Sober Man’s View of Barackracy
Obama gives me hope and he gives me fright.
Over the past few years, I have endured the common process of maturing from a naive, excessively optimistic youth into a more realistic, but still confidently optimistic young adult. Obama must now endure the same metamorphosis. He must convert his naive, excessively optimistic rhetoric into real, politically muddy pragmatism and results. An unfortunate reality of human nature is that politicians cannot obtain results without muddy pragmatism.
I find it difficult to recall a time in Obama’s career when he has used muddy pragmatism to push the world toward his idealized vision of it. This does not mean that he lacks the ability to do so, but knowing that he has little or no experience doing so disturbs and disquiets me. His optimism for a post-partisan world will be counteracted by the reality of his personal views being far to the left of what most Americans, even most Democrats, want their policies to look like. If he does not adopt a Bill Clintonesque moderate liberal approach, his bedtime fantasies of being the savior who leads us into a beautiful post-partisan world will transform into nightmares of Congressional gridlock. He made many promises to many constituencies, now he needs the courage and the maturity to tell some of those groups, “No, I Can’t. Sorry, but I cannot do it all. I must govern and prioritize as a pragmatist.”
In Federalist Paper No. 1, Alexander Hamilton wrote:
[A] dangerous ambition more often lurks behind the specious mask of zeal for the rights of the people than under the forbidden appearance of zeal for the firmness and efficiency of government. History will teach us that the former has been found a much more certain road to the introduction of despotism than the latter, and that of those men who have overturned the liberties of republics, the greatest number have begun their career by paying an obsequious court to the people; commencing demagogues, and ending tyrants.
Demagogues are people who obtain “power by means of impassioned appeals to the emotions and prejudices of the populace.” By this strict definition, not all demagogues are bad or evil. But, if they are not evil, it is because they have the humility and the wisdom not to abuse the frenzied emotions of the people. Obama may use the deep stocks of political capital he has with his voters to enact changes that only comport with his somewhat far left views. Just as Bush has a deep and unwavering faith in his far right views, Obama may have an analogous faith in his far left views. We simply do not know much about him. Is it wise to gamble with the presidency? We need to remain sober until his actions prove that his abilities match our hope for him.
The real story here has little to do with Obama. Obama, as a crafty politician, identified the real story and preyed upon it. The real story is that the social views of this country are quickly evolving and my generation leads the charge. We are the story, not him. He stands as an emblem and a by-product of that evolution, but he is not our leader. He cannot be our leader because while he represents my generation’s social views, he does not represent my generation’s economic views. We have learned, or so I hope, from the mistakes of European economics. Even the Chinese, who claim to be Communist, have adopted American capitalism.
Right now, my generation votes for champions of social progress because those issues are easier to grasp and to understand. Once we mature our economic understanding of the world and begin paying taxes, our fiscally conservative attitudes will blossom into a weight more comparable to our socially progressive attitudes when we decide who to vote for. My proof for this is sparse and based on intuition. Right now, and for the foreseeable future, Democrats represent my generation. The Republicans will be forced to evolve with us, if they wish to survive, and they do wish to survive.
Fiscal Conservatism + Social Progressiveness = My Generation.
Comment by Max on 15 November 2008 at 3:33 pm:
Obviously, you have not read his books, specifically The Audacity of Hope. If you had, you would understand that Obama totally understands needs of pragmatism to achieve political goals – and he sites a few examples where he regrets the compromises that he has had to make. It is pretty naive to say that you were able to mature into some realistic adult while he, a constitutional law professor and senator, has not.
Comment by Gregory Meves on 15 November 2008 at 3:42 pm:
Billy Joe,
Great piece. I find it interesting that many people our age can agree on basic principles such as fiscal conservatism and social progressiveness, yet prioritize them differently. Thus we fight against each other tooth and nail from opposite sides of the aisle despite having those similar views in a broad sense.
Comment by Brandon on 16 November 2008 at 1:05 pm:
It really depends on how you define fiscal conservatism here. Care to expound so I can make a proper response?
Comment by Joshua on 16 November 2008 at 1:13 pm:
I can appreciate that this post represents Billy’s assumptions about Obama, based on his emotional responses to him, his observation of emotional responses in others, and a superficial take on the phenomenon of Obama. Lets be clear about one thing, and hopefully Billy will be intellectually honest enough to admit it: Billy has not read Obama’s books, nor has he made any serious attempt to study Senator Obama’s positions or his voting record, apart from occasional soundbites and right wing talking points.
