"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."
Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland, chapter 6 (1865).
There has been much made in the right leaning blogosphere about Barack Obama's "flip flops" as he has moved to the center once having secured the nomination of the Democratic party. On the left side of the blogosphere, as well as in the MSM, this has most often been ignored, though the extent and import of his contradictions has begun to make an impact on some of the MSM. There is a good reason, beyond partisan politics, that so many on the left have no problem with Obama's flexibility on issues, even on issues of principle and ideology.
Barack Obama is self-identified, and certainly seen by his followers, as an intellectual. His brilliance elevates him above the mundane. Most politicians need to attend to the most prosaic of their constituents concerns (Al D'Amato, a very conservative former Senator from very liberal New York was known as "Senator Pothole") but Senator Obama soared on lofty wings of rhetoric far above the field and what elevated and propelled Barack Obama, and elevates and propels him now, is his facility with words.
Intellectuals earn the disdain of the hoi polloi honestly. They value words much more than they value deeds.
[This is, of course, a generalization and there are, of course, exceptions. For example, left wing intellectuals have always idealized those who put their ideology into practice. Revolutionary violence has been traditionally admired by those intellectuals who are not willing to actually risk anything more than paper in their support of "the revolution." The romance of revolutionary violence can live on long after the revolution has descended into political murder and totalitarian reactionary power; see Che Guevara.]
In the past the over-valuing of words compared to actions could be understood to exist within certain reasonably clear constraints.
The intellectuals have been the gate keepers of news and memory. An intellectual could explain almost anything to fit his ideology and sanitize any excesses that the ideology facilitated. Thus, for example, The New York Times's Walter Duranty could win a Pulitzer Prize for journalism for his laudatory series on Stalin's Russia in the 1930s, while neglecting to mention the millions of deaths Stalin was responsible for by his engineered famine or offer a critical view of Stalin's show trials. History was not only written by the victors but they could rely upon the useful idiots of the MSM to control the present news as well.
The world has changed but Barack Obama, emerging as he does from the hallways of academic excellence, sees the world through the eyes of an intellectual and apparently has ingested an unhealthy mix of intellectual arrogance and the over-valuation of language that is part of the academic culture. This may well sabotage his campaign; in the event he is elected President, it bodes poorly for his administration.
When Barack Obama expressly contradicts himself within minutes of making a comment, there are several possible explanations for his facility with the language:
1) It is possible, perhaps likely, that Obama simply does not believe it is wise or necessary for him to admit an error. This is an accusation that has been made about President Bush on a regular basis, and has contributed to the tribulations of the Bush Presidency.
2) Obama may well be able to convince himself, probably post facto, that his words mean just what he wants them to mean, a la Humpty Dumpty, and therefore doesn't consider the contradictions to be significant.
3) He may believe that he still lives in a world dominated by the MSM, that they will continue to cover for him as they have done since the beginning of his campaign, and that there is no need for him to maintain any consistency or explain any contradictions.
4) In the worst case scenario, he may well be an opportunistic sociopath who lies because he thinks he can get away with it.
I suspect that his behavior represents a combination of these possibilities, plus some other possibilities I am probably neglecting. Since an intellectual educated in a post-modernist university starts from the premise that reality is constructed by those who have power, he assumes that his words, mellifluous and powerful, are enough to determine reality. This would fit with Obama's history; after all his most common vote while a State Senator was "present" suggesting that taking responsibility for actions was considered a liability rather than an asset. Now that the seat of greatest power lies within reach he is already behaving as if he has attained his goal. He acts as if once President, his descriptions of reality would trump reality. This is also in line with the world of George Lakoff who is very influential within the Democratic party for his theory that the problem of liberalism lies in the words and framing of their arguments rather than in the content of their ideas.
The great risk for the country is that President Obama would continue to over-value words and mistrust actions. Such an approach is mostly harmless for a Senator but can be dangerous for an executive.
For symmetry, I would like to finish with another quote. After Westley surrenders to the Prince in order to save the life of his true love, Princess Buttercup rides off with the Prince, trusting in his honeyed words and convinced that Westley's life would be spared by her sacrifice (ie, she agreed to marry the Prince.) The Prince and his aide, Count Rugen, are the epitome of elegance; they are suave, sophisticated, and glib. They assure Buttercup that Westley will be released once they have gone back to the city. The Prince, Count Rugen, and Wesley all know that Westley is about to be tortured and killed yet remain silent to protect Buttercup from the news. Once Buttercup is out of earshot, Rugen repeats that Westley will soon be free, Wesley responds with a classic line which could usefully be contrasted with the words of many of our politicians. Here is the exchange:
Rugen: Come, sir. We must get you to your ship.
Westley: We are men of action, lies do not become us.
Rugen: Well spoken, sir --
The malleable words of the intellectual, so highly valued as they are, are merely urbane lies to the less sophisticated man of action. In the movie, the courageous man of action defeats the effete intellectual, but that's the movies, we shall see what real life holds in store.
Recent Comments