Centerfield

As I predicted. Obama and Hillary will move more towards center having made the initial moves to appease the anti-war. 2008 will be about security. If you look at Obama's comments in 2004, he was a bit more hawkish and so was Hillary.. In the end, it might be a Hillary/Obama ticket, so convergence now is understandable. One other note: as the Republicans mute their own “action” messages (kudos to standing tough), there is some room for Hillary and Obama to sport some hawkishness and resolve. They want to offset their past sound bites for 2008. Remember, the Left has aired some biting ads about Rice and Bush DOING NOTHING about Sudan. They imply Bush should invade the Sudan (just listen to the ads) The bloodshed that will follow a withdrawal from Iraq will rival the crime in Darfur. And these words given to AIPAC recently by Obama:

“The world must work to stop Iran's uranium enrichment program and prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. It is far too dangerous to have nuclear weapons in the hands of a radical theocracy,”

Today Russia called on Iran to halt enrichment as Iran increased its anger towards Russian delay of fuel. Obviously the Jews control Putin too. Obama and Hillary would be fatally foolish to ignore events in NK, Iran, Syria, Lebanon and Iraq where mounting global opposition and US resolve has somewhat cornered our adversaries. The Leftist candidate has faltered in France while their soldiers observe Iranian supplied arms going to Hizb'Allah in Lebanon. Even Interpol has arrest papers for Iranian leaders. Who knows what important Iranian detained or defecting military officials have spilled to the West. Perhaps Hillary's and Obama's voting record reflects reality while their stumping reflects political tactics. Many here predicted this behavior. Unfortunately, I find such gambits less than consistent and send the wrong signals to the wrong people at the wrong time.

Posted by: Maxtrue at March 20, 2007 01:52 PM

As far as the SF article:

"The rankings differ if you look only at their 2006 scores. That year Kucinich edged Obama by one point as the most liberal, and Clinton was the least liberal, as she sought re-election and prepared to launch her presidential campaign.

Their ideological purity also varies by issue areas.

Obama, for example, is more liberal on economic and foreign policy issues and slightly less liberal on social policies. Clinton and Dodd are most liberal on social policy questions, less so on economic and foreign policy votes."

Yes, grouping it all together blurs the lines as does the year in question. Obama moved a bit more liberal in foreign policy to relate to the anti-war base. Clinton did something like that as well. The problem is what one defines as liberal. Some liberal ideas go far beyond the past definition of liberal. Lieberman has a high liberal rating and yet he might become a Republican. McCain is all over the place as is Giuliani.

Posted by: Maxtrue at March 20, 2007 02:01 PM

A year from now, I predict that the anti-war left will decide that while they are real unhappy with Obama's lack of unthinking enthusiasm for their cause, a) they really want a candidate who can beat the Republicans, and b) they hate Hilary almost as much as the right wing Republicans. So they will stick with him, albeit from their heads rather than from the heart. (Always assuming that they can bring themselves to vote their heads rather than their emotions. I admit that the evidence is extremely weak there.)

Posted by: wj at March 20, 2007 02:35 PM

We've had the approach-versus-position argument before. I'm not really sure who Simon thinks is making the argument that Obama holds moderate (or centrist?) positions. Maybe they're out there, but I haven't heard from them. But that seems to be the point that Simon is refuting: that Obama holds moderate positions.

What I think some (a few) people may be saying about Obama is that he exhibits a particular type of centrism in his approach to contentious issues. If that's what people are saying, then looking at his votes and assigning scores to them on a liberal-conservative scale is pretty much irrelevent. So citing this or that group's scoring of Obama on that basis is a bit pointless.

What I personally find interesting about Simon's fixation with Obama's positions as opposed to his approach is that, from what I've seen, Simon is the very opposite of Obama, and that's giving him the benefit of the doubt, from the centrist/moderate point of view, regarding the full spectrum of his positions. Simon claims to hold positions that vary along the conservative/liberal spectrum, even if he leans to the right. Let's grant him that. But, again - from what I've seen, Simon's approach is very ideologically rigid. So even if he's isn't toeing the party line or, for instance, blindly supportive of the Bush administration, he is very inflexible, seemingly dogmatically so at times, regarding his beliefs and how he feels those beliefs should be implemented.

The point is that Simon may be (arguably) a centrist with regard to his positions, but an ideologue in his approach, whereas Obama is a liberal with regard to his positions, but a centrist with regard to his approach.

That's my mileage, anyway. And it may open up the old "what is a centrist?" can of worms, as well as possibly suggesting a distinction between "moderate" and "centrist."

Posted by: WHQ at March 20, 2007 03:00 PM

Where is the center? It went decidely to the left the last election. National health care will be the vehicle that takes them all the way, unfortunately.

Republican solution is tax credits. They have made the problem worse by hauling out the remenedy for all societial problems - tax credits!

