Convention miscellany

David G. writes:

I was waiting for Michelle Obama to say that she loved America. And here’s how she arrived at that sentiment:

All of us driven by a simple belief that the world as it is just won’t do—that we have an obligation to fight for the world as it should be.

That is the thread that connects our hearts. That is the thread that runs through my journey and Barack’s journey and so many other improbable journeys that have brought us here tonight, where the current of history meets this new tide of hope.

That is why I love this country.

When I heard Michelle Obama deliver the sentence, “That is why I love this country,” it struck me instantly as a non-sequitur. It is amazingly bad speech-writing and it cheats the attentive listener. You literally “don’t believe your ears.”

Isn’t Michelle Obama really just saying that there are threads of activism working for “social justice” that have now met up with Barack’s new tide of hope—and, therefore, what?—I love my country? Preposterous. Social activism meeting it’s political messiah is not something confined to, or definitive of, America as a country.

What Michelle loves is merely the dynamic of events that have placed her in the role as potential first lady and her husband as potential president. That dynamic, to Michelle Obama, is sui generis; it has its own origin and energy and is actually not perceived by her as a mainstream component or product of American history. The dynamic is defined as “the world as it should be”, which is the opposite of the actual historical nation defined as “the world as it is.”

This dynamic will save America from its past. That is why Barack is seen as something so new, so revelatory—he stands outside the nation, he is ahistorical. Michelle Obama loves America to the extent that America is the happenstance place, the undefined entity, where the dynamic has swept her into power; the love for America will continue as long as the dynamic produces results. The Obama’s reminds me of stormchasers who love the tornado not necessarily Kansas or Nebraska. If Barack gets elected America is great but if he loses its back to the “world as it is.” And America, when defined as the “world as it is”, is not a very good place.

LA replies:

But this has been the standard left-liberal view of America for at least the last 20 years, as well as the right-liberal view (e.g., Bush, Rice, McCain, neocons). There is no entity America. There is no historical nation and people that we are a part of. “America” is a progressive process, coming ever closer to the realization of its founding ideals, ideals according to which the actual country and people are no good. And the closer we get to the realization of the ideals, the worse the actual historical country and people appear to have been. According to both left-liberals and right-liberals, to be a patriot is to love and believe in the process of transcending and destroying America as an actual country.

Roger G. writes:

Unbelievable. I’m looking at a replay of Kennedy addressing the convention. The adoration. No one gives a damn (or ever has} that he left a girl to drown—not to mention so many lesser outrages

How can it be that no one cares? I feel like I’m living in Bizarro world

Like myself, Ted Kennedy (and also Bill Clinton, for that matter) was a rugby player, so don’t let anyone ever tell you that rugby isn’t character-building.

This Kennedy anecdote from the internet might interest you.

- During one match in 1954, Ted got into three fistfights with opposing players and was finally thrown out of the game. According to referee Frederick Costick, Teddy was the only player he had ever expelled from a game in thirty years of officiating.—“Rugby is a character-building sport,” Costick said. “Players learn how to conduct themselves on the field with the idea that they will learn how to conduct themselves in life. When a player loses control of himself three times in a single afternoon, to my mind, that is a sign that, in a crisis, the man is not capable of thinking clearly and acting rationally. Such a man will panic under pressure.”

Steven H. writes:

I listened to all of the prepared speech delivered by Michelle Obama.

I have a question. If America is so great (now) why is she so angry. Why does she worship an angry ant-white black god that wants to destroy white people?

Both of her brothers went to Princeton. How?

Their pastor is not the biggest problem. The biggest problem is their religion—Black Liberation Theology. If more Americans understood BLT this black bigot would never get elected.

I saw a program on a black channel called TVONE yesterday. The show was 3 hours of hatred towards whites and is now this perception of our history is becoming what is now mainstream. It was called the “Last 500Years”. Unfortunately, this type of thought along with reparations and a willing Supreme Court will be our Obama blessing.

LA writes:

A commenter at the Commentary blog, Jonas Menchik, writes:

It is fascinating that many pundits thought McCain was going to hang the campaign on his narrative. They said McCain can’t win as a war hero.

On the flip side, the DNC is all biography, feelings, photos, and warm relationships. Is it a good idea to adopt the losing strategy of the competition? Why is Obama trying to convince us that he is an everyday American, now? Well, actually, Obama has been doing this from the beginning. When he spoke in front of Jewish audiences, he attributed the lack of support to his funny name or malicious emails.

This is the pattern. Obama’s change has no details or real ideas. The one and only thing he runs on is his biography. He is multi-cultural America incarnate, and the brainwashing at the universities has garnered him some support from urban elites. Obama could switch to issues, but then he would have to take a position and defend it. When has that happened in His illustrious career? Think he will start now? That would require change.

LA writes:

Kathryn Jean Lopez] writes at the Corner:

“All of us driven by a simple belief that the world as it is just won’t do—that we have an obligation to fight for the world as it should be.”

