I will feel guilty about my relationship with God, that I've rarely been as excited about the divine as I've been about nearly everything mundane. And then on Monday, well, I'll talk football in the confessional.

Perhaps I can hit the TIVO: I'll record the life I should live tomorrow -- the life I'll miss while watching the Super Bowl -- and then live it some other time.

Now, how great would that be?

A lifetime to back-up.

Peace.


©Bill Gnade 2008/Contratimes. All rights reserved.

In Loco Parentis: America's Two Crazy Parents (DNC & GOP)

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

I Had A Dream

I recall being rather dismissively treated by some of my college schoolmates; not a few of them found me too serious, too cerebral. A friend reported to me that, after my graduation, several underclassmen snickered at my senior portrait in the yearbook (published in the fall following commencement); my friend reported that some of my former Fighting Scots found my printed visage rather too professorial and stern. So, of course, in response to their sour and dour summaries, I cogitated in their general direction.†

The last few posts here at Contratimes prove that I am more than mind: I have a heart that can be quite passionate. And I am passionate about one thing: Even if I disagree with Barack Obama's answers to some of the world's toughest problems, he is my brother. And I've got a lot of feelings about that.

A few minutes ago, I spotted in my email queue a letter from Michelle Obama, Barack Obama's wife. It is titled, "What we didn't expect." Clearly, the title tells it all; I need not read it to know what it is she and her husband did not expect. Sure the cynic beneath my skin could voice rather glibly that she should have expected what most everyone else did -- we knew what the Clintons are like, at least as they pursue their dreams.

This morning, in the comments to my earlier post, In The Breakdown Lane: Seeing Red ... And Feeling Blue, I offered some advice to Mr. Obama. Yes, I know my advice is more heart than head and more dream than crafted policy statement, but it is my advice nonetheless. It is the idealist in me -- informed by cynicism -- that speaks here; it is the speech writer hidden in my breast that wishes to hear someone speak what needs to be said. I am reminded of the title of a book by Frederick Buechner given me this past Christmas; the title is drawn from Shakespeare: Speak What We Feel, And Not What We Ought To Say. It may be my dream, but it is a dream wherein my feelings are remarkably clear, vibrant, ringing like bells hammered on a crisp winter night.

My advice to Mr. Obama is for him to say the following during his next debate with Mrs. Clinton:

'...if leading this country, Mrs. Clinton, means that I have to act and campaign like you do; if it means being mean-spirited and cutting and underhanded and duplicitous; if it means that I have to offend my convictions in order to score political points over you or any rival, then I must say that I am tempted to walk away from this race. I shall not stoop to what you believe is "real politics;" I reject that very reality. Call me naïve and unrealistic or "unprepared;" I'll gladly take that as a compliment coming from you. But I believe in a presidency that is shrewd and prudent without dishonor; that is wise without mendacity; that is able to confront problems without feigning omniscience. I am a man who seeks the highest office in the world; but if you embody that office's ideals, then I can only say that -- for me -- the office is no longer sufficiently elevated. I want no part of it; my feelings are clear. I am not running to foment cynicism. I am running to lead this country towards greatness. But I can't be a great leader, Mrs. Clinton, if I follow you where no great leader should ever go.'


Peace.

©Bill Gnade 2008/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.

PS. The cynic in me suspects projection as a political weapon: I would not be surprised (forgive me!) if it was Mrs. Clinton who said something like what I've written above ... to Barack Obama!!

†Monty Python fans should get this allusion.

In The Breakdown Lane: Seeing Red...And Feeling Blue

The beauty of being idealistic is that the idealist has not yet fallen into cynicism. Youth may be wasted on the young, but that is not the fault of those who happen to enjoy youth. And idealism may be youth’s beauty mark born of simple purity, but surely the ugly loss of ideals is rarely caused by the misdeeds of children. No, it is the adults who destroy innocence, who shatter ideals and scar beauty with subtle abuse. Cynicism is often handed down like a legacy, the last will and testament of what it means to be a ‘grown up.’