For a much more informed, thoughtful take on Pres Elect Obama, see “The Two Obamas” by David Brooks. I have spent a great deal of time studying Obama’s positions, reviewing his speeches, and directly observing him in Springfield. Billy sloppily says “his personal views being far to the left of what most Americans.” This assertion is unsupported, either in the Billy’s text or by any research by him or any other honest study by Mills, yet he doesn’t hesitate in making it. The one support for this position, which he doesn’t reference, but may have heard of, is a study by the national journal. The study is on under 30 votes, the results of the study were influenced quite a bit by absences on several of the votes, but no serious student of politics thinks Obama is the most liberal senator, or to the left of Bernie Sanders or either Cal Senator.
As an aside, I think the votes for the study, which was released early in the primary, could have been chosen to make Obama look less viable in the general than hillary. Though, I’ll flag that as a crazy conspiracy theory, rather than passing it off as objective truth.
My belief, after hundreds of hours of study, is that Barack Obama is left of center, but he is not far left. Beyond that, he is a somewhat cautious pragmatist.
Billy seems to think lofty rhetoric and pragmatism are mutually exclusive. He also assumes that our generation is fiscally conservative. We aren’t fiscally conservative, we’re just picky about what are tax dollars are spent on. We dont like our money propping up CEO salaries or buying bombs. But we don’t object too strenuously to raising the highest tax bracket from 35 percent, to 39 percent, if the net result is making the lives of enough Americans better. But the same people billy cribs his talking points from seem to think supporting the increase in taxes from 35 to 39% makes Obama a socialist.
And if Billy looked at the numbers, he would find Obama’s win was the result of broad changes across many demographics, not just those around 25 years old.
Comment by Joshua on 16 November 2008 at 1:17 pm:
Max says: “It is pretty naive to say that you were able to mature into some realistic adult while he, a constitutional law professor and senator, has not.”
I agree, and I would love it if Mills would support his position, on Obama, not on himself.
Comment by Billy Joe Mills on 16 November 2008 at 6:42 pm:
Joshua,
I don’t believe that I ever claimed to be doing anything other than stating my vague, personal, biased, instinctual feelings on Obama. I hope I did not mislead anyone into thinking that I had written a highly scientific piece. The subject of my post was intentionally about my feelings and my impressions of Obama. It was about my gut concerns. I don’t give a damn about pundits and my views were not shaped by them because I don’t listen to them. I don’t watch cable news pundits and I don’t listen to talk radio.
Regardless, Joshua, what you did is attack me for writing about my biased impressions of Obama without substantiating my views, but ironically and hilariously your post did the precise same thing. You stated your views of Obama without evidence to buttress your views. For instance, you said that “no serious student of politics thinks Obama is the most liberal senator.” First, I don’t believe I ever called him the “most liberal senator.” Second, you made this claim in a big long paragraph but then proceeded to give no evidence for your belief that he isn’t one of the most liberal senators. All you did was disclaim a biased right-wing study, but doing so doesn’t prove your point. You claim multiple times to have done hundreds of hours of study, but you hilarious can direct me only to paltry evidence of your impressions. Perhaps you have memory loss problems. One of the points of my post was that ultimately we all base our political views on innate, maybe even genetic, gut feelings about people or ideas. I’m being honest about it, you’re attempting to shroud your instincts in facts, but fail even at that.
Don’t get me wrong, I do not blame you. There simply doesn’t exist sufficient evidence to know how he will govern. It’s difficult to make predictions about Obama based on anything other than instinct. He could be FDR or he could be GWB. We just don’t know and gambling on the presidency is not something we often do in this country. We ought to remain soberly and cautiously optimistic about Obama.
Furthermore, you wrote, “Lets be clear about one thing, and hopefully Billy will be intellectually honest enough to admit it: Billy has not read Obama’s books.” I admit that I have not read Obama’s books and honestly given the number of incredible classics out there, I don’t think I could ever justify spending time on Obama’s books. Your quote is that it implies you have read Obama’s books. The funny thing is that 10 minutes ago you admitted to me that you only read one of Obama’s books yourself (Dreams of my Father) and that when you do read books you read about 8 at a time because of your ADD. This hardly sounds like the thorough and scientific study that you championed in your comment :)
My post was simply a call to all of the exuberant, frenzied Obamanites that we ought to look at him with sober eyes before we begin singing church hymns with his name in the chorus.
