The Final Repudiation

It looks like George Will of the eighties and early nineties is back to true form. I suppose that we will see him spend more time talking with the echo chamber that is the so called conservative intellectuals. And damn any attempt to address contravening opinions. Never mind that Barack Obama's experience as a community organizer and a constitution law professor implies that he has spent more time in the "real" America and knows more about the constitution than George Will. Barack is the one without experience. I suppose that George is the one that has some experience and even knows what the founding fathers intended. Hey, who needs logic or cares that we have the Internet for instant feedback? Keep living in your fantasyland. Sheesh!

The George Will of the eighties and early nineties is back to true form. I suppose that we will see him spend more time talking to the echo chamber that is the so called conservative intellectuals. And damn any attempt to address contravening opinions. Never mind that Barack Obama's experience as a community organizer and a constitution law professor implies that he has spent more time in the "real" America and know more about the constitution than George Will. Barack is the one without experience. I suppose that George is the one that has some and even knows what the founding fathers intended and deserves all the props. Hey, who cares that we have the Internet for instant feedback? Keep living in your fantasyland. Sheesh!

What cynicism proposing that Obama's supporters placed there votes in response to nothing more than "brilliant appearances" after being wooed by "oratory." This is more of the same argument pushed in the campaign from conservatives as they watched they're prospects unravel. What of the inflammatory rhetoric of Plain? Remember "the Real America?" Get this: we voted for Obama based on his record, his temperance, his ideas, and yes...his ability to speak in a coherent manner that will not embarrass us in front of the rest of the world the way our current president has done for the past 8 years.

Is this it? What kind of argument is this? How could this same argument apply to ANY other presidential candidate of our time? Should Obama have played by the rules of 1789? Please. This flimsy argument was pretext for making the tired case against Obama's credentials. Don't confuse the fact you can't understand Obama's qualifications (living amongst the poor a primary and important one) for a lack of them.

NowayJose: It appears to me that you can rationalize anything. Are you trying to tell me that the electorate was 'dazzled' by George W. Bush's inspiring speeches? I think of the many things W. is considered, an oratory master he is not.

Interesting point George. If only you had made it so strongly when the country elected George W. Bush on the same basis. Of course, these points were not made in that case because he was a conservative and Obama is not. You can rationalize anything.

I guess what is being said here is that a smaller body, engaging in deliberate discussion and choice of the President is better than an electorate being swayed by flowery rhetoric. However this was in a time when men actually wanted to serve their country and not themselves.

Another pithy commentary from a conservative intellectual who always seems to get his butt cheeks tensed when the evolution of a dyanmic democratic system changes from "those thoughtfull people" who he can only relate to and then only in a historical context who once controlled the process to the merest citizen choosing the nominee. I finally understand this self rightous dolt for what he is not. He's not some towering figure of conservativisms philosophy but a self interested hypocrite who would'nt get his hands dirty to help get McCain elected. It must of been something about Palin being a human being that he couldn't quite stomach.

While Will may be accurate on the fact of electoral politics, he neglects entirely a crucial component of the Founders' thinking about our political leaders. Although they agreed on little, many of the Framers of the Constitution believed in what Jefferson called a "natural aristocracy," by which he (and others) meant that ordinary Americans could raise themselves up through education to qualify for political office. Election would not be dependent upon pedigree, socio-economic status, or even resume (i.e., experience in office), but rather character, reputation, and intellect. Their ideal of America???s leaders was in a certain sense elitist. Leaving aside the fact that Obama has comparable experience to some past presidents (Lincoln, for example), he most certainly is exactly what the Founders had in mind when they imagined the natural aristocracy. Of course, oratory skill is usually a sign of a sophisticated intellect; in Obama???s case, we have proof of this. He has reached the pinnacle of education in this country, attending Harvard, president of the Law Review, and professor at the University of Chicago. With this he brings with him a deeper understanding of our Constitution than perhaps any president in history. Why Wills, an intelligent man himself, exhibits such anti-intellectualism is a mystery.

You are almost correct in your historical synopsis with the caveat that today's process is not purely a popular vote. You simplify to the point of misrepresentation in that statement.

In some caucus states, it remains an intimate debate and vote. In the case of republicans, it remains a state-by-state winner take all process - where the national popular vote winner could be the loser. Al Gore would tell you that that remains the case in the post nomination process. Angry democrats would call the national vote that year 5 to 4. Returning to the nominations... Certainly, the sequencing of state elections in the nominating process is far from a national up-down popular vote. There is much dialogue with in the forms of debates, rope lines, rallies, reactions to country and world events that shape this prolonged semi-popular national vote.

I would not squeeze all this into the can of "popular vote". On the other hand, I would agree that a review of the current presidential election "system" would be worthy of debate.