My sense as a middle-aged man observing the conflict between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton is that millions of Mr. Obama’s supporters are about to have their ideals smashed by the Clinton campaign. At best, at the end of all this, youth’s enthusiastic naïveté (which is not idealism’s sibling) will be chased with a bitter draught of gall.

How can the Clinton campaign, which has clearly misrepresented Mr. Obama -- the ever-gentle man -- expect to inspire that generation of voters who are just beginning to pay attention to politics? Do Mr. and Mrs. Clinton really believe they can ignore the damage they are inflicting on the youngest members of the electorate, that set who overwhelmingly support Mr. Obama in his bid to be the Democratic Party nominee? Or do they believe that, after winning the White House, they can heal the damage that is done? Maybe their forced remedy will come before the White House: perhaps they will offer Mr. Obama a job around the White House, like the vice-presidency or some high profile cabinet post. (He’d be a fool to take it.)

Or perhaps, like so many power-grabbing “me-first” go-getters, the Clintons just don’t care. Maybe this explains Mrs. Clinton’s very first campaign slogan: “I am in this to win.” Her transparency could not be more disgusting: she’s not in “this” to lead or serve America. She is in “to win.” Unfortunately, too few of us have the courage to remind ourselves -- and our neighbors -- of the ghastly truth that people who are “in to win” are generally the worst people in the neighborhood -- and the world.

I am no partisan in this fight, nor am I a supporter of any candidate. I am merely a witness to history, and the history I am witnessing makes me sick. Yesterday, while tuned to the Rush Limbaugh show on the car radio, I nearly cried as I listened to a clip of Mrs. Clinton’s grotesque misrepresentations of Mr. Obama’s statements; I felt like screaming as I heard her commit the fallacy of equivocation (among other things). If I was not a law-abiding citizen, I might have even stopped and exited my car so I could search for something to vandalize.

Largely, my sorrow was directed at the young voters I know who believe in a world that Mr. Obama also believes in, a world of decency and civility and even elegance. Mr. Obama’s vision is, in an ideal sense, a trans-partisan world where the ideals of civility and prudence and tolerance and understanding abound. But I was also angry for Mr. Obama, angry enough to shout to the world that he would be far better treated if he were a Republican; that he’d win his party’s nomination and even the presidency if he were a member of the Grand Old Party.

What do readers think would be the outcome of the GOP race for the nomination had Condoleezza Rice or Colin Powell run for the nation’s highest office? I am sorry...call me a fool; I think either one of them would have been a shoe-in. No other candidates could have stood a chance against them.

I know: I am a fool.

Of course, I admit my native idealism is showing through here, as is my cynicism: both are in a battle, and I’d like to believe my idealism might finally win. But today I am stubbornly prone to aver that if Mr. Obama was indeed a Republican, he’d be president tomorrow if the election were held today. And I further admit that even this very essay may fuel cynicism in the young, and even the old. But my aim is for something higher than merely venting my irascibility or distemper...I do not want to suppress the human spirit. My aim is this audacious hope: I hope that idealism will finally have victory over the deeply cynical, mean-spirited and dire campaign that is being run by the Clintons.

Peace.

©Bill Gnade 2008/Contratimes. All rights reserved.

Momma's Boy Music video

It's just not possible for me NOT to share this with my readers. It's just plain funny. Yes, yes. That's a Gnade child playing air guitar while brushing his teeth (and wearing green facial cream). But it's all 'spoofery' and foolishness. It actually makes me quite giddy; I am glad to see such un-self-consciousness among teenagers. Not that everything they do makes me giddy. It's just that I know what I was like as a teen: there are far worse things to be doing than making parodies of music videos. And one of those things is to take oneself WAY too seriously.

Peace.

©Bill Gnade 2008/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.

What IS This Day About?

Today, America celebrates Martin Luther King's birthday. In honor of such an inspiring man, I direct readers to this 2006 essay.

