Politics Can Be Tricky

One of my old blog posts has attracted some recent action. Go catch up on the comments, I'm responding here.

An old friend asked me if I felt differently about Obama now that he was in office. He also questioned if I still felt it was petty for Republicans to have attacked Obama based on his old statements and acquaintances. Actually, he asked a lot more than that, but that was the first bit, the part I began responding to, before the comments thread became an entity unto itself.

I do still feel it is a bad strategy, when running for office, to focus too vigorously on an opponent's flaws. I trust my own capacity to winnow out the wheat from the chaff in a politician's comments, and find it contentious and patronizing when someone tries to force-feed me all the reasons I'm stupid/bad/wrong/ignorant for not being outraged.

But that's what I want to hear; it is obvious from election success stories that lots of the electorate (*cough* that's you guys) responds to negativity.


But if you keep reading down the conversation, it morphed from that initial query. Don and my brother-in-law, Roger, started talking earnestly about the issues. Don spoke strongly. Roger responded. They seem to respect each other, mostly. But the conversation drifted into contention. Don is clearly well-read on things political, which I respect and am grateful for; I don't have time to be well-read, so I rely on the well-reading of others to get by.

But I hate conflict. Normally, when things are contentious online, I just tune out. Life's too short to be so angry. But it's my post. I feel responsible, like I need to say something. But I have been avoiding it. Every time I've wanted to blog for a month, I've felt stuck, like I need to respond to my old blog-post comments first.


I just didn't really see anywhere in the comments that I could contribute to the dialog. I believe any conversation, no matter how combative the individual opinions, can remain a civil discourse. It requires the participants to inhabit a collective fiction; the notion that any person might be right. This allows people to speak, to pose, to conjecture, and feel their words will be treated with respect. That's why, right there at the beginning of my post last year, I referenced an article that talked about polarization.

I'm tired of polarization. I think it's been bad for the country the last 8 years, and wish better for the country now. I think the Republicans lost this time because they relied too heavily on polarizing strategy, and I hope they learned their lesson.



It's great, awesome, participatory, responsible, adult behavior to take a stand. Be a partisan, they are the people that make things happen. I like that part of what Don and Roger were doing. But if you drift into demagoguery, then you cease to be persuasive to me becoming strident, fanatic. You are preaching to the choir, and chasing away anyone who doesn't already agree with you. It is off-putting to us moderates, to be accused of devilry because we are not offended enough.

So, a response. I decided to cherry-pick a few questions and comments, and respond to those.

I am quite sure that Obama is open to influences, but I am equally sure that those influences are in no way "divine".

Establishing an opening position that "Obama is evil" means there is no discussing left to be done. And I don't believe he is evil. I allow it is possible that he is, and acknowledge that certainly some his actions are, but that's not the same thing. He, like every elected official, merits our continued attention and input. I think we are citizens of the country, that the election was legal, and that we have a duty to pray for our leaders and obey the laws that are in effect.

Our freedom is being destroyed by the idea that it is moral for the government to forcibly confiscate the property of some, only to give it to others. If it would be immoral for you to do it, it is immoral for government to do it.

...fundamentally government is force. What gives you (or anyone else) the right to force me (or anyone else) to give my means to meet the ends that you view as worthwhile? The answer is that the concept is immoral to the core and no good thing can ever come of it.

I disagree that the taking/giving of property by the government is immoral. The government needs to be able to take property for the common good or safety of the public, and I think the fifth amendment (hey other readers, did you know the fifth was about more than the right to refuse to answer questions that might incriminate?) is sufficient protection of individual liberty and property rights. This is not a response to your opinions on welfare and the welfare state, just your categorical denouncement of government takings.

Do you support Obama’s efforts to foment thoughtless anger at said bonuses into a further power grab that would see the compensation for all executives be subject to congressional "oversight"?

Do you support the kind of power grab represented by Obama and his Democrat super-majority by demonizing and retroactively punishing--via the tax code--people for accepting bonuses they are contractually entitled to? Threatening to release names and addresses of those involved if they don't pay the money back... I will add that Obama and the Democrats knew well ahead of time that this was going to happen, and in fact included a clause that specifically allowed it to happen in the "Stimulus bill". One can only conclude that they meant for this to happen so that they could gin up misplaced anger. This whole episode is one of the most despicable acts of political theater and thuggery I've ever had the misfortune of witnessing.

