The Experience Debate
Barack Obama has a lot going for him. He's young, intelligent,
charismatic and undeniably one of the most gifted orators in American
politics. (And his wife is hot) Certainly the thought of electing America's first black
President is enticing as we seek to distance ourselves from the
prejudices and inequities of the past.
While the senator may
look good on television, on paper he appears to be seriously under
qualified to lead the free world. Obama has no executive or foreign
policy experience. He has never led a business or government and would
enter the presidency with less foreign policy experience than his
predecessor did in 2000. Maybe it's just me, but that seems a little
frightening. When it comes to experience, Obama may be left with little
to say to the American people other than: "I stayed at a Holiday Inn
Express last night." (Actually, Obama has more foreign policy experience than former Presidents Bush, Clinton and Reagan. Basically, if they were a governor, he has more experience than them because he has been serving on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He has never led a business but he has organized communities and worked as a law professor and within a law former. He was also a state legislator for eight years. Actually, his resume looks a lot like this guys.)
An exploration of Obama's record reveals no
trace of a centrist or even moderate record of governing. According to
the National Journal, he was the most liberal member of the United
States Senate in 2007.(Every election season, the National Journal paints Presidential candidates or vulnerable Democrats as the "most liberal member." This is just a tactic by NJ to paint Democrats has scary tax hikers which no one can objectively agree with.) He believes in unfettered abortion,
government-run health care, higher taxes and increased government
spending. He's as much a believer in the right to bear arms as George
W. Bush is in fiscal responsibility.
In a recent analysis of
Obama's economic plan, the New York Times characterized Obama's
policies as "more left than the Clinton administration's." Starting to
get the picture?
Barack Obama is one of the few politicians with
the ability to make Hillary Clinton appear conservative. If Hillary's
policies are "way out in left field," Obama's policies are probably
somewhere out in the parking lot. (You can find McCain's in the nursing home)
To his credit, Obama does not
try to distance himself from his left-of-center views. He says what he
believes and believes what he says. For that, he should earn your
respect, but certainly not your vote. (Everyone should read this. I think he does deserve your vote!)
Obama's pledge to
transcend American politics and unite the country may be inspiring, but
it is far from promising. Though he possesses many of the essential
personal qualities of a good leader, his ability to unite the country
behind a common purpose would be crippled by his polarizing political
philosophy. If Obama's voting record is any indication of how he would
govern, I can assure you, he would be the most divisive president in
American history. (aka Republicans are still unwilling to accept that the majority
of Americans want out of Iraq and want universal health care)
our country? Can a man who supports giving social security, welfare and
driver's licenses to illegal immigrants unite our country? I think not. (Wow...there are so many xenophobic statements here that I do not know where to begin)
While
Obama continues to mesmerize the electorate with his eloquent speeches
and endless talk of "hope" and "change," he has yet to tell the
electorate what they are to hope for, what he plans to change, or how
he plans to change it. I try not to make a habit of agreeing with
Hillary Clinton, but I have to concur with her characterization of
Obama as "all hat and no cattle." Never have I heard someone talk so
much and yet say so little. (You should probably read this)
Don't be deceived when pundits tell
you that Obama is the next John F. Kennedy. Nothing could be further
from the truth. Kennedy was a conservative Democrat and a decorated war
hero. Obama is a liberal Democrat with no military or foreign policy
experience whatsoever. Kennedy had experience, Obama does not. (Alright, I consider myself to be pretty well versed in all things Jack Kennedy. How is Kennedy a conservative Democrat? I'll post a Kennedy quote at the bottom to prove this false. Kennedy had expereicnce? Kennedy was considered one of the weakest legislators on Capitol Hill during his short tenure there)
As
the Illinois Senator continues to spend millions of dollars trying to
convince us that he's ready to lead, I hope we all remember that talk
is no substitute for action, and rhetoric can never take the place of
experience. A thousand oratories will never create a single job, secure
an open border or secure peace. (But one orator may convince a nation that there is potential for them to be and do more. He may convince them that despite all things, constant war, chronic poverty, continuous grief, that this country and this world is worth fighting to make anew even if some cannot grasp how this can be possible. Jobs will come when we believe we are good enough to work those jobs again. Our border will be open and secure when we begin to trust that the majority of those coming in only want to make a better future for them and their families and would do so legally if they believed they could. Peace will come when we want it to come and Americans are resoundingly showing that this time is now. And all of this may in fact happen because one man with one voice stood up and said, "Yes, we can.")