Also, I think this quote from Reverend King's "Letter from a Birmingham Jail," first published in The Christian Century, is worth posting here:

'…though I was initially disappointed at being categorized as an extremist, as I continued to think about the matter I gradually gained a measure of satisfaction from the label. Was not Jesus an extremist for love: "Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you." Was not Amos an extremist for justice: "Let justice roll down like waters and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream." Was not Paul an extremist for the Christian gospel: "I bear in my body the marks of the Lord Jesus." Was not Martin Luther an extremist: "Here I stand; I cannot do otherwise, so help me God." And John Bunyan: "I will stay in jail to the end of my days before I make a butchery of my conscience." And Abraham Lincoln: "This nation cannot survive half slave and half free." And Thomas Jefferson: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal . . . ." So the question is not whether we will be extremists, but what kind of extremists we will be. Will we be extremists for hate or for love? Will we be extremists for the preservation of injustice or for the extension of justice? In that dramatic scene on Calvary's hill three men were crucified. We must never forget that all three were crucified for the same crime -- the crime of extremism. Two were extremists for immorality, and thus fell below their environment. The other, Jesus Christ, was an extremist for love, truth, and goodness, and thereby rose above his environment. …'

Peace this day.

Bill Gnade 2008/Contratimes. All rights reserved.

The Audacity Of Fear: Playing Anxiety Politics

If one were inclined to rewrite holy writ for political advantage, perhaps the first thing one might pen is “Be anxious for everything.” No doubt this revision will offend certain Christians comforted by St. Paul’s exhortation to “be anxious for nothing,” but such Christians, generally, do not run for President of the United States. In fact, such a candidacy would be impossible: it simply is not possible to win votes without exploiting anxiety and fear. “Trust in God” will impress few voters as a campaign slogan, but “Fear Everything” has a chance at winning the White House.

Readers may scoff; I invite them to jeer and sneer. But the facts are evident: electoral politics is about fear – and nothing but fear. Yes, we all know the “playing the politics of fear” canard so well it has become a mere cliché, appropriate to the bumper sticker-set rather than the more reflective wing of the body politic. Ironically, nowhere is that cliché more popular than in Democratic Party condemnations of all things Republican, and – more specifically – all things Bush. Bush scared Americans into war, into torturing and incarcerating a quasi-mythic threat; into Gitmo and surveillance and civil rights erosions, solely because he was so effective at selling fear. The irony is in the telling fact that Democrats, if they do anything, at least exploit the fear of fear. And yet they do far more than that.

In Tuesday night’s Democratic debate in Nevada telecast on MSNBC (see YouTube clip here [00:25 min.]), Barack Obama perfectly executed the Democratic fear play:

“There is no doubt we’ve been dominated by a politics of fear since 9/11… But I have to say that when Sen. Clinton uses the specter of a terrorist attack … during a campaign, I think that it is part and parcel with what we have seen, the use of the fear of terrorism in scoring political points, and I think that’s a mistake. Now, I don’t want to perpetuate that. I think that’s part of why we ended up going into Iraq and made a big strategic error that has made us less safe. Resources that could have been spent on homeland security have been spent in Baghdad. Resources that could have been spent hunting down bin Laden, have been diverted to Iraq, and that’s what happens when your judgment is clouded, and what I intend to do as President of the United States is to be honest and straightforward with the American people about how I am going to implement all the 9/11 Commission Report findings, make sure that we are hunting down bin Laden, getting out of Iraq so we can re-focus our attention on building the networks and alliances that are required to reduce terrorism around the world. That’s going to be my priority and that’s part of the reason I am running for President of the United States.” [Emphasis added]

That Mr. Obama’s contradiction – I will not perpetuate fear but we are less safe than ever -- will be overlooked by his charmed supporters is unarguable; that his position is nearly identical with everyone else in his party is equally unassailable. His entire statement could be reasonably construed as a reformation – at least in spirit – of the “Bush lied, people died” mantra.