I am starting to believe that Republicans like minority status. They didn't do much when in the majority. There is a certain comfort about not having to do anything.

Danny L. McDaniel
Lafayette, Indiana

Posted by: DannyLMcDaniel at March 20, 2007 03:20 PM

Whatever lack of W's "diplomacy" (which to most, seems to be a bitter pill since the war took a downward turn), Rodham-Clinton and Obama are nothing but panderers who have absolutely no clue about what they are going to do while in office.
1) at an anti-war meeting, Hillary promises to get us out of Iraq if elected
2) at a pro-Israel meeting Hillary promises "war with Iran is not off the table" (????)ps. Obama did the same thing
3) now both are promising the keep a small number of troops in Iraq to finish the job
If 150,000 could not finish the job, how can 15,000?

Posted by: Rachel at March 20, 2007 04:18 PM

Rachel-

quit complaining and run for office!

Posted by: DannyLMcDaniel at March 20, 2007 09:34 PM

Rachel,
Hillary has backpedaled a bit in her approach to Iraq. Recently she advocated in the NYT to keep "some" troops in Iraq to prevent the worst-case scenario. Yes, how does 15,000 work better than 150,000? Her position however, has been not to let Iraq become a dangerous failed state. I haven't heard her say what Obama has: removing our troops will better the chances for Iraq security. Reid has said that too. He actually said pulling our troops DOES NOT risk a failed state. What? Obama hasn't voted to actually remove our troops. I felt both promoted their run with appeals to the Left. If either thinks they can go to AIPAC in a few months and take credit for Russia pulling out of the Iranian nuke deal, they are kidding themselves. Since they have traditionally been supportive of Israel, it must be killing them not to jump on the US policy bandwagon in regards to Iran. They believe agreeing with Bush is the kiss of death. The French, we have learned, wanted Israel to attack Syria in the last Lebanon adventure. Meanwhile, the Left here was screaming Bush wanted Israel to attack Israel. At some point Democrats must offer a coherent plan. They are falling behind even Europe concerning Middle East perceptions and solutions.

I think Clinton and Obama DO have an idea of what they would do as President regarding foreign policy, but because it would be a modification and not a rejection of Bush policy, they fear talking about that now. Obama has put himself in a hole a bit, because some of his sound bites have been over the top. Hillary has kept it more confusing, giving her more flip potential. She does have a better record of being centrist on foreign policy. Even her social solutions aren't as extreme as Obama. I am not sure why some disagree with Simon that Obama’s approach isn't really centrist. His pandering seems more obvious than Hillary’s. Republicans pander too. Some have not pandered about foreign policy. McCain is betting on improving situations, hoping he can claim the most consistent record.

Iran must accept that Russia turned, the US won't leave Iraq, Europe and Sunnis won't give up Lebanon and Israel will eventual attack if Iran does not change course. This may get the Mullahs to pull back their attack dog. This is our goal. Is there anyone here that thinks these trends are the result of ANYTHING the Democrats have done? Remember, Huo just gave an interesting speech in which he admitted China has a long way to go to provide wealth and freedom to its people. He asked the world not to be scared of China's military growth while endorsing some limited private property rights. Russia and China seem to be reading the global tealeaves. Again, is this trend the result of Democrat(ic) policy or Republican? The consequence of ignoring any news that is positive, means zero political reward for success. Break throughs can ruin political chances for some candidates. That is what happens when you count on failure and it doesn't happen.

Posted by: Maxtrue at March 20, 2007 09:45 PM

I think this fits somewhere in this blog (Iran, Iraq, terrorism, etc.) Don't you?

Posted by: Maxtrue at March 20, 2007 10:44 PM

Rodham-Clinton and Obama are nothing but panderers who have absolutely no clue about what they are going to do while in office.

I'll agree and disagree.

Panderers? A thousand times yes. Of course.

Nothing but panderers? Nope. Panderers by necessity, but still folks who plan to take our country in a certain direction, one different from the current President in many respects. I don't believe either of them has no wish or plan beyond the ardent desire to be elected President. I don't believe many folks think that's true of Obama. More believe it of Hillary Clinton. For example, some (but far from all) men believe it because viscerally they can't stomach a female in charge. I have seen this with my own eyes many times, and know it to be true. Unlike many others, I'm inclined to think Hillary Clinton has our nation's interests well in her heart (IOW that's she's much more than a souless and unprincipled ambitious bitch.) Why? Because she had a front row seat for the 8 years of her husband's Presidency, and still wants the job. So I'm willing to giuve her the benefit of the doubt that her heart ius in the right place. Are her policies right? That's a different discussion. One that's very well worth having if folks can get past personal disparagement.

absolutely no clue about what they are going to do while in office? Naaaaaaaaah. I simply can't imagine someone driven to run for President who doesn't spend TONS of time imagining what they'll do when they win.

