One Man’s Uniter = Another Man’s Divider

Last Friday’s Daily Bleat from the incomparable James Lileks:

On the radio today Medved and Hewitt both asked Obama supporters to call and say why they were supporting their man. Specifics, please. The replies were rather indistinct. He would end the division and bring us together by encouraging us all to talk about common problems, after which we would compromise. He will give us hope by giving us hope: for many, the appeal has the magical perfect logic of a tautology. It’s a nice dream. But compromise is impossible when you have a fundamental differences about the proper way to solve a problem. I believe we can achieve a fair society by taking away your house and giving it to someone else. I disagree. It is my house. Then let us agree to give away half of your house. Compromise! But that is not a compromise. You have taken half my house. We have compromised on your behalf with those who would have taken it all. Let us not return to the politics of division. There are strangers living in my spare bedroom. Then we have truly come together. Look, this isn’t a matter on which we can compromise, because we have conflicting premises. You’re pretending matter and anti-matter have the same relationship as Coke and Pepsi. They don’t.

If he wins, I do look forward to dissenting; since it’s been established as the highest form of patriotism, I expect my arguments will be met with grave respect. Shhhh! He’s dissenting.

One thing you’ve got to give Obama credit for is his style.

And by “style”, of course, I mean not just compelling speeches where women faint and scream like little girls, but also a distinctive lack of accomplishment in a very short term of service in the U.S. Senate.

Plus, a firm commitment to vague platitudes, and promises to hike my taxes and waste even more money than the government already wastes today.

His candidacy reminds me of Beatlemania in 1963; except the Beatles had more of a record to run on.


Comments are closed.