But I am not here to quibble about the genesis of the war, especially with those who find the roots of war in Genesis. My complaint is that Mr. Obama and his party are also peddling fear; Mr. Obama – and Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Edwards – are fear-mongers. “We are less safe” is hardly the only dire warning Democrats voice. There is a whole litany of warnings issued by Democrats at every turn. And hardly a soul challenges those party-faithful who serve as prophets of doom. Below is a short list of examples (not direct quotes) that capture the essence of Democratic fear-baiting.

On economics:

“We are in recession. People are insecure.”

“The gap between rich and poor is growing.”

“There have never been so many foreclosures.”

"We must rebuild the middle class."

On international relations:

“America’s reputation in the world has never been so tarnished.”

“We must restore our image in the sight of the Europeans.”

“Neo-conservatives have pushed America into colonial expansionism.”

On domestic issues:

“Republicans want to rob women of the right to choose, and due access to health care.”

“Republicans don’t care about those of you without proper health care. We need universal care now.”

“The Republican Party has no qualms denying to all -- regardless of gender identity -- the right to marry. ”

On energy:

“We MUST free ourselves of our dependence on foreign oil.”

“The profits of BIG OIL are unfair!”

“We must work to end global warming today, before it is too late!”

On the war:

“The war on terror is a failure.”

“Iraq was a mistake.”

“We must reallocate our resources and redeploy our troops so we can capture Osama bin Laden. He’s still out there!”

On EVERYTHING:

“Republicans are playing the fear card!”

Of course, I admit that Republicans do play the fear card; I also admit that I am not really singling out Mr. Obama. All candidates exploit fear. Candidates even issue warnings about other candidates. But Mr. Obama himself has opened the door to my criticism largely for his sophistry quoted above. Even the title of his book, The Audacity of Hope, is rooted in fear: we are doomed without audacious hope in the face of our problems. (Is he the Deliverer we MUST have to lead us out of our many difficulties?)

As I said, there is irony to be found when Democrats refer to right-wing fear-mongering. I don’t know if the irony is in that they don’t know they themselves are also peddling fear; perhaps they do. But if they do, there is something really disconcerting about it all.

Peace.

©Bill Gnade 2008/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.

The Pain Of The Obvious

The linguistic-forensic specialists have unanimously concluded that a crime has been committed. Well, maybe only I have reached that conclusion. But it’s still unanimous.

Though it was a brain jarring slip-of-the-tongue moment, Hillary Clinton somehow managed to escape the watchful eyes of pundits everywhere. But I, your ever-vigilante sleuth, was not lulled into inattention by Mrs. Clinton’s performance on Sunday’s Meet the Press†. Of course, it was easy for me to be ever-vigilante: Mrs. Clinton’s misstep was the very first answer she gave in her conversation with MTP host Tim Russert.

MR. RUSSERT: When we arrived in South Carolina yesterday this was The State newspaper, and the headlines agree to this. And let me share it with you and our viewers: “Clinton Camp Hits Obama, Attacks ‘painful’ for black voters. Many in state offended by criticism of Obama,” and ‘remarks about’ Martin Luther King. Bob Herbert, in The New York Times, columnist, weighed in this way: “I could also sense how hard the Clinton camp was working to undermine Senator Obama's main theme, that a campaign based on hope and healing could unify rather than further polarize the country. So there was the former president chastising the press for the way it was covering the Obama campaign and saying of Mr. Obama's effort, ‘The whole thing is the biggest fairy tale I've ever seen.’ And there was Mrs. Clinton telling the country we don't need ‘false hopes,’ and taking cheap shots at, of all people, the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. We've already seen Clinton surrogates trying to implant the false idea that Mr. Obama might be a Muslim, and perhaps a drug dealer to boot.” What is this all about?

SEN. CLINTON: Well, beats me, because there's not one shred of truth in what you've just read. And I regret that, because obviously a lot of people have been, you know, given information or an impression that is absolutely false.

Had I been sitting in Mr. Russert’s stead, I think Mrs. Clinton’s comments would have given me more than a moment’s pause. For what I hear is Mrs. Clinton regretting that there was not one shred of truth in the statements Mr. Russert cited; she would have NOT regretted things if they had been true. Perhaps if I parse her statement with a little more assiduity I will find some clarification:

GNADE: Why do you have regrets, Mrs. Clinton?