I disagree with your premise that Obama is fomenting thoughtless anger. Well, maybe he is. I think we (the people) are pretty dumb, and are easily led off-track. I have a hard time blaming the media, because I think they give the people what the people want, or at least what the people will buy. Those little top ten most popular lists on news sites are pretty informative that way.



And as far as "One can only conclude", one of the most important things I learned in law school; when someone says "obviously", they have just highlighted the greatest weakness in their argument. There are a million conclusions someone could reach, based on the predicates you proposed. Maybe they knew this would happen, and hoped we wouldn't notice. Maybe they knew this would happen, didn't care, but recognized the political inexpediency of ignoring it once it gained traction.

Do you support the effort to grant newspapers (a Democrat house organ in the main) tax exempt status?

I have not heard of any effort to grant this status. I think that's pretty bold to label newspapers a Democrat house organ; I think news outfits in general are liberal, because it reflects the liberal leanings of the kinds of people who go into journalism.

Do you support your tax dollars being used to fund the world-wide murder of innocents under the guise of foreign aid?

I'm opposed to abortion. But I recognize that some people who defend it do so because they don't think it's murder, but a legitimate medical procedure. Hostile abridgement of your opponents' stances is rude and bad form. It makes me mad when people ask me why I am homo-phobic (because I oppose same-sex marriage). I don't think it is unfair to grant the same civility to others that I seek for myself.

Having said that, policy on funding abortion-related activity has sawed back and forth every time a different party has come into power for decades. I cannot generate anger at Obama for doing exactly what he said he was going to do, I can only continue to seek to influence the policy.

Do you support the registration and confiscation of firearms?

Do you support the back-door gun control measures aimed at making ammunition and guns prohibitively expensive to manufacture?

I think the world would be a better place with no guns. I think the mentality that we need guns to protect ourselves from the government is destructive. But I think the Constitution guarantees the right of citizens to have guns, but also allows the government the means to regulate them.

Are you bothered by Obama’s appointment of numerous tax-cheats, and dozens of lobbyists to his cabinet after running on a promise to NOT have lobbyists in his cabinet?

No. The tax-cheat thing, those mistakes/cheats have been made by dozens, if not hundreds, of appointed personnel over the last handful of elections. And as far as the lobbyist thing, I think lobbyists have too much influence in Washington, but the cure for that is disclosure. I would rather know the lobbyist history of a well-informed appointee, than have an executive office filled with uninformed rubes with no previous political experience.

Do you support giving nearly a billion dollars away to a terrorist group (Hamas) who has sworn the destruction of both the Great and Little Satan’s (the U.S. and Israel)?

I feel about the same as I do about the funding received by the descendants of the IRA; cautious, but hopeful. Hamas may be a terrorist organization, but that money was ostensibly for refugees. If it gets mis-directed, then hopefully it will be a lesson learned.

Do you support eliminating tax deductions for charitable donations? This goes back to your earlier assertion that the government wouldn’t have to do so much if there were more charity. This is the government intentionally working to dry up charitable donations so that they will have more of an excuse to intrude where they shouldn’t be in the first place.

I'm opposed to eliminating tax deductions for charitable contributions. But I've heard the political rhetoric every legislative season, and how every group gets threatened. I don't think anyone in office actually believes that such a notion would succeed, therefore, I don't believe they have any intentions attached to the success of such a notion.

Do you really believe that our problems with too much debt and spending can be fixed by running up more debt in three years than has been incurred in the ENTIRE history of the country?

Now here, I don't know. It seems counter-intuitive to spend our way out of debt, but all the economists I hear talking keep referring to Keynes, and FDR, and the stimulative effect of government spending. I'd be happy to read anything to the contrary.

So. I think Obama is doing a good job at some of the important things a President is supposed to do. He is a statesman, he is confident, smart, and seems (to me) to be genuine in his efforts to be bi-partisan. It doesn't worry me that he is President any more than it did when Clinton was.

I think that our country is too willing to subsidize bad behavior, too eager to bailout and extend welfare. I think our country is beset by well-meaning people who would destroy the concept of family in pursuit of liberty for all. I think the ranks of those well-meaning people are shot through with genuine I think one of the most effective things I can do is to be informed, and to participate in political processes. I think I have a duty to teach my children how to be intuitive but discerning in their politics, and to remain discerning in what influences they allow to affect their opinions, which is part of what I hope this blog entry is.

Look for primary source material. Be open-minded, but prove all things. Be open to persuasion, and when offered a chance to be persuasive, be civil.