Redstate

The distorting effects of emotion based politics

By Kevin Holtsberry Posted in 2008 | Barack Obama | blogs | race — Comments (33) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

Let's pretend for a moment that Andrew Sullivan cared about logic or reason or facts or anything but what makes him feel all tingly inside.

I know this is quite a counter-factual, but hang with me. If Andrew could get past his love affair with Barry he might just be able to comprehend that Barack Obama is a leftist. That he is a traditional big government liberal whose entire platform runs counter to the basic conception of conservatism.

Fancy rhetoric and a cool persona can't change that. Wanting to move past the ugliness of the Clinton years, while laudable, doesn't change that. Even attempting to run for president while not explicitly appealing to race doesn't change that on iota. As Ross Douthat, whose patience with Andrew and his own comment section is beyond my comprehension, has pointed out, Obama wants to move the country to the left.

Just because he wants to emulate Reagan's impact on his party and the country doesn't make him a conservative nor a Reaganite in any way shape or form. And saying so has absolutely nothing to do with race.

More on this below.

Here is Sullivan:

For me, this is an epiphany of sorts . . . I have come to believe that large swathes of today's conservative movement truly are hateful.

You want to know why "large swathes of today's conservative movement truly are hateful"? Because they don't think like Andrew Sullivan. If you don't worship in the church of Andrew Sullivan you are a heretic.

And this is the bigotry that Sullivan brings to nearly every thing he writes. He rejects conservatives because they do not live up to his own expectations.

Here is the first definition of bigotry from Dictionary.com:

1. stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.

Is that Andy or what?

Less I be accused of not offering substance. Allow me to demonstrate the irony involved in this bigotry.

Sullivan again:

Not that I have stopped believing in limited government, individual freedom, personal responsibility, pragmatic change . . .

Well, yeah actually, if you support Barack Obama then you kinda have. Can anyone with a straight face tell me that Obama's policies are based on these conservative virtues or principals?

In order to characterize his policies as supportive of limited government you must stretch it past its breaking point. Can someone point out an issue or perceived problem that Obama believes should not be addressed by government? Is there an area of life that he believes the government should not regulate? Education, healthcare, energy, taxes, trade, the list goes on and on. He is for more government and less freedom.

Listen to Obama's speeches. Is he promoting individual freedom? No, he is promoting collective government action and a bizarre sort of group therapy by voting for him. In his world view those less fortunate are victims and the solution is government involvement and money. This is not individualism but democratic socialism.

Individual responsibility: Did Obama hold Reverend Wright responsible for his actions? No, he excused his vile accusations as just the natural outcome of growing up in the fifties and sixties.

Does he hold schools and teachers responsible for failing to educate our children? No, he blames American for failing to spend enough money. Is he willing to break with the powerful teachers unions to offer individual freedom in education? No. Is he willing to bravely explain the benefits of free trade even in areas where it is unpopular? No.

Where is Obama's courage to tell people what they need to hear not just what they want to hear?

Pragmatic change: Is a return to the full throated big government liberalism of Jimmy Carter pragmatic change? Is abandoning the war in Iraq pragmatic change? Is government controlled universal health care pragmatic change? Is voting for killing babies who survived an attempted abortion pragmatic change? Nothing about Obama says pragmatic change.

The reason Obama wants to move on from Clintonism is that he rejects even the small centrist steps that Bill Clinton was willing or forced to take. He rejects that centrism - however limited - because he believes he can trick Americans into falling for his liberalism by virtue of his image and rhetoric.

His rhetoric, however, has nothing to do with pragmatism and everything to do with emotionalism. That is why it appeals to Sullivan.

Even in his speech yesterday on race Obama blamed conservatives for fanning the flames of racism for political gain:

Anger over welfare and affirmative action helped forge the Reagan Coalition. Politicians routinely exploited fears of crime for their own electoral ends. Talk show hosts and conservative commentators built entire careers unmasking bogus claims of racism while dismissing legitimate discussions of racial injustice and inequality as mere political correctness or reverse racism.

This is again the classic leftist arguement. Crime and dependecy were not real problems but rather just code words.

So let me get this straight: Obama asserts that the Reagan coalition was built on anger and racism and Andrew Sullivan likens him to this very same Reagan? Obama runs on the most liberal platform in a generation and Sullivan blames conservative opposition to him on racism and hate?

I am sorry. In the end, pretending that Sullivan cares about reason is just too unrealistic a task to ask of readers.

Especially when there is much simpler explanation at hand: if you don't agree with Andrew then you must be hateful.

This is the bigotry of Andrew Sullivan's expectations. And like all bigotry it should be shown for what it is and rejected.