Comments on: Building Bridges http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/2007/11/15/building-bridges/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=building-bridges n. the principle of good order<br /><br /> "Observe the strange inversion of all order and sense! Dignity debased; how vilely is the function of a consul prostituted!" ~The Craftsman Fri, 10 Feb 2012 02:25:26 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Eunomia » Definitely Not Helping http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/2007/11/15/building-bridges/comment-page-1/#comment-12211 Eunomia » Definitely Not Helping Mon, 14 Jul 2008 07:53:25 +0000 http://larison.org/2007/11/15/building-bridges/#comment-12211 [...] Almost everyone except for the people who work at The New Yorker seems to have grasped that, whether intended as satire or not, the effect of the cover image is disastrous for the Obama campaign.  The timing might have been worse, but not by much, since Obama is getting ready to go on his trip out of the country.  The image is the most complete expression of the inexplicable desire of Obama supporters to “help” the candidate by portraying him in what are actually the most unflattering and politically damaging ways possible while simultaneously believing that they are pre-emptively defending and praising the things they are describing.  This cover image is slightly different, in that it is trying to undermine the worst attacks by revealing them to be nonsensical caricatures, but nonetheless the artist seems incapable of imagining that there are many voters, particularly those who don’t know that much about Obama, who will see this image flashed on their television screens or attached to chain e-mails and think, “I knew there was something about that Obama I didn’t like, and now I see what it is!”  No doubt many Obama supporters thinks this gives a lot of voters too little credit, but they have been giving them too much for a long time.  Besides, this isn’t just a question of voter savviness–the power of suggestion can be great, and in a tightly contested race, in which the challenger has not yet won the confidence of a majority of voters, any lingering doubts that prevent people from supporting the challenger could be decisive.  The less informed undecided voters are, the more susceptible they will be to such an image, which will plant seeds of doubt where there might have been none before.  [...] [...] Almost everyone except for the people who work at The New Yorker seems to have grasped that, whether intended as satire or not, the effect of the cover image is disastrous for the Obama campaign.  The timing might have been worse, but not by much, since Obama is getting ready to go on his trip out of the country.  The image is the most complete expression of the inexplicable desire of Obama supporters to “help” the candidate by portraying him in what are actually the most unflattering and politically damaging ways possible while simultaneously believing that they are pre-emptively defending and praising the things they are describing.  This cover image is slightly different, in that it is trying to undermine the worst attacks by revealing them to be nonsensical caricatures, but nonetheless the artist seems incapable of imagining that there are many voters, particularly those who don’t know that much about Obama, who will see this image flashed on their television screens or attached to chain e-mails and think, “I knew there was something about that Obama I didn’t like, and now I see what it is!”  No doubt many Obama supporters thinks this gives a lot of voters too little credit, but they have been giving them too much for a long time.  Besides, this isn’t just a question of voter savviness–the power of suggestion can be great, and in a tightly contested race, in which the challenger has not yet won the confidence of a majority of voters, any lingering doubts that prevent people from supporting the challenger could be decisive.  The less informed undecided voters are, the more susceptible they will be to such an image, which will plant seeds of doubt where there might have been none before.  [...]

]]> By: Eunomia » Obama And Globalism http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/2007/11/15/building-bridges/comment-page-1/#comment-9580 Eunomia » Obama And Globalism Mon, 17 Mar 2008 06:35:05 +0000 http://larison.org/2007/11/15/building-bridges/#comment-9580 [...] That’s right.  If only someone would have made some effort to write about Obama’s family, the difficult task would not fall to Roger Cohen.  Maybe this someone could have written a book.  (What makes even less sense about all this is that Cohen obviously knows about the book and even remarks on it later in the column.)  Now, in fairness, Cohen is finally responding to the danger I was describing in past months that comes from his fans’ fixation on Obama’s diverse background.  But to say that “more needs to be written,” when lengthy discussions of Obama’s biography have been included in every single candidate profile and half of the news stories about him, is really another way of saying, “We Obama-boosting pundits need to start framing Obama’s biography in ways that will guard against the obvious criticism that we now know is coming.”  A smarter move would have been to emphasise the American part of Obama’s biography.  Less interesting as a topic of cafe conversation?  Undoubtedly, but politically much better for Obama.  Well, it’s too late for that now, so it’s time to put a good spin on what Cohen and other pro-Obama pundits assumed was an obvious asset that is already becoming a liability, and so we get this new column.  [...] [...] That’s right.  If only someone would have made some effort to write about Obama’s family, the difficult task would not fall to Roger Cohen.  Maybe this someone could have written a book.  (What makes even less sense about all this is that Cohen obviously knows about the book and even remarks on it later in the column.)  Now, in fairness, Cohen is finally responding to the danger I was describing in past months that comes from his fans’ fixation on Obama’s diverse background.  But to say that “more needs to be written,” when lengthy discussions of Obama’s biography have been included in every single candidate profile and half of the news stories about him, is really another way of saying, “We Obama-boosting pundits need to start framing Obama’s biography in ways that will guard against the obvious criticism that we now know is coming.”  A smarter move would have been to emphasise the American part of Obama’s biography.  Less interesting as a topic of cafe conversation?  Undoubtedly, but politically much better for Obama.  Well, it’s too late for that now, so it’s time to put a good spin on what Cohen and other pro-Obama pundits assumed was an obvious asset that is already becoming a liability, and so we get this new column.  [...]

