The Final Repudiation

sour grapes, Mr Will. Unbecoming. Things change. We are a literate people now with mass communication. No longer do we rely on the educated classes to tell us who should govern. We the people have more info and more access and ergo we use it. We don't ride to Washington in horses either. Welcome to the new world.

It is good to know what the founding fathers envisioned for the election of a president, but it would be reaching too far to assume that the founding fathers could have envisioned this country sprawled out across so many time zones, multiple cultures, races, etc. and the entertwining of global affairs into our destinies. Tom Friedman is right that this is now a flat world and we are all connected.

The world has given us feedback this time to indicate they think we got it right this time. Now we have to make sure we stay on course.

The constitution should be a living document and should continue to support our government through that evolution. We may be moving towards a time when the presidency is really a chairman of a committee who follows an agenda put forth in the election process and voted on by the people. Governing in this global economy is too complex for one person to understand especially as things change day to day. Allan Greenspan told us that none of us is smart enough to understand this global ecoomy. So we are sailing in uncharter waters again.

With all the technology available today, it is going to be hard for any bureaucracy to run in secret. It is fair to say that the American people don't trust any one branch of Government to have all the answers and ultimately the American people want to know what is going on.

We give an administration four years to get their agenda on track, then we review it during the election process, and if the collection of all the states, cultures, demographic groups don't like the direction, we throw the bums out.

That has a lot of downside to it for long-range planning, but it is up the administration to educate us and sell their ideas and plans. Collectively, the American people are not so stupid that we can't understand complex ideas, but we look to all forms of the media to reach us where we are in our busy lives and keep us informed in a balanced way. That is the challenge to our culture -- keeping a free and open press..

The American people as a whole get it right -- no one group by itself can be trusted to get it right for us.

Those same founding fathers would have considered Obama 3/5's human so it's hard to accept their wisdom in this context.

Also, why doesn't Will cite Ronald Reagan as an example of one who used personal charisma to gain office in the first place. And what about W as a counter argument of someone both inexperienced and completely lacking any oratory skills? How does his two term presidency fit into Will's model.

I don't always agree with Will but usually expect his pieces to be well thought out. This election has clearly left him behind.

Northing Barack Obama did would have been sufficent to please George Wills. He is a true racist in every sence of the word. It's unfortunate that he has the ability to reach so many people with his venom. I only hope that "sensible Americans" can see through his words that he is a true racist.

I agree with Kykloupes. I am reminded on a story in the Devner Post just after the 2004 election. An Ohio couple (remember Ohio was the Florida of 2004) who voted for George Bush not out of support for any of this economic or international policies, but rather because they were Evangelical Christians and greatly feared that two men would be able to marry if John Kerry won. They even acknowledged that their own financial status had become dire during the first G.W. Bush term. Not even self-interest could overcome religious fanatacism. Perhaps this is where Mr. Will's argument begins to make sense. Any politician can run to the lowest common denominator. I felt strongly that Senator McCain much more used this low ball attack, by relying on personal attack and inuendo. Senator Obama criticized McCain policy and people understood that difference. McCain lost the argument as well as the election.

Mr Clatech and his patners can lay off their employees if they wish. Your refrence to a comedians statement as a yard stick of stupidity of a whole race is in itself stupid. People like you always think they know more than everyone else because of your ego, but in actual fact you guys are stupid. I am sure a bunch of your so called employees are brighter than you are, you were lucky to use their brains to nuture your business. People like you are oh so ignorant because you always think owning a business makes you smarter than the rest of the country or that it confers erudity through which you can lecture the rest of us. I PITY YOU. Please retire and shut up. God's speed Claech

Richard Pryor had keen insight when he said "White people are so stupid"

I???m so fed up with our corrupt political system after breaking my back for years building my business and fighting from going bankrupt, a bunch of naïve Americans elect an even more naïve career politician, president. I and many of my business partners have decided to pack it in, I???m laying off 50 plus workers starting next month and retiring. No way in hell am I going to pay this numskull???s capital gains tax and run my business into the ground before I can cash out!

