Posted by
Andrews on Sunday, June 22, 2008 11:33:41 PM
I read
Brock's recent column on Obama, and find, in some ways, I agree with him. Obama is definitely a complex creature, a mix of doctrinaire leftist and opportunist politician. In that regard Brock is right.
Where he gets it wrong first is in thinking that Republicans don't know this. We know it, some of us have been
saying this all along, that his vague platitudes of the left were a front, or mostly a front, and he was an opportunistic schemer at heart. So saying that we thought we were fighting a naif is just wrong.
So, why does Brock get that impression?
Because we have claimed that
Obama is naive. Which, on the surface, seems to be agreeing with Brock's final message:
All I know for sure is that this guy is no liberal goo-goo. Republicans
keep calling him naïve. But naïve is the last word I’d use to describe
Barack Obama. He’s the most effectively political creature we’ve seen
in decades. Even Bill Clinton wasn’t smart enough to succeed in
politics by pretending to renounce politics.
However, Brock is in error. And in error simply because he over simplifies and assumes that one is either naive or not, with no possibility for shading in between. (That's right, for once a liberal is mistaken because he has too little nuance in his theory.)
Allow me to explain.
There are millions of street smart hustlers in the world. Canny, cagey wise guys who talk a fair game and can put one over on strangers they meet in the street. They are clever fellows, and many survive on their wits alone. However, take one of those men and drop him in an unfamiliar situation, say set him up trying to sell forged art work or smuggling nuclear secrets or, worse still, some legitimate career, such as trading cattle futures or teaching university physics, and all his canniness many prove useless as his skill set is simply inappropriate. And, in some ways, may even prove counter productive, as his learned behaviors may work against him.
And that is what we claim about Obama. We don't doubt that he can play hardball in political struggles. We don't doubt that he will fight dirty, reason pragmatically, and generally do what has to be done
IN THE POLITICAL ARENA. On the other hand, we also think that, to some degree, he really
DOES believe his own rhetoric
when it comes to foreign affairs, and that is what we claim is naive. We don't think he is naive politically, but we do think he is naive to believe that negotiations hold the incredible power he attributes to them. And that is what causes us to call him naive.
POSTSCRIPT
Actually, after writing the above, I realized that there is one other problem with Brock's analysis. Obama may be a cagey Chicago politician, but it appears he is still not as clever as Brock thinks. Otherwise
he would have ditched Wright long before announcing his run. Either he overestimated the value of the black vote and
feared alienating them by distancing himself from Trinity and appearing too "white", or else he is not the supreme politician Brock thinks.
At one time I argued for the first, and I still think it is possible, as I have seen it often when urban politicians go national. But, given all the other gaffes and lies (which Michelle Malkin
kindly began to compile), and the rogues gallery with which he has surrounded himself (Ayers, Rezko, Pfleger, Wright), I think Obama may actually be conning the left as well, making them think he is a much better campaigner than he really is.
NOTE: Should I have the time, I may take Mrs. Malkin's list of gaffes and lies mentioned above and extend it with those I have recorded as well. As I have more space to provide explanation, I may be able to include some she could not, as they are less obvious gaffes and requrie mroe explanatory text.