Appearances Matter
Financial Times hearts Obama. His unchallenged campaign impressed FT, along with the socialized medicine. Trade not so much. No ideas of his own re the economy. But there and in foreign policy, an equanimous delivery trumps. An odd thing to say about either subject, especially in time of economic turmoil and war, when we have very real economic problems and very real enemies and even people who theoretically are our allies who would like nothing more than a calm, reasonable American surrender. I guess FT likes it superficial. What is interesting is what a strong argument this endorsement is for not electing Obama:
At the outset, we were not so confident. Mr Obama is inexperienced. His policies are a blend of good, not so good and downright bad. Since the election will strengthen Democratic control of Congress, a case can be made for returning a Republican to the White House: divided government has a better record in the United States than government united under either party.
So far so good.
Mr Obama fought a much better campaign. Campaigning is not the same as governing, and the presidency should not be a prize for giving the best speeches, devising the best television advertisements, shaking the most hands and kissing the most babies.
Or getting your ass kissed by more reporters.
Nonetheless, a campaign is a test of leadership. Mr Obama ran his superbly; Mr McCain’s has often looked a shambles. After eight years of George W. Bush, the steady competence of the Obama operation commands respect.
Well, it certainly got it from the majority of major media outlets. I’m not sure it was the steady competence, though, so much as the Messianic glow. In fact, apparently the press operation was a bit of a trainwreck. And the plane smelled.
Nor should one disdain Mr Obama’s way with a crowd. Good presidents engage the country’s attention; great ones inspire. Mr McCain, on form, is an adequate speaker but no more. Mr Obama, on form, is as fine a political orator as the country has heard in decades. Put to the right purposes, this is no mere decoration but a priceless asset.
“Right purposes” being the key phrase there. Hitler, Stalin and Saddam Hussein could deliver real barnburners, which some people liked. Some people also like Osama bin Laden’s speeches, though I’ve found them creepy. Ahmadinejad, I have to say, is more of a geopolitical standup act.
Mr Obama’s purposes do seem mostly right, though in saying this we give him the benefit of the doubt.
More like the benefit of looking earnestly in the other direction.
Above all, he prizes consensus and genuinely seeks to unite the country, something it wants. His call for change struck a mighty chord in a tired and demoralised nation – and who could promise real change more credibly than Mr Obama, a black man, whose very nomination was a historic advance in US politics?
A vote for McCain is a vote for an old white guy. Fascinating how this great leap forward in race relations in the United States has ended up as an exercise in actively suppressing any effort to judge the Democratic candidate by the content of his character.
We applaud his main domestic proposal: comprehensive health-care reform. This plan would achieve nearly universal insurance without the mandates of rival schemes: characteristically, it combines a far-sighted goal with moderation in the method. Mr McCain’s plan, based on extending tax relief beyond employer-provided insurance, also has merit – it would contain costs better – but is too timid and would widen coverage much less.
Damn the expense … full socialism ahead!
Mr Obama is most disappointing on trade. He pandered to protectionists during the primaries, and has not rowed back. He may be sincere, which is troubling. Should he win the election, a Democratic Congress will expect him to keep those trade-thumping promises. Mr McCain has been bravely and consistently pro-trade, much to his credit.
In responding to the economic emergency, Mr Obama has again impressed – not by advancing solutions of his own, but in displaying a calm and methodical disposition, and in seeking the best advice. Mr McCain’s hasty half-baked interventions were unnerving when they were not beside the point.
Yes, I believe he took George Bush’s advice, and showed up for his meeting.
On foreign policy, where the candidates have often conspired to exaggerate their differences, this contrast in temperaments seems crucial. For all his experience, Mr McCain has seemed too much guided by an instinct for peremptory action, an exaggerated sense of certainty, and a reluctance to see shades of grey.
As opposed to an enthusiasm for surrender, a failure to see signs of victory, and an inability to recognize the enemy.
He has offered risk-taking almost as his chief qualification, but gambles do not always pay off. His choice of Sarah Palin as running mate, widely acknowledged to have been a mistake, is an obtrusive case in point. Rashness is not a virtue in a president. The cautious and deliberate Mr Obama is altogether a less alarming prospect.
Beltway hairplugs, reassuring. Moose-hunting reform, rash.
Rest assured that, should he win, Mr Obama is bound to disappoint. How could he not? He is expected to heal the country’s racial divisions, reverse the trend of rising inequality, improve middle-class living standards, cut almost everybody’s taxes, transform the image of the United States abroad, end the losses in Iraq, deal with the mess in Afghanistan and much more besides.
Hey, what happened to the change-hoping?
Succeeding in those endeavours would require more than uplifting oratory and presidential deportment even if the economy were growing rapidly, which it will not be.
The challenges facing the next president will be extraordinary. We hesitate to wish it on anyone, but we hope that Mr Obama gets the job.
Because it is more important to look good than to feel good.
Surber: Cheeky Brits! It’s always US out of here, US out of there. Howzabout Brits out of US politics! Surber thought we pushed them out 200-odd years ago.
Bill Whittle, The Corner, with Three Circles of Shame.
Hot Air’s got your Obamarxism.
Malkin: It’s not socialism, it’s “redistributive change.”
Riehl … freakin’ great dodge!
Gateway: A McCain endorsement from people whose lives depend on it.
Tigerhawk: The consequences of lefty sexism
Posted by Jules Crittenden at 8:38 am on Monday, October 27, 2008
One Response to “Appearances Matter”
Leave a Reply
Trackback URLYou must be logged in to post a comment.
October 27th, 2008 at 1:06 pm
The Thunder Run has linked to this post in the - Web Reconnaissance for 10/27/2008 A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day…so check back often.