Another problem with the Michelle speech. In order to paint both her professional life and her husband's, and in order to communicate what she feels is his singular compassion, she had to paint an America that is darker, sadder, grimmer, than most Americans experience their country to be. And this of course is an incomplete picture, an incorrectly weighted picture. Sadness and struggle are part of life, but so are guts and verve and achievement and success and hardiness and...triumph. Democrats always get this wrong. Republicans get it wrong too, but in a different way.Democrats in the end speak most of, and seem to hold the most sympathy for, the beset-upon single mother without medical coverage for her children, and the soldier back from the war who needs more help with post-traumatic stress disorder. They express the most sympathy for the needy, the yearning, the marginalized and unwell. For those, in short, who need more help from the government, meaning from the government's treasury, meaning the money got from taxpayers.
Who happen, also, to be a generally beset-upon group.
Democrats show little expressed sympathy for those who work to make the money the government taxes to help the beset-upon mother and the soldier and the kids. They express little sympathy for the middle-aged woman who owns a small dry cleaner and employs six people and is, actually, day to day, stressed and depressed from the burden of state, local and federal taxes, and regulations, and lawsuits, and meetings with the accountant, and complaints as to insufficient or incorrect efforts to meet guidelines regarding various employee/employer rules and regulations. At Republican conventions they express sympathy for this woman, as they do for those who are entrepreneurial, who start businesses and create jobs and build things. Republicans have, that is, sympathy for taxpayers. But they don't dwell all that much, or show much expressed sympathy for, the sick mother with the uninsured kids, and the soldier with the shot nerves.
Neither party ever gets it quite right, the balance between the taxed and the needy, the suffering of one sort and the suffering of another. You might say that in this both parties are equally cold and equally warm, only to two different classes of citizens.
« Alea iacta est | Main | Barack Obama: please end our dependence on cheap platitudes about foreign oil » You're on your own28 Aug 2008 10:28 pm
That's Obama's sound byte to cap the standard litany of Democratic hard-luck stories. I think Peggy Noonan nailed my dissatisfaction with the mythic, put-upon heroes of both sets of convention speeches:
TrackBackListed below are links to weblogs that reference You're on your own:
» Michelle Obama Took Lines From Alinsky’s “Rules For Radicals” in DNC Speech from View From The Ridge Comments (27)Comments on this entry have been closed. |
Today's Headlines From The Atlantic |
Copyright © 2009 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
Everything is spiffy and fine! All you need is spunk, spunk, spunk!
This speech is kind of boring.
Why do I get the sense that the Obama campaign is overreacting to the criticisms of the Republicans and decided to write a speech with too much policy in it.
I'll bet you Megan thinks Peggy Noonan is a great writer, a real stylist. Here's something to do on a rainy day. Find out who uses more unnecessary words, Megan or Peggy? My guess is Peggy because she's the flabbiest writer I know. It's harder to tell with Megan because her prose is so dense I, normally, have no idea of what, exactly, she's talking about.
I don't like that he's equating an "ownership society" with "you're on your own".
I like "owning" what I earn.
Although, if we are going to go down the communist path, I suppose I can just hop out of the work force and enjoy life off of someone else's efforts while it lasts.
It's funny to remember Noonan's paean to Dumbya's testicles - how he had a "big pair."
Sheesh.
Megan, how did you get a blog here? Your posts are lame.
Personal pet peeve: surely you mean sound *bite*, not byte, unless you're referring to eight contiguous sound bits.
The United States has failed and is on a downhill slope. Those who don't see this are blind to reality and history. The US has never grown up. When Tom Paine said that he would "obey no law unless it was to [his] liking," he expressed the infantile attitude Americans have had toward government every since. And so we have a nation with unparalleled greed, religiosity, and above all, violence, as its defining traits. In any comparable country -- (and the conceit that America is exceptional is the problem)-- in any comparable country 45 million uninsured would be a scandal; 15 000+ murders per year would be unacceptable; 2.3 million in prison would be at the *center* of public debate, not an unmentionable fact. When Obama says that we can debate the 2nd amendment while still agreeing that the average citizen should not be able to buy an AK47 -- this as a measure of progress! - the US makes itself a laughing stock. But the commitment to libertarianism on the left and right will ensure that Americans will continue to find principled reasons for its absurdities, its atrocities.
