As you know, reason and realism are what guides this writer—she tries her best, at least. The slobbering sentimentality that has been conflated with authenticity in our culture sickens; it’s corrupting too. But there is a huge gulf between sentimentality and real emotion. The trick is to be able to tell the one from the other.
During the debates in New Hampshire, ABC’s anchor prefaced a question to Hillary by saying, “Iowans liked Obama more than you.” Hillary looked stung and, for once, allowed her words to reflect her wounds. She told “Charlie” how painful that was. And she looked humble and hurt. The media missed that one, but it was Genuine Moment Number One.
Hillary’s Second Genuine Moment came as she teared-up during a meet-and-greet at a coffee shop in Portsmouth, N.H. She looked rather nice too.
To the extent that she exposed her usually rigid, puritanical, driven self—to that extent she scored points. The problem is that women, her voting bloc, can’t distinguish a fake Oprah moment from a real display of valuable feelings. (Not all feelings are valuable; some people are more capable than others of harboring valuable feelings—and thoughts.)
So, the value of such a display of emotion depends on the ability of people to distinguish fake from fabricated. I doubt American culture facilitates such perspicacity. (Here’s an example of wickedness; of hate-the-opponent-all-the-time; of “Hot Air.”)
Unfortunately for Hillary, even when she does finally let her guard down and reveals a side of herself nobody has seen before, it might never be appreciated.
Analysis: Paul In New Hampshire
* DEMEANOR. Rep. Paul seemed disengaged and was the only candidate who didn’t jump in and interject—he didn’t partake, even though the forum was open to it. The others did. Campaigning must be ever so exhausting, even for the spry Dr. Paul. Fatigue may have set in. It’s understandable. But it was also obvious.
* SIMPLIFY. When Giuliani manages to better articulate basic, free market principles vis-à-vis healthcare, for example, you know that Paul’s advisers are faltering. He has not mustered the knack for breaking down complex concept like inflation into simple intellectual building blocks. Sure, none of us knows what it’s like to stand up there in opposition to the statist mainstream and speak about freedom and liberty. But then none of us has decided to take on a run for office, as Paul has. Paul, moreover, has done this before.
* IMMIGRATION. The Paul campaign has come out with an innovative ad on illegal immigration. As I said in “Ron Paul’s Electability”—well before all the contretemps over the ad erupted—Paul is hardcore on illegal immigration. He has the best proposals. Rather than focus on Paul’s excellent, passive, non-aggressive devices to bring about the attrition of illegals, the media, including my own WND, has concentrated on the usual suspects: the loudest, most marginal, licentious, left-libertine crazies currently protesting the Paul ad. The tinfoil folks have discovered Paul is no lefty. Rather, he’s a man of the Old, classical liberal Right. As such, Dr. Paul defends with perfect congruity the sovereign nation-state bounded by borders. I’ll be speaking to this issue in my forthcoming, Friday, WND weekly column.
Suffice it to say that when the topic came up during the NH debate, Paul ought to have touted his own pointers as they appear in the ad. Instead, in a habit he seems to be honing, he responded to a question about immigration with an answer about the national ID card, and…inflation. Bad form. Yes, those of us who’re in the intellectual trenches of the fight for liberty know Dr. Paul makes a good point. But it’s the wrong point to make in a timed debate about specifics.
Again, here he ought to have enumerated the points made in his ad—his commitment to abolish both welfare benefits and birthright citizenship puts a Paul administration in the lead on illegal immigration.
* NARROW THE FOCUS. Paul failed to focus his answers on the questions—especially with respect to healthcare. Cardinal Rule: Don’t reply to a question about healthcare with an answer about inflation. As Paul purported, “You have to deal with the monetary issue to solve the problem of the medical issue.” This is very broadly true, but it doesn’t answer the voter’s need to know what Dr. Paul’s policy prescription is for healthcare. Sadly, the voter believes this too is a government responsibility.
Neither do you reply to the same question with this retort: “The resources are going overseas. We’re fighting a trillion-dollar war, and we shouldn’t be doing it. Those resources should be spent back here at home.” Paul’s reply here implies that government ought to fund healthcare rather than gratuitous warfare. He didn’t mean it, but it sure sounded as if he did.