I'm not at all convinced that either HC or BO will carry out anything like a rash withdrawal from Iraq unless things are going extremely badly there. Simply, If it's worth staying in order to prevent a failed state, but our enduring presence does not in fact prevent that failure, then there won't BE a reason to stay. And if Iraq keeps muddling along with a semi-functional government making small advances while still plagued by chronic sporadic violence, we'll hang in there in one form or another. That's what I will expect will happen under a Clinton or Obama presidency. They may sound quite different, but I expect their actions will be similar except possibly in response to the most negative outcomes.

I'm not especially troubled that either of these folks panders to the anti-war wing while sending mixed signals that centrist tea readers can interpret as signs that they understand we'll need to keep some sort of presence over the long term. Why? Consider the fate of Joe Lieberman. If either Clinton or Obama were to sound any more hawkish, they'd quickly dip to the single digits and become irrelevant, and then there'd be the risk that they'd be replaced by a new frontrunner who really was ready to simply bail on Iraq, let it fail, and further disgrace our reputation, reinforcing the overseas perception that when the going gets tough, we get going away, and the perception that no longer term committment made by a US head of state can be relied upon.

So I'd be much MORE worried if the democratic frontrunners were NOT talking out of both sides of their mouths.

Posted by: bk at March 21, 2007 09:27 AM

Simon claims to hold positions that vary along the conservative/liberal spectrum, even if he leans to the right. Let's grant him that. But, again - from what I've seen, Simon's approach is very ideologically rigid. So even if he's isn't toeing the party line or, for instance, blindly supportive of the Bush administration, he is very inflexible, seemingly dogmatically so at times, regarding his beliefs and how he feels those beliefs should be implemented.

I don't think that's really true on all issues, or even most: really only on Constitutional issues does that come into play. And there's a good reason for that, which is that my view of the Constitution may not be precisely a declaratory theory, where there's one clearly correct answer, but it does clearly establish that there are some wrong answers, and an interpretation that goes beyond those boundaries is an overriding threat to the rock that anchors the polity.

(And FWIW, I don't think I've ever "toe[d] the party line" or been "blindly supportive of the Bush administration").

On more important matters, though, my question is this. Seems to me that if I'm being accused of creating a straw man in arguing that no one should believe Obama's policy views support the assesment of his being a centrist, that's a concession that all concerned agree there's no way to defend Obama's putative moderation/centrism on the basis of his actual policy views. We all agree, it seems, that if being a moderate or a centrist hinges on policy views, Obama isn't one. Well, okay. That being the case, you need something else to defend him and what folks who aren't actually liberals themselves, but who like Obama because they appreciate his sheep impression's capacity to let loose the wolves on the voters, usually come up with is something like WHQ's observation that Obama "exhibits a particular type of centrism in his approach to contentious issues" (emphasis in original). On what basis does that assertion rest? I challenge that point.

Posted by: Simon at March 21, 2007 01:47 PM

I agree with you, but at this moment, the US IS getting some traction with allies. I am worried that the wrong signals might derail this positive momentum. Already Russia is qualifying their Iranian position and NK wants money unfrozen before even discussing its undeclared uranium enrichment program. Bolton was an interesting sight on Daily Show. At least he didn't blast Bush on NK.

The problem is that if security remains the major concern, Obama's and Hillary's pandering leaves them with a confusing policy come election time. They won't be positioned to take any credit for success and they won't have a realistic plan to reverse failure. I fault the Democrat(ic) Party a bit more than the candidate's pandering.

If you look at the Republican candidates, they are all over the place. Giuliani has softened his support of abortion. McCain reversing his public anger at the religious right, Romney his views when he was Governor, Arnold from his original positions, Hagel, etc... I notice that the far Left and far Right do notice this shape shifting and have blasted the entire field. If a very good event takes place, or a very bad one happens, expect the candidates to reveal their true colors.

I give a lot of credit to Blue Dogs and Conservative Internationalists for hanging tough, and not letting us sink during this period of political pandering. Like I said, Democrats over-reached on Iraq, and now they are over-reaching on Rove and company. I fault leadership, which has forced the pandering game to new heights.

Anyone notice choppers haven't been downed lately in Iraq? Also, Iran has lost several important military officials to the US or Israel, Russia has postponed fuel deliveries to Iran, Huo admits problems and global fears of its military and resource grabbing. Assad has been targeted by the Muslim Brotherhood, AQ has targeted Hamas, France has targeted Hizb'Allah and Syria, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states are preparing to defend themselves in a conflict with Iran, Interpol has warrants for Iranian officials. To ignore these events by HC and BO and build upon policies in place for fear of anti-Bush wrath is also part of pandering. It is the most dangerous form in the sense we may lose the hard fought momentum of world unity that is beginning to raise its head. Also ignoring bad things like the Middle East nations planning to build many nuclear reactors, or terrorists acquiring more weapons and technology, not to mention the friggin ice caps melting is foolish too.