Things are about to get real, son. Politics is muddy, even for Obama, and it’s unclear whether he is capable of effectively playing the game. I have sincere hope that he will be as great as y’all dream him to be, but I have real doubts based on instinct and observation.
Lastly, I realize that I left my “Fiscal Conservatism + Social Progressiveness = My Generation” equation without saying enough, but I did so because I intend to write another post that more fully develops that idea. I will look for data that will either disprove or prove my thesis, but I won’t only look for data that will prove my thesis, as I have caught some academics doing (Reference: Nancy Cantor debating Stephen Pinker at the Krannert Center circa 2004).
Comment by Joshua on 16 November 2008 at 7:06 pm:
Wow, that was long of you! I’ll respond point by point as I wade through this.
“I dont give a damn about pundits” you often write about thinking Brooks is your twin soul, I’m surprised you missed his commentary on what seemed to be the central focus of this piece, whether Obama is a pragmatic.
As to your defensive 2nd paragraph, I was making reference to the national journal study, which is the main source of the right for attacking Obama as the most liberal senator. My criticism of your claiming to know Obama’s political positioning while making no real effort to learn about them remains. I’ll be happy to do a live audio debate with you about Obama’s positions and post the clip on Urbanagora, if you’d like to be publicly humiliated. You asked me to name some pieces of legislation in our google chat thread, and I offered a few immediate examples, but you still attack me for not sufficiently doing your research for you.
your 3rd graph – sure, it’s too early to tell whether or not my hopes in hm are well placed, but I think its a positive sign that so many americans are excited about govt, and so many people around the world are excited about him. He represents an opportunity for renewal. I don’t dispute this premise, but I do dispute what Max disputed, and your positions that he is far left, and not a pragmatist.
I havent’ read his second book. I’ve read probably 30 speeches, all of his policy papers, his first book, his voting record and directly observed one year of his activity in the IL state senate. And my reading comprehension scores are probably just as high as yours, rather I read quickly or not. You’re devolving into cheap hackery. Billy, all I’m saying is that if you want to comment on his positions, and characterize them as liberal, you have a duty to actually know something about them.
Further, as I suggested on gchat, your statement “I find it difficult to recall a time in Obama’s career when he has used muddy pragmatism to push the world toward his idealized vision of it.”
implies that you’ve actually studied his career, but you haven’t.
Your graph beginning “my post” – it was hard to tell, what if anything the point really was. It started w/ more Mills ramblings about self definition, b/c you’d rather tell us who you are than show us, then the bit Max attacked, then the section saying we dont know if he is a “muddy pragmatist” whatever that means, then the bit about our generation electing him (which it didn’t), then the bit about our generation being fiscal conservatives (which we aren’t). If your point is that the jury is still out, that’s a rather obvious one, as he hasn’t been sworn in. After 100 days it’ll be fun to discuss his progress with you. Further evidence of pragmatism is easy to identify. Rahm for CoS is a pick rooted in pragmatism, as are all of the other staff appointments he’s made so far, with the possible exception of Axelrod, which is debatable.
I think Obama has proven himself pretty effective at playing the game (See 12 days ago)(See also, US Democratic Primary Election of 2008. As Peggy Noonan wrote, “he took down an empire without raising his voice.”) Again in terms of legislating, if you looked into the people he has already announced as having spots on his white house staff you would be convinced that he is putting a team together that know how to push through legislation, and not just Rahm.
Re: fiscal conservatism, keep in mind your whole life you’ve been surrounded by suburbanites, relatively wealthy college students, and now law students. I’m sure you’ve walked around chicago streets a few times, and I think you wrote a bad poem about once seeing a homeless man’s soul, but first consider what has shaped your perspective. As to evidence, I’ll offer one thing to consider, the root of personally fiscal conservative behavior is trying to save a little money. Look at the data on how much our generation saves, compared to the previous generation, compared to the previous generation. Just one thought.
