The Audacity of America

Obama's victory reflects the best in our nation

Steve Chapman | November 6, 2008

Barack Obama's victory Tuesday brought to mind a number of Americans who helped pave the way for this historic moment, from Abraham Lincoln to Jesse Jackson. But it also called up someone whose achievements were of a different kind: George Patton.

Obama may know little about the fabled World War II general, but he is a kindred spirit. It was Patton who said, "In planning any operation, it is vital to remember and constantly repeat to oneself two things: 'In war, nothing is impossible provided you use audacity,' and 'Do not take counsel of your fears.'"

Those could have been the mottos of his campaign. The president-elect has some obvious qualities that recommended him to the electorate. But the trait that has served him best is one that is easy to overlook: fearlessness.

At each stage of his life, he has ventured outside his comfort zone—leaving Hawaii to go to college, moving to the unfamiliar city of Chicago for the thankless job of community organizing, enrolling at Harvard Law School, making a race for Congress against a popular incumbent (and losing), and running for the U.S. Senate against a strong field of opponents—before embarking on a quest for the presidency against very long odds. Obama is not one to play it safe or hedge his bets.

His decision to run last year was revealing, and not just about his ambition. His most vociferous detractors portrayed him as a closet radical with anti-American friends and a socialist agenda. But it would be hard to find anyone who has placed greater confidence in the decency of his fellow citizens and the potency of American democracy.

To imagine that the nation would entrust the most powerful job on Earth to a young black-skinned man with a Kenyan father, a Muslim heritage, and a name that sounds like it comes off a terrorist watch list—that was an act of supreme faith.

Americans assumed they would someday have an African-American president. But when they imagined that person five years ago or 20 years ago, they didn't picture anyone resembling Obama.

The improbability of his rise should help sustain conservatives in their hour of disappointment. This election furnishes irrefutable proof that America is a special country, with possibilities that don't exist elsewhere. It shows that our harshest critics—Jeremiah Wright comes to mind—are missing something essential. No one of good will can look at what happened Tuesday and say, "God damn America."

Anyone watching the crowds celebrating this victory could see they were not motivated by a rigid left-wing ideology but by the principles America has enshrined since its founding: liberty, equality, opportunity, and respect for the individual. They want to purge the original sin of racial oppression. They want to fulfill our ideals, not abandon them.

Applying those principles, of course, is the tricky part. Plenty of Americans distrust the policies Obama has offered, and anyone who favors free markets, budgetary restraint, and a government of limited powers has cause to worry—particularly with Democrats in control of Congress. (Not that those objectives have fared well under the incumbent.)

If they can take any consolation, it's the alternative that he averted. Conservatives should remember that had Obama not emerged, they would most likely be contemplating the inauguration of Hillary Clinton. Would any of them prefer her outlook and style to Obama's?

The notable aspect of John McCain's concession speech Tuesday night was how different it was from everything coming from his campaign in the months before. It was temperate, generous, and noble in spirit, and it made you wonder: Where has this guy been hiding, and why?

The striking thing about Obama's speech, by contrast, was how consistent it was with how he conducted himself from the start. It retained the subtext of his campaign: We are a better, more tolerant, more civil, more unified country than our politics has suggested in recent years. We can overcome our differences, racial and other.

At many points in the last two years, there has been reason to think Obama was wrong. It doesn't look that way now.

COPYRIGHT 2008 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.

Comments

ed|11.6.08 @ 7:33AM|#

America is a special country

"Special" as in Special Olympics? I concur. That is what hope is. Yes we can. All of us.

Kyle Jordan|11.6.08 @ 7:50AM|#

Good call Ed. I can hope all I want for something but I'd rather do something that could actually lead to my fulfilling of my desire. Or at least I hope so...

Mad Max|11.6.08 @ 7:59AM|#

"It was Patton who said, 'In planning any operation, it is vital to remember and constantly repeat to oneself two things: "In war, nothing is impossible provided you use audacity," and "Do not take counsel of your fears."'"

Gen. Patton wasn't the first to use the concept of audacity in this context. Danton, the French revolutionary, talked about how what was needed needed was "l'audace, l'audace, et encore l'audace" - audacity, audacity, and more audacity.

"Conservatives should remember that had Obama not emerged, they would most likely be contemplating the inauguration of Hillary Clinton. Would any of them prefer her outlook and style to Obama's?"

I would have preferred a President Hillary, because she's morally flexible to a greater extent than Sen. Obama. She would be more willing to sell out the leftist true believers, and they dearly need to be sold out, because many of their policies suck.

Perhaps Sen. Obama will do the necessary selling out - I hope so - but he will probably have to find an exalted rationale for doing so, unlike Hillary, who would do it at the drop of a hat. President Obama would probably have to be convinced on some level that bucking his left-wing supporters was in the public interest, and this is not guaranteed to happen. Hillary would do a *lot* less soul-searching.

Travis|11.6.08 @ 8:18AM|#

"running for the U.S. Senate against a strong field of opponents"

Sex scandal Jack Ryan & Alan Keyes were strong opponents?

puck|11.6.08 @ 8:20AM|#

He is neither Muslim nor Christian. He's, he's...a Zen Buddhist. Race was very much a part of the excitement of the campaign, stated explicitly by pundits and plebians alike: 40 years after civil rights, the promised dream has been fulfilled. And at the same time it wasn't about race at all, as Obama is a man of mixed heritage and race - he transcends race. And of course, the electorate pretty much always votes for the opposite party when the economy is in ruins. People aren't caring about race when they're losing their shirts. Then of course there's the Sarah Palin factor - as frightened as some independents or centrists might have been of Obama, the specter of a possible Palin presidency was truly harrowing. So, it was both about race and not about race at the same time, a zen paradox, appropriate for the first Zen Buddhist president, with that impressive implacable mien.

If I were McCain, I'd be finding a nice quiet, private room to just click my heels together and pinch myself that I *didn't* win. What kind of wackjob would want a job like that?

ed|11.6.08 @ 8:21AM|#

Chapman makes a good point about Hillary.
Had it been her, I would have had to pull my own head off in despair.

BDB|11.6.08 @ 8:37AM|#

I agree with the point about Hillary, too.

At least Obama, even if he doesn't do anything else good, saved us from a Clinton Dynasty, aborting it in the womb. For that, we can all be thankful.

|11.6.08 @ 8:44AM|#

Obama didn't actually run against Jack Ryan. He was replaced with Alan Keyes. He was polling second or third in the Democratic primary near the election, but the front runner was discovered to be a wife beater.

BDB|11.6.08 @ 8:48AM|#

"Hillary would do a *lot* less soul-searching."

Hillary has a soul to search?

Abdul|11.6.08 @ 8:51AM|#

I actually would have preferred Hilary to Obama. In foreign policy, Hilary would have been a more savvy operator. She nailed Obama in the primaries on his plan to meet America's opponents without pre-conditions.