I'm 38. Over the last 20 years I have lived in Hong Kong, Belgium, and Australia. None of these countries has an infantile view of government. The relationship between government and freedom is not regarded as zero-sum, and government as such is neither friend nor enemy.
Unless the US overcomes its commitment to libertarianism its chief role will continue to be what it has been especially for the last 30 years: an object lesson in "how not to." We have a strong, violent, and largely unaccountable state. We have virtually no governance, except from the private sector, which regulates us with a much heavier hand than liberal government ever would or could. As a result, the historical record can be summed up as a theater of failure, and presently we have front row seats to the Death of a Salesman. It's a great play, to be sure.
"Unless the US overcomes its commitment to libertarianism its chief role will continue to be what it has been especially for the last 30 years:"
The most powerful nation ever.
Greg - you apparently think that the entire premise of the USA is flawed. At least the Dems only reject the periods during which they did not govern, and most of them sort of like the US and just want to tinker with it. You, sir, clearly need to move back to Belgium, stat!
I don't regard a nation that has 45 million uninsured, 2.3 million in jail, 15 000+ murders per year, as the most powerful nation ever. Look around: other places do much better, and so can we. And the idea that one should be exiled for being critical is not something that occurs to the citizens of a free state (though exile is of course a hallmark of tyrannies). While I'm venting, why the hell do we have elections that go on for two years? Why on earth does it matter whether a president has a position on when life begins? And why has the United States, a country born in opposition to the fear generated by absolutist rule, produced a polity riven by fear, and an executive branch more powerful (in the bad sense of being able to destroy life arbitrarily) than any absolutist state of the 18th century?
Look around: other places do much better, and so can we.
Care to explain how so? I've also lived in other countries. In my experience, they're better in some respects, and far worse in others.
And the idea that one should be exiled for being critical is not something that occurs to the citizens of a free state (though exile is of course a hallmark of tyrannies).
Oh, come off it, Drama Queen. People have implied that you're an idiot, called you anti-American, and invited you to move to Belgium (as is their right in a free country), but nobody is exiling you.
and an executive branch more powerful (in the bad sense of being able to destroy life arbitrarily) than any absolutist state of the 18th century?
Okay, I know you're venting, so I'm trying to cut you some slack, but really.. you need to just stop, before you embarrass yourself any further. This is one of the most ill-informed, ahistorical, histrionic pieces of online blather I've read in a long time, which is saying an awful lot given that I'm treated to a regular stream of MoeLarryandJesus posts whenever I visit the comments sections here.
Greg Mankiw liked the same passage of Noonan's column.
greg - in any comparable country 45 million uninsured
That number is highly misleading. You may want to do a little more research. It includes groups like illegal aliens and those who have the cash to insure themselves but don't. The number of those who can't afford healthcare is closer to ~15 million.
15 000+ murders per year would be unacceptable;
It's interesting to go through the statistics for this. Those countries with a high murder rate have a lower suicide rate. The US isn't great by any standards, but it's worth asking how much of that number is statistical catagorization. "Oh, the poor guy shot himself in the head... twice."
When Obama says that we can debate the 2nd amendment while still agreeing that the average citizen should not be able to buy an AK47 -- this as a measure of progress! - the US makes itself a laughing stock.
What do you think of the Swiss, who can buy howitzers legally? I've read enough studies concluding how gun control reduces "gun crime" (not crime, not murders, but only gun crime) to become suspicious enough to dig deeper into studies on this topic.
And the idea that one should be exiled for being critical...
