Can somebody help me please? Since this blog is awash in reams of advice for President Obama, I figured someone here can help me lift the veil of my "naivete" and help me understand the angst du jour.
Because I really don't get it.
First of all, full disclosure: I am a proud member of the "I-freakin'-love this guy-and-I-will-be-working-my-ass-off-to-re-elect-him" wing of the Democratic Party. I still feel this way despite many attempted tag-team interventions by "reason", "rationalism" and "reality". However, after re-engaging with this blog for the past day or so, I must confess that I've been feeling
a bit of cognative dissonance. After all, as an LDS pamphleteer asked of me the other day, how can something that so many people believe not have some truth in it? So I decided to consult my Obama idol, and ask him what he thought of the current disaffection roiling the left.
First of all, I asked him about this argument that Clinton was a better negotiator, and that his principled stand on tax increases helped bring about the most robust economy in a generation. I had to think about it, because I do understand, despite my "naivete", that the fitness of the economy is a function of several dependent factors. Would the economy under Clinton have been so robust without the proliferation of the internet for example?
It seems strange to suggest that someone is a good negotiator simply because they raised taxes, when so many other factors determined the relative strength of the economy at that time. But for the sake of argument, let's assume that Obama has a thing or two to learn about the stalwart progressive principle of raising taxes from the President who signed the repeal of Glass-Stegal. Shouldn't he then also deify Reagan? Reagan signed several tax increases too, never mind the fact that he left office with the deficit in the red.
It seems even stranger to suggest that someone is a better negotiator, a conclusion which relies on an implicit comparison between two completely different economic and political contexts. All of these arguments are terribly confusing to a humble idolator such as myself, so I asked my Obama idol what he thought.
He told me to stop reading blogs and start talking to my neighbors about the kind of country we wanted.
Fine. That wasn't exactly what I wanted to hear. Alright, it wasn't at all what I wanted to hear. I was still confused, and I wanted some answers, and I didn't want to ask my neighbors. They didn't need to know about my blog addiction, and they probably wouldn't give a shit about this angsting anyway. Besides, this was reason talking, and I'd always heard really good things about him, ... you know, and I wanted to finally understand him and why he was so frustrated with the President. I also wanted to understand why he was so full of contradiction, because ... well, he's not supposed to be.
Also, what I really wanted to know was why this "reason" character is seemingly so stuck on the fucking President. After all, that doesn't seem very reasonable. The country didn't change in 2008 because of Obama. It changed because people started talking to each other, and it will always change for the better when people do that. Perhaps Obama's candidacy was a catalyst for that, but his election was the effect and not the cause of that. Of all figures, I'd expect reason to be the first to know this, but he just can't seem to give up on his angsting, day after day after fucking day! One minute he says it's about him, the next minute he says he's misunderstood. He's always talking about his personal feelings about the President, as if they're relevant at all. In mixed company, he's always careful to say that he likes the President personally before he levels any criticism, or bemoans his feelings of betrayal. (My idol and I always eye-roll on that one) Sometimes he contemplates a primary challenge, or wonders whether the cost of the Republican presidency that will inevitably result from a primary challenge (at least reason is smart enough to do that math) will be less than the cost of Obama's re-election.
I mean, you get the gist, right? None of this is reasonable. At all. Not in the strictest sense. I mean, right? I consulted my idol again, and asked what he thought. Yes, yes, O., I know you want me to put down the pen and go outside, but I just really don't get it! You know, because the Koch brothers and all the carpetbaggers making money from sewing division are only too glad that reason can't stop lamenting his feelings of betrayal. The Koch brothers are only too glad to nurture those feelings so they can assume control of the country, rob her blind, and punish reason for ever having thought about casting a ballot for ... well ... you know they don't call him Obama. The brothers Koch don't give a fuck whether or not reason is angry, in fact they like that anger. Anger is also the most manipulable of all the emotions.
By now my idol was impatient we me. He looked at me and rolled his eyes, and told me to get the fuck out of the house, or to read a fucking book.
But I insisted. "What about dissent?," I asked.
"What about it?," said my idol.
"Well, reason feels he can't dissent."
"Well, didn't he just fucking say that?!," said my idol.
"Yeah? ...," I said.
"Well then the mufucka just dissented, didn't he? Now I've got a country to run. I don't give a shit whether reason likes me or not. I've got too much to think about, and too many problems to solve to worry about whether or not people like me. They don't have to like me. They just have to talk to each other. They just have to do right by their kids and themselves."
"Oh. Duh."
"Now get the fuck away from the keyboard."
"Fine!"
"Or I'll audit your ass."
"Daaayum!"
"Pimpin' ain't easy."
"Fuck you."
"Go read a fucking book."
Okay, you get the gist. But ... I'm still a bit confused. I've never asked reason what he thinks in so many words, so ... (and don't tell O that I'm still at this keyboard), what gives?
Help a 'bot understand from whither comes this angst.