Tied up with a project today but wanted to pass along this piece by Richard Fernandez, wherein he takes a wee look at worries over in Davos about “American instability” and those usual suspects who blame the stability on America people who won’t just sit down, shut up and let their betters tell ‘em what’s what.
The source of this worry appears to be the reluctance of the American voter to follow the leader. Friedman writes “You can understand why foreigners are uneasy. They look at America and see a president elected by a solid majority, coming into office riding a wave of optimism, controlling both the House and the Senate. Yet, a year later, he can’t win passage of his top legislative priority: health care.” What they would prefer to see, in Friedman’s words is a ‘Confucian-Communist-Capitalist’ consensus.
under the umbrella of a one-party state, with a lot of government guidance, strictly controlled capital markets and an authoritarian decision-making process that is capable of making tough choices and long-term investments, without having to heed daily public polls.
Not that Friedman is necessarily buying it. But he does get the sense that less than a dozen Republican senators stand between the nation and a negotiated consensus that will allow America to go forward. And he’s not alone in wanting to see Obama lead Washington out of the wilderness to the new promised land of Hope and Change.
Other elites, of course, are suggesting that the Democrat majority just “boldly” ram what’s good for America down our throats, because we’re apparently too stupid to know what’s what. They know, though. Anna Quindlen apparently “knows” that GOP filibusters would just make Americans “angry.” She seems not to understand the mood of the nation, at all.
But this is a very Pauline Kael sort of mindset, isn’t it? Recall the (perhaps apocryphal) story of her remark upon Nixon’s winning the White House, “but no one I know voted for him!” These people are so insulated, so isolated in their perspectives that they really have no idea. They think because “everyone they know” thinks as they think, that the majority of the nation thinks identically, and it’s only a couple of loud neanderthals stirring up the masses, that are mucking things up.
It’s very sad, and very troubling, too. These people need to get out more, from the Upper West Side, and Georgetown and DuPont Circle. But these ideas, that legislation need be “rammed through” is in opposition to the notion of representative government. It doesn’t sound much like America, does it?
I don’t know, when you start talking about “ramming through” legislation, and thinking that the people don’t know what’s good for them, it seems to me you are heading down the road to Venezuela. Take a look at that picture, and that weapon, which the Venezuelan government is willing to use on its people, until they smarten up, or something.
Meanwhile, some would like things to not look much like America, too. And some would like to stifle the sound of America, too.
And our president is reversing his nuclear weapons rhetoric (which I’m not sure is necessarily a bad thing – it might be a good-if-grim thing, overall – but it is a notable reversal). This in response to the madman in Iran, who never was someone who could be dealt with.
The President is also bowing to the mayor of Taiwan Taipei Tango-Tango Tampa, Florida.
Victor Davis Hanson: Our Obama Saga.
Oh, he’s gonna raise the deficit some more, too. Spending will be up another 6%? Remember the Grace ads, during the Reagan years, of an apocalyptic world where our children were still paying off our debt? I do. I thought those ads were great, back then. But I was a Democrat, too!
Hey, as long as we “say” the word “transparency,” that’s all that matters. I’m wondering if the president simply thinks that words -just words- are magical in themselves, and they don’t have to mean what they mean; they can mean the precise opposite of what he says they mean, and still mean what he says! Or, you know, he doesn’t have to take his own advice. Or something.
I still say his biggest problem is he believes his own hype. That’s never wise, or productive.
Mrs. Pelosi and her kids are overfeeding at the public trough. If this Speaker of the House had an R after her name, the press would quite rightly be hounding her from office for her excesses (and her um, mad embellishments and bizarre utterances) but she has a D after her name and so she is as untouchable as a sacred cow in India, or something. Different rules for different parties, you know. I frankly think she is out of her mind, and for God’s sake, she is third in line to the Oval Office.
Instapundit says he just doesn’t want to hear any more crap from her about his carbon footprint. Doesn’t he realize, carbon concerns are only for the little people!
In other news: Haiti says US, please take over. Hmmm…some of us have been saying from the very start (and over and over) that a particular American or two should have been put in place over there, to bring some leadership to the increasing chaos of Port au Prince. America knows how to handle crisis and relief. So, for that matter, does tiny Israel, which gets little notice (and, sadly, predictably some ignorant backlash for all the work it has done in Haiti.
Jews in some parts of Sweden: fleeing for their lives? What the deuce?
Good news on the HIV/AIDS front.
Did an Obama nominee lie to the congress? And will that matter as to her seating. Take your best guess.
Finally: Change the law and put Mother Teresa on the stamp, already!
“However, local Jews insist that the majority of anti-Jewish sentiment, although certainly existent in the Muslim community, is coming from local Swedes.”
The top politicians in the town are left of center politically. Supposedly enlightened and broad-minded and tolerant. Though in reality they take to anti-Semitism with gusto (though they don’t outright call it that – it’s all about cloaking anti-Semitism in the proper-sounding words).
And as for Madam Pelosi… here’s a word to sum her up: Chutzpah. Chutzpah to the nth degree.
The Dems are demonstrably anti-Semitic which makes one wonder why so many Jews are dyed in the wool Democrats? What’s that about?
