BCT Editorial – 12/7/08

This page was last updated on December 7, 2008.

Working the middle; Editorial; Beaver County Times; December 7, 2008.

The editorial subtitle is “Obama fails to act as the left and right expected him to.”

This is just another editorial trying to convince us leftists are really “moderates.”

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“It turns out that neither liberals nor conservatives knew the real Barack Obama, and it’s a good thing for the country that both sides got it wrong.”

[RWC] Let me get this straight. Mr. Obama hasn’t even taken office – and won’t for over a month, yet the Times has seen enough to believe it knows “the real Barack Obama?”

“So far, the president-elect has disappointed his followers on the left who thought he was one of them and surprised his critics on the right who believed he was too liberal.

“Liberals look at Obama’s foreign relations team — Hillary Clinton at State, Robert Gates at the Pentagon and Gen. James Jones as national security adviser — and are disappointed. Conservatives look at them and are relieved.”

[RWC] I clearly don’t know what Mr. Obama was thinking, but nominating Mrs. Clinton was a good political move for him. While in the Cabinet, Mrs. Clinton can’t cause problems for Mr. Obama in the Senate and is pretty much out of the picture to challenge him in the 2012 primary. Not only would Mrs. Clinton have to quit her position early to challenge Mr. Obama in 2012, she can’t even do fundraising as long as she’s in the Cabinet. It also will likely keep Bill Clinton quiet as long as Mrs. Clinton is in the Cabinet.

“In fact, Obama’s nominees for cabinet posts and other high offices have been mostly in the mainstream of U.S. politics. His rhetoric and policy announcements have been in the same vein.”

[RWC] “Obama’s nominees for cabinet posts and other high offices have been mostly in the mainstream of U.S. politics?” So far they are mostly retreads from the Clinton administration. By the way, short of being a publicly self-avowed communist or something similar, editorials indicate the Times will consider any leftist to be “in the mainstream of U.S. politics” regardless of how far left his positions are.

“But as Philadelphia Inquirer columnist Dick Polman wrote, the left and the right have no one but themselves to blame for misreading Obama and for misleading the American public about him.”

[RWC] Alert! What you are about to read in the next two paragraphs is pure, unadulterated BS.

“‘Obama himself has written in his books that ‘I am bound to disappoint’ many followers, precisely because they often ‘project their own views’ on him, whereas he considers himself to be a bipartisan consensus-builder,’ Polman wrote.”

[RWC] So because Mr. Obama allegedly “considers himself to be a bipartisan consensus-builder,” we’re to accept that as fact?

“Obama has a track record for doing so. Polman wrote that ‘biographer David Mendell told the liberal salon.com Web site late last month, ‘This has been the pattern for him historically — the left falls in love with him because of his eloquent oratory … but he has legislated from somewhere in the middle … He’ll irritate people on both sides … the right expects him to be a Democrat, and the far left expects him to be one of them.’”

[RWC] “Obama has a track record for” being “a bipartisan consensus-builder” and “‘he has legislated from somewhere in the middle?’” Where is the evidence? For his first three years in the Senate (2008 ratings won’t be out until next year.), Mr. Obama has an Americans for Democratic Action Liberal Quotient (ADA terminology, not mine) of 98%, just two points shy of being an ADA “Hero.” How is that “somewhere in the middle?” Using ADA guidelines, you’re a “Moderate” with an LQ in the 40%-60% range and Mr. Obama isn’t even close. Further, during the campaign none of Mr. Obama’s supporters could name a major issue on which he bucked his leftist party leadership.

“If Mendell’s observation turns out to be true, Obama’s approach to governing would be a welcome return to pragmatism, which has taken a back seat to ideology for the last two decades.”

[RWC] To begin, let’s address a couple of words in the previous sentence. By “ideology,” the editorial means principles. I believe the reason Times editorials use “ideology” rather than “principles” is it allows editorials to dump on alleged “ideologues,” people who blindly support an ideology. It’s more difficult to complain about someone following their principles.

By “pragmatism,” the editorial means any approach with which the Times agrees. Other than when taking a position based on partisan politics, this means getting enough votes to support the leftist position.

If the Times really wanted pragmatism, “a practical approach to problems and affairs” according to the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, it would push for conservative approaches. There’s nothing “practical” about choosing leftist approaches history and logic show don’t work.

“The result is the hard-line mess we have today: a dysfunctional federal government that cannot address the real-life problems that Americans are facing.”

[RWC] This is yet another clue to what the Times really wants. When someone writes about a “federal government that cannot address the real-life problems that Americans are facing,” they really mean they want a nanny government. Beyond things like ensuring effective individual liberty and providing for national security, it’s not the government’s job to inject itself into our lives.

“[H]ard-line mess” Translation: Whenever enough Republicans have the spine to follow conservative principles and foil leftist executive, legislative, and regulatory initiatives.

“The message from this past election was that Americans want a government that works. Those on the left and right who fail to grasp that and insist on misplaced ideological purity are doing themselves and the nation a disservice.”

[RWC] We’ve heard the “The message from this past election …” comment before. Consider this quote from “Angry electorate” of November 11, 2006. “Tuesday’s election returns showed that American voters are disgusted with politics as usual in the nation’s capital. Democrats have a chance to change that. If they don’t, the voters will let them know about it come 2008.” I guess this editorial concedes Democrats didn’t improve things.

Regarding the comment about “misplaced ideological purity,” have we ever read a Times editorial complain about “misplaced ideological purity” when it comes to a specific leftist position?