On domestic policy, I agree with Mad Max. The clintons became more pragmatic and realistic about what they could achieve after the failed health care plan of their first term. The clintons were open to compromise. I don't think Obama will be as open (nor will he have to be).

anarch|11.6.08 @ 8:52AM|#

Hillary has a soul to search?

It was in one of those little gift-wrapped boxes she was giving away at Christmas.

BDB|11.6.08 @ 8:58AM|#

Abdul--

Obama is already bringing in Clintonites instead of Chicago people. If you prefer the Clintons, that is a "good" sign I guess.

|11.6.08 @ 9:03AM|#

For a minute there, I almost thought that Chris Matthews wrote this article. Good grief, Chapman, did a tingle go up your leg?

|11.6.08 @ 9:12AM|#

How sad it must be to be so caught up in your partisan talking points and faux-cool pose that you can't, or won't, acknowledge what just happened.

Hey, France! Hey, Germany! Where's YOUR minority president, huh? Gonna elect the son of a Morroccan immigrant any minute now, right?

USA! USA!

|11.6.08 @ 9:15AM|#

Obama is more like Montgomery than Patton. He's more a strategist than a tactician; he's more cerebral than intuitive; he's patient; he plays the odds and looks for his shot, then exploits it ruthlessly; and he excels more at organization and logistics than at brawling.

|11.6.08 @ 9:18AM|#

Maybe there will be progress on marijuana legalization, at least on medpot, and maybe the American gulag will be cut back some.

|11.6.08 @ 9:20AM|#

My fervent HOPE is that Reason will CHANGE it's syndicated columnist for someone more substantive, Andy Rooney e.g.

Can we Oust Steve Chapman AlReady?
pleeeeeeeeease

|11.6.08 @ 9:21AM|#

Symbolism over substance seems to be the flavor of the season.Excuse me if I don't jump for joy.

|11.6.08 @ 9:22AM|#

The striking thing about Obama's speech, by contrast, was how consistent it was with how he conducted himself from the start. It retained the subtext of his campaign: We are a better, more tolerant, more civil, more unified country than our politics has suggested in recent years. We can overcome our differences, racial and other.

Except for when Obama compared being for free trade with lacking patriotism.
"When American workers hear John McCain talking about putting country first, it's fair to ask - which country?" (talking about McCain opposing a requirement that the US government buy only US-made motorcycles.)

|11.6.08 @ 9:23AM|#

I can't imagine McCain doing that, after he literally turned his back on a suffering patient that asked him a question about medpot. The Republicans talk about freedom and small government and then do everything they can to prevent it. The scumbags deserve to lose everthing. If not Ron Paul, then it might as well be a Democrat.

|11.6.08 @ 9:26AM|#

And I could never vote for a party that embraces religious nutcases like Palin. A 6,000-year-old Earth? What are they smoking up there?

|11.6.08 @ 9:27AM|#

Make no doubt about it, we need change. I am afraid with all the damage the Bush Dictatorship has done it may take years to reverse.

JIff
www.internet-anonymity.net.tc

|11.6.08 @ 9:29AM|#

I would have preferred a President Hillary, because she's morally flexible to a greater extent than Sen. Obama.

Morally flexibe? WTF? The last 7¾ years a veritable moral Gumby has occupied the Oval Office. Excuse me for not considering that trait a positve.

Kaiser|11.6.08 @ 9:29AM|#

I really see nothing good at all about an Obama presidency. He doesn't have a libertarian bone in his body. His race has absolutely no bearing, to me anyways, and means nothing in the grand spectrum. If I hear "This is an unprecedented historic moment in America" (or anything like it) one more time I am going to kill something. I'm not going to start ranting about how the PC police and liberals just perpetuate the race problem but I will say this: Why is it just a black president that is so important? We have never had a Mexican/Hispanic president, nor a Jew, an Asian, a gay, nor an atheist to hold that office. (I am aware that Thomas Jefferson was an atheist but you and I both know we will never see one, not in todays society)

Kaiser|11.6.08 @ 9:31AM|#

And I could never vote for a party that embraces religious nutcases like Palin. A 6,000-year-old Earth? What are they smoking up there?

You do realize that both Barack Obama and Joe Biden believe the same thing right?

|11.6.08 @ 9:37AM|#

Hey, France! Hey, Germany! Where's YOUR minority president, huh? Gonna elect the son of a Morroccan immigrant any minute now, right?

Wait a minute! It's too early in the month for a blue moon. Oh well, I gotta agree with joe's sentiments here.

I didn't vote for Obama, but I will happily rub smug European noses in the displayed tolerance demonstrated on this side of the pond. Self righteous Europeans, kiss my royal Amaerican ass, you small minded bigots!

Damn that feels good. :-)

|11.6.08 @ 9:37AM|#

Why is it just a black president that is so important? We have never had a Mexican/Hispanic president, nor a Jew, an Asian, a gay, nor an atheist to hold that office.

If you want to go that far, we've never had someone of Eastern or Southern European descent, for that matter. Yet for some reason the media didn't push the "We can finally elect a Greek-American president" angle with Dukakis. It could just have to do with the lack of slavery, you know.

|11.6.08 @ 9:41AM|#

You do realize that both Barack Obama and Joe Biden believe the same thing right?

What is the source for that statement?

|11.6.08 @ 9:41AM|#

For a non-libertarian, Chapman sure does seem to get a lot of space on this site.

|11.6.08 @ 9:53AM|#

Why is it just a black president that is so important?

It's not. You might not have heard, but there were a couple pieces written about Hillary Clinton's candidacy being historical as well.

There were also pieces written about Bill Richardson, who might have become the first Latino president.

There was also a great deal of attention paid when the first Asian-Americans were elected to Congress, and there will doubtless be similar attention paid when Jew or an Asian wins the presidency.

But yes, the rise to power of groups that have been historically persecuted or minimized in this country is considered a bigger deal than some particular European nationality. There actually were stories written about the possibility of electing the first Greek, Orthodox president in 1988, but not as many, because it's just not as big a deal for Greek Americans to "make it" in America than for African Americans. You know why this is as well as I do, so please don't insult both of our intelligences by pretending not to.

Kaiser|11.6.08 @ 9:53AM|#

What is the source for that statement?

Well in case you missed the whole Jerimiah Wright debacle where he mentioned he attended church for 20 years. Here is the link to Obama's site where he debunks the muslim myth and expresses his own faith. Pay close attention to the "Obama Found Faith During Community Organizing Days" paragraph.

Also here is him asking God for guidance. (Disclaimer: this could be fake I did not verify that story but still you get the point)

I personally have yet to understand why republicans always get the religious rap. As I mentioned in my previous post, electing an atheist is out of the question. You must profess your faith to even be considered.

If you want to go that far, we've never had someone of Eastern or Southern European descent, for that matter. Yet for some reason the media didn't push the "We can finally elect a Greek-American president" angle with Dukakis. It could just have to do with the lack of slavery, you know.