I think I made a good case for the vital role of enforcement and punishment to increase our global capacity to cooperate. If you read the links on a prior thread, I think you would concede that a balance between altruistic cooperation and altruistic punishment has shaped human behavior. This human behavior is quite different from primate behavior we see in monkeys and gorillas. We have simply not created the institutions and instruments for cooperation as our population moves towards 10 billion. By 2037, there will probably be more than 65 million Muslims in Europe, many who advocate an Islamist State.. I’m not talking Big Brother (which is here anyway) as a control rod.. I am talking about strengthening of the collective security and stability and shared responsibility governments depend on, as humanity grows in a crisis fueled mostly by uncontrolled growth. We will have to reach some compromise here politically, if we are to lead the world towards a sustainable future blessed by liberty and health. So far NO candidate has proposed a believable plan of how we are to accomplish this.

Posted by: Maxtrue at March 21, 2007 02:12 PM

My last post was intended for BK. I would not describe Obama's stumps as really centrist. I think his policies tend to be liberal and what I thought was centrist positions on foreign policy seem now to be Leftist. It may all be pandering, but I agree with Simon's observation for the moment. I suspect in the end, Brian is closer to the truth about Obama's political heart and reasoning. I could be completely wrong about this. As I said, events may bring out everyone's true colors. So far, I am skeptical of Obama, a bit more than I am of Hillary. She has her flaws, but I think we know them by now. I do believe she has the best interests of the country at heart, -not corporations, the MIC or the Far Left or Far Right. That is a good foundation for centrist thinking, yes?

As an example, my sister was insulted and humilated in court by a judge deciding if she would get disability (thank God for transcripts). She had a good case supported by medical records and a case worker (shrink). He was completely off base. My sister called and Hillary intervened, had the judge's ruling vacated and got my sister her disability. No one else could or would do anything to help her. I have seen Hillary fight the EPA and administration to provide data and money to help first responders subjected to toxins from 9/11. This is simply not a person who doesn't give a crap. She and her husband have not joined the trash Bush side, nor has Obama. Those that trash her have quite a bit of partisan hatred. We all have our flaws.

Posted by: Maxtrue at March 21, 2007 02:29 PM

...Seems to me that if I'm being accused of creating a straw man in arguing that no one should believe Obama's policy views support the assesment of his being a centrist...

No, the straw men you've been creating are the ones you keep alleging exist, this class of pundits who claims Obama is a centrist. I haven't seen any. The straw is in the framing. You keep asking us why people think he's centrist when his policies show he isn't, but I don't see anyone saying he's centrist, policy or otherwise.

Outside of what WHQ just said and you quoted....which I think raises an interesting point about the distinction between governing approach versus policy. Taking my experiences here as the relevant examples, I do think there's something there. The centrists I know do value an approach that is polite, reasonable, data-driven, and values consensus. I don't think it matters a whit whether or not such behavior is sufficient to grant centrist club membership. The point is that most of think that for a President, it's a better approach than flame-throwing and demagoguing.

Over at SF some of you guys have been willing to concede this much, even while stressing your enduring opposition to him based on his policy.

In this regard Simon, your hypothesis is especially vexing, aince it seem to me that you have suggested that because his preferred policies are liberal, then his approach must therefore be taken to be insincere, false. That he's full of it. That's what bothers me anyway. I don't have any problem with a conservative opposing Obama on the basis of opposition to the policies he prefers. What rubs me the wrong way is the certitude with which you have, in the past, declared your proof of his lack of integrity.

Now you can probably cite chapter and verse on this again if you want, again proving, at least in your eyes, his insincerity. My gut still tells me that Obama is the kind of guy who, as President, will stand up strongly for his views and favored policies, but who, come the end of the day, will accept going home with a half a loaf as the outcome of a process of debate and bargain fairly conducted. I don't think that the impression I get of his integrity and grace is an act. Speaking relatively, of course He is a politician and will talk out of both asides of his mouth at times. I'm not talking about magic, I'm just saying that comparatively speaking (compares to your average pol, IOW) he has grace and integrity. Miracle of miracles, I think he might even be willing to share the credit when a hard fought compromise has been reached.

I could be wrong as to Obama of course, but I think most of us agree that when it comes down to brass tacks, that's the ideal for government. That when push comes to shove, you try to conduct an honorable enough process that even if you lose or get less than you wanted, you can accept it because of the way the process unfolded. Pat has said much the same thing on multiple occasions, I believe.

So maybe that's what vexes you, that you feel that folks like him and maybe feel he's a centrist, because he feels like a guy who could be a good President. I'm not sure how many times each of us at CF has to concede that his policies make him liberal before you stop beating that drum. Speaking only for myself, I'm willing to restrict his policy views to being only a portion of the equation. To the extent that he supports policies that have very little chance of being enacted, I class them as virtually irrelevant.