That line from the Michelle speech has been bothering me all night. The world isn’t perfect, of course, but it doesn’t have to be fundamentally remade. It suggests to me roots in something a lot more radical than anything I’d—and most people?—would subscribe to. We’ve got a lot right, a lot to conserve. We don’t have to remake the world in some idealistic professor’s construct or anything …

Paul K. writes:

As indicated by the NYT article you linked yesterday, it’s clear that the Democrats are getting panicky about their chances with Obama. In interviews at the convention last night, I kept hearing questions about how they can overcome the Republican attack machine’s success at painting him as unpatriotic, unAmerican, otherly, scary, untrustworthy, etc. Apparently, the Republicans have an ability to make any old accusation stick, and the Democrats just aren’t good at this sort of thing; too high minded, you know. The current approach is to have Obama say reassuring things like, “I have to say I don’t find myself particularly scary, or particularly risky,” or, “Let me be clear: I will let no one question my love of this country,” which simply reinforce the original aspersion. [LA replies: Didn’t Kerry repeatedly say something almost identical to that in 2004?]

To the real Lefties, the problem is not just criticism of Obama, but any unfavorable news whatsoever. They are convinced that the entire media, from the television networks, to the newspapers, even to putatively liberal blogs, is arrayed against their candidate; after all, it may publish ten puff-pieces for every one mildly critical one, but that mildly critical one undoes all the work. [LA replies: Yes, that’s the liberal paradigm. As long as there is any non-liberal statement anywhere, as long as there is any discrimination anywhere, as long as even a single person anywhere diapproves of homosexuality, the liberal project is mortally threatened. GW Bush has his own version of this, expressed in his 2005 inaugural address: as long as there is a single tyranny anywhere on earth, our freedom is threatened. And, of course, Islam has its own version of the same paradigm.]

This attitude is described in “Netroots push back against MSM ‘bias,’” posted at Politico: “It’s not hard to find liberal bloggers calling out the Gray Lady in today’s political media environment. Earlier this month, when The Associated Press described the Times as belonging to the “liberal media,” one Daily Kos writer asked, “Since when does anyone besides toolbag Republicans consider the media to be liberal?” [LA replies: This is the standard left view, that the “liberal dominated mainstream media” is a right-wing invention, because the mainstream news media—NY Times, Washington Post, NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN—are really right wing.]

“If you’re a little bit critical of Barack Obama, you really get a pie of vilification right in the face,” said Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen, adding that his liberal critics “were born too late, because they would have been great communists.” (He can’t acknowledge that they ARE Communists.)

Tyler Cowen, who runs the left-leaning Marginal Revolution blog, is alarmed at what he describes as “Obama Insecurity.” After posting an objective analysis of the ramifications of Obama’s proposed tax plan, showing some rates raised, some lowered on the middle class, he was blistered by the response. He observed:

For some people no comment on Obama, other than the purely laudatory, is anything other than a hackish right-wing attempt to forge an alliance of lies with Karl Rove and his ilk. But an election need not be framed as a war where all remarks must be strategically proper and in line with the objective of electing a preferred candidate; a blog is a discourse first and foremost…. I cannot imagine how devastated and hopeless the Democratic left would feel if Obama loses…. The left is uneasy that so many of their hopes are pinned on this man and as Paul Krugman points out he is somewhat unknown…. ‘Obama insecurity’ hurts his electoral chances and hurts the intellectual future of the left as a corrective force in American politics. There’s not a convincing or credible path toward painting his enemies as immoral, even if that is what you believe. Some campaign lies are painting Obama as weak, inexperienced, and non-American or even anti-American. Responding with a dose of ‘Obama insecurity’ only plays into the hands of those who would turn this into a race of emotions and innuendo.

There will certainly be interesting repercussions however this election turns out. I have advised friends not to find themselves traveling through the diverse section of town on election night.

LA writes:

An interesting observation by Paul at Powerline:

DAUGHTER, SISTER, WIFE, MOTHER—PRE-FEMINISM COMES TO THE DEMCRATIC CONVENTION

Michelle Obama is an accomplished woman. She graduated from Princeton and from Harvard Law School. She became a member of the bar and practiced law at a top Chicago law firm. After that, she took on a prominent role as a lawyer for a major hospital.

Yet last night, at least according to the transcript of her speech, she mentioned none of these accomplishments. Instead, her speech portrayed her as the daughter of her “rock” of a father, the sister of the estimable Craig Robinson, the wife of Barack, and the mother of small, cute daughters.

It was a pre-feminist speech.

For the Obamas, the need to impress voters with Michelle’s “ordinariness” (a counter-intuitive notion) clearly trumped the need to adhere to the feminist narrative so dear to the heart of Hillary Clinton’s core supporters.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at August 26, 2008 10:59 AM | Send