MRS. CLINTON: “…because obviously a lot of people have been, you know, given information or an impression that is absolutely false.”

GNADE: Do forgive me, Mrs. Clinton. But am I hearing you correctly? It sounds like you are saying that you would have no regrets if the impression, i.e., that Mr. Obama is offering “false hopes,” that Dr. Martin Luther King was essentially impotent without the help of a white president, that Mr. Obama is a Muslim or a former drug dealer, and so on -- you’d have no regrets if these were true? Is that what you are saying?

MRS. CLINTON: There you go again, Bill, putting words in my mouth and ripping what I’ve said out of context. I am tired of you people putting –

GNADE: With all due respect, Mrs. Clinton, but “you people”? Are you sure that such language is fitting? THIS interview IS the context of the words you just uttered. And rather than putting words in your mouth, I am taking them out, as you just offered them freely; they’re your words, not mine. And it sounds to me that you are saying you’d have no regrets if these things were true.

_______________________

SHE COULD NOT HAVE MEANT IT

In the past few days, I have heard pundits and press tell me that what Mrs. Clinton essentially said about Dr. King was entirely true, harmless, and not one whit racist. Fred Barnes, conservative commentator for Fox News and editor of The Weekly Standard, announced that he had no problem with what Mrs. Clinton averred. Conservative radio oracle Jay Severin stamped his imprimatur on Mrs. Clinton’s words. And the Wall Street Journal’s editorial page states that

“On the merits, Mrs. Clinton obviously is correct. It did take a President’s signature to bring the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to fruition. And the idea that saying so takes anything away from King’s legacy is absurd.” (WSJ, January 14, 2008)

To me this is so much pedantic affirmation. I am left with the sense that such pundits and opinion-makers think that it is OK for Mrs. Clinton to state “what every one knows.” For if that is indeed the case – if Mrs. Clinton was merely offering us a moment of historical clarity in pronouncements of the obvious – then we are still left wondering why she should be given a pass. Clearly she knows we “ALL KNOW” this historical fact; clearly we do not need her to suddenly turn into a school teacher with a Cliff Notes lesson. She’s not running for presidential pedagogue; her comments are indeed unnecessary if we are all well aware of the monumental importance of LBJ and his liberating pen. Surely Mrs. Clinton knows two things when she teaches us the plain history of the Civil Rights Act: First, that we all know Dr. King did not sign the Act; second, that many African-Americans will NOT respond kindly to the reminder that their liberation did not ultimately come from themselves. The Great White President set them free; HE granted their petitions.

Moreover, Mrs. Clinton was undeniably contrasting herself as the president who could deliver; she would be the (white?) executor of the sort of hopes that Mr. Obama could dream about but never fulfill. He offers mere hope while she offers action. He has visions; she makes decisions.

You get the picture, and it should not be a pretty one. Mrs. Clinton actually WAS playing a race card in her seemingly innocuous statements. (This all reminds me of a talk radio discussion I commented on regarding “racist facts.”) It means nothing to me that Mrs. Clinton was stating the truth, for the truth is, as we all know, often brutally painful. One recalls the biblical exhortation that we are to speak the truth in love. Telling one’s lover the truth – “Geez, you’re fat!” – may be a truth “everybody knows,” but sometimes love (and political wisdom) urges us to suppress the obvious. "The truth hurts" is no cliché. It is instead a reminder that we all need to be a little more circumspect when we speak, Mrs. Clinton included.

Peace.

©Bill Gnade 2008/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.

†See transcript here.

Why Hillary?

Pundits and pollsters are perplexed. So am I. But I am neither pundit nor pollster. Politics is more a visceral rather than cerebral sport for me: I go with hunches and feelings and intuitions. And my hunches were wrong, dead wrong. I had Barack Obama easily winning New Hampshire, with John Edwards coming in second and Hillary Clinton stumbling in at third. All I can do is laugh at myself.