As Xeynon said, noone is exiling you. But if you feel more comfortable living somewhere else, why not move there instead of demanding the nation conforms to your beliefs? And go quick, before the Evil Tyrants™ revoke your visa like the Communists and Nazis did with their citizens and you're trapped in this awful hellhole full of backwards proles!
Xeynon,
Thanks for attempting to cut me some slack. You're right, I'm venting. I don't think it's "ashistorical" to observe that the US has produced a sovereign (the President) more powerful than any 18th century King. Read the constitutional law on how to define and check executive power in this country and you'll see how incapable our legal doctrines are of bridling the executive branch. The administrative law and parliamentary systems of Europe are ahead of the US in this respect. The death penalty in this country is an example of the executive arbitrarily disposing of life, as a reading of the law on this issue will show (the impossible fight against arbitrary death sentences defines 8th amendment jurisprudence). These are just two examples of how looking around shows how we could do better, and I don't see what's wrong or irresponsible about suggesting this.
Ryan W,
I notice the one statistic you don't mention, let alone quibble with (and statistics can always be quibbled with) is the world record 2.3 million in jail. You prove my point that a mere fact that would be of central concern elsewhere does not rate a mention here. I would say that this is because we are bellicose and harsh, yet the silence suggests a different explanation: we are rightly ashamed.
greg--of course "we could do better." there is no one on either side of the political spectrum who disagrees with this.
But "we can do better" is very different than saying "the united states is a laughingstock and is the most backward country in the developed world."
You're not the only American who has ever left the country. Many of us have lived outside the US. To say that other countries are so much more advanced than America in all respects is as laughable as it would be to say America is perfect.
I'm a liberal, and happen to agree that our society is too libertarian, but please, buddy: if you want anyone to take you seriously, be at least somewhat reasonable.
Re: Democrats show little expressed sympathy for those who work to make the money the government taxes to help the beset-upon mother and the soldier and the kids.
Why do the former need sympathy? Sympathy and compassion are usually felt and expressed toward those who have suffered some clamity, or at least woe-- not toward the happy, healthy and prosperous. I'm one of those "taxpayers", someone with a well-paying job and no crushing burdens. I don't need anyone's sympathy and I would feel odd if someone expressed that toward me.
Why do the former need sympathy? Sympathy and compassion are usually felt and expressed toward those who have suffered some clamity, or at least woe-- not toward the happy, healthy and prosperous
Sympathy doesn't only mean sharing sorrow -- but just 'fellow feeling'. But substitute 'gratitude' or 'appreciation' for sympathy.
To hear the Democrats tell it, most Americans are leading Dickensian lives of desperation, holding onto their jobs and homes by their fingertips -- just the thinnest of margins away from bankruptcy, foreclosure, the soup kitchen, and the homeless shelter. And anybody who thinks otherwise just 'doesn't get it'. You listen to the speeches at the Democratic convention, and it's one Eyore after another. It's not inspiring.
Greg,
The U.S. presidency is actually a pretty weak office when it comes to domestic and economic policy, the prime minister of Australia -- and, most certainly, the chief executive of Hong Kong -- have far more power in this regard.
Your comparisons about murder rates are meaningless without taking into account demographics. There is a high correlation between black populations and murder rates -- see Brazil or South Africa, for example.
I will address Greg's 2.3 million in jail. That is absurd. I wonder, though, what percentage of those are in jail are there because of unjust anti-drug laws? I will give Obama credit for at least being open to decriminalization, but it is not a big enough issue for most voters to actually come of anything. These backwards prohibition laws are responsible for a large number of those jailed, and are a great example of a problem with the federal gov't Greg (and many more) should have.
"those who have the cash to insure themselves but don't."
Just brilliant. I can just imagine this group of 30 - 40 million people - or 1 in 10 Americans - who are "self insuring" because they have the huge amount of spare cash laying around.
I can't say anything about millions of people, but I'm one person who did it for years.