]]> By: Eunomia » All Too Common http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/2007/11/15/building-bridges/comment-page-1/#comment-9443 Eunomia » All Too Common Tue, 11 Mar 2008 01:37:23 +0000 http://larison.org/2007/11/15/building-bridges/#comment-9443 [...] Put this in the “how Republicans will run against Obama” file.  What’s remarkable about the coverage of this statement and Obama’s reaction to the statement is that King’s comments are mostly run-of-the-mill rhetoric against so-called “appeasers” who are “weak” on national security, augmented with very deliberate use of Obama’s middle name and precisely the reversed form of Sullivan’s argument for Obama that I said could be used against him: The other problem with this talk of Obama as a bridge-builder with the Islamic world is that people might take it rather too seriously and see him as being too close to the Islamic world.   [...] [...] Put this in the “how Republicans will run against Obama” file.  What’s remarkable about the coverage of this statement and Obama’s reaction to the statement is that King’s comments are mostly run-of-the-mill rhetoric against so-called “appeasers” who are “weak” on national security, augmented with very deliberate use of Obama’s middle name and precisely the reversed form of Sullivan’s argument for Obama that I said could be used against him: The other problem with this talk of Obama as a bridge-builder with the Islamic world is that people might take it rather too seriously and see him as being too close to the Islamic world.   [...]

]]> By: Daniel Larison http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/2007/11/15/building-bridges/comment-page-1/#comment-8123 Daniel Larison Fri, 16 Nov 2007 23:47:26 +0000 http://larison.org/2007/11/15/building-bridges/#comment-8123 The strangest thing about the "Obama will improve our standing in the world" is that it simply projects onto Obama whatever it is that the person saying this thinks needs to be changed about our foreign relations, and then assumes that an Obama administration will then govern according to the projection that the observer has made and thus improve relations with other countries. This is the very complex theory of international relations that says, "If I like my President and what he represents to me, the rest of the world will feel the same." I was trying to allude to the absurdity of Castaneda's remarks, but I think I was not blunt enough here. Obviously, the idea that a black President *improves* our relations with most governments around the world takes no account of the attitudes of the nations involved. Of course, I agree that a move away from exceptionalism would be most desirable, but Obama does not really depart from that tradition--he simply reformulates this same bad habit in a different way. The strangest thing about the “Obama will improve our standing in the world” is that it simply projects onto Obama whatever it is that the person saying this thinks needs to be changed about our foreign relations, and then assumes that an Obama administration will then govern according to the projection that the observer has made and thus improve relations with other countries. This is the very complex theory of international relations that says, “If I like my President and what he represents to me, the rest of the world will feel the same.” I was trying to allude to the absurdity of Castaneda’s remarks, but I think I was not blunt enough here. Obviously, the idea that a black President *improves* our relations with most governments around the world takes no account of the attitudes of the nations involved. Of course, I agree that a move away from exceptionalism would be most desirable, but Obama does not really depart from that tradition–he simply reformulates this same bad habit in a different way.

]]> By: empiricus http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/2007/11/15/building-bridges/comment-page-1/#comment-8121 empiricus Fri, 16 Nov 2007 18:31:46 +0000 http://larison.org/2007/11/15/building-bridges/#comment-8121 Black Sea - I agree with pretty much all of what you say - and I agree that these various sorts of cabinet level affirmative action schemes are ridiculous. On the other hand, a president who didn't have so damned (expletive retained) much American exceptionalism in his neorcortex (or amygdala in GWB's case) would be a big improvement (I really don't care about the veins; one of many reasons why I'd never be a paleo) . In that regard (Bill) Clinton strikes me as rather better than average, with Eisenhower probably the other best postwar pres. GWB in regard to exceptionalism as in so many other ways appears to represent the all time low of the Republic; any other nominations? Wilson comes to mind as probably the leading contender. To nitpick a couple of points, of course Ahhnuld is constitutionally unable to be elected, and some parts of the Constitution still sort of matter. And re Mexico, one might note that their presidents/dictators seem to be getting whiter on average: Benito Juarez was of course full blooded Indio, and a few of the other post-Reform presidents were pretty dark too (e.g. Huerta). But the only one I can think of in the last 50 years who looked decidedly non-European was Diaz Ordaz. Black Sea -

I agree with pretty much all of what you say – and I agree that these various sorts of cabinet level affirmative action schemes are ridiculous. On the other hand, a president who didn’t have so damned (expletive retained) much American exceptionalism in his neorcortex (or amygdala in GWB’s case) would be a big improvement (I really don’t care about the veins; one of many reasons why I’d never be a paleo) . In that regard (Bill) Clinton strikes me as rather better than average, with Eisenhower probably the other best postwar pres. GWB in regard to exceptionalism as in so many other ways appears to represent the all time low of the Republic; any other nominations? Wilson comes to mind as probably the leading contender.