I actually don't want to go that far. I thought I had expressed that in my post. I was just using that as an example of how stupid the whole "What a historic moment" this is rhetoric.

|11.6.08 @ 9:58AM|#

Kaiser,

Maybe everybody is getting their "it is so great we have a black president" writings on record to inoculate themselves from the inevitable cries of racism when they start writing articles about how Obama is stealing our stuff/stealing our rights sometime in the next 8 years.

scotth797|11.6.08 @ 9:58AM|#

What a stupid article. He had the audacity to run in a climate, with quite possibly, the worst president of the last fifty years? And against a woman that is loathed by many in her own party? Combine that with the money men behind him (certainly the readers of Reason are not as naive as the electorate), and you have a pretty good chance of winning. Are we to believe that 600 million came from small private donations? And to have that sort of money perverting the system? Yea Chapman, we should be proud.

Now to the race factor. As a person of color myself, I have been saying for years, that race, in many ways, is actually an advantage in todays society. Almost having a disarming effect if you think about it. Could you possibly imagine a white guy with Obama's idealogy (John Kerry, Mike Dukakis etc) winning this election? People have to realize that although race is still an issue in this country, it has lessened, and voting for someone is quite a different thing than welcoming them in to your family, bringing them in to your home on a consistent basis...etc. Voting for Obama is like becoming social with the black neighbor down the street. We've been doing that for over thirty years in this country. Despite my opposition to his ideaology, Obama is the first reasonable black man to run for the office, and what do you know, he won. Jackson and Sharpton tried and lost. Shocking.

But what do we make of these crowds, and the crying, and the cult of the presidency? It is grotesque to say the least. Chapman has the audacity to applaud this? Disgusting. Healy's article in the June 2008 issue addressing this topic is the best thing I've read about party politics in years.

I'm black, so yea I'm glad for my 90+ year old grandmother, who lived to see this, given what her eyes have seen over the years. And yes, maybe, just maybe, the young black kids that I speak to about taking what this country offers them, might actually start to believe it now. But I didn't vote for this silliness, or the McCain nanny state garbage. Celebrate all you want, I think Tuesday and the entire last eighteen months is an embarassment for the electorate.

|11.6.08 @ 10:02AM|#

Obama didn't actually run against Jack Ryan. He was replaced with Alan Keyes. He was polling second or third in the Democratic primary near the election, but the front runner was discovered to be a wife beater.

How quickly we forget that Obama's road to the White House was paved with the illegal disclosure of sealed divorce papers. Not once, but twice. Convenient, no?

|11.6.08 @ 10:03AM|#

Well said! I have long felt that Obama has more guts than most politicians. Take the Rev. Wright incident: he decided it would be a "teachable moment" as he said. He confronted the issue head and gave the most honest, grown-up speech about race relations that I have heard since M.L.K.

Regarding Clinton, when she was in charge of health care reform, she not only infuriated Republican senators, she went out of her way to infuriate Democrats! It was an incredible fiasco. You don't want such an inept person as executive. Based on his book and his record, I am confident that Obama will listen to the Republicans, conservative Democrats and libertarians, and shape health care reforms we can all live with, even if libertarians don't like them. He will pay more attention to your concerns than Clinton would, or even than Bush did.

Even if you disagree with Obama's liberal philosophy, you should grant that a smart, responsible, sensible liberal who listens to the opposition and compromises is much better for you than an extremist. Like it or not, he won by a large majority (by presidential election standards) and he gets to call the shots. Conservatives and libertarians should not stand aside. They should participate in government and try to prevent what they consider the worst excesses of liberal Democrats, and to add to their own good ideas to the mix. Of course this may make Obama's administration a success, and strengthen his hand, but you should ask yourselves what is more important: your own short-term political advantage built on the failure of the Obama administration, or the good of the nation.

|11.6.08 @ 10:10AM|#

scotth797 wrote:

"He had the audacity to run in a climate, with quite possibly, the worst president of the last fifty years? And against a woman that is loathed by many in her own party?"

And six other candidates! All of them with more money and party backing than Obama.

You seem to think that Obama overcame only Clinton, and that his victory was inevitable. Obama won because he is one of the most skillful politicians in the country. Quote:

"[Obama] has the best political organization for a presidential campaign that I have ever seen here," Tom Slade, a former [Florida] state Republican chairman, said of Mr. Obama. "Bar none. He has run a phenomenally good campaign."

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/25/us/politics/25florida.html

|11.6.08 @ 10:14AM|#

There was also a great deal of attention paid when the first Asian-Americans were elected to Congress, and there will doubtless be similar attention paid when Jew or an Asian wins the presidency.

Although less attention will be paid in general circles (or at least fewer questions of "if he loses, it must be racism, right?") if the person in question is a Republican, though much more attention paid in particular conservative circles hoping for a breakthrough, and who then suddenly find that race can cost one an election. (See Bobby Jindal's first run, or William Lucas in Michigan back in 1986.)

Interestingly (or not), people don't seem to care too much about an Arab-American background currently. Spencer Abraham, Arab member of the Senate (only Arab-American when serving, though not first) and later Cabinet-- who cares? Same for John Sununu, also the only Arab-American Senator while serving. Although, to be fair, we didn't hear a lot about Ralph Nader's Arab background either. It also has something to do with them being Christian Arab-Americans, so less of a breakthrough.

economist|11.6.08 @ 10:15AM|#

OSCAR!
OSCAR!
OSCAR!
OSCAR!
OSCAR!
OSCAR!
That's right, I'm talking to you, Matt Welch!

economist|11.6.08 @ 10:17AM|#

John Thacker,
What the hell do you mean, John Sununu and Ralph Nader are Arab-American?

|11.6.08 @ 10:19AM|#

Even if you disagree with Obama's liberal philosophy, you should grant that a smart, responsible, sensible liberal who listens to the opposition and compromises is much better for you than an extremist.

OK, but what about someone who listens very well to the opposition... and then doesn't compromise at all? Obama's record reminds me more of Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan-- a smart guy who listens very well, is liked by people on the other sides for being willing to listen and for understanding their arguments, but who always comes down on one side in the end. Sen. Moynihan famously wrote a paper about the problems with welfare, had called for welfare reform rhetorically, but then found reasons to oppose (passionately) anything actually proposed.

|11.6.08 @ 10:21AM|#

What the hell do you mean, John Sununu and Ralph Nader are Arab-American?

John Sununu is Arab-American. The Sununu family is of Palestinian descent.

Ralph Nader is of Lebanese descent.

Lefiti|11.6.08 @ 10:22AM|#

Let's not get carried away. Women have been elected to lead Ireland, Israel, and, of all places, Pakistan. Jamaica, a majority black country, once elected a white president. Peru elected an ethnic Japanese.

|11.6.08 @ 10:24AM|#

Here's the Arab News covering the NH race as one between two people with Arab background in their families, in Shaheen's case by marriage. John Sununu is Arab-American, with both Palestinian and Lebanese descent; it also notes that Shaheen, while not Arab-American, has a husband with some Arab background.

|11.6.08 @ 10:28AM|#

scotth797 also wrote:

"Are we to believe that 600 million came from small private donations?"

Yes. There is abundant proof of that, in the records mandated by the election laws. Unless you believe in conspiracy theories, you must admit that is true.


"And to have that sort of money perverting the system?"

What sort of money? $6 per voter, spent on advertising? Coca Cola spends $900 million per year on advertising; Microsoft spends $3 billion. Why is $600 million excessive? Is the choice of a president much less important than Coke versus Pepsi? I see nothing perverted or un-American about advertising and making your case to the public, using money that your supporters freely gave you out of their own pockets. It is the essence of our tradition of free speech, and a heck of a lot better than using $80 million of the taxpayer's money.


"But what do we make of these crowds, and the crying, and the cult of the presidency? It is grotesque to say the least. Chapman has the audacity to applaud this? Disgusting."

People waving American flags and celebrating a political victory for a hugely popular candidate is not "disgusting." It is American as apple pie and we have done it since the Republic was founded. It is only in recent year that people have lost interest in elections and lost commitment to their party and their ideals. That's disgusting! People should fight for what they believe in -- on both sides of the campaign. They should celebrate when they win, and congratulate the other side when they lose.

The notion that black people have it easy, or some kind of advantage I find mind-boggling. I am white but I see black people being put down and put at a disadvantage every day.

Anyone who thinks the profound emotion surrounding this election is "disgusting" has no heart! And no sense of history. As Ta-Nehisi Coates wrote in Time magazine:

"Words like hope, change and progress might seem like naive campaign sloganeering in a dark age. But think of the way those words ring for a people whose forebears marched into billy clubs and dogs, whose ancestors fled north by starlight, feeling the moss on the backs of trees. The sight of the Obama family onstage that first night in Denver was similarly mind-blowing, an image of black families that television so rarely provides. With its quiet class and agility--the beaming beautiful wife, the waving kids--this campaign has confirmed us, assured us that we are more than just a problem."

classwarrior|11.6.08 @ 10:30AM|#

As long as America continues to do to other countries what would be considered acts of war if done to the US, "God damn America" is justified.

|11.6.08 @ 10:36AM|#

There is abundant proof of that, in the records mandated by the election laws. Unless you believe in conspiracy theories, you must admit that is true.

Actually, donations below $200 don't have to be reported at all, so someone could easily give a small amount repeatedly to get above the maximum. As ample news reports demonstrated, the McCain campaign reported names of even donations below $200, but the Obama campaign did not (and claimed that they didn't have the proper database to do so.) The Obama campaign also decided to turn off the various pre-checks that checked whether addresses were within the US, addresses and names matched those on the card used, etc., instead verifying information later. I think that they still were able to raise the vast majority of the money in the way claimed, but the possibility was there.

As long as America continues to do to other countries what would be considered acts of war if done to the US, "God damn America" is justified.

Which is why Sen. Obama's support of the US agricultural policy and support of tariffs has been so disappointing.

|11.6.08 @ 10:43AM|#

Women have been elected to lead Ireland, Israel, and, of all places, Pakistan.

The two women elected in Ireland (Mary Robinson and Mary McAleese) have been the Irish President, who has little power and is most ceremonial. The woman elected in the United Kingdom would be a better example of having real power. Funny that she was left out; I certainly hope that's somehow because of a perception the UK is more enlightened than the rest so electing a woman was less of a shock. You know, the same thing happened at Cornell-- someone put up a big display listing and showing women who had been elected as world leaders. Had Golda Meir, had Bhutto, even had Mary Robinson. But Margaret Thatcher was left out there too. And people wonder why conservative claims of bias exist.

|11.6.08 @ 11:14AM|#

Obama is more like Montgomery than Patton.

Are you claiming that Obama is gay?

Mad Max|11.6.08 @ 11:22AM|#

"The last 7¾ years a veritable moral Gumby has occupied the Oval Office. Excuse me for not considering that trait a positve."

The problem with GW Bush is that he *does* have principles - bad ones, for the most part - and sticks to them. If he'd been a moral Gumby, maybe he would have gotten out of Iraq, or vetoed the bailout.

"(I am aware that Thomas Jefferson was an atheist but you and I both know we will never see one, not in todays society)"

Jefferson called himself a unitarian - in private correspondence, not in public statements which might get written off as politically motivated. He knew unitarianism wasn't popular with voters, so he wanted his religion to be off-limits in public. This was when unitarians still professed to be Christians, before they devolved into the avowedly post-Christian Unitarian Universalist Association). But unitarianism was still unpopular because it denied the divinity of Christ and (in Jefferson's case) dismissed major, key parts of the Bible as fictitious.

Mad Max|11.6.08 @ 11:24AM|#

"Here's the Arab News covering the NH race as one between two people with Arab background in their families, in Shaheen's case by marriage. John Sununu is Arab-American, with both Palestinian and Lebanese descent; it also notes that Shaheen, while not Arab-American, has a husband with some Arab background."

They're taking over!

:-/|11.6.08 @ 11:37AM|#

How sad it must be...that you can't, or won't, acknowledge what just happened.

Isn't your contract up, joe? Please go away. You stink up the joint.

|11.6.08 @ 11:45AM|#

At many points in the last two years, there has been reason to think Obama was wrong. It doesn't look that way now.

Bullshit. He voted for the bailout. That makes him about as wrong as one can be, facing the number one problem waiting for him in January.

-jcr

The International Gay Mexican |11.6.08 @ 11:48AM|#

We have never had a Mexican/Hispanic president, nor a Jew, an Asian, a gay, nor an atheist to hold that office.

That you know of! Bwahahahaha! Banzai!

Seeyounexttuesday|11.6.08 @ 11:50AM|#

Biden and Obama are not YEC'ers.

They may claim to be of Christian faith, but not all Christians are young earth creationists. VERY different.

|11.6.08 @ 11:59AM|#

Now that the election is over, what are the odds that Mr. Chapman will remove that object that bears a striking resemblance to Barack Obama's dong from his mouth?

|11.6.08 @ 12:05PM|#

Biden and Obama are not YEC'ers.

They may claim to be of Christian faith, but not all Christians are young earth creationists. VERY different.

Exactly.

Biden is a Catholic and the Catholic church does not teach creationism. The Genesis story is not seen as factual truth.

|11.6.08 @ 12:06PM|#

An African-American president was not just elected -- an American president was; his skin color just happens to be dark. Maybe this will finally end the use of that divisive term.

It's amazing that race is even considered a big deal these days. How can civilization still be so shallow?

Kaiser|11.6.08 @ 12:24PM|#

Biden and Obama are not YEC'ers.

