OK, I’m pretty sure this latest kafuffle over Barack’s un-cautious comments in San Francisco is the moment I’ve been waiting for. Since Barack took control of the nominating context in January, my position has been that, as much as I want it wrapped up, there’s really no reason for Hillary to get out quickly. It’s a race for President of the United States – as long as you can see a path to winning, you should stick with it. Having two great, qualified candidates has strengthened the party and made me proud, and I have been too busy being grateful for that to feel like I know when enough is enough. But I’ve qualified that view with “as long as they can keep it clean.”
The Jeremiah Wright business didn’t trigger the “as long as they can keep it clean” provision, maybe just because it ultimately was a fastball right in Barack’s wheelhouse, and it let to the biggest grand-slam homerun of the campaign season so far, and renewed my commitment to his candidacy. But this one is different. We’ve always known that “out of touch liberal elitist” is what McCain et al were going to throw at him. They sure don’t need Hillary’s help. Over this, for the first time, I really do think we need a united front, not two against one.
“Wait a minute,” says the hypothetical Hillary-supporting Pickle reader (and thank you, Hillary-supporting Pickle reader, for sticking with us), “you’re saying that the one time she makes a criticism of him that hits home, it’s time to get out of the race? Isn’t that the point of the nominating contest? To test the candidates’ vulnerabilities? If he can’t hack it, wouldn’t we rather know that now?”
I have two responses. First, and most importantly, I have a news flash: Liberals are Elitists. “Government would work just fine if you’d just listen for once!” Sound familiar? Like most good Democratic candidates, this is Barack’s vulnerability to a Republican challenger. Hillary knows that – that’s why she knows she has an effective attack. But it’s not a worthy attack. If she can win it by convincing us that she has better ideas, or is more able to execute them, or is otherwise more qualified, though admittedly the window is closing, then fine. But to go to GOP talking points so directly is a bad idea, and the superdelegates should punish her for it. Not to be a Liberal Elitist about it, but he wouldn’t do this.
Maybe, if it was still November, we should be vetting his liberal elitism. But now it just hurts the party. Which leads me to my second point. It’s not November. Shorter leash. As my friend Emma said last night, “The fact is, he’s going to be the nominee.” I’m not sure I’d go quite that far quite yet, but she ain’t gonna have more pledged delegates, more votes, or more states than him, so he’s not your average frontrunner. He almost has the party’s nomination for the Presidency. If she can’t play the game with that in mind, we need to politely ask her to leave the field.
Sunday, April 13, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
dan do you figure we'll know where we are on April 22? Seems like when she wins, regardless of the margin, the press gets confused and obama's seeming inevitability goes out the window for a week. also is the popular vote question off the table now that the michigan and florida efforts are kaput?
Emily, thanks for your question. Let me respond shortly in post form, as we near the resumption of actual voting...
"Liberals are Elitists." I feel like this is true only in the sense that liberals feel like they have better and more powerful ideas than others. But in this sense, it's very hard to find someone who isn't an elitist. We all prefer our own way of thinking. By saying "liberals are elitists" you imply (purposefully or not) that conservatives somehow aren't, which is dangerous ground to concede, considering that a huge part of the Republican strategy will be convincing us just how Regular and Down To Earth good old John McCain is - how he is one of the Common Folk.
Well, look, I agree with you that most people who have political opinions think that their ideas are better than alternative ideas, else they would switch to the alternative ideas. But it's also true that the most common brand of argument you hear from garden-variety conservatives is of the "this isn't a problem for which government is the answer" type. I think it's fair to concede that the maker of such an argument could be motivated out of the humble belief that he or she doesn't know the answer and, conservatively, doesn't wish to impose his or her will on others in the absence of confident conviction. That, I think, is the motivating spirit behind good conservatism in governing, and I do think it's fair to say that liberals do not generally feel bound by a similar sense of humility. Instead, we respond that the conservative bias towards, well, conservatism, results in inaction that perpetuates the status quo, which is often less just than many of the imperfect active policy options on the table. That implies a confidence that we have good ideas, and a willingness to impose those ideas on others. Let me be clear: I feel strongly that that confidence and that willingness are not only justified, they are morally required.
Now that in itself isn't elitism, but it do think such an approach to government does tend to attract and breed elitism more than conservatism. I agree it's dangerous ground to conceed, but that's just politics.
Also, if I may be permitted a bit of weenie-ness, I was sort of exagerating for effect. I mostly just mean that the shoe fits a bit better for liberals than it does for conservatives. Do you dispute that?
Post a Comment