When we choose who to support, I think that's a good lens, to try and anticipate how much effect a candidates views will really have. We're not electing a king who will issue policy by fiat. If we were, we'd need different standards.

Posted by: bk at March 21, 2007 02:55 PM

Maybe some think Obama is centrist because in 2004, he was a bit hawkish on foreign affairs, though he did not vote for invading Iraq. Well, Kerry towed some hawkishness too as did Edwards. It seems that hawkish stumping means centrist thinking in the minds of some pundits. Most Presidents have been centrist in retrospect and Brian is right in stating that many feel Obama would probably be like the rest and plot a rather centrist course. Obama's record is Liberal. He has talked about civility and bi-partisanship on the stump. This doesn't make him centrist, it makes him rather pragmatic and likable. Some are upset because his view on Iraq and a bit of pandering is inconsistent with what “they” thought his centrist image was. Hillary is actually more centrist in her voting record.

I would bet that if Obama became President, he would govern in a centrist manner like most before him in an attempt to bring this country together. Not that I can say that about Bush and conservatives like to say BUSH isn’t a true conservative. I think the same centrist pragmatism is true for Giuliani, McCain and Hillary. Geez....even an Arnold. They would govern from a centrist position despite their pandering Left and Right.

So I agree with Brian and see little practical problem with a Hillary/Obama ticket. The Right will scream this is a terribly Liberal ticket. No McGovern would have been a very Liberal ticket. Clinton and Obama would most likely think forward to 2012 and plot a path to the center. I have no doubt; if we are attacked they would respond strongly. I wonder how many Republicans would say the Democrats allowed this to happen. I trust their cooperation like I trust Kos.

Last, I find it so odd that this argument revolves around a word that no one here even begins to define. How can you say some one is not centrist, if you offer no criteria? And I think there is a difference between moderate and centrist. So Simon, what defines centrist? Can a liberal also be a centrist? I think Lieberman might qualify and we all know his Liberal report card.

Posted by: Maxtrue at March 21, 2007 06:04 PM

Brian, I'm confused. Are you saying that it isn't a strawman for me to suggest that there are people who believe Obama's a moderate and/or centrist? Do you accept that there are such people out there or not?

Now, I've suggested that "because his preferred policies are liberal, then his approach must therefore be taken to be insincere, false," but in that context, when we're talking about approach, that isn't (I hope) what WHQ's referring to. What I take exception to, more than anything, is his attempt to present himself as being above the partisan fray, as being a disinterested servant of the people, a non-political politician. And that approach inherently and per se puts a person into one of two categories: stupid or insincere and false. That goes for anyone, not just Obama and Unity. Any politician who suggests that they have these platonic, non-partisan solutions is either a moron or lying to you. There are no such solutions; indeed, it's hard to think of a problem that can be defined in platonic, apolitical terms, let alone its solution: As George Lakoff has explained, common sense is political.

But what WHQ is talking about, I had thought, isn't his rhetoric, which is obviously and indefensibly disingenuous. I thought WHQ's point was this rubric under which we think of McCain as a centrist, someone who is ideologically on one side or the other, but who has something about their approach that makes them a moderate or centrist in terms of their approach to politics. That clearly can't just mean that Obama's worked with Republicans on bills, because by that metric, Senator Brownback is a centrist, having co-sponsored legislation with Senator Clinton. It clearly can't just mean, as David Brooks has said of Obama, that he listens to both sides, because Tom DeLay "listens to both sides." If he listens to both arguments yet uniformly comes out on one side, that isn't a centrist credential. So - what's the best case that Obama is a moderate/centrist by approach, if not by ideological disposition? What's the basis for that claim?

Posted by: Simon at March 21, 2007 07:31 PM

I've never thought of McCain as a centrist either.

Posted by: Tully at March 21, 2007 07:32 PM

(And FWIW, I don't think I've ever "toe[d] the party line" or been "blindly supportive of the Bush administration").

Sorry to hit and run on a minor (or not) point that happened to jump out at me while not addressing anything else, but..

I should have been more clear. Maybe "if he doesn't toe the party line or blindly support the Bush administration" would have been better. My point is, Simon, that I don't think you do either of those things, but that you are highly ideological in your own particular way, if not following some ideology laid before you by others for you to follow. I should also be clear that any value judgement made on that basis would be purely subjective, and that I do not intend to make any such value judgement.

Posted by: WHQ at March 21, 2007 09:22 PM

I apologize for being extreme but I would have expected much better reactions from Dems over the past eight years. I agree, they are more than panderers but they seem to be begging to be the next president instead of leaders. But I see your points of view, Max and BK. It is frustrating when they go 180 degrees in less than two weeks

Posted by: Rachel at March 22, 2007 12:12 AM

Brian, I'm confused. Are you saying that it isn't a strawman for me to suggest that there are people who believe Obama's a moderate and/or centrist? Do you accept that there are such people out there or not?