Contrast that with Giuliani’s
The reality is that, with all of its infirmities and difficulties, we have the best health care system in the world. And it may be because we have a system that still is, if not holy [sic], at least in large part still private. To go in the direction that the Democrats want to go — much more government care, much more government medicine, socialized medicine — is going to mean a deteriorated state of medicine in this country. … I said jokingly in one debate, if we go in the direction of socialized medicine, where will Canadians come for health care?
Giuliani links the private sector with efficient healthcare delivery; government to shortages and inefficiencies.
* BE PRECISE. Bandying about expressions and phrases such as “federal mandates,” or “forced benefits” confuses the voter. Better to use simple words to spell out how the Federal Frankenstein has compelled the states by law to provide free medical care, education, and assorted welfare largesse to illegals. Similarly, don’t throw about the word inflation. Rather, speak of—in context only, not as an antidote to every problem—more paper money in the system causing every unit to depreciate. … A simplified inflation explanation is in “Dubya the Devaluer.”
Updated: Précis: Republicans Debate in New Hampshire
Constitution, Elections 2008, IMMIGRATION, Individual Rights, Republicans
I haven’t watched the Democratic debate. I have zero interest in that lot. Their policy prescriptions exist on a continuum of socialism. While this is true of most Republicans, there is still something of an argument as to whether it ought to be so— an argument owed mostly to Ron Paul’s injection of laissez faire into the process.
Here are one or two salient points I’ve gleaned from the ABC– and Fox-conducted debates with the Republican contenders:
If you exclude Ron Paul (as Fox Noise did) and set-aside the war (I can’t), then Fred Thompson is the more authentically conservative candidate.
On immigration, Thompson has been the only front-runner to address the deleterious effects of mass illegal immigration on the social fabric of this country. Thompson is also the only contender to have ever uttered a word with respect to the American people’s interests rather than those of the illegal immigrants, whom McCain keep calling “God’s children.” Again: more than the rest, Thompson sounded as though he was vying to lead Americans, not Mexicans.
The white-noise makers of Fox took a page out of ABC’s broadcasting book, and allowed a freer-flowing exchange between the windbags. During this Fox free-for-all, it became abundantly clear that McCain, Huckabee and Giuliani essentially support amnesty; they just obfuscate by calling it something else.
McCain, especially, lies about the Z-Visa, and Huckabee continued to defend the rights of children of illegal immigrants to receive what American kids can’t. Other than Thompson, this lot is untrustworthy on stopping the ongoing illegal influx. Mitt Romney is somewhat incoherent, so I find it hard to make out his positions.
He and Giuliani are extremely repetitive, robotic, rehearsed and unbelievable in their plugs for themselves. I have to say again that Thompson spoke more naturally and organically. His mention of the constitutional scheme along the debate—the delimited and limited powers of the various branches of government, and my favorite, the 10th amendment—meant a lot to me.
It appears that an American president must have a healthcare plan—and a plan for almost everything else. Thus, I’m not clear what is Giuliani’s policy prescription for pacifying the people on this front, but he was best able to articulate free-market principles.
In expressing simple, but fundamental, concepts associated with government as opposed to private-run endeavors, Giuliani bested Paul on health care. (On why Paul didn’t do well, unfortunately, in a follow-up post.)
Later then.
Updated: as our reader points out below in the Comments Section, Thompson did appeal to utilitarian “principles” to justify government taking. If you believe a man owns what he produces, then you can never remove it from him without his permission.
Here is the Constitutional lesson I liked, sealed with the contemptible bit that ought to be bowdlerized (with soap and water):
MR. THOMPSON: “Everyone has kind of a wish list. I think it’s most important, though, that a president of the United States understand that our principles — our first principles are based on the Constitution of the United States, understanding the nature of our government, the checks and the balances, the separation of powers that our founding fathers set up a long time ago. There’s a reason for that. They knew about human nature. They learned from the wisdom of the ages. They set the government up according to that.
They set the powers out in the Constitution of the federal government and they basically said, ‘If the powers aren’t delineated in this document, they don’t exist.’ And then we got the 10th Amendment that says if they’re not delineated, they belong to the people and to the states. That’s fundamental to everything else. [All good up until here, where the bad begins.—IM] And then we grew from that principles, such as a dollar belongs in the pocket of the person that earned it unless the government can make a case that it can spend it better; you don’t spend money that you don’t have; and you certