Log in
2012 May 18 |
 |
http://www.theatlanticright.com/2008/01/28/disagreeing-with-obama-yet-supporting-him/
0
0
  |   78 comments

I took two different on-line tests designed to determine the test-taker’s ideal presidential candidate (here and here). While these tests are too generic t to be much more than fun timewasters, I was curious to find that Barack Obama was rated extremely low on his compatibility with me.

On both tests, John McCain scored at the top or just a percentage point from the top. So it’s not a surprise I would support him for the Republican nomination. However, Obama and I have very little policy overlap – a known fact these tests confirmed – and yet I support him for the Democratic nomination and could certainly end up voting for him in the general election. What is going on here?

I am not the type to sign on for a movement. In fact, the fervency of others for a cause or candidate usually creates a directly inverse reaction in me (which is why I never got behind Ron Paul despite my own libertarian instincts – his supporters are too passionately and blindly devoted). I’m not wooed by Obama’s charisma or sucked in by the historic implications of his candidacy.

I am, however, impressed by his character. I have seen enough and read enough to believe the unity rhetoric is not a clever put-on. He sincerely believes we’re all very much in this together and we all deserve a voice. We as a culture have become far too selfish and we could very much use a leader who will try to rally us to greater purposes. We could use a man capable of transcending the hollow, nasty, pessimistic politics of the last twenty years and pushing our government and other leaders towards a more civil, more earnestly optimistic future.

The fact that I disagree with Obama on numerous policy issues is almost irrelevant at this point. The president is not head wonk in charge. For better or worse, the character of the president deeply affects the character of the nation. Policy positions are good for choosing congressmen and women. But our presidents? We have to look at their whole being.

Perhaps when the time comes to pull the lever (or touch the screen), my practicality will prevail and I’ll vote for the candidate whose policy positions most closely mirror my own. But for now, still three-quarters of a year from November, I can allow myself the freedom of hope. I can believe that Obama is a great man who can achieve great things for this nation. So I support him for the Democratic nomination – even if the on-line tests think that’s crazy.

Tip of the hat to Booker Rising for brining the tests to my attention.