They may claim to be of Christian faith, but not all Christians are young earth creationists. VERY different.

Exactly.

Biden is a Catholic and the Catholic church does not teach creationism. The Genesis story is not seen as factual truth.

Oh OK, so they just believe that all their sins shall be absolved but talking to a man in a funny costume. That the man on the other side of the globe in a funny hat has more authority to speak to their mythical creature, and molesting children is OK as long as they repent later. All I am saying is that Republicans don't deserve the bad rap for religion. You can't get elected without believing in God no matter which team you play for.

scotth797|11.6.08 @ 12:33PM|#

"He had the audacity to run in a climate, with quite possibly, the worst president of the last fifty years? And against a woman that is loathed by many in her own party?"

And six other candidates! All of them with more money and party backing than Obama.>>


Dodd, Kucinich, and washed up Biden? You have to be kidding me. Oh yea, I forgot about two America's Edwards.

Richardson is a sensible guy. Of course that got him two percentof the vote.

Overcoming the Clinton machine was impressive. I'll give the guy credit for basically matching her stance on the issues, which is good strategy given her inability to connect with people and flat out dislike. *Change* was also smart, as it made the Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton pattern seem as monarchist as it is.

|11.6.08 @ 12:37PM|#

At many points in the last two years, there has been reason to think Obama was wrong. It doesn't look that way now.

He was dead wrong about the surge. Timing is everything, you know. If we had pulled out when and how he wanted, Iraq would be a catastrophe right now.

The reason we can do the kind of pullout he wants now is because of the surge that he opposed when it mattered.

|11.6.08 @ 12:41PM|#

I don't trust Nader. I've read about him. He's...he's not...he's....he's not...uh...He's a Lesbian.

|11.6.08 @ 12:44PM|#

No?

|11.6.08 @ 12:56PM|#

I'm still wondering what Warren thinks about this article.

scotth797|11.6.08 @ 1:04PM|#

"What sort of money? $6 per voter, spent on advertising? Coca Cola spends $900 million per year on advertising; Microsoft spends $3 billion. Why is $600 million excessive? Is the choice of a president much less important than Coke versus Pepsi? I see nothing perverted or un-American about advertising and making your case to the public, using money that your supporters freely gave you out of their own pockets. It is the essence of our tradition of free speech, and a heck of a lot better than using $80 million of the taxpayer's money."

Well first of all, it is not a donation, but a purchase of influence. I guess we're supposed to ignore all the money from investment banks, the auto companies and the other future bailout recipients.

Do you watch any of these ridiculous commercials? How any person can take these things seriously is beyond me.


"But what do we make of these crowds, and the crying, and the cult of the presidency? It is grotesque to say the least. Chapman has the audacity to applaud this? Disgusting."

"People waving American flags and celebrating a political victory for a hugely popular candidate is not "disgusting." It is American as apple pie and we have done it since the Republic was founded. It is only in recent year that people have lost interest in elections and lost commitment to their party and their ideals. That's disgusting! People should fight for what they believe in -- on both sides of the campaign."



Commitment to their party? On both sides of the campaign? As American as apple pie? Political parties were thought of as an infamnia at one time in this country.

"They should celebrate when they win, and congratulate the other side when they lose."


Other side? Ha, that's funny. Some of us don't see an *other side.* That is precious.



"The notion that black people have it easy, or some kind of advantage I find mind-boggling. I am white but I see black people being put down and put at a disadvantage every day."


Well maybe you ought to interpret what I write more clearly. And perhaps what you see, is more of a commentary on how you view black people. Don't see it, live it. AA is absolutely right.

The fact that Tuesday night was a big deal is incredibly shallow and embarrasing. Just as shallow as the prospect of a woman, mormom, or jew. My goodness I wish those idiots who thought Obama was a muslim were right, so we could get over that silliness too.



"Anyone who thinks the profound emotion surrounding this election is "disgusting" has no heart! And no sense of history."

Maybe some of us think these guys actually work for us, and are to serve the electorate. Not the other way around. And if you want to bring history in to this, historically, it has been embarassing, and seemingly gets worse. I mocked the Bush inaguration, mission accomplished, and other gestures. The precise problem is parties, my side/their side, political victories, and the other things you write about. Treating them as political heroes is ghastly.

There is the left, the right, and then what's correct or common sense, which I thought libertarians supported.

|11.6.08 @ 1:48PM|#

"I will happily rub smug European noses in the displayed tolerance demonstrated on this side of the pond. Self righteous Europeans, kiss my royal Amaerican ass, you small minded bigots!"

"Hey, France! Hey, Germany! Where's YOUR minority president, huh? Gonna elect the son of a Morroccan immigrant any minute now, right?"

Hmmmm we elected an jew two centuries ago

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Disraeli

Don't you know electing ethnic minority leaders is so 19th century
old chap

|11.6.08 @ 1:56PM|#

Yeah, yeah, that's why I didn't write "Britain."

Seward|11.6.08 @ 2:22PM|#

joe,

France's current President is the son of Hungarian immigrants, and Germany's current head of government is a female. France has also had a number of Jewish Prime Ministers in the 20th century.

|11.6.08 @ 2:28PM|#

We've had a Catholic president and a Greek-American VP. Unfortunately for the Greeks, that guy was Agnew.

Maaskeeto|11.6.08 @ 3:30PM|#

"Reason is the monthly print magazine of "free minds and free markets." It covers politics, culture, and ideas through a provocative mix of news, analysis, commentary, and reviews. Reason provides a refreshing alternative to right-wing and left-wing opinion magazines by making a principled case for liberty and individual choice in all areas of human activity."
So, who is Steve Chapman and why is he going on about how "Obama's victory reflects the best in our nation"?

The victory demonstrates that the voters choose a candidate by how they FEEL about him rather than comparing his political values with theirs.

|11.6.08 @ 3:42PM|#

His election proves the American people are dangerously ignorant to the result of what his policies will bring about. I guess the author is just trying to find a silver lining in the soon to be "Jimmy Carter Part 2" administration. Frankly I could care less what his ethnicity is, I do not see it as relevant but it will get annoying when everyone who criticizes him is immediately deemed racist and thus they go unheard.

|11.6.08 @ 3:54PM|#

Okay, okay already. I get it. Obama is sorta black and he has a nice smile. He is also marxist and will make Woodrow Wilson look like a Republican. I am not used to such a emotion driven article from Reason. I think the author of this article should work for the New York Times.

|11.6.08 @ 4:07PM|#

scotth797 wrote:

"Commitment to their party? On both sides of the campaign? As American as apple pie? Political parties were thought of as an infamnia at one time in this country."

Some people thought of them that way but most supported the party system from the start. For good reason: it works.

If you think all those people were only cheering Obama -- treating him like a cult figure -- you completely misunderstand. They were cheering themselves. They were cheering for democracy and for their own power as citizens to change the world. This is one of the most wonderful things in the world, and we should all cheer for it, loudly, after every election.