Simon, I don't see the confusion. You keep saying these folks are out there, and I keep saying "show me." You keep spitting the bit. Last chance.

What I take exception to, more than anything, is his attempt to present himself as being above the partisan fray, as being a disinterested servant of the people, a non-political politician. And that approach inherently and per se puts a person into one of two categories: stupid or insincere and false.

Well, that's just your spin, Simon. You've left out the possibility that someone can be neither stupid noir insincere but simply idealistic. Of course, there's always a point where idealism is unrealistic. That's the think about idealism, ultimately the goal is unreachable. But as we know, the purpose of ideals is to make us aim higher, not so we hit the goal, but so that we achieve more. Your spin is an interesting attempt to turn the greatest virtue many folks see in Obama into a negative. Obama may not be able to be nonpartisan, but if he honestly tires, he can be less partisan than some or many other folks. That's important for a Prsident, and it makes me glad that Obama seems to have a genuine understanding of its importance.

You've previously acknowledged, I think, that Obama is a man of noticeable intelligence, so clearly, your hypothesis is that he is insincere and false. It's up to each of us to decide whether Obama's idealism is genuine, or an act. You've made up your mind, and that's fine. But I can't let you get away with the very cynical framing that this idealism can only signify one of two negatives, stupidity or insincerity.

Skepticism is one of the greatest of the rational virtues, yet skepticism's greatest risk is that one can flip to the darker side of the doubt coin, cynicism. To suggest that someone selling hope and idealism can only be dumb or dishonest is cynicism. Pure, unadulterated Ambrose Bierce style, jumbo size can

I'm quite willing to be heartily skeptical of Obama's idealism, but I won't dismiss it out of hand.

so - what's the best case that Obama is a moderate/centrist by approach, if not by ideological disposition? What's the basis for that claim?

It's clear to me you've already decided it's impossible and are unpersuadable on the issue. So why would I bother? I guess everyone else must be wrong to perceive this difference that we see in folks like McCain and Obama as compared to Brownback and Delay. Given this dynamic, you ought to understand that the honus of persuasion is on YOU, not us.

Posted by: bk at March 22, 2007 10:08 AM

To suggest that someone selling hope and idealism can only be dumb or dishonest is cynicism. Pure, unadulterated Ambrose Bierce style, jumbo size can

Brian, you really should be careful when citing Bierce!

CYNIC, n.: A blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as they are, not as they ought to be. Hence the custom among the Scythians of plucking out a cynic's eyes to improve his vision --Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary

IOW, you just accused Simon of being correct instead of naive, and condemned him for it. :-)

Posted by: Tully at March 22, 2007 11:05 AM

I can't help but throw in that characterizing Obama is not a constitutional matter, so those inflexible, unyielding, dogma-like traits can't be blamed on originalism or constructionism or textualism or whatever constitutional philosophy it is that you subscribe to, Simon. Maybe you're only that way when it comes to the constitution and bk.

Posted by: WHQ at March 22, 2007 11:09 AM

ROTFL, Tully. Well-played sir. :-)

Obviously Bierce would have covered his arse with a self-serving definition of cynic. The only defense a cynic has is that he sees things as they are.

Notice that I never said cynics are always wrong. Their flaw is their inability to doubt...they're true believers just like atheism is a form of blind faith. As a self-professed agnostic I am sure you understand this. The difference between a hearty skeptic and a cynic is not so much a matter of difference in perspective but rather a minor yet significant tempering of one's tendency towards intellectual arrogance. Si?

Posted by: bk at March 22, 2007 12:31 PM

You should have known that, being a cynic, Bierce's definition would be at least somewhat favorable to himself. :-)

Bierce practically invented bitter snark.

Posted by: Tully at March 22, 2007 01:51 PM

Brian,
There either are or aren't folks out there who believe that Obama's a moderate and/or centrist, for whatever reasons. If there are, you're stuck with conceding that my posts address a legitimate issue. If there aren't, you're stuck with conceding that anyone who likes Obama does so accepting that he's an unabashed liberal. And to support an unabashed liberal is not to be in the center, but to jump off the fence in one direction, even with the best of intentions of climbing back up at some later date. I'm not saying that liberals shouldn't support Obama; indeed, I'm not saying that moderates shouldn't support him, only that no one should support him with any illusions that he's anything other than what he is.

But that only deals with one side of the coin, which is public perception of him. That's all arguable. What's not arguably (and what's really offensive about the man) is the other side of the coin, which is how he presents himself. And the way that he presents himself is the same way that ideologues have presented themselves throughout history: their depth of belief in their ideas is so profound that they are incapable of understanding that their ideals are political. Their ideas are so self-evidently correct as to transcend politics. And Obama either has or affects that kind of idealism.