As to Madame Pelosi, I believe that she is truly an unhinged woman suffering from Botox poisoning. Or she’s just suffering from post-menopausal psychosis!
Regarding the story about anti-semitism in a town in Sweden, the first article you cite seems fine, but the second link (“What the deuce!”) is to a web site (“Jewish Odysseus”) that is really hateful towards Muslims and Arabs. If you provide a link to a site like this in support of a statement and without comment it implies that you find the site to be at least somewhat credible and worthy of citation. I suggest you take another look at the site.
[You didn't think "what the deuce" was a comment? -admin]
Anchoress,
With all due respect, I realize it may be obvious to you that “What the deuce!” is some kind of critique of the article you are linking to, but to my less blog savvy eyes, it is not all clear what you may mean by that. I think that people such as yourself who read and write blogs (a word I really don’t like, btw) all the time may be more tuned in to this kind of shorthand commentary, but it leaves me scratching my head. You make heavy use of links in your writings here, and that can appear indiscriminate. I once convinced the director of a “progressive” pro-life organization to remove several links from their site since they were only superficially “pro-life”, but were advocates of really noxious views at odds with the philosophy of the organization itself.
I am still “checking out” your site, and so far I like most of what I see, but I could very easily have written you off based just on that one link to that rant. You as the writer and administrator of this site have the burden of proof to convince me, the reader, that it is worthwhile spending time here.
Sorry if this sounds pedantic, but if I really thought you were a lost cause, I would not have bothered to blather on here.
Aside from the link, Peter, what’s your reaction to this story about the rise of anti-semetism in Sweden? Yes, the Jewish Odysseus site might be dreadful—but it seems to me the plight of Jews in Sweden is pretty awful too, and I’m glad the Anchoress chose to spotlight that.
P.S. Myself, I understand what the Anchoress meant with “What the Deuce?” Just fine. I suspect most of her readers here did as well. It’s too bad you’re unfamiliar with it, but now you are, you know what she meant.
Of course, if the Anchoress had used the more typical—and vulgar—”WTF?” to make her point, I’m sure some would be rating her now for using bad language. You just can’t please everybody.
And my earlier comment appears to have disappeared into the void, so, forgive me if I’m saying the same thing twice—but, Peter, what do you think of the first story the Anchoress links to? The one about Jews having to flee Sweden in fear, because of rising anti-semetism? You say it’s “fine”; I hope that, by that, you mean you’re as upset about Jew hate as you are about hating Moslems. Myself, I’m glad the Anchoress is spotlighting this.
As someone new to the blogsphere, I also hope you realize that merely linking with an particular article doesn’t mean the blogger takes responsibility for it, as if they’d written it themselves, or that they even that they agree with the link itself. Sometimes, such links are offered up as bad examples.
As I said earlier—-no matter what, sometimes you just can’t please everybody.
Rhinestone,
Thank you for your response and for your question.
I think I said the first article was “fine”, not what it was describing. The anti-semitic attacks are horrible. They also show that people in countries such as Sweden, much beloved by progressives, can be just as brutal as anywhere else. I am not necessarily convinced by the argument that some have made here about anti-semitism being more common in socialist countries though.
I think your uncertainty about what I meant by my reference to the first article is similar to what I experienced when I looked at the “WTD” link. I did not think to comment on the content of the article itself since I had nothing more profound to say than “anti-semitism” is bad or “attacks on ethnic and religious minorities are bad”. I only referred to the first article in order to contrast its tone with that of the one I objected to (or, “to which I objected” for you split infinitive purists out there).
I tend to view links as either a type of footnote to a prior written statement or, if presented without comment, as a reference. Where I probably disagree with you and Anchoress is that I think if a writer disagrees with a site to which they post a link they need to err on the side of making their disagreement clear. But, I also understand that each form of and venue for writing develop their own forms of shorthand, for lack of a better term.
A lot of this comes down to the difficulties inherent in written communication, especially between people on a site like this where the participants have strong opinions and do not know one another outside of this context.
I am not, by the way, really “new” to the blogosphere. I am just selective about what I read and cautious about expressing my views. I almost never write comments on unmonitored sites. There is just no point. The anonymous wilding takes over. My recent participation in some of the First Things sites is a sign that I find them interesting, that I have too much time on my hands right now and that I am engaged in an active form of constructive procrastination.
Be careful when you ask a question, you might get a more wordy response than you wanted.
I also am “checking out” this blog. I am a First Things subscriber but have never read the Anchoress. I initially liked what I saw here on the left’s hopeless insularity. But when I clicked on the link about some wanting to “stifle the sound of America” I did not expect to be directed to an article about stupid college students who don’t even pretend they are not mocking people who look like my relatives. C’mon you guys, the time for “Indian mascots” is past.
Sometimes I am soooo embarrassed by my Catholic friends whom I so dearly love.
Well, I believe you really are being overly pedantic about links, and their purpose; a blogger can use them for many valid reasons; you see it one way, they might see it another. There really are no hard and fast rules for using them. And it’s a mistake to treat a link as if it were something the blogger himself or herself wrote, and takes full responsibility for.
Sadly, anti-semetism is on the rise all over the world. No country, no political system, seems to be immune.