Comment by Billy Joe Mills on 16 November 2008 at 7:13 pm:
Brooks’ column was about Obama’s pragmatic campaigning abilities. I agree entirely with him there. Don’t conflate Obama’s pragmatic skill as a campaigner with his skill as a governor of the country.
Also, I don’t consider Brooks to be a pundit. A pundit is an insult for a thinker who lacks nuance.
Comment by Billy Joe Mills on 16 November 2008 at 7:15 pm:
Also, you told me via google chat that you liked 92% of my “bad poem.” It seems your public statements are again contradicting your private statements.
Comment by Joshua on 16 November 2008 at 7:16 pm:
In the same piece, in one of my favorite ‘graphs by brooks, he also disagrees w/ your characterization of Obama as naïve:
“All I know for sure is that this guy is no liberal goo-goo. Republicans keep calling him naïve. But naïve is the last word I’d use to describe Barack Obama. He’s the most effectively political creature we’ve seen in decades. Even Bill Clinton wasn’t smart enough to succeed in politics by pretending to renounce politics.”
Comment by Joshua on 16 November 2008 at 7:20 pm:
And I don’t give a damn if you consider him a pundit. The word has a meaning.
I did like your recent poem that I told you I liked 92% of. I wasn’t referring to that one. But I like that you’re trying hard to write poetry.
Comment by Joshua on 16 November 2008 at 7:22 pm:
Anyone who made it through all of this “muddy” nonsense, who do you think won? I think Josh 2 – Billy 0. Billy of course disagrees. Please throw down some truth.
xoxoxo
Comment by Max on 16 November 2008 at 8:04 pm:
I generally take these types of posts (and believe me, there are more than ever) as amateurish, indirect attempts to offer President-elect Obama advise that he doesn’t really need. It is also somewhat upsetting to hear someone use the words “we”, “us”, and “my generation” when it is pretty obvious that many people of this generation do not agree with Billy Joe’s tenets, at least in the form presented via this diatribe.
When I read the initial post, it seemed painfully obvious that there is some degree of jealousy involved regarding Obama’s success. I may not subscribe to many of the lofty ideals Obama describes in the public square, but there is little question that in private, he is the precise, pragmatic, and efficient political animal that Josh describes.
Comment by Kevin on 16 November 2008 at 8:49 pm:
I think the final score is “we all lose for reading you two bitching at each other.” As for Max, while you may characterize this post “as [an] amateurish, indirect attempt[] to offer . . . Obama advise (sic) that he doesn’t really need,” I characterize your type of response/post, which has been offered here ad nauseum for quite some time now, as simply a childish attempt to defend Obama, which he “doesn’t really need” now that he’s, you know, the president. Also, can we all stop using the word “obviously” in contexts other than “the sky is obviously blue?” Nothing is obvious, especially in this context . . . maybe we’ll have some answers a year from now.
As a sidenote, does Max have some kind of close working experience with Obama to be able conclusively state that “there is little question that in private, he is the precise, pragmatic, and efficient political animal that Josh describes”? Perhaps this could facilitate responding to his postings in the future?
Comment by Chris M on 17 November 2008 at 11:09 am:
Yeah, because reading Obama’s books written by . . . well, Obama, gives an unbiased look into his dealings.
Comment by Joshua on 17 November 2008 at 12:20 pm:
Buck, that may have been the most brutally violent rhetorical pistol whipping of Billy in history. Bravo!
Comment by Billy Joe Mills on 17 November 2008 at 3:12 pm:
Buck, you, like Josh, simply said over and over and over again about how my opinion is simplistic or without data or research. The funny thing is that again, like Josh, you failed to provide any evidence supporting your position. Again, this is ironic given that you accuse me of that fault. Josh and you simply insist over and over and over again that I am not supporting my claims. Also, I don’t really give a damn about how many academic papers and books he has written. I am interested in results. He is an incredible campaigner, but we don’t yet know how he will govern.
All I ever claimed with this post was that it was based on my impressions and instincts about him.
The predictions I made about Obama vs. Clinton were entitled “premature” because I was again trying to be honest.
All I wanted to do with the current post is to urge my liberal friends to be cautiously optimistic about Obama. What I have seen so far has been unbridled hope and optimism, which I consider to be somewhat dangerous.