(And finally, the Kenendy quote:
What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label "Liberal?"If by "Liberal" they mean, as they want people to believe, someone who
is soft in his policies abroad, who is against local government, and
who is unconcerned with the taxpayer's dollar, then ... we are not that
kind of "Liberal." But if by a "Liberal" they mean someone who looks
ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid
reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people -- their
health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights,
and their civil liberties -- someone who believes we can break through
the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if
that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say I'm a
"Liberal." [September 14, 1960])
I'm not too surprised by the usual fallacies in the weekly Kool-Aid drinking Republican editorial.
Posted by Tetris on March 05, 2008 at 03:11 PM CST #
Don't whine, Ryan and Chris. You could walk into the Volante and get a job writing ANYTIME. You just choose not to.
But seeing the bashing of the Volante that happens on this page, I wonder why you guys would even want to read it? Why not just quit reading?
Posted by Matt Hittle on March 05, 2008 at 09:54 PM CST #
My writing for the Volante won't keep other people's crap from getting printed.
And I don't stop reading because its like crack. Its like crack because its bad for you but addictive.
Posted by Tetris on March 06, 2008 at 10:50 AM CST #
I read a wide variety of political perspectives, including those with which I disagree--something Hittle and Carr clearly do not do enough.
Posted by Robert on March 06, 2008 at 03:57 PM CST #
So, Chris, what you're saying is that what we conservatives and libertarians write is "crap?"
How intolerant of you! None of the conservatives here on the USD blogosphere have called your viewpoints "crap." You might want to apologize for that.
Moreover, you say you won't put your opinion out in the public sphere because the public will actually read BOTH SIDES? God forbid!
Also, Robert is woefully ignorant of the fact that I read the Daily Kos evert day. I read the Huffington Post and keep updated with the Brookings Institution. It's only right that I know what kinds of treachery the enemy is engaging in!
Robert would do well to stop making assumptions about other people. That's the first step to personal attacking, and we here on the USD Blogosphere do not look kindly upon those who attack others personally.
Posted by Matt Hittle on March 09, 2008 at 10:18 PM CDT #
First of all, Mr. Hittle, you really need to chill. I think it's a bit hyperbolic to suggest that I was levying a personal attack by merely suggesting that you don't study the positions of both sides. As they say, the proof is in the pudding. Your columns are myopically one-sided and, thus, I inferred that you feasted on nothing more than Republican talking points.
But you indvertently proved my point. Sure, you may read the Daily Kos or the Huffington Post, but presumably with the same close-minded approach you employ when penning your columns. Methinks it's moot to read anything that will be instantly dismissed as "treachery."
By the way, are you trying to mimick Bill O'Reilly?
Posted by Robert on March 11, 2008 at 10:32 AM CDT #
Robert, I didn't say it was a personal attack, I said it was dangerously close. You don't know my political reading habits. Therefore, it isn't your place to comment on them. As I recall, I've discussed ISSUES with you, not PERSONAL traits. Indeed, personal traits are immaterial to issues and policy.
But, just this once, I'll indulge you.---
Your inferences about my political views are patently false. My columns have been from a libertarian standpoint, not a purely Republican standpoint. Yes, I'm a College Republican, but I deplore the current administration's growth of government. I think that the Republican Party needs to get back to its limited government values.
I don't have to prove myself to you politically. But, in the interest of making sure that you and other readers don't keep thinking I toe the party line, I am a libertarian, which means pro choice and am pro gay marriage. How does this fit into the Bill O'Reilly-esque Republican mold in which you so conveniently placed me?