Yes, idealism! You bring a false tension to that word, Brian. Idealism is political! What kind of ideals are they, these ideals that idealists have? They're political ideals! I don't deny the possibility that Obama is an idealist, what I deny is that his ideals can be apolitical, that the idealistic goals he reaches for are platonic and above the partisan fray, and that he is stupid enough to believe for an instant that they are any such thing.

Better yet, to be an idealist ("One whose conduct is influenced by ideals that often conflict with practical considerations[;] ... One who is unrealistic and impractical; a visionary") is to be an ideologue ("a person who zealously advocates an ideology"; what is an ideology? A collection of ideals!), the very opposite of a moderate or centrist, by any definition. Not only have you not proven your side of the leger, you've added evidence to mine. ;)

So you haven't escaped or answered the point at all, by recharacterizing his motives. If he's an idealist, that doesn't change the fact that ideals are political, and thus his attempt to portray himself as being above the political really can "only signify one of two negatives, stupidity or insincerity." You can't trust a politician who lacks the self-awareness or honesty to admit that he's a politician.

Posted by: Simon at March 22, 2007 02:24 PM

Simon,

Ideals MAY be political. There are, as you know, lots of different kinds.

There either are or aren't folks out there who believe that Obama's a moderate and/or centrist, for whatever reasons.

From the beginning you have suggested that you are driven to point out Obama's lack of moderation as a response to some imagined cacophony of folks who say he is a moderate. I've repeatedly invited you to give me a couple of fer instances. And for I'd say about the 5th or 6th time now, you've utterly ignored this reasonable request. Haven't even tried. OK, I get the message, you're not going to do it. Until you do, I'll assume that I caught you engaging in rank hyperbole, and that when I asked you to back it up your assertion, you couldn't.

I'm done asking. The clock has run out out on your credibility. Am I supposed to wait indefinitely for some semi-prominent wag to call Obama a raging centrist, so that you can "prove me wrong?" Nuh-uh.

Two more quick points:

1. Count on me to remember that you've claimed that all idealists are ideologues. Now you'll have to be very careful, or you'l be sorry you said that. Would you like to backpedal now, or shall I clobber you some other time? :-)

2. Obama knows he's a politician. I know. You know, Everyone knows. Ample evidence supports it. So why waste our time saying foolish things like "You can't trust a politician who lacks the self-awareness or honesty to admit that he's a politician."

In regard to 2, all you are doing is repeating once again with abject certainty your insulting contention that Obama is either stupid or dishonest. That leaves me only to repeat this:

You are free to believe that everyone else who thinks he is intelligent and (relatively) honest (for a politician) is wrong while you are right. But what you can't do is claim to all those folks that the honus is on them to persuade you. If you are so certain you are right, it is YOU who has to do the persuading. And I don't think you've convinced a single person that Obama is either stupid or dishonest, comparatively speaking. Not including the few folks who needed no persuasion from the get-go, of course.

I'd like to suggest that you require a different approach, Your proof, of the form "Obama is a liberal idealist, therefore he is dishonest or stupid" has been a failure so far.

Posted by: bk at March 22, 2007 02:47 PM

What it seems to me that you're doing, Simon, is taking a real-world discussion involving practical matters that vary along a shades-of-grey continuum and turning them into black-and-white abstractions. That Obama presents himself as being above the fray and apolitical is a highly questionable characterization. And all this talk of "idealism" distracts from a realistic discussion by throwing us down some tangential, abstract rabbit hole.

The thing is, some politicians are more willing to embrace demagoguery, character assassination and other forms of intellectual dishonesty than others. Obama seems to be less willing than most to engage in this very sort of politics, which people around here claim to dislike and feel have been going on too much for too long. If you like civil debate and plain speech, it is very easy to make a distinction between the likes of Tom Delay and Barack Obama that favors Obama. Why is that so hard to understand? It's not a matter of being completely above the fray and completely apolitical (ie not a politician). It's a matter of how much mud one is willing to sling, how many half-truths one is willing to tell, how much false outrage one is willing to effect as opposed to plainly making one's case on issues one truly feels are important and honesty engaging and responding to one's opposition. Most people like the more honest approach and those who like Obama feel that he takes that approach.

You obviously don't have to like or believe him, but you're not making your case in any way but by abstractly analyzing the words other people use in making the opposite case. It looks like pure sophistry.

Posted by: WHQ at March 22, 2007 03:14 PM

WHQ:

That Obama presents himself as being above the fray and apolitical is a highly questionable characterization.

I don't think it is, as I've explained in comments and posts passim (principally here and here). He doesn't engage in "plain speaking," and I maintain that his presentation of himself is a "form[] of intellectual dishonesty."

Brian:

Ideals MAY be political. There are, as you know, lots of different kinds.

Sure - so far as I know, there's no such thing as critical number theory. But any ideas about social policy are, almost without exception (quite possibly by definition, actually) political. It's broadly agreed, for example, all the way from the far left into the moderate right (and arguably beyond: you've been sounding the alarm that Romney's more conservative than he looks for a long time, Brian), that there is a problem with the way that America deals with healthcare, in need of some solution. Not only is the solution to that problem a political question, but in fact, the mere judgement that there is a problem is inherently political. That there is broad consensus doesn't make it any less a political question.

