howardpark/politics

I was invited to an open house for Barack Obama last weekend, and I went with mixed expectations. On the one hand, it wasn't my first Democratic Party event, so I had at least some idea of what these things are about. On the other hand, I've been hearing from both friends and the media that Obama isn't "just another politician," so perhaps it would be different.

But what does it mean to be "just another politician"? To me, the thing that makes politicians pretty much equally despicable isn't the fact that they lie, pretend, and double-talk--it's why they do it. They do it to get power. The overriding concern of all politicians is to reach office and keep it. If that means lying a little (or a lot), a politician will lie. Some do it naturally, without compunction, others grit their teeth and try to justify themselves, but they all understand that their jobs are at stake. If it means making strategic calculations, if it means not taking an unpopular stand, if it means saying what you have to say to get votes, a politician will do it.

So is Barack Obama "just another politician"? I did not meet the man personally, but based on what I learned from his representatives, I got the impression that yes, unfortunately, he is. Whenever someone in the audience brought up a touchy issue, the reps explained that Barack is taking this position because it maximizes his chances of being elected. One woman asked about his position on gay rights. The answer was quite complicated but essentially meant going along with whatever most voters believe, to which she responded, "I find that really disappointing. On an issue like this, a leader should lead, not follow the people. I think that shows a real lack of courage."

One of the reps was visibly upset by this remark and trotted out (again) the definitive example of Obama's moral courage, namely his vote against the invasion of Iraq. To me, that vote shows a good deal of intelligence and confidence (plus the fact that he had a lot less to lose than most of his colleagues), but only the level of moral courage I would expect of an intelligent, confident... politician. After all, any number of people could have told you that Iraq would soon become a disastrous, unpopular quagmire.

Perhaps, given how many of his fellow Senators failed this test, I'm setting the bar too high. But the fact is, out of the 10 issues showcased on his website, he has taken positions that "lead, not follow" on none of them. In many ways, Obama's agenda is deeply conservative and includes nothing that challenges Red State voters. To the "experts," that just makes sense, because if the Democrats speak out for real change, it might tip the balance toward the Republicans. But so what? If the choice is between a Republican and a Democrat who's pretty much exactly like him, why should I care who wins the trophy? Either way, America gets more of the same. Furthermore, the "experts" simply don't know as much as they think they do (see Philip Tetlock's Expert Political Judgment). They certainly can't calculate how something like true righteousness might affect the voting public, and their insistence that they can is what cost both Gore and Kerry their elections.

So if you're looking for a righteous reformer intent on changing the basic structure of Washington power politics, Obama is not your man. Nothing illustrated this point more clearly than the place where the open house was held. It was the home of some very wealthy people, the kind you want on your side if you're serious about getting power. Like any grateful politician, Obama is advocating nothing that would threaten their interests. He is not proposing to change the system; he is only proposing to change the people at the top of it. In the end, different rich people may get the favors, but the dominance of the rich will stay the same.

If Barack Obama becomes the Democratic candidate, I will probably vote for him, but only with the enthusiasm I would have for "just another politician."

The people in the photo above have gotten more out of our country (in terms of contracts, favors, beneficial legislation, and all the other perks of power) than probably any other family in America. Yet not a single one of them has seen fit to pay the country back by serving in what they claim is a "war for national survival." Although they continually refer to military service as a "duty" and an "honor," no member of the Bush or Cheney family has volunteered to help in the fight that they got us into. It's hard to imagine a ruling clique more cowardly or hypocritical.

The brazenness with which Republicans lie, cheat, steal, and in every other way betray their so-called "Christian morals" is breathtaking. It should be obvious to everyone by now that conservatives could never win a vote or an argument based simply on the merits--thus the deception and propaganda.

These guys are truly Hitlerian (and I do not say that lightly). Like the Nazis before them, they have made a deliberate choice to exploit the weaknesses of the democratic system by spreading misinformation and playing on people's fears and prejudices. They have hijacked our country and are leading it in the same direction the Nazis led Germany--toward war, genocide, murder, kidnapping, torture, and all-around evil. As Hermann Göring said,

Naturally the common people don't want war.... But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship.... All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.

If that sounds familiar, maybe it's because "exposing the country to danger" is interchangeable with "emboldening the terrorists."

"Depicts 60,000 plastic bags, the number used in the US every five seconds."


This looks like the inside of my mom's kitchen cabinets.

In Expert Political Judgment: How Good Is It? How Can We Know?, Philip Tetlock went back and checked on the accuracy of predictions made by the so-called experts, and what do you think he found? Their ability to prophesy the future was no better than yours or mine. In fact, it wasn't even better than random guessing. As Louis Menand put it, "Human beings who spend their lives studying the state of the world... are poorer forecasters than dart-throwing monkeys.... And the more famous the forecaster the more overblown the forecasts." The basic reason for this is that "experts" get so caught up in their own theories that they lose touch with reality. They want so badly to be proven right that they simply stop being able to think objectively. So the next time you want to know how something will turn out, ask your cat.


On the other hand, Tetlock assumes that the "experts" were at least trying to get it right, which these particular guys obviously weren't. They were too busy prostituting themselves to notice that they were helping to drive our country into a bottomless pit.

(Thanks to leiaxe for this link.)