Idealism’s Discontents January 22
It vaguely grates on me the way Obama seems to happily pick up votes for being a black man while pushing the idea that the election should be color blind. Now this on it’s own doesn’t really bother me. If Hillary was the black man and made this sort of claim I would dismiss this remark as the kind of calculated misdirection required for a black man to become president. After all if you fail to publicly reject the idea of racial solidarity you may scare off the white voters. I don’t like the idea of racial solidarity any more than I like other forms of solidarity (all suffering should be given equal weight) but I understand the need to take cynical positions to be elected.
But it’s the tension between this kind of necessary realpolitik and Obama’s idealistic schtick that really underlies my dislike of him. The truth is that getting elected in a democracy requires either extreme stupidity/lack of independent thought or cynical misdirection. If this blog is anything it is a chronicle of the ways in which a thorough logical examination of the situation can diverge from the shallow first impressions. Even if you disagree with me about everything else I write it is extremely unlikely that you both about politics and don’t violently disagree with popular wisdom about some major issue. How much more surprising would it be if an intelligent thoughtful candidate with access to raw data and expert assistance didn’t conclude the electorate wasn’t bat shit crazy about free trade, immigration, global warming, gasoline taxes, smoking regulations, molestor tracking/punishment, drug laws, needle exchanges, prison rape, genetic engineering, desirability of abortion or some other issue.
The truth is that any candidate who tried to honestly discuss their views wouldn’t last a week. There is no coherent policy attitude that wouldn’t deeply offend a majority of voters on some position. It may be possible to be elected without telling outright lies but only by convincing yourself of ridiculous beliefs or engaging in deliberate misdirection. The juxtaposition of Obama’s acceptance of racial votes with his oratory about color blindness (whether a direct contradiction or not) is just one example of why the trifecta of idealism (i.e. honesty), intelligence, and electability is fundamentally unattainable.
Obama essentially doubles down on the cynical/stupid divide with his idealistic message and criticism of washington insiders. I’m quite sure that Hillary Clinton is a smart lady who clearly understands realpolitik and is willing to take the cynical steps necessary to get elected. Obama’s idealistic message forces me to either accept that he is the sort of idiot who honestly believes the voter’s preferences matter more than good policy (and lets his own views be bent accordingly) or believe that he is a charming psychopathic liar.
I might vote for Obama if I thought he was the later but if that’s the case he lies too well to get my vote. If I had to guess I would say that on some level he really manages to believe in his idealistic message and the combination of double think and faith in popular wisdom this requires means he certainly isn’t the candidate I want on the democratic ticket.
having read their policies from their websites (as opposed to watching TV adds – I actually think Obama has a richer set of policies – and possibly due to not being an American, I am willing to gamble America’s future on it. (I’m clearly not going to be a successful politician myself).
But I agree totally with your post on the impossibility of the trifecta and how smooth talking idealists grate. And passionate idealist supporters make me feel like attacking that candidate just to even up the field a bit.