The Audacity of Hope in Barack Obama
by tdaxp ~ June 5th, 2008
My friend Curtis (who has recently been splitting his time between high-quality theoretical work on xGW and specious posts in favor of Barack Obama) recently made an unlikely claim regarding John McCain. I asked Curtis for a reference, and he initially supplied an edited campaign-style YouTube video. Asking for an actual evidence (such as an unedited video, or a transcript), Curtis replied (in full):
Nope. It’s there in his own words, his own face, his own voice, his own PR moment.
Now, for comparison, imagine if someone had made an unusual claim regarding William Lind (that he denied the existence of stages within 4GW, say), and when asked for a reference the claimant merely said, “Nope. It’s there in his own words, his own face, his own voice, his own PR moment.” Obviously this so-called citation is nothing of the sort! Indeed, the childish nonsense of the reply would make one wonder whether or not the claimant is serious about understanding the situation at all.
It’s hard to blame Obama supporters for their nonsensical attacks on McCain when Obama set the tone for himself, with his inexplicable attack on his grandmother during the primary race. Still, it’s disappointing when otherwise serious bloggers abandon analysis for hope, and write as naively and speciously on the candidates as Curtis is now doing.
The New York Times uses top 1% of income, not wealth. From the legend:...
June 6th, 2008 at 3:22 am
I have answered this at Phatic Communion:
http://www.phaticcommunion.com/archives/2008/06/the_audacity_of.php
June 6th, 2008 at 5:49 am
Curtis,
Thanks for the article.
As I wrote in a comment on your blog, your specious reference was to cite “his own words, his own face, his own voice, his own PR moment,” as opposed to actual transcripts, which apparently I’ve finally convinced you of the utility of. I’m glad your latest post isn’t as poorly constructed as your previous ones.
As I understand it, it’s divided into several sections. The major themes of the sections are that
a) I cite my own posts
Of course I do. The reason I started my blog was because I was worried I was contradicting myself without knowing it. I’m therefore especially interested in the extent to which my words during one day agree (or disagree) with what I said previously. Such links are not proofs, but rather a record of my own thoughts for my benefits.
Obviously, if you disagree a contention, you should comment on that on the spot. That would be useful for me.
b) McCain argued that the overthrow of Saddam Hussein would be easy
Of course he was right. It turns out that a profoundly wrong occupation strategy can generate an insurgency which is hard to quash. Hence the complaints from many about the “lost year” in Iraq.
As many liberal bloggers were formerly found of emphasizing, al Qaeda in Iraq and the Ba’ath Party are two distinct enemies. Confounding them, as your criticism of McCain seems to do, leads to trouble.
June 6th, 2008 at 6:35 am
No, spinning the context of McCain’s comment to reflect present understandings of the war in Iraq, as you have done, is dangerous.
The first cited source, in which McCain discusses the coming of the Iraq war (9-12-2002), and how quick and easy it will be — “I am very certain that this military engagement will not be very difficult.” — occurs in the context of going to war in Iraq and the upcoming vote to allow GWB to do so.
Later, McCain says he always knew it would be difficult and those who voted for the Iraq war who thought it would be easy simply didn’t know what they were voting for.
So what was McCain voting for? Merely the overthrow of Saddam (with no thought about the occupation, which would be a very negative statement on McCain’s ability to lead the nation) or the entire “military engagement” that wouldn’t be very difficult?
The reference to your self-citation method is in direct response to your attempts to call anything I write, without including lengthy citations, specious. For instance I left a comment at Soob’s blog — a comment! — with couple links, and you derided the fact that I didn’t…what, write a thesis paper? Too few citations? etc. But look at your opinion pieces: that was my meaning.
June 6th, 2008 at 7:03 am
I called your bizarre citation (“It’s there in his own words, his own face, his own voice, his own PR moment.”) specious because it was. You’d surely recognize such a citation against Lind as specious. I don’t know whether you support a radically lower standard of evidence when it comes to politically relevent issues, or if you actually don’t see how intellectually lazy your citation was.
If you feel you can support your most recent weird assertion (“your attempts to call anything I write, without including lengthy citations, specious.”) feel free to do so. I assume you know how to support such a universal claim (either document every one, or demonstrate that the reverse is impossible).
Regarding McCain…
The 2003 war authorized the overthrow of Saddam Hussein and its replacement by a new government. Because of the Bush administration’s poor implementation of Phase IV operations in Iraq, a largely new enemy appeared (al Qaeda in Iraq) as part of new situations on the ground (sectarian fighting). The strength of the new enemy and the new sectarian situation was not a natural consequence of the war, but rather a consequence of Rumsfeld’s occupation strategy (a strategy McCain loudly criticized).
The question of the proper chain of authorization for handling insurgencies after “lost years” is doubtless fascinating to Constituaional scholars, but has little relevence to the present situation.
The question relevent for analysis of politicians is whether they supported the correct policies at the correct times. Bush correctly supported the Iraq War, but then championed Rumsfeld’s incorrect Phase IV policies, and finally correctly implemented the Surge. Obama incorrectely opposed the Iraq War, (I don’t know his position on Rumsfeld), and most recently opposed the Surge. McCain supported the Iraq War, opposed Rumsfeld’s policies, and supported the Surge. Thus, McCain is better when it comes to Iraq than either Bush or Obama.
(As I criticized Rumsfeld’s policies from the wrong direction, McCain is also better than me.)
I don’t know what Soob thread you are referring to, by the way. If it’s this one [1] your criticism doesn’t fit the discussion, but I do notice you ducked answering the question:
How low must we set the bar to see any accomplishments for Barack Obama when it comes to foreign policy?
June 6th, 2008 at 7:41 am
How is that bizarre, given the fact that you linked the videos as “Iraqi gotchas” or did you merely link them without bothering to view them? I would not be altogether surprised, although I’ll admit that I believed you had viewed them, especially given the fact that you have characterized them as you have. Your linking and characterization point toward a familiarity with my meaning in what you are calling a bizarre citation, which would mean that it’s not at all that bizarre:
Recall that you have posted a video as some kind of proof yourself. [1]
– the difference being, that you link a video of others’ opinions on Obama, whereas I linked a video showing McCain in action himself.
While I understand that others reading this post, who have not followed the conversation, may be misled by your accusations, I know that you, unless you are extremely forgetful (not my experience of you yet), know full well the context of this back-and-forth on McCain/Obama, including the sentence you are calling specious. Your attempts to play dumb, i.e. your demands for citation etc., are disingenuous at best, or at worst a conscious effort to mislead.
I.e.,
is extremely disingenuous. Are you kidding? Demanding “support” for “such a universal claim” right after saying my comment about the frequent demands from you is “weird”? Come now Dan. I know you are not stupid, so intellectual dishonesty seems the most likely explanation for your rhetoric.
[1] http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2008/06/05/good-politicians-ii.html
June 6th, 2008 at 8:03 am
I don’t get it. He’s not allowed to vote or comment in favor of hope or an idea, and must instead vote for results and tangibles, but you get to defend theism in post after post just because?
June 6th, 2008 at 3:04 pm
Curtis,
Curtis,
I really don’t believe you are this dense.
If I made a claim, such as “William Lind believes that 3GW never actually occured, but was a potential generation of war,” and linked only to a well-edited video of Lind put out by critics, you’d be suspicious. If, upon asking for a citation, I replied with, ”It’s there in his own words, his own face, his own voice, his own PR moment,” you’d conclude that I wasn’t seriously in the discussion, or else did not have a proper citation to give.
This conversation would be more productive if you didn’t misrepresent my views. The statements on the video are true: they are the correct conclusions. Support, what you term “some kind of proof,” comes from Obama’s wrong positions on the Iraq War, free trade, and so on. [1]
Certainly neither are evidence. The video I linked to shows important allies agreeing with my conclusions about Obama, though for different reason. The video you presented is heavily edited and substantively worthless.
The only “playing dumb” here is your bizarre attempts to demonstrate what you have not done yet. You’ve attempted to use laughable forms of evidence; a heavily edited youtube video, a citation to McCain in general, and only recently bothered to present the quotes in context. I appreciate that you have now done so, though it is bothering that you still have not supported your initial claims.
You are being “disingenuous.” You made a very strange claim (I have called everything you write specisious), and now you criticize me for asking for support for a different claim (I frequently demand…).
If you want to talk imprecisely and vaguely in favor of your candidate of choice, I’m sure DailyKos and FreeRepublic are great sites. I try to understand what is going on, so I prefer specifics.
Aaron,
Interesting comment. I think I agree that a lot of support for Obama is faith in the unseen. I’ve heard the “Barack Obama is the Messiah” chatter [2], but I think your post is the first I’ve read by an Obama supporters that defends his supporters as driven by faith!
[1] http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2008/06/05/good-politicians-ii.html#comment-82045
[2] http://obamamessiah.blogspot.com/
June 6th, 2008 at 5:40 pm
Factually untrue vis-a-vis the flip-flopping on Iraq. The transcripts back up what the video showed; in fact, two of the transcripts in particular are exactly the same info, the same words, which appear in the video; and calling one form of citation better than the other when the information is identical is an argument over mode rather than substance. For one who throws the word “substantive” about as a rhetorical ploy, you’d have better luck understanding the term before you type it.
June 6th, 2008 at 6:44 pm
It’s the difference between a presentation of an original work and a derivative work. It’s like if you challenged me on whether or not Obama approvingly describe Wright’s “white people’s greed runs a world in need” speech. I could cite some derived work, like my own blog post [1]. But it’d be more useful to you if you were skeptical to give a page number from The Audacity of Hope.
I’m still waiting for an indication of what the supposed contradiction by McCain is. All you have done so far is note that he believes that short wars (penetration, isolation, and subdue in the PISRR stages of victory) are easier for the U.S. than long wars (the reorientation and reharmonization stages)… it’s certainly good that McCain recognizes this, but it’s hardly a contradiction!
[1] http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2008/03/30/white-folks-greed-runs-a-world-in-need.html
June 6th, 2008 at 7:08 pm
I am not and have not noted his beliefs whatsoever, but only his words.
Furthermore, his words were delivered as PR (for the general public) and were made in the context of the decision to go to war in Iraq.
First he strongly asserted his certainty that it would be a quick victory, fairly easy, in the context of deciding to go to war in Iraq and particularly in a discussion of the then-upcoming vote to authorize the President to do so; years later, he says that those who thought the war would be easy didn’t know what they were voting for and laments that the public was misled into thinking it would be easy.
You are trying to imagine a cognitive framework and decision-making process that occurred somewhere in the depths of McCain’s mind during this process. If you are correct, then he is either schizophrenic (talking about going to war in Iraq but only meaning taking down Saddam) or he purposely misled the public (knowing from the beginning that the effort in Iraq would be long and hard but asserting, in context of the decision to go into Iraq, that victory would come swift and fairly easily.)
Another alternative is this: that he imagined a quick victory, i.e. the toppling of Saddam as “mission accomplished”, without once considering the long and tough occupation of Iraq after that quick “victory”, when he voted for the Iraq war. This alone would not be a positive statement on the leadership ability he asserts he’d have as Commander in Chief. What makes it worse is the fact that under this interpretation of his flip-flopping, his later statements that he knew when voting for the Iraq war that it would a very hard military operation would be an outright lie he’s telling now to make himself appear a better leader than he ever was.
June 6th, 2008 at 7:16 pm
Curtis,
One humorous aspect of the current presidential campaign is that critics of Bush who have become critics of McCain have run into difficulties in keeping their stories straight.
For instance, critics of Bush (rightly) point out that Bush badly bungled an occupation and created an insurgency of a scope through mismanagedment. In other words, a competent execution of the post-War would have created conditions in Iraq far better than they are now.
However, now that some are pivoting to criticize McCain, they have to imagine that Bush’s handling of Phase IV operations in Iraq was normal, and that the problems we’ve had in Iraq over the past few years were to be expected.
Clearly, one of these criticisms can easily be true. It’s harder to imagine how thye are both are right.
I mention this in response to your coment. Obviously the decision to go to war in Iraq was well defended by asserting that the Iraq War would be quick, decisively, and relatively painless. Indeed, it was. Unfortunately, Bush so mismanaged the occupation that a full-fledged COIN approach needed to be developed, at tremendous cost, to put down an insurgency that never had to rise in the first place.
Insurgencies are not easy. Unfortunately, we had to fight one because of a series of terrible mistakes at the beginning of Phase IV operations in Iraq.
Your paragraph beginning You are trying to imagine a cognitive framework and decision-making process that occurred somewhere in the depths of McCain’s mind during this process is odd. You argue that McCain’s words show that he was flip-flopping if we first imagine he did not know what he was talking about. If we grant that he has experience in national security, however, there is no contradiction.
June 6th, 2008 at 7:27 pm
[...] criticisms of John McCain (ses The Audacity of Faith in Opinion and The Audacity of Hope in Barack Obama for examples) are becoming increasingly [...]