Furthermore, how is my column closed minded? Do you follow my thought processes when writing? No. Have you followed me through my life-long political evolution, from hardcore conservative to hardcore liberal to libertarian? No.
Therefore, MEthinks that you say I'm closed minded simply because you disagree with what I'm saying. Just because Obama doesn't fool me with his cheap "CHANGE" rhetoric and I don't want big government means I'm closed minded? Jeez, Robert, that's a pretty pathetic argument.
Again, I pose this to those who dislike my columns- go to the Volante office and ask for a job. It's as simple as that. If you want to bring your viewpoint to the masses, that's your starting point. No one's stopping you.
Of course, if you want to keep your comments anonymous on a blog, that's a choice, as well. Though I wish you'd post your last name, as the others here have done the same.
Posted by Matt Hittle on March 11, 2008 at 12:57 PM CDT #
Well, between your calls for an apology and your self-righteous indignation, you reek of O'Reillyism.
Posted by Robert on March 11, 2008 at 05:46 PM CDT #
Isn't it justifiable for me to ask for an apology for comments that I think aren't appropriate? That's just a request for common courtesy, not "O'Reillyism." Heck, I don't even watch the guy.
Also, I'm not indignant. Or self-righteous. On the contrary, those who tell others how to live their lives are self-righteous. I'm a libertarian- I don't care what anyone does, unless it infringes upon someone else's freedom. How is that self-righteous?
I just want the debate to shift away from people's personal lives and on issues instead.
An in-depth discussion of my personal political reading won't increase the quality of debate on the issues themselves.
Posted by Matt Hittle on March 11, 2008 at 06:20 PM CDT #
You might recall that I began this debate with a legitimate critique of your positions. In your subsequent responses, however, you criticized me sharply for having the audactiy to draw any conclusions vis-à-vis your political perspective based on the columns you have penned for The Volante.
I believe you are the one who has blended politics with personal lives. You called me ignorant for offering my own response to your columns because I am not familiar with your daily news-gathering routine or your "life-long political evolution."
By this logic, of course, you should be precluded from impugning the statements by Democratic leaders or the books authored by liberal pundits. Why not? You aren't familiar with the development of their politics. You aren't privy to every detail that shapes their positions.
Of course, we both know such criteria is absurd, as is the suggestion that I am unqualified describe your work as I see it. You may describe yourself as a libertarian above all (and you should be commended for rebuking the tenets of Bush-style conservatism), but when I read your columns, I see nothing more than GOP talking points and very little nuanced analysis of those to whom you are opposed (your most recent article being a prime example).
Don't dismiss my responses as mischaracterizations simply because I don't know you personally. By virtue of submiting your opinion to the public--which, for most, serves as the only window into your worldview--you invariably allow others to draw their own conclusions. These are merely my own.
Posted by Robert on March 11, 2008 at 08:55 PM CDT #
First, you began this discussion like this:
"I read a wide variety of political perspectives, including those with which I disagree--something Hittle and Carr clearly do not do enough."
That is hardly a legitimate critique of my positions. Rather, you are essentially calling Tim and I uninformed.
Second, please show me where I CALLED you ignorant. I did no such thing. I said you were ignorant of a specific fact--I said you were "ignorant of the fact that I read the Daily Kos every day." Being ignorant in general and being ignorant of a specific fact are two VERY different things. I wouldn't call you ignorant in general because I don't know you. Perhaps you are very smart. However, I know you are ignorant of my daily political reading, as you are not with me when I read. Therefore, you are ignorant of that fact.
Third, when I discussed my political evolution, I was including it in a greater discussion of closed-mindedness. I was pointing out that I have changed my mind several times throughout my adult life. I have been quite open-minded. You, especially not knowing this, have no basis for accusing me of closed-mindedness. Indeed, there is no base in any of my columns for the assumption that I'm totally closed-minded. It still seems you called me that simply because I don't agree with you.
I was not referring to "impugning statements...etc etc" and I'm not sure where you found that in my comment. I didn't say anything about anyone's policy ideas- I was talking about closed-mindedness. I didn't assume you to be closed-minded, although you disagree with me. I just assume that you disagree with me. Why must it be taken to such an extreme, Robert?