Count on me to remember that you've claimed that all idealists are ideologues. Now you'll have to be very careful, or you'l be sorry you said that.

Ideologue isn't inherently a pejorative term.

Obama knows he's a politician. I know. You know, Everyone knows. Ample evidence supports it.

Which is precisely my point. Thanks for re-iterating it. I keep saying that he's a politician like any other, I don't believe he's stupid, and that the foregoing makes him dishonest when he presents himself as being something other than a politician.

By the way, it's "onus" not "honus."

Posted by: Simon at March 22, 2007 03:46 PM

I guess we're going home with our feet smelling of dead horse. You're posts don't show me how Obama claims to be "above the fray" or "not a politician." He speaks of the smallness of our politics, not that we have politics. Sure there are truly contentious issues on which people may not be able to compromise. Does that then mean that politicians should assassinate the character of their opponests? If so, it pretty much insures that compromise won't happen. Let me pose a couple of questions to you, Simon? Do you believe that there are politicians who are more statesmanlike than others? Do you see a difference between, say, Tom Delay and John McCain in that regard? If so, have you witnessed Barack Obama engaging in the more dirty, less statesmanlike kind of politics that someone like Tom Delay has?

You can take Obama's rhetoric and interpret it in such an extreme way as to preclude it from possibly being truthful and use that supposed non-truth to prove that he isn't plain speaking, but that would be begging the question. You will have buried your conclusion within your premise. That's what I'm getting from your posts at SF and your comments here.

Posted by: WHQ at March 22, 2007 04:09 PM

Wow, and I also learned Tully is an agnostic, me too. One qualification however: God, if He/She/Whatever MUST be material. Without that provision, "reality" is really a joke and we can all kiss logic goodbye.

Nice sparring

Posted by: Maxtrue at March 22, 2007 10:00 PM

"God, if He/She/Whatever exists, MUST be material."

my bad again....

Posted by: Maxtrue at March 22, 2007 10:01 PM

I think I've gotten to the root of the "Simon Problem" that bk and I seem to have. What I think is going on is that Simon simply feels that Obama is disingenuous in his rhetoric, which is the obvious and not-so-problematic part. The problem starts when Simon, instead of simply saying he just doesn't trust the guy for some reason, attempts to prove, through some sort of analysis, as a factual matter, that Obama is full of it - QED, case closed. If you don't agree, you're plain wrong, factually. I think that's the real rub here.

I don't really feel the need to prove to Simon that Obama isn't a liar. That's just how I feel; it's the vibe I get. I'm expressing an opinion based on my own innate human ability to assess the honesty of another human being, and I thus far haven't seen anything in Obama's conduct that should cause me to doubt him.

What I think Simon is doing is taking the impression he gets, which is the opposite of mine, and finding a way to justify it in what appears to be a purely rational fashion. But it's really all window dressing around "I don't like the guy." Take what the guy says in the worst possible way, analyze it on that basis, and "Voila!", you've proved your own feelings to yourself and all right-minded listeners.

It's okay not to like Obama, even to think he's lying. But just say that's how you feel. Stop trying to give some bogus proof. It's not geometry.

Posted by: WHQ at March 23, 2007 09:22 AM

WHQ, thanks for weighing in here. FWIW, Simon has previously conceded his singular weakness for bright lines and black and white judgements. For our part, we all know that whether this is a virtue or a flaw depends on the job at hand.

While mulling this over the past few days, I've come upon much the same vision as yourself, with regard to the mudpit. In essence, due to Simon's preference for the binary and the need for conclusive analysis, all folks must get sorted into the dirty and the clean.

We know politicians have to shade things. Politics can be a very dirty business. It ain't beanbag, that's for sure. So here's the thing: If you play in the pigpen, you're gonna get some on ya. [I think this is a point Tully has previously stressed, and it's worth remembering and placing in your constellation of givens about politics]

Does that make everyone who "got saome on them" precisiely the same? Of course not. Some folks have waders on and try to stay to the shallows and invite others to try to stay comparatively clean. Others dive in with glee and roll around in it.

Simon's a binary. He ends up believing in proofs that rely on false equivalencies. But the less binary among us know that while all politicians have some things in common, they are not all precisely the same when it comes to character and honesty.

Time may proof by a far greater preponderance of evidence that Simon's hypothesis about Obama is indeed correct. If so, I'll still think he jumped to his conclusion early. Which says just as much about me as about him, to be rigorously fair on the matter. :-)

If I have time, I'll put up a Robert Cray open thread in tribute to the issue. His early tune "playin in the dirt" is a personal favorite.

Posted by: bk at March 23, 2007 09:41 AM