________________________

Why Hillary?

Since I am not a pundit of any professional stature, I will not bore you with lengthy expositions on theory. Instead, I will quickly offer several reasons I think Mrs. Clinton won.

1. The Vanity Vote (aka The Snob Factor)

New Hampshire voters are vain and they guard that vanity well: There is no way that New Hampshire voters will often permit themselves to like those folks from Iowa. Barack Obama's success in Iowa was his doom here. New Hampshire voters believe they are more perceptive, informed, discerning than other voters; they pride themselves in being deeply involved. In 1984, Iowans chose Walter Mondale, but NH chose Gary Hart. In 1988, Dick Gephardt took Iowa while Mike Dukakis took NH. In 1992, Iowa went with Tom Harkin as NH took Paul Tsongas. And though Al Gore and John Kerry won both states' early elections in 2000 and 2004, respectively, this year marks a return to the old trend. New Hampshire not only wants to preserve the image that its primary is truly unique, the state wants to maintain its image of fierce independence.

2. The 'Minority' Vote (aka The Nostalgic Feminist Vote)

On the 2008 Democratic ticket voters are asked to choose between two minorities, a black man and a woman. Since exit polls show that New Hampshire's gray-haired females voted for Mrs. Clinton, we can safely conclude that such voters believe it is 'Hillary's time.' New Hampshire voters apparently believe that the first minority to walk into the Oval Office as president should be a woman, and not a black man. No doubt Mr. Obama's youth worked against him here, as voters probably believe that his chance for the White House will come later; he cometh too soon. Now is the time for a woman.

Undeniably, voters believe Hillary hasn't a future chance at the White House: This time truly IS her time. And with a dearth of viable women candidates (who else?) coming up through the Democratic Party, Hillary's need trumps the African American dream, but only for a season.

Related to this almost nostalgic view of feminist aspirations, the Bill Clinton factor looms large in its own nostalgic way. When I reported yesterday that an amazing number of folks who attended a local Bill Clinton event on Monday exited with this on their lips -- "I wish I could vote for him again!" -- I failed to report that the vast majority of those who uttered those words were OLDER women. I, dope as I am, misunderstood their words: I was certain they realized that a vote for Hill was actually an impossibly nostalgic vote for Bill. No one who felt that way for him would vote for his wife, I assured myself; the swooning electorate had to realize that she and he are NOT identical.

No surprise. I was wrong.

3. The War Vote (aka The Commander-in-Chief in a Dress Vote)

Irrespective of how downplayed in the media the Iraq War has become, shrewd voters know that it remains the country's largest issue, at least its largest foreign policy issue. Voters also know that John McCain, who has a real shot at winning the Republican nomination, is a true hawk and is, in many ways, responsible for the "success" of the Iraq "surge" led by General David Petraeus. Hence, New Hampshire voters descried that any viable Democratic candidate could not be a flight-or-flight dove.

Hillary Clinton's win here is nothing short of a massive blow to the anti-war left. After all, it was the Clinton administration -- even after leaving office -- that issued dire warnings about Saddam Hussein's renegade ways and the threat he posed to national security. Mrs. Clinton was remarkably hawkish throughout the "run up" to war; she was not a protester but one of the principal supporters of the Iraq invasion. Her defenses of the Bush Doctrine even mollified the anxieties of many in the middle left of her party.

Of course, analytical Democrats have ALWAYS known that the invasion of Iraq was not merely cooked up by the Republican Bush; in 1998, President Bill Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act that called for regime change in Iraq, which became part-and-parcel integral to the Bush Doctrine. Analytical Democrats know that Iraq is a central foothold for American self-preservation in a hostile Middle East; and they know that ANY Republican success there will leave someone like John McCain in a very pretty and patriotic light; someone like Barack Obama -- who boasts of opposing the war even when he was a mere state senator in Illinois -- will be left in the worst possible light (the worst thing that can happen to Barack Obama's ambitions is for Iraq to go well). Voters know that Mrs. Clinton has maintained a conveniently ambiguous and politically expedient position that allows her to take credit for positive gains in the War on Terror.