  1. Posted by C Stanley
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #20686 ›
    C Stanley FWIW, Jason, I've been angered at times with Michael's tone when discussing candidates he doesn't like. ;-) Can you guys kiss and make up now?
  2. Michael van der Galien
    In Obama’s case, it’s too early in his career to have much evidence one way or the other, that’s true. It’s also why I can’t support him at this time (though I like him and hope he matures into the type of politician that you believe him to be.)
    That's what I hope for as well. In fact, I think that he if becomes the politician he seems to indicate he'll be once, I think he would be a great candidate eight or even four years from now (also after he has more experience). If he puts words into action, it's definitely someone I could support in a couple of years. Trouble is, you don't know what he'll do and I "believe" in God and that's it. In politics I tend to be an "unbeliever."
  3. Posted by C Stanley
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #20690 ›
    C Stanley
    Check his Illinois record before you go on record saying that he was a fine moderate in Illinois. In fact, liberal bloggers are touting his Illinois record as proof that he’s actually a true liberal at heart; one of them.
    This cuts both ways, though, Michael. To some extent you could say that his record in Illinois was so liberal because it's such a blue state, much like Romney's record on social issues and gun control was liberal for a Republican in order to survive in Blue Massachusetts.
  4. Michael van der Galien FWIW, Jason, I’ve been angered at times with Michael’s tone when discussing candidates he doesn’t like. If I remember correctly, you've also had your issues with other people. Point is; snark feeds snark. (for what it's worth, I tried to reach out in comment #40 ;) Then again, we can be blunt with each other can't we? Especially considering the fact that many on this blog know each other for years and have been talking politics with each other for years as well. In a way it's a sign that the blog and bloggers and commenters have grown: we can disagree very strongly with each other, yet we respect each other. That's one of the things that makes this blog different from other blogs where only people comment who agree with the post and leave a "YAY!" comment).
  5. Michael van der Galien
    To some extent you could say that his record in Illinois was so liberal because it’s such a blue state, much like Romney’s record on social issues and gun control was liberal for a Republican in order to survive in Blue Massachusetts.
    But I never used that as a defense for Romney. I don't think it's much of a defense anyhow. The following is also important: are you giving in a bit, to prevent worse, or are you a "giving in leader"? Obama was clearly the second and touted for it.
  6. Michael van der Galien By the way: if you think this little debate was something: you should listen to how my girlfriend and I debate on, say, Palestine - Israel once. Ha! This ain't nothing. She's even more stubborn than me (for instance: she refuses to accept that the Palestinians are a bunch of terrorists who deserved to be crused ;))!
  7. Posted by C Stanley
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #20701 ›
    C Stanley Re: comment #54, Michael, I think the point is that Jason feels that the manner in which you're disagreeing with him is disrespectful. He seems to not have a problem with me saying that I don't see enough evidence that Obama will govern in a pragmatic, moderate way when it runs up against his ideology to do so. But that's different than saying "how can you be such a dupe to believe that he'll do that??" LOL Honestly, since the campaign has gotten underway it's like everyone has turned into Shaun Mullen.
  8. Posted by Jason
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #20702 ›
    Jason Christine, you may not have noticed that I am not comparing Obama to McCain at this time. During the primaries, I am only comparing Obama to Clinton. And from my perspective, the only Democratic candidate with ANY propensity to lead to moderate/centrist policy outcomes is Obama. It is also not true that I am completely without empirical evidence here. Clinton's record of divisiveness and demonization runs back 15 years. Obama's record of seeking consensus has been consistent, though brief. So sure, there is some "belief" going on here, but as I said before, Clinton supporters cannot claim superiority there because they have to be embracing some "belief" that Clinton's current centrism is real and her earlier ideological extremism is really gone. And, unfortunately, the "wait and see" option is probably not available to us. If Obama loses to Clinton, he'll be toast in Democratic party politics. As they have shown with an extremely vindictive streak in the past, the Clintons will ensure that he is properly punished for having opposed them at all. This is not a faction that has a good record for reaching out to former opponents. They tend to get trapped in their own demonizing rhetoric.
  9. Posted by Jason
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #20704 ›