Fourth, it is very difficult to put every nuanced point into a 530-word column. I have space to hit the main points and that's it. That's why I try to supplement my column with my posts on http://blogs.usd.edu/crepub. But I'm glad you're reading- even though you disagree. Thanks and please keep reading.
I don't begrudge you your ability to critique my policy positions. By all means, do. But I do take umbrage with your assumptions that I don't do my political homework and that I am simply toeing the party line. Indeed, you'll find many areas in my columns in which I am hardly being a good Republican.
I do put myself into the public, and I've got the bruises to show for it. But those bruises are largely critiques on my policy opinions, not personal issues. I'd like to keep it that way for as long as possible.
PS: Why don't you let everyone here know what your full name is? I do. You should, too.
Posted by Matt Hittle on March 11, 2008 at 10:00 PM CDT #
"Your comment makes no sense."
That was your initial response to my post on your blog. Granted, you didn't explicitly call me ignorant, but you came "dangerously close," as you might say.
I see closed-mindedness in your columns every time I read them, sir. I even cited your most recent work as a prime example. You used sweeping generalizations to describe the candidacies of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. Tim Carr's column on Sen. Obama was replete with the same, tired talking points that have been employed this entire campaign.
I believe this constitutes closed-mindedness. It isn't purely because I disagree with you. If you wrote your columns from a thoughtful, discerning, and fair perspective, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
Until then, I will maintain my position.
Posted by Robert on March 11, 2008 at 11:01 PM CDT #
But did I call you ignorant, Robert? No. I merely disagreed with your argument. That's why I said "Your COMMENT makes no sense," not "YOU make no sense."
Second- tired talking points? Anyone who has been watching the election has heard "CHANGE" and "HOPE" and "CHANGE WE CAN BELIEVE IN" and "EXPERIENCE" and "CHANGE CHANGE CHANGE CHANGE CHANGE." If those aren't tired talking points, I don't know what is!
So this is your logic:
Sweeping generalizations+ talking points=closed mindedness.
------------------
"I read a wide variety of political perspectives, including those with which I disagree--something Hittle and Carr clearly do not do enough."
--That's pretty general.
"Methinks it's moot to read anything that will be instantly dismissed as "treachery." "
-- A sweeping generalization of the Republican Party.
"I see no reason why Daschle should feel beholden to a state that enabled a man to distort his record and pillory his reputation back in 2004."
--So the ENTIRE state enabled Daschle's rhetoric to be distorted? That's general, as well as the normal Democratic response to Daschle's defeat...at talking point, I daresay?
"Daschle lost because enough people were threatened by homosexuality and terrorism--two issues that have virtually no relevance in this state, by the way."
---That's general, too! There's no examination of the minutia of the election.
----------
Of course, the preceding examples were pushed to extremes, but you get the picture.
Simple generalizations and talking points don't constitute closed-mindedness. In fact, I think that generalizations have nothing to do with the formation of a closed mind, but rather are the PRODUCT of a closed mind.
I would, of course, agree with your assessment that my columns contain generalizations--However, not in the pejorative sense in which you hold them. It's impossible NOT to make generalizations (as you showed in your quotes). They help us understand the world better, without being forced to nitpick at small stuff that is immaterial to the outcome.
When I make generalizations like "The Democratic presidential candidates have all begun to sing a chorus of "CHANGE," that's general as hell! But it's true- and I don't think Robert or anyone here would disagree with me- the vast, vast majority of Democrats want "CHANGE," and the Democratic candidates have been using that exact same line! It's a fact.
But when it comes to a generalization that Robert DOESN'T agree with, it's closed minded. This does not match up with the logic.
Robert, you may maintain your position as much as you wish. I'm not stopping you. But I fear that your ideal "thoughtful, discerning, and fair" perspective would be a regurgitation of the weekly Democratic radio address or something. I'm a (libertarian) Republican hammering away at a Democrat. It's not new. Live with it.
If you're waiting for me to embrace big government, high taxes, and income redistribution, while singing the praises of two woefully inexperienced Democratic candidates, don't hold your breath.
In the meantime, thanks for reading my work, even though you don't agree.
Also, you should tell us what your last name is. You're a good writer, and I think we'd all like to know who is penning these thoughtful, interesting challenges to my viewpoints.
Posted by Matt Hittle on March 11, 2008 at 11:31 PM CDT #
I have no interest in perpetuating this debate, but I'd be remiss if I didn't bring up a blatant inaccuracy. When I contended that "it's moot to read anything that will be instantly dismissed as 'treachery'" I was clearly making a facetious reference to one of your previous comments, not a sweeping generalization of the Republican party.
There.
I won't delve into a pompous lecture about how you are ignorant to the myriad positions that shape my worldview, but I do take exception to your assertion that what I consider to be a thoughtful perspective would constitute a "regurgitation of the weekly Democratic radio address or something."
It might interest you to know that I read Andrew Sullivan's blog daily (andrewsullivan.com). He's an avowed conservative, but his work isn't characterized by the hyper-partisanship that often plagues your columns. In fact, he has been relentlessly critical of both the Bush Administration and the religious right. It might disappoint you, however, to know that he too has been fooled by Sen. Obama's "cheap change rhetoric." In my mind, it's the best blog on the internet. You should add it to your docket.
Posted by Robert on March 12, 2008 at 10:54 AM CDT #
Well, Robert, I'm upset you didn't comment on almost any of the points I made in my last comment. It seems to me that, if you had no interest in perpetuating this debate, you wouldn't have even written your last comment! I think that "I have no interest....but..." line was just an effort to bring yourself above my base, subhuman libertarian level, right Robert?
I'm kidding, chill out!
As for your previous post, you might want to reread your comments above, as it is plainly obvious through the context, you insinuated that any deviation from the Republican platform would be seen as "treachery" by the party. That is a blanket statement of the Republican party! You're saying that the Republicans don't allow any deviation from the platform by their members. Contrary to your one-dimensional view, the Republican party, like the Dems, is comprised of a wide variety of ideologies.
Next, you can't escape the line of logic that you proposed, nor can you escape the fact that I blew it to bits. I'm saddened you didn't include a revision of that logic. Maybe it was too far gone?
Next, I AM ignorant of the "myriad positions hat shape your worldview!!!" THAT'S WHY I DON'T COMMENT ON THEM (as you so presumptuously commented on mine!) Are you getting my point? I don't have font style more explicit than all caps.
Next, I said that your idea of a thoughtful perspective, "I FEAR," would be a regurgitation, etc etc. The words "I fear" make all the difference. I didn't say that your idea of a thoughtful perspective "IS" a regurgitation. That wouldn't be correct, as I don't know what your idea of a thoughtful perspective is. It is obvious, though, that your idea of a thoughtful perspective has no link to either the libertarian or conservative ideologies. That much is fairly certain.
Next, the "hyper-partisanship" that plagues my columns is a farce, created by you in order to paint me as a lockstep Republican. You are, quite frankly, lying. My columns are NOT from a purely Republican standpoint. If you would have actually read ALL of my columns, not just those hammering Obama and Clinton, you'd realize that I often criticize my party for stupid things it does, as well.
Jeez, I'm starting to think you're trying to get it wrong on purpose.
Finally, you and Sullivan aren't alone. Many people have been fooled by Obama's cheap rhetoric. It's rather unfortunate. Thank you for recommending Sullivan's blog, but I already look in on The Daily Dish from time to time.
Sullivan is, like me, upset at the growth of government. Since the present administration has grown government to unfathomable heights, it's understandable that he has endorsed Democrats in the past- though I disagree with the reasons he has endorsed Obama, which can be found here: http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200712/obama
I'm saddened that you've got no interest in continuing this debate. It was rather fun. Though I must say that I'm disappointed you didn't give us your last name. I consider that extremely tacky and, frankly, cowardly.
Cheers!
Posted by Matt Hittle on March 13, 2008 at 01:53 PM CDT #