In other words, Hillary Clinton's success in New Hampshire has everything to do with ensuring that the Democrats' nominee for president can defend American military involvement in the Middle East, particularly in the face of John McCain's strong military background and political successes. The only viable candidate on the Democratic ticket who can address the war issue in a responsible manner is -- without question -- Hillary Clinton. Unless Iraq turns into a glaringly obvious mess, which is quite possible, Hillary Clinton takes the nomination.

_______________________

I should add that there was also the "Pity Vote" based on Mrs. Clinton's apparent struggle as a woman to get a fair hearing; and the "Blame the Media" vote (the Pity Vote's little sister) managed by Bill Clinton, which included the suggestion that Barack Obama has been given a pass by the media -- enamored as they are with Obama's alleged "fairy tale" life narrative -- partly because he is black.

Again, just some hasty post-primary thoughts.

Peace.

Bill Gnade

©Bill Gnade 2007/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.

O'bummer

To say that I am shocked by the result of tonight's Democratic Party primary in New Hampshire is undeniable. I have been walking around for the past few days predicting that Barack Obama would EASILY win in New Hampshire, and that John Edwards would come in second. Hillary Clinton, I predicted, would come in third. Tonight, while watching the precinct reports come in, my incredulity was so pointed I suspected voter fraud! Hillary Clinton wins? Are you kidding me?

Tonight I will go to bed with one fact to consider: I am terrible at prognostication. I shall leave off making predictions from now on. I've no right playing the prophet. No right at all.

(This night also raises further questions about the predictive value of exit polls. Of course, I noticed on Fox News that there was something of a prediction about the predictions: Fox News was citing in advance what the polls suggested without waiting till all the exit polls were tallied. Around 9:oo pm EST, Fox posted the final exit poll data; Clinton won by two points [or thereabouts]. Moreover, about midday I heard a radio report that some exit polls were showing Obama was winning by 10 percentage points or greater. Such reports could surely affect those voters heading to cast a ballot who have a bit of the love of the underdog in them, you know, they are sympathy voters. Yesterday Hillary "cried"; yesterday her husband declared that the media were being unfair; today it seemed she was getting beaten up. Could not a few voters have cast their votes Hillary's way simply so she would not be too badly beaten, too badly embarrassed?)

O'bummer, indeed.

By the way, Barack Obama's concession speech was the best of the night. My conviction is rather bland but not blandly held: Obama's concession speech was more inspiring -- and more interesting -- than ANY victory speech Hillary Clinton could ever deliver.

Just a few post-primary thoughts.

Peace to you,

Gnade

©Bill Gnade 2007/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.

Frame of Reference: Politics of Perspective

I would urge readers to take a few minutes to read Bret Stephens' wonderful op-ed in today's Wall Street Journal, Great (American) Expectations.

Let me know what you think.

BG

The Day Of Evacuation

Happy New Year!

Despite the belatedness of that salutation, I sincerely pray as I begin today a new year of blogging, that this new year will truly be a blessed one for all my readers and friends. God speed!

________________________

In just a few short hours, THEY will all just leave. They will leave New Hampshire faster than autumn foliage flies off trees in an October hurricane; they will leave faster than leaf-peepers empty their rooms at sundry inns at the first sign of heavy snow, or as fast as skiers leave the slopes in a downpour.

But in their rush to get out of here, jetting off to South Carolina or Michigan, THEY will leave behind thousands of campaign signs buried in December's record-breaking snows. It should be an ugly spring, as receding snowbanks reveal evidence of some strange temporary civilization, like creeping sand dunes reveal the detritus of a forsaken temple and court. Huckabee and Obama signs will appear in March; and Henry Hewes' name will stick out of the April mud, prompting not a few to ask, "Who the hell is Henry Hewes?"

Obama, Clinton, Edwards, Richardson, Kucinich, Dodd, McCain, Romney, Huckabee, Guiliani, Paul, Hunter -- these are just a few of the names that peer over snowbanks, that shout from telephone poles, that litter the New Hampshire landscape. Yes, tomorrow morning staffers will try -- in theory, at least -- to ride the roads and byways to retrieve the refuse of the democratic process; to collect signs of their favorite names. But they will not completely succeed to rid our land of this blight; there will be more than enough forensic evidence left behind to prove that some sort of crime has been committed.

Outsiders cannot know what it is like to be in this state, especially in those particularly gorgeous or photogenic or quirky areas of the Granite State that attract candidates for photo ops. Satellite trucks and news crews and photographers and placard-carrying supporters -- many supporters from every state but this one -- choke our streets, our sidewalks: a parking spot Saturday in Peterborough, NH was won with a prayer and toss of the dice, as was a seat in any restaurant, as McCain, Kucinich and Clinton campaign workers (these three were the most evident this day) brought their message everywhere. Such would be the routine the next day, and then the day after that, and then the day after that. And then? Well, tonight, everyone disappears.

________________________

Yesterday I saw Bill Clinton. While his presence in my hometown was not huge, it was -- to some -- hugely disruptive.

Here's something for you to consider. As I stood outside the Peterborough Town House after Mr. Clinton's town hall-type meeting, dozens of folks walked by me as they exited that fine event. Not everyone exiting that impressive red-brick hall passed my way, but many did. And the most common statement I overheard was this, always uttered with a mix of dreamy nostalgia and wistfulness: "I wish I could vote for him again!" One must assume that such comments are not good news for Mrs. Clinton: voters LIKE her because they LOVE her husband. Such comments prove that this might very well be all about Bill: a vote for Hillary is really a vote for some vague, shadowy even mythological past. Indeed, as I stood in a gaggle of gawkers hoping to ogle the former president, everyone to a person commented with all due conviction just how "good he is" at communicating; that Bill Clinton just loves to work a crowd. But there were no similar comments in this nearly all-blue Democratic town directed at Mrs. Clinton. She was just "nothing special."

________________________

Barack Obama comes out of New Hampshire the winner, or so I (easily!) predict (McCain will win the Republican vote, but it will not be the big news, nor will it last). But it must be remembered that New Hampshire has become something of a very quirky state: This is a state obsessed with politics (in a sense, it is probably our biggest industry). In fact, I would say politics are far more a religion in this state -- especially for those on the left -- than in many other parts of the United States. This ardor and zeal -- entirely overwrought, in my opinion -- is the direct result of New Hampshire's grip on the first in the nation primary. Should a national lottery be instituted that breaks that grip, the power base in this state -- also overwrought and misplaced and even a bit unnatural -- would be weakened considerably. In fact, a case could be made that the primary in New Hampshire is a stranglehold: diversity of opinion and opportunity are suppressed by a machinery that prepares constantly to mold a new leader every four years. Money pours in here by the train load; shakers and movers keep shaking but they don't really move, staying put to prepare the ground for the next election cycle.

For me, I am all for sharing the first primary with other states. I think a different state should start the process every cycle, and that a state should learn whether it will host a primary no more than 9 months in advance. I think we would get a better sense of the democratic process if candidates were unsure where they should begin their bids. Just think of how fun it would be to see candidates hastily stake out turf in a state that -- unlike New Hampshire -- has not been preparing for them for 3 or 4 years.

But I did start this section by pointing out that New Hampshire is a quirky state. In 1992, Republican Pat Buchanan nearly won the primary over George Bush I. But this was simply a protest vote: it was meant to push the elder Bush further to the right (Buchanan would win in 1996 over Bob Dole in a similar protest). The Buchanan protest tactic was to send a message: don't forget your values. The Obama victory may -- I emphasize MAY -- be in part a message to other Democratic front-runners, particularly Mrs. Clinton: We want you to be more like HIM.

Just primary thoughts.

Peace to you,

Gnade

©Bill Gnade 2007/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.