Comment by James Prescott on 17 November 2008 at 4:06 pm:
I really wanted to avoid this conversation, as any commentary on either side about Barack Obama’s governing ability will devolve into public intellectual self-gratification. And low and behold, I survey the field and see nothing but self-serving aggrandizement as opposed to any substantive commentary.
Buck, the man is 47 years old…he barely has a “couple decades” of breathing, much less of interviews. The man has been in public life for 11 years, and was a relative unknown until 2004. The man was a Harvard law review editor in chief, and U of C conlaw professor, and has one unnamed legal article to his name. So lets not overhype his transparency.
(Oh, and by the way, before you get all huffy about me not doing my due diligence. I read every policy position put out by the Obama camp during the election, and for a while read every speech. I admit to not reading his books, as after the first ten pages I found his prose so sickeningly sweet I felt at risk for diabetes.)
As a legislator, we can begin to see a realistic perspective on what he has done, but even those are mostly “I like puppies” laws. He has substantive policies, but not a heck of a lot. This is not his fault. He was in the Senate for 2/3rds of one term, and everyone accumulates the “I like puppies” initiatives.
But this all assuming that Obama doesn’t change in office. Obama has been a legislator his whole career, and per Pres. Ford (another long time legislator turned executive), the mind frame changes once you enter the oval office. Those things that were not so important become more so, and former priorities slide down the scale.
The responsible thing, and truly the only reasonable thing to do, is to wait 100 days before making any judgment call. President Obama is going to be different than Senator Obama. There will be similarities, but there will be key differences.
I will be interested in seeing how it turns out.
Comment by Joshua on 17 November 2008 at 5:06 pm:
Billy, it’s frustrating that you just vomit some garbage up based on no research or diligence, and then when called on your nonsense expect buck or I to do research to refute your ignorant, uninformed, unresearched nonsense. You admitted to me that you haven’t read any of his policy plans, or his book, or really done any research on his legislative accomplishments.
I have provided evidence on how likely it is that he will govern effectively, an article explaining the wisdom of pulling in veteran hill operatives, which you most likely also didn’t read. It simply isn’t worth my time to try to educate you when you aren’t eager, or even willing to educate yourself on these matters.
In terms of intellectual dishonesty, when you write things like “I find it difficult to recall a time in Obama’s career when he has used muddy pragmatism to push the world toward his idealized vision of it. This does not mean that he lacks the ability to do so, but knowing that he has little or no experience doing so disturbs and disquiets me.” Doesn’t that imply that you have looked into his life or accomplishments at least a little bit?
The most disconcerting clause of your post is: “knowing he has little or know experience doing so.” You claim to KNOW what his experience is, and that knowledge both disturbs and disquiets you. But you really don’t know much at all on this point, by your own admission, so perhaps if you did a little reading you wouldn’t be disturbed and disquieted, cupcake. I’d hate for your ignorance to make you all crazy and disturbed inside. If it helps, I’ll hold your hand and email you some links.
As to your strategic retreat, and affirmations that this post was merely saying the painfully obvious that we don’t know how effective he actually will be yet b/c he hasn’t yet served. To that I say, “No Shit, Thanks Captain Obvious. What would we do without you!”
Comment by Joshua on 17 November 2008 at 6:25 pm:
Let’s stop bickering and be constructive. Why do you think our generation is fiscally conservative?
Comment by Billy Joe Mills on 18 November 2008 at 11:15 am:
I think that I already said I have plans to write a separate and comprehensive post on the consensus politics of our generation. I’ll discuss fiscal conservatism there. You, by the way, are a fiscal conservative.
Comment by Joshua on 18 November 2008 at 12:38 pm:
Then you must have a crazy definition for “fiscal conservative.” Consider the following:
I support my tax rate being raised, increased sin taxes, giving a lot more money to schools, big tax credits for college expenses, while I favor reform I support entitlement programs that you would likely oppose.
On a personal level, I was in 12K of credit card debt by the time I graduated from undergrad, I still spend almost all of what I make apart from my 401K, minor stock purchases, and the very recent creation of an emergency job loss fund, I’m about make a job switch that will reduce my income substantially, I spend money on absolute nonsense all the time, I’m probably the worst impulse buyer you know. How on earth am I a fiscal conservative?