You sour, dour, antisocial attitude is contrary to the traditions of the U.S. We are a boisterous people who celebrate winning the World Series and celebrate winning elections. It is refreshing and wonderful. I have lived in other countries where people seldom celebrate such good causes. You should join the party! Next time maybe your guy will win.

As for those maudlin, tearjerker Obama advertisements with amber waves of grain: if they did not bring a tear to your eyes despite being maudlin, then I guess you are not an old-school patriot, brought up in the post-WWII era like I was. I can't help it and I do not apologize for it. When I read Lincoln's inaugural (that Obama quoted) or see these glorious American landscapes, it thrills me to the core. You sneer at that, but I think you are the one who is missing out, and you are to be pitied, not me.

Seward|11.6.08 @ 4:13PM|#

Jed Rothwell,

I would note that the Whig Party was in large part created out of the anti-party elements which have always been a part of the American political landscape.

...is contrary to the traditions of the U.S.

There are many traditions in the U.S. and one of them is anti-party in nature because a long standing element of the American populace (sometimes small and sometimes large) view parties as creating in part "bought" people. And of course that is in significant part what parties have always been about in the U.S. - patronage.

Seward|11.6.08 @ 4:17PM|#

Jed Rothwell,

As for those maudlin, tearjerker Obama advertisements with amber waves of grain: if they did not bring a tear to your eyes despite being maudlin, then I guess you are not an old-school patriot, brought up in the post-WWII era like I was.

That sounds like a defense of arguments from emotion, a type of argument which can be quite problematic.

|11.6.08 @ 4:35PM|#

Seward wrote:

"I would note that the Whig Party was in large part created out of the anti-party elements which have always been a part of the American political landscape.

. . .

There are many traditions in the U.S. and one of them is anti-party in nature . . ."

Yes, I am aware of that. Yes, there is such a tradition, but the tradition of supporting parties is stronger and more deep rooted and widespread. You may not support the party system but I think it is marvelous. Again, this is probably because I lived in Japan where parties are not strong (factions are). They do not celebrate elections there with boisterous crowds.

There is no one so patriotic as an expatriate. I expect that Obama shares my deep-seated faith in America in part because he also spent some of his formative years overseas.

Of course you are right there are problems with the party system, and with the parties themselves. No institution is perfect. But I sure do prefer our institutions to the alternatives!

The Japanese public, by the way, is crazy about Obama. I watch the Japanese NHK news. They would elect him over any of their own politicians.

Let me add that the people here who express contempt for the voters, with comments such as this are also missing out: "The victory demonstrates that the voters choose a candidate by how they FEEL about him rather than comparing his political values with theirs." You think you know better than your fellow citizens? What do you suggest? Should we put you in charge perhaps? Let you pick our leaders with your oh-so-wonderful judgment? As Churchill put it, democracy is the worst form of government except for all the others.

You should learn to have faith in your fellow Americans -- in your fellow humans everywhere, for that matter. You are not smarter than people in the aggregate, or better able to decide their future than they themselves are. I have traveled the world and I assure you, there is no better class of people out there that we might replace Americans with. People everywhere are as smart or stupid, gullible or wise, able or dysfunctional. People are imperfect. Our institutions, such as parties and modified capitalism, are evolved to accommodate our faults. It would be very unwise to try to change them radically. That is the essence of true conservatism -- and I am a true conservative, as well as a liberal Democrat. There is no contradiction between the two.

And if you think Obama is a Marxist, you know nothing about Marxism. That's preposterous. Stop slapping meaningless labels on people you disagree with. It is childish name-calling.

whaaa?|11.6.08 @ 4:37PM|#

Dont you know the election is over? Republicans have been thoroughly beaten about the head and shoulders. Its ok to stop pretending Obama is a libertarian.

|11.6.08 @ 5:01PM|#

Is Jesse Jackson??? really a name to bring out if you're trying to evoke admirable leadership in American history????

I am appalled that anyone at reason would compare two Communists like Obama and Clinton and say, "well, at least we didn't get Hillary." I'm so sick of hearing "at least THIS didn't happen." Clinton, Obama, and McCain are all awful, and they can all burn in hell. A victory for Lenin is not a defeat for Stalin.

There were at least SIX CANDIDATES on my state's ballot, and shame on you, Reason, for pretending throughout this election cycle that only two of them mattered. The guy who won is a product of the Chicago political machine, and his victory just means that the people who hand-picked and groomed him for office get exactly what they want: more of the same socialist bullshit we've been handed since FDR and the New Deal.

I'm so furious with this website, this magazine, and this country. Obama's victory is one step closer to the annihilation of our civil liberties. Steve Chapman can go fuck himself, and so can everyone at Reason who voted for O as a "protest vote" to smite the Republicans. Just like gay Democrats, libertarian Republicans are idiots if they think the GOP gives a shit about Libertarian ideals. This "rebuilding year" crap just means the neocons are coming back in full force, and until "Libertarians" start acting like Libertarians, instead of pretending we're going to get anywhere by trying to change the GOP, we will continue to be laughed at and ignored as we were in this election.

I'll start reading Reason again when you stop being Socialist fuckers and start being Libertarians again.

Seward|11.6.08 @ 5:03PM|#

Jed Rothwell,

Yes, I am aware of that.

You didn't seem to be before.

Again, this is probably because I lived in Japan where parties are not strong (factions are). They do not celebrate elections there with boisterous crowds.

The Japanese public, by the way, is crazy about Obama.

That's because they don't have to actually vote for him and he doesn't have to actually campaing there.

You should learn to have faith in your fellow Americans -- in your fellow humans everywhere, for that matter.

I've never quite understood what the language "learn to have faith" means. I think what I should learn is knowledge about human society and how it tends to operate.

You are not smarter than people in the aggregate...

Actually, that depends on the subject matter. I am far smarter than other people in some areas than most people are, and that is true for other people of course. As for who is smarter when it comes to voting, well, I just don't see a lot of operational other types of knowledge by voters about the government or the people they are electing. Now maybe that isn't very important, maybe voting based on personality, etc. is a great predictor of job performance in the WH, but maybe it isn't.

...or better able to decide their future than they themselves are.

Yet somehow a mass aggregate can decide my future? Don't you see the disconnect there?

Our institutions, such as parties and modified capitalism, are evolved to accommodate our faults.

I suspect they have in many ways evolved to benefit certain persons and interests, and that too many people are far too willing to believe that selflessness motivates those in government. I write this with the caveat that I am sure that it does motivate some individuals in government.

It would be very unwise to try to change them radically.

Oh you Burkean.

That is the essence of true conservatism...

I'm not going to get into an argument about what conservatism is, but it means many things to many people. Anyway, merely because something exists today or has evolved in a certain way is not by itself much of a justication for its existance. Now I am not quite sure if you are making an appeal to tradition, but if you are read this.