To nitpick a couple of points, of course Ahhnuld is constitutionally unable to be elected, and some parts of the Constitution still sort of matter.

And re Mexico, one might note that their presidents/dictators seem to be getting whiter on average: Benito Juarez was of course full blooded Indio, and a few of the other post-Reform presidents were pretty dark too (e.g. Huerta). But the only one I can think of in the last 50 years who looked decidedly non-European was Diaz Ordaz.

]]> By: black sea http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/2007/11/15/building-bridges/comment-page-1/#comment-8117 black sea Fri, 16 Nov 2007 13:08:05 +0000 http://larison.org/2007/11/15/building-bridges/#comment-8117 The comments of Cohen, Ignatieff, and Jorge Castenda represent the typlcally brainless, politics-as-blood-mysticism school of governance. One might as well argue that George W. Bush has the Executive Office in his veins. In additon to "41," Bush's mother Barbara is a member of the Pierce family, which spawned Franklin Pierce. So as you see, George W. has "greatness" in his veins! On both sides! The only problem is that, despite the bloodlines, he's a disaster. Why not nominate Schwarzenegger so as to rebuild our bridges with European allies, or Bobby Jindal, Lousiana's Indian-American governor, to signal to the rising Asian economies our openess to investment and trade? Or maybe we could appoint an utterly undistinguished Hispanic judge to the position of Attorney General in order to send the message that . . . oh wait, never mind. This sort of approach doesn't even rise to the level of thought, and yet it seems to be a staple of the NY Times Editorial Board, which explains a good deal. By the way, in Cohen's piece, former Mexican foreign minister Castenada is quoted as saying, “My sense is the symbolism in Mexico of a dark-skinned American president would be enormous. We’ve got female leaders now in Latin America — in Chile, in Argentina. But the idea of a U.S. leader who looks the way the world looks as seen from Mexico is revolutionary.” So, when, exactly, did Mexico last elect a president who "looks the way the world looks as seen from Mexico"? Felipe Calderon? Vincente Fox? Gee, from the shores of Mexico, the world must look a whiter shade of pale. The comments of Cohen, Ignatieff, and Jorge Castenda represent the typlcally brainless, politics-as-blood-mysticism school of governance. One might as well argue that George W. Bush has the Executive Office in his veins. In additon to “41,” Bush’s mother Barbara is a member of the Pierce family, which spawned Franklin Pierce. So as you see, George W. has “greatness” in his veins! On both sides!

The only problem is that, despite the bloodlines, he’s a disaster.

Why not nominate Schwarzenegger so as to rebuild our bridges with European allies, or Bobby Jindal, Lousiana’s Indian-American governor, to signal to the rising Asian economies our openess to investment and trade? Or maybe we could appoint an utterly undistinguished Hispanic judge to the position of Attorney General in order to send the message that . . . oh wait, never mind.

This sort of approach doesn’t even rise to the level of thought, and yet it seems to be a staple of the NY Times Editorial Board, which explains a good deal.

By the way, in Cohen’s piece, former Mexican foreign minister Castenada is quoted as saying, “My sense is the symbolism in Mexico of a dark-skinned American president would be enormous. We’ve got female leaders now in Latin America — in Chile, in Argentina. But the idea of a U.S. leader who looks the way the world looks as seen from Mexico is revolutionary.”

So, when, exactly, did Mexico last elect a president who “looks the way the world looks as seen from Mexico”?

Felipe Calderon? Vincente Fox? Gee, from the shores of Mexico, the world must look a whiter shade of pale.

]]> By: DaveZ http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/2007/11/15/building-bridges/comment-page-1/#comment-8116 DaveZ Fri, 16 Nov 2007 04:43:00 +0000 http://larison.org/2007/11/15/building-bridges/#comment-8116 It should be noted that Ignatieff is usually also wrong about matters inside Canada's borders. Actually, Ignatieff ought to know better than most how being a "globalized leader" can be a major political liability. When he ran for the leadership of the Liberal party, one of the main criticisms he faced was that he had spent the last 20 years out of the country and didn't seem to have much attachment to Canada. In response to questions as to why he returned to Canada, his answer was to say that while the U.S. is a nice country to live in, Canada has gay marriage, so he thought he'd come back and run for prime minister. Not even Canadian liberals could stomach Ignatieff's sappy internationalism, and he lost the leadership to an even worse candidate. If Ignatieff's example has any relevance for Obama, then one assumes things will not go well for him. It should be noted that Ignatieff is usually also wrong about matters inside Canada’s borders. Actually, Ignatieff ought to know better than most how being a “globalized leader” can be a major political liability. When he ran for the leadership of the Liberal party, one of the main criticisms he faced was that he had spent the last 20 years out of the country and didn’t seem to have much attachment to Canada. In response to questions as to why he returned to Canada, his answer was to say that while the U.S. is a nice country to live in, Canada has gay marriage, so he thought he’d come back and run for prime minister. Not even Canadian liberals could stomach Ignatieff’s sappy internationalism, and he lost the leadership to an even worse candidate. If Ignatieff’s example has any relevance for Obama, then one assumes things will not go well for him.

]]>