    Jason
    But that’s different than saying "how can you be such a dupe to believe that he’ll do that??"
    Yes, exactly. I don't have a problem with people who say that I am wrong. I have a problem with people who say that I am wrong because I am a dupe who has been sucked in by "emotionalism" (Michael) or "Clinton hatred" (Obsidian Wings and abrisaham) or ""purdy talk" (abrisaham again). Before objecting on this thread, I tried to make the same point in a post that was mostly ignored by everyone.
  10. Posted by C Stanley
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #20706 ›
    C Stanley
    Christine, you may not have noticed that I am not comparing Obama to McCain at this time.
    I do note that, but was responding to your "no one has anything more than that to go on," which I thought was more generalizing. Sorry if I misinterpreted. I'm not so sure that I agree that Obama won't have another chance. The Clinton brand seems to be losing its luster with the Dem establishment and they may not be able to put down their opposition in the future.
  11. Posted by Jason
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #20708 ›
    Jason If they win this one, their power within in the Democratic Party will once again be absolute. Actually, given the trend in favor of "strong parties", the Clintons of 2008 would probably enjoy even more power to be vindictive than the Clintons of the 1990s.
  12. Posted by C Stanley
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #20713 ›
    C Stanley Well, we'll just have to see how it plays out. I for one have been surprised at the willingness of people at all levels in the Dem party to cross the Clintons and publicly rebuke Bill, for example. I think there's a lot of fear that they're going too far this time, particularly because they're touching flashpoints on race which could undermine the party's reliable base of black supporters. So to me, she's either still going to win but without the strong political capital that she would have been expected to have had (in other words, facing opposition from within her own party instead of having their loyalty), or perhaps she'll lose. Either way I don't see her having the kind of power that Bill commanded.
  13. Posted by Jason
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #20726 ›
    Jason In fairness to Michael, Christine, I should point out that I am the one agreeing with Mullen on some of these points, though I would hasten to point out that I try to do so in a less inflammatory and abusive manner than is Mullen's typical style. Michael did, however, embrace Mullen's technique of sending a "get the f*ck out of my thread!" email, so that was a nice flashback to the TMV days. :)
  14. Posted by Tap
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #20753 ›
    Tap "That’s one of the things that makes this blog different from other blogs where only people comment who agree with the post and leave a "YAY!" comment." That's what makes this blog great, Michael. So many people are afraid to have to defend their ideas and opinions. But a blog that consists of nothing but consensus opinions is a boring, unenlightening blog. No fun at all.
  15. Posted by Tap
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #20765 ›
    Tap " I for one am getting a little tired of how so many Obama opponents presume to know the secret reasons for those who support Obama.. It seems that none of Obama’s opponents (at least around here) can conceive of even the possibility that we just disagree.I wonder if you all know (or care) that you are being grossly insulting to people who otherwise you often claim to respect just because you disagree with their opinion... about a candidate. It’s not like Obama’s supporters here have been behaving badly (like the supporters of some other candidates have). Why is it that Obama’s supporters are the subject of so much outright contempt?I’ve criticized Hillary Clinton’s behavior, but I don’t recall ever arguing that all her supporters are just a bunch of morons or suckers. I’ve disagreed with McCain and Romney on various issues, but I don’t think I have ever posted that all their supporters are motivated by war hero worship or Captain America good looks.Maybe if Obama is such an empty suit, it shouldn’t be necessary to constantly attack the motives of his supporters to criticize him, as so many of the people around here seem to like to do." Jason, I don't want to derail this thread, but I do have one comment to make that has nothing to do with the topic. I find your comments above to be exceedingly ironic coming from someone who knows with such surety that those who argue for border security are bigots and racists.
  16. Michael van der Galien
    Michael did, however, embrace Mullen’s technique of sending a "get the f*ck out of my thread!" email, so that was a nice flashback to the TMV days.
    Hahahaha. Yeah - you liked that one? I thought it would bring back fond memories (you should point out that the e-mail was a joke though).
  17. Michael van der Galien O, but I was a bit more creative: I added "jackass." :evil:
  18. Michael van der Galien

    But that’s different than saying "how can you be such a dupe to believe that he’ll do that??" LOL

    I didn't say that. That's the interpretation. Well your interpretation (and that of Jason seemingly). I said that you're free to "believe" in politics but that I believe that you shouldn't "believe" and that you have to, for a major part, rely on a person's record as an indicator of what he or she would do once in power. That's how I see it, and I don't think there's anything wrong with that. As an aside, I get a bit tired of the twisting of words. No where did I say that Obama supporters are suckers: my only point is that he's not a centrist and that people who support him should come out and say so. They can support him because of other reasons (style, whatever), but don't make something up. And yes, the debate is heated; but I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing. As long as one doesn't cross the line, and I don't think anyone here crossed it.
  19. Michael van der Galien One question: why is "emotionalism" written between quotations marks? Where did I say that?
  20. Posted by C Stanley
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #20781 ›
    C Stanley For the most part I agree with that, Michael, but I also think that there's sort of a need to be 'edgy' on blogs so that the way posts are written tends to be insulting to people who favor a candidate that the blogger opposes. The blogger (esp with headlines, or tag lines in articles) doesn't just usually write that the candidate did or said such and such, which I disagree with for this or that reason. Instead it's framed in order to put it in the most ludicrous light so that no one with a grain of sense could possibly support that candidate, according to the blogger (this is one reason I wouldn't be a good blogger- I'd probably bore everyone to tears!) Turn it around and I think you'll see what I mean, Michael- there have been posts where you take the position that the Clintons aren't playing the race card. People have disagreed with you, but so far I don't remember Jason or anyone else saying "You're free to believe that, but it shows that you are incredibly naive" or anything even like that. Instead, people have commented on past behaviors that make us believe differently than you do. And that's all it comes down to with any opinion; they're based on facts (hopefully at least!) but can vary depending on how you connect the dots. When you argue too forcefully by straying from presenting the facts and connections as you see them and instead start acting as though the other person is deluded in the way he connects the dots, then you're not respectfully disagreeing anymore. And when there's room to say, "I just don't see what I said you're objecting to, " the best thing to do is allow that perhaps you don't see it but it still is there. Because it's always much harder to see how these offenses occur when you're the offender than when you're on the receiving end.
  21. Michael van der Galien
    People have disagreed with you, but so far I don’t remember Jason or anyone else saying "You’re free to believe that, but it shows that you are incredibly naive" or anything even like that. Instead, people have commented on past behaviors that make us believe differently than you do.
    LMAO. Seriously. Check the threads ("you are naive... You don't live here you don't understand... It's glaringly obvious... You're a racist!"). OK, doesn't matter, the debate about tone ends here.
    And that’s all it comes down to with any opinion; they’re based on facts (hopefully at least!) but can vary depending on how you connect the dots. When you argue too forcefully by straying from presenting the facts and connections as you see them and instead start acting as though the other person is deluded in the way he connects the dots, then you’re not respectfully disagreeing anymore.
    But again: deluded? Who's saying anything about people being deluded? OK, doesn't matter, the debate about tone ends here. I'll - and others I hope - tone it down, but heated debates are good. Tap: comments like that aren't welcome. You can send an e-mail, but don't do that.
  22. Posted by C Stanley
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #20787 ›
    C Stanley Hope this one last one is allowed because I'm not disagreeing with you:
    LMAO. Seriously. Check the threads ("you are naive… You don’t live here you don’t understand… It’s glaringly obvious… You’re a racist!")
    If so, than this actually proves my point; I don't remember it that way, and I differ with your opinion on that issue- so it shows that the perception of the tone of the criticisms will differ depending on which side of the debate you are on. And I do know that I'm as guilty of that as the next person.
  23. Posted by Jason
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #20816 ›
    Jason I have never called those who disagree with Obama racists, as Michael claims above. I have also never argued that everyone who wants border security is a racist, as Tap claims above. At the point where it seems impossible to discuss certain issues without provoking insulting and demeaning reactions and/or lies about what I said at all, my personal inclination is to avoid them altogether in what I choose to post about (or not post about). Besides, the post I made addressing the reasons that a conservative might like Obama was almost completely ignored anyway.
  24. Michael van der Galien
    I have never called those who disagree with Obama racists, as Michael claims above.
    Who said that you said that? Christine said that none of my opponents said anything, etc. I cited examples of when they most certainly did.
    At the point where it seems impossible to discuss certain issues without provoking insulting and demeaning reactions and/or lies about what I said at all, my personal inclination is to avoid them altogether in what I choose to post about (or not post about).
    Jason: who's lying here? Where did - perhaps except for Tap's comment - anyone say that you did this or that, where did they lie about what you said? Aside from that, where have you been insulted? I just reread the comments for the 3rd time, and I don't see it. As said though, this debate is over. And I mean it this time.
  25. Posted by C Stanley
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #20831 ›
    C Stanley I didn't infer that Michael was saying that you'd called Obama opponents racists, Jason- but I regret that what I wrote may have led to his comments being confusing (because I said that neither you nor anyone else had said certain things, and then Michael responded with what others said, not what you said.) I agree that Tap was wrong to say that you called all border enforcement advocates racists- you were very specific in who you criticized, and why. Tap is obviously not someone who's motivated by bigotry or xenophobia on that issue, but it's also obvious that those people exist.
  26. Posted by Simon
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #20957 ›
    Simon <blockquote>We could use a man capable of transcending the hollow, nasty, pessimistic politics of the last twenty years and pushing our government and other leaders towards a more civil, more earnestly optimistic future.</blockquote>Quite. Call me when one shows up. Michael Reynolds wrote... <blockquote>Pat, As I recall, Reagan’s great plan was to cut taxes for rich people and spend a lot of money on weapons.  Gives me chills to remember.</blockquote>Yeah, and all we got to show for it was an economy that worked again and the end of the cold war. That kooky Reagan!
  27. Posted by Simon
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #20975 ›
    Simon Jason wrote... <blockquote>Obama’s “moderate style” ... stands in sharp contrast to Hillary Clinton’s style of taking mostly the same “liberal” issue positions but doing so in a manner that is completely hostile to all disagreement or dissent and which is prone to demonizing anyone who walks in the door with a different perspective or with contrary information.</blockquote>Strikes me that Obama's style is absolutely no different except in the way it goes about accomplishing the same effect. His style and approach is no less preclusive of debate and dissent than Clinton's.
  28. Trackback | Link #34140 ›
    Accounting Financial Financial Success Accounting Financial Financial Success... I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view...
2
 
1