I have read your column for years, even though I am not a conservative, Mr. Will. In pondering what your point was, I think you might have lost an opportunity to do some real good in looking at how presidential campaigns are run and won. It does not take a political bend to see that it is a high school popularity contest of national proportion. Where I think you strained your point is in equating the evolution of the process with what the actual person winning brings to the American table. Our system is still Greek based, i.e. we hope the best and brightest will save us. That the process is flawed does not mean the person is, and given Bush, that is the biggest fear is that the system will be subverted, in whatever form, to put idiots in office. When we have a system that encourages a party to do ANYTHING to win, because it is a referendum on values and purpose, then we are lost. It panders to the lowest common denominator, which has been the Republican tactic for many years, and only breeds dogmatic belief and fear and ultimately hate. There are a million ways to get things done, but at some point we have to commit to doing things a little more on the high side. Maybe Obama will be the first in a string to do so, taking out the garbage to make room for something new. The conservatives will be unable to do so as long as they are chained to their positions.

I have read your column for years, even though I am not a conservative, Mr. Will. In pondering what your point was, I think you might have lost an opportunity to do some real good in looking at how presidential campaigns are run and won. It does not take a political bend to see that it is a high school popularity contest of national proportion. Where I think you strained your point is in equating the evolution of the process with what the actual person winning brings to the American table. Our system is still Greek based, i.e. we hope the best and brightest will save us. That the process is flawed does not mean the person is, and given Bush, that is the biggest fear is that the system will be subverted, in whatever form, to put idiots in office. When we have a system that encourages a party to do ANYTHING to win, because it is a referendum on values and purpose, then we are lost. It panders to the lowest common denominator, which has been the Republican tactic for many years, and only breeds dogmatic belief and fear and ultimately hate. There are a million ways to get things done, but at some point we have to commit to doing things a little more on the high side. Maybe Obama will be the first in a string to do so, taking out the garbage to make room for something new. The conservatives will be unable to do so as long as they are chained to their positions.

I have read your column for years, even though I am not a conservative, Mr. Will. In pondering what your point was, I think you might have lost an opportunity to do some real good in looking at how presidential campaigns are run and won. It does not take a political bend to see that it is a high school popularity contest of national proportion. Where I think you strained your point is in equating the evolution of the process with what the actual person winning brings to the American table. Our system is still Greek based, i.e. we hope the best and brightest will save us. That the process is flawed does not mean the person is, and given Bush, that is the biggest fear is that the system will be subverted, in whatever form, to put idiots in office. When we have a system that encourages a party to do ANYTHING to win, because it is a referendum on values and purpose, then we are lost. It panders to the lowest common denominator, which has been the Republican tactic for many years, and only breeds dogmatic belief and fear and ultimately hate. There are a million ways to get things done, but at some point we have to commit to doing things a little more on the high side. Maybe Obama will be the first in a string to do so, taking out the garbage to make room for something new. The conservatives will be unable to do so as long as they are chained to their positions.

Yeeeooww...
So, since Bush's entrepeneurialism produced manipulation, we can excuse marketing slight of hand? Howabouts calling both spades a spade?
Howabouts using the founder's intent. The issue is not the ;'tactics' of the idea "in a narrow sense" - but the underlyiing 'strategic' (Seems there once was a presidential candidate who forgot the essence of this word. But that 's a parenthetical point.) theme of protecting the public and the nation from public charlatanism or organizational exploitation... or whatever else we will be complaining (or defending - that depends upon if your side won or not) about in 4, 8 ,12 years from now.
I guess I trust potentially corrupt partisans over the partially-informed, band-wagoning patrons who re-elect them.
Let's cut to the chase - what percentage of votes were based upon policy and character? versus persona and marketing prowess? C'mon.... if you were foolish enough to run for president, and want to win. Would you run a brilliant campaign, or lead on the issues (Ask Ralph Nader or Ron Paul for advise on this one.)

Oh, come on, Georgie boy! What exactly are you yourself doing by this peroration of yours? You are employing words, the raw substance with which Obama communicated with the American public, and yet you are whining that he was too successful.

No doubt you feel much better about Resident Dumbush's gross ineptitude with words! Makes you feel like the smart "communicator" on the conservative stage, does it? After all, Saint Ronnie Reagan had your help. Gotta give you credit, Georgie boy, you did call Dumbush's dad a "lap dog". That showed us all just how accurate you can be if you try, although it also showed us just how full you are of yourself.