You don't even have to be that rich to want to work it that way. If you have moderately good health, a reasonably liquid nest egg of some kind, and a catastrophic policy to cover the really big but really unlikely stuff, then it's easy to see the monthly price tag on a health insurance policy as a luxury you can't afford. I used to put half the amount I was quoted into my bank account which caused the liquid nest egg part to grow over time.
I did have to spend some of that money from time to time, but by no means all of it.
When I switched jobs to an employer who required me to have their health insurance I moved that money to an IRA. I'm not rich by a long way, but, in my case at least, the insurance business has been very profitable.
fwiw.
Re: To hear the Democrats tell it, most Americans are leading Dickensian lives of desperation, holding onto their jobs and homes by their fingertips -- just the thinnest of margins away from bankruptcy, foreclosure, the soup kitchen, and the homeless shelter. And anybody who thinks otherwise just 'doesn't get it'. You listen to the speeches at the Democratic convention, and it's one Eyore after another. It's not inspiring.
OK, the Democrats are famed for portraying America as A Dolorous Nation Of Dire Need. But the GOP has a similar riff: America In Danger! Per the GOP there is alawys some modern day Dark Lord of Mordor lurking out there ready to bring about the End Of All That Is Good And Godly. It used to be Reds Under The Bed, now it's Al Qaida In The Attic. And that's not to mention the legion of domestic boogeymen the GOP parades down the rhetorical catwalk: these days it's mainly them gol-darn queers who, if they get access to sacred marriage, will turn Our Nation of god-fearing straight folk into a pack of Lounge Lizard Lotharios and Promiscuous Pole-Dancers. In the past the Dangerous Black Dude (cue: leering Willy Horton) has served this purpose. Going back further we had "Amnesty, Acid and Abortion" and even back in the 19th century "Rum, Romanism and Rebellion". The GOP is Manicheanism on crack.
That's not to say that there aren't real dangers, just as there is real poverty and injustice. But both parties have honed the skill of rhetorical exaggeration to a fine art. It's not just the Dems who go off the deep end in their gloom and doom.
There is a high correlation between black populations and murder rates -- see Brazil or South Africa, for example.
Fred, Greg's arguments are weak, but that doesn't mean I'm going to let a statistically unfounded and blatantly racist assertion like this pass uncommented upon.
Crime is a complex sociological phenomenon, but statistical analysis indicates that Brazil and South Africa most likely have high murder rates because of poverty, gang activity, drugs, and the ready availability of weapons. Other countries that share these characteristics but don't have a lot of black people (e.g. Mexico, the Philippines, Cambodia, Afghanistan, etc.) also have high murder rates. Conversely, prosperous countries with heavily black populations (of which, due to historical geopolitical reasons, there are only a few - Barbados and Trinidad being two) - have low murder rates.
Better racist demagoguery, please.
Of course, when Pegaloon was spinning St. Ronnie's yarns, she was living large off the taxpayers her own self.
No fretting about the poor beset taxpayers who were keeping her Irish ass healthy and in silks then, IIRC.
I only lived in America one year (I am Australian), and sorry, the place is pretty Dickensonian. Here in Australia, we have our share of problems, but we certainly do not have that proportion of people in jail, un-insured, or anywhere near that murder-rate.
Our politics about these things is also not a shrill as the posts here "The democrats go off the deap end" then "the republicans do too." You all just line up the insults instead of talking about what are valid comparisons across other countries. If you don't care that you rank poorly on these things, then say so. Then tell the guy to move back to Belgium
The comparison between left and right and the constituents they serve (the original focus of this post) is the same here. But I would have to agree that no one needs to feel the same "compassion" for the poor old tax payer, when compared to a war veteran. Our tax rates are higher in Australia but we live in a reasonably compassionate society where alot of the things your democrats harp on about, would also not be tolerated, so I am happy to pay.
On the other hand I do think some of the other instances where in the US "you're on your own" do spur individuals to find their own solutions rather than turning to the government. But I think Obama said a number of times the government can't solve all your problems. So I think the criticism against these 'old democrat riffs' in relation to working mothers or war vets, sounds a little rediculous to be honest.