And if you think Obama is a Marxist, you know nothing about Marxism.

Unless Obama starts spouting off about the historical dialectic then I can safely state that I do not think he is a Marxist.

|11.6.08 @ 5:08PM|#

I'll start reading Reason again when you stop being Socialist fuckers and start being Libertarians again.

Art-P.O.G. died of alcohol poisoning on the afternoon of 6 Nov, 2008.

scotth797|11.6.08 @ 6:07PM|#

"If you think all those people were only cheering Obama -- treating him like a cult figure -- you completely misunderstand. They were cheering themselves. They were cheering for democracy and for their own power as citizens to change the world."

Will you please give me a break. I am pointing out the goofiness in relying on a bureaucrat to *change the world* in the 21st century. When I write that I don't vote it, I live it; I mean just that. A president's job is to govern- that's it. It is our responsibility to bring change in terms of race, religion, culture, gender acceptance etc. But it is a responsibility we are far too quick to abdicate to the government.


"You sour, dour, antisocial attitude is contrary to the traditions of the U.S. We are a boisterous people who celebrate winning the World Series and celebrate winning elections. It is refreshing and wonderful. I have lived in other countries where people seldom celebrate such good causes. You should join the party! Next time maybe your guy will win."

Sorry, I don't cheer politicians. And the sports analogies are tired. Spike Lee is interviewed at the Dems convention comparing Obama to an champion athlete getting warmed up to go perform on the big stage. Just silly.

My dour, sour attitude is aimed squarely at the electorate, as it was eight years ago, when we elected the current mistake. It was aimed at the *libertarians* who mistakenly voted for Bush, and now vote for Obama.

My dour, sour attitude is squared at a media, and Obama followers, who use race, to squelch dissent. I'm a black guy, a libertarian, who rightly disagrees with Bush and Obama; as anyone with logic on his side would. As a person of color, I'll be happy, when a black man can be criticized and mocked just as feverently as a white man. How patronizing and hand holding this election has been.

I'll give the over/under at ten days, for the *fear for his life* stories to start up. Because presidents in the past have never been threatened.


"As for those maudlin, tearjerker Obama advertisements with amber waves of grain: if they did not bring a tear to your eyes despite being maudlin, then I guess you are not an old-school patriot, brought up in the post-WWII era like I was."

No, I'm pretty sure I'm not. I would have called the treatment of black folk and women incredibly hick back then. I think it's pure hillbilly that we have never had a woman president, a divorcee, a muslim, a mormom or even an atheist for that matter.

Please don't try to pull the *your not a patriot if you don't cry* at this silliness card. I served my country, I love my country, and I actually love and intergrate (not just vote) with all of it's citizens, poor and rich, black and white, single moms, hockey moms, joe six packs- basically all the people these charlatan's pander to.

Tell me I have a sour, dour, attitude towards politicians. Guilty as charged. And they deserve it.


"I can't help it and I do not apologize for it. When I read Lincoln's inaugural (that Obama quoted) or see these glorious American landscapes, it thrills me to the core. You sneer at that, but I think you are the one who is missing out, and you are to be pitied, not me."

I don't pity you, and neither should anyone pity me. I'm thrilled to the core by my family, my nieces and nephews particularly. I'll cry when they give a commencement speech one day, not some cat on tv.

When I hear Ron Paul make salient point after salient point I simply agree. Why is there a need for anything more than that?

|11.6.08 @ 6:37PM|#

Yeah, yeah, that's why I didn't write "Britain."

Ah yeah I forgot we're in Asia

I thought Pinkos were opposed to nationalism :)

economist|11.6.08 @ 6:59PM|#

Jed Rothwell,
I used to think idiot saccharine populists lacked the mental capacity to log onto the internet, much less write a post. You have proven me wrong.

economist|11.6.08 @ 7:02PM|#

What the fuck is Rothwell on, anyway? Shit, I used to think that such a perfect populist caricature was a myth used to scare libertarians into voting, so that they could counterbalance it.

Douglas Gray|11.6.08 @ 7:06PM|#

The younger voters do not think in terms of "liberal" vs "conservative". Most were attracted by Obama's style. He tried to inject a certain calm civility into politics. After the shrillness of the last 8 years, it is a welcome change.

economist|11.6.08 @ 7:10PM|#

Reading back over Jed's posts, I can only conclude that he is a very subtle satirist or incredibly stupid.

|11.6.08 @ 7:24PM|#

Art-P.O.G. died of alcohol poisoning on the afternoon of 6 Nov, 2008.

I come not to praise Art-P.O.G...but to ratfuck his kit. Hey, Jameson's!


MaterialMonkee,

I thought Pinkos were opposed to nationalism :)

I'm "New Pinko."

No, seriously, we English-speaking societies are much less prejudiced than other nationalities. That's why we're better than them.

;-)

puck|11.6.08 @ 10:18PM|#

"I would note that the Whig Party was in large part created out of the anti-party elements which have always been a part of the American political landscape."

Is the rock group, "The Whigs" related to the Whig party? Do they share the same values? The same taste in music, health care reform, minimalist government?

|11.7.08 @ 12:18AM|#

Kaiser, you really shouldn't post bullshit you can't back up. They reveal you to be an ignorant idiot.

You wrote, and I quote
Kaiser | November 6, 2008, 9:31am | #
"And I could never vote for a party that embraces religious nutcases like Palin. A 6,000-year-old Earth? What are they smoking up there?"

>You do realize that both Barack Obama and Joe >Biden believe the same thing right?

Then you get called out on your bullshit and you respond...

"Oh OK, so they just believe that all their sins shall be absolved but talking to a man in a funny costume."

Ombibulous|11.7.08 @ 2:48AM|#

Really? Abraham Lincoln to Jesse Jackson? Well I can see how you might draw those associations since Lincoln was against state's rights and Jesse Jackson is an extortionist who hires child molesters and inspires people to kill unarmed Jews.

But hey you voted for Obama right? I mean why vote for a third party candidate that actually shares the values of the libertarians to whom you market your work.


Reason.com is dead to me. You have become a cadre of starstruck communist sympathizers.

You are so pissed off at the Republican party. You're so pissed at them, you are actually pissed at America. Get over yourselves and start talking about liberty.

Andy|11.7.08 @ 11:47AM|#

Although I do worry about the "rise" of the "religious left", they're not nearly as scary as the people on the right. Get past ideology and realize the worst aspects of the religious left are already present in the left as a whole, the only danger is the masses of Christian kids becoming convinced Jesus wants them to redistribute more income and tax the hell out of pollution. I don't think it'll happen, especially if the Republicans find their brains.

And fuck some of you for not even being able to acknowledge for a few days that America did something special on Tuesday. Just because you don't think it should doesn't mean it doesn't. Your fellow countrymen are telling you how happy they are about the black dude getting elected. Let them have their moment. Bitch about big goverment when he actually gets to be in charge of the goverment. You know, about two and a half months from now?

|11.7.08 @ 3:11PM|#

Andy,

My fellow countrymen elected a communist to the presidency BECAUSE of his race. That's racism. They and you can eat my shit.

Andy|11.7.08 @ 3:47PM|#

Ombibulous - first off, could you explain your name? I have a feeling I'll either love it or hate it.

Second, he's not a communist dude. At worst, he's a European style social democrat (I think that's the right term). Say what you want about them, they're not commies. They're a little (or more) to the left than the US has been for the last 70 years. Unless you would call us commies too? Clarify your insults.

Third, i guess if you think he was elected because of his race you can, but i don't. He was a Democrat in a bad Republican year, and MCain didn't do himself any favors. I could a white dude with Obama's basic background and his charisma getting elected, I can't see a black (or half black) guy with a different style getting elected. That's just me.

|11.7.08 @ 8:53PM|#

Andy,

I wrote a really long and reasoned response to your last post and the post machine ate it. I will give you a shorter version.

in keeping with planks 2,3,5,7,8, and 10 of the communist manifesto, Obama is a communist. Sure European style socialists are too even if no one wants to admit it. But in a country like ours that seldom witnessed the 20 million plus murders under Stalin, it might seem innocuous enough to call it socialism and pretend that it's just another equally valued political theory.

Sure race wasn't the only factor in Obama's election. If it had been Jesse Jackson would have made it years ago. Clearly the weakness of the Republican party played a major role. And the fact that Hillary was a woman in a political party that plays only the weakest lip-service to women's issues is another. But in the context of a lecture about how we should recognize that this is "special".

"And fuck some of you for not even being able to acknowledge for a few days that America did something special on Tuesday. Just because you don't think it should doesn't mean it doesn't. Your fellow countrymen are telling you how happy they are about the black dude getting elected."

one thinks you might want to back slowly away from pretending that race isn't a factor in his election. Unless you think that a Liberal Democrat with charisma being elected is 'historic' and that people are sobbing tears of joy in the streets for Obama's tax policy.

Ombibulous is an homage to H.L. Mencken who when asked about his alcohol preference said "I'm ombibulous. I drink every known alcoholic drink and enjoy them all." You know you love it.

|11.7.08 @ 10:12PM|#

"We have never had a Mexican/Hispanic president, nor a Jew, an Asian, a gay, nor an atheist to hold that office."

We HAVE had a gay president, James Buchanan. He didn't know the word for it then, but there's no doubt at all. Sadly, he's one of only two or three who could give W a run for the "Worst President Ever" title.

Libertine|11.7.08 @ 10:52PM|#

"Obama is a communist"

How old are you? You're either so old and stuck in the cold war era that you still think communists are a threat to this country, or so young that you simply can't process the differences between center-leftism and far-leftism.

You sound like the parodies of anarcho-capitalists in the Illuminatus Trilogy. EVERYBODY OPPOSED TO MY POLITICAL BELIEFS ARE EXACTLY THE SAME THING: MY ENEMY

If you're the 16 year old kid, who just read Atlas Shrugged, I think you are, grow up. If you're the old McCarthyist who still fears a Soviet resurgence, die already.

|11.8.08 @ 7:46AM|#

Hmmm yeah Libertine.

Well how do I respond to such a reasoned and precise argument? Name calling? Really? That's what you have? I list off specific marxist policy that matches the policy of a President who is talking about wealth redistribution, civilian police forces, centralized banking, centralized credit, and who spent his formative years hanging out with Frank Marshal Davis. You come back with 'you're probably old'. Hard logic to be sure and I must concede to your superior intellect in this case. I see your point, Obama is clearly a civil libertarian hero and I should worship him just as you and Reason.com do.

|11.8.08 @ 6:34PM|#

Scott797: "I'm black, so yea I'm glad for my 90+ year old grandmother, who lived to see this, given what her eyes have seen over the years. And yes, maybe, just maybe, the young black kids that I speak to about taking what this country offers them, might actually start to believe it now. But I didn't vote for this silliness, "

So on the one hand, your grandmother and millions of others, get to see that America finally takes seriously the proposition that they are equal. And on the other hand, you see the possibility of inspiring a new spirit of optimism and responsibility among youth, not just in America, but around the world and particularly in Africa. And that's all "silliness?"

No sir. One should not vote for Barack Obama on the basis of his skin color. But one should be rightly proud to live in a country that made such quick progress on such a difficult problem as racism. One does not need to agree with his politics to be overjoyed that it is now possible, as it was probably not 20 years ago, for him to be elected. Just as we should celebrate when we eliminate a noxious disease, we should celebrate when we marginalize a noxious idea such as the idea that blacks are inherently inferior.

|11.8.08 @ 6:48PM|#

Rothwell: "If you think all those people were only cheering Obama -- treating him like a cult figure -- you completely misunderstand. They were cheering themselves. They were cheering for democracy and for their own power as citizens to change the world."

Scott797: "Will you please give me a break. I am pointing out the goofiness in relying on a bureaucrat to *change the world* in the 21st century."

Scott797, I think you did not read the paragraph that you replied to. Rothwell said that your grandmother and your nephews/nieces (don't tell me that your relatives were unmoved) were not cheering for Obama. They were cheering for America. Therefore nothing is required of Obama. He need not do anything for his election to be momentous.

If he is as disastrous as Bush it does not in any way change the FACT that a majority of Americans decided that a black man was potentially competent to lead them, which was a thesis that was seriously controversial in the very recent past.

Are we really arguing on a site called "Reason" that the mainstream defeat of that irrational idea is a minor issue?

Sun Stealer|11.9.08 @ 12:05AM|#

Remember when Reason used to have articles promoting libertarianism. Oh well, stay tuned for more statist cocksucking by the kadetists at Reason.

|11.9.08 @ 11:12AM|#

OK, so we feel good for a few minutes that a black man was elected President. Is that reason enough to support his collectivist, big government policies?

In the end Obama's election will have no significant effect on race relations. We have had black mayors in almost every major city in the US and nothing has changed. I agree with Shelby Steele:

http://tinyurl.com/5zumcc

|11.9.08 @ 10:03PM|#

T Maz: "OK, so we feel good for a few minutes that a black man was elected President. Is that reason enough to support his collectivist, big government policies?"

T Maz: what in particular are you referring to? Who said that libertarians should support Obama's policies, no matter what they turn out to be?

Libertine|11.10.08 @ 12:25AM|#

Ombibulous

Ignoring the fact that you're a total faggot who won't understand, I'm going to respond to you in very simple terms.

Just because he supports redistribution of wealth does not make him a communist. I could just as easily point out your obvious inability to think and reason beyond black and white and list it as evidence of your having borderline personality disorder or Asperger's syndrome. Would that be a fair statement?

Honestly though, you are very obviously a crippled man-child and me responding to you will only result in a spurt of pants-pissing and choking on Doritos.