Why don't you expose your true feelings for Dumbush? Isn't Dumbush the one who made Obama plausible? The entire world was disgusted with our stupidity in choosing Dumbush well after we saw just how inferior he was to all the available alternatives that both political parties had to offer. Wasn't it because his fractured syntax, miserable grammar, and verbal bumblings made the average American feel good about himself? Isn't that also a use (misuse, if you prefer) of rhetoric?

By the way, I do believe that "Poppy" Bush, the old man, has a moderate amount of intelligence. Unfortunately, Bush 41's genes were diluted by Barbara's, and so we had Dumbush - and his dirty deeds.

Wake up, Georgie boy. The world does evolve. As Lord Alfred Tennyson (more or less) said : "Old order changeth, yielding place to new, and life renews itself in many ways."

obama has no idea what to do . he is shocked he won . in about 6 months he will be wishing he was back in larry sinclairs limo.

obama don't know what to do and bill is not going to help him. in a year he will wish he had not won.

George, your article has struck centre target with pinpoint accuracy, there is no refuting the facts.
Now, we, the TAXPAYING citizens, are left to brace and prepare for what I fear to be another era of Carter-like economics and a massive breakdown in U.S. infrastructure, culture, and heritage.
As Mr. Obama stated in several speeches, "It is a new beginning." Unfortunately, that 'new beginning' appears quite bleak for traditional U.S. Constitutionalists and patriots.

I should have realized another ideological Leftist, still stung by the success of the '80s, would seek an opportunity in berating the late President Reagan to some degree. Take note the hypocrisy in denouncing Mr. Reagan's resume whilst overlooking the lack of qualification in President Clinton's.
Leftist rhetoric is quite easy to find, merely follow the overpowering stench of hypocrisy.

George, I am struck by your logic. That a leader that can inspire the masses with his, you called it ???popular arts??? oratory ability to reach the electorate a subversion of the intent of our Founding fathers. There are other subversions that are more dangerous to our constitution than someone who can inspire. History has it that there have been presidents that have succeeded and those that have failed regardless of their ability to speak coherently, yet our constitution is still largely intact (save for amendments to her) and that your argument is that the perversion of Obama???s selection was based on his oratory ability and not the platform of the party he represents. A platform of inclusion that he has so eloquently spoken, and the American electorate has in kind voted for.
Your argument is that someone who is eloquent can and I quote
???The founders were deeply fearful of leaders deploying popular oratory as the means of winning distinction.???
The real fear that the founders had not envisioned was the subversion of all four levels of government you had spoken of in this article, Congress, Supreme Court, the presidency and the presidential selection. That all four would be taken over by special interest groups and the one with the most money wins. It is not lost on most if not all of those who voted for Obama, we did so because he is free of this special interest due to the fact that the American Electorate that voted for him supported him with there own funds, not that of any special interest group. He is the first president in recent history that was elected from the very group that supported his candidacy ???The American People??? and regardless of your political views, that has to be something that even you can appreciate. I know the system is broken, I know we can do better and I have every confidence that we will go along way to fix it. Finance reform, economy, national security is too important to leave it to special interest. That is the real fear our founding fathers hadn???t foreseen.

George - The key word here is "evolution" - gradual changes in form or function required to ensure the survival of a species. The Foundling Fathers gave us a great start, but were not perfect. While not all change is progress, this one was overdue. And as for the comment about "demagoguery subverting moderation," exactly what "moderation" has been subverted? The spending of close to a trillion dollars on a fundamentally flawed miltary campaign? - flawed in its original premise, flawed in its execution, flawed in the assumption that we must always beat the other guy into submission on this "Pale Blue Dot" of ours, flawed in that it has visited eath and destruction and deep grief on thousands of Americans and tens of thousands of Iraqis, flawed in that it has deeply angered the entire Islamic world - which anger will play itself out long after the perpetrators are turning to dust. Is it moderation to require the American public to spend close to a trillion dollars to "socialize" the losses resulting from a free market run amok? Is this the "moderation" that will be subverted by the basic goodness, gentleness and intelligence of the President Elect? It's too bad that evolution is so slow...