Monday, July 20, 2009

A facile analogy

This is an exceptionally facile piece of op-ed nonsense. Let's skip to the end:
In itself, of course, there’s nothing inherently wrong with opting to forgo bipartisanship support for the sake of getting your ideas through. That, however, is not what Candidate Obama promised. And just think how the debate would change if the press were to begin describing Mr. Obama in a way that seems reserved for Republicans: a highly partisan president pursuing a narrow partisan agenda.
This is little better than gobbledygook. If there's nothing wrong with trying to pass something on party lines, what difference does it make whether the press notes it? I suppose if it makes Obama look bad...oh, wait, that would be a partisan concern, would it not? I thought that was teh bad!!!!!!!!!!!!11!1

I don't require that everyone agree with me, but I do require that everyone be honest about where they stand. McGurn doesn't like Obama's policies, fine. He has a problem with the media's coverage of them, fine. He's evidently a Wall Street Journal columnist and he's got a megaphone from which to make a critique. So why not make one? Why construct this web of words about whether the media should say he's partisan or not, which he concedes isn't a big deal?

The reason why this grates me is that there's a substantive difference between Obama's outreach to the Republicans and Bush's to the Democrats. Obama has tried to hustle for Republican votes on everything, but the Republican leadership has gone all in on mindless opposition to all of Obama's policies, and banking on his ultimate failure. Now, I should be fair and say that a lot of Republicans simply don't agree with government expansion with respect to healthcare, or to the specific provisions of Waxman-Markey. This is perfectly fine. But Obama hasn't changed since November 4. And the article compares Obama's operation to Bush's? Hardly. In fact, that's rather insulting. Obama's not saying, for example, that anyone who opposes health care reform is anti-American, or that anyone who opposes his foreign policy wants the terrorists to win, and that we should always support the president even if we disagree. He's not using the whole federal government as a spoils trough for ideological hacks. Honestly, aside from a few light attacks on right-wing radio hosts, he's been far more civil toward the opposition party than Bush ever was. Call me back when Obama starts talking about the Northeast being the Real America and I'll be willing to listen to a screed about how Bush was not as partisan as Obama.

The Man, The Myth, The Bio

East Bay, California, United States
Problem: I have lots of opinions on politics and culture that I need to vent. If I do not do this I will wind up muttering to myself, and that's only like one or two steps away from being a hobo. Solution: I write two blogs. A political blog that has some evident sympathies (pro-Obama, mostly liberal though I dissent on some issues, like guns and trade) and a culture blog that does, well, cultural essays in a more long-form manner. My particular thing is taking overrated things (movies, mostly, but other things too) down a peg and putting underrated things up a peg. I'm sort of the court of last resort, and I tend to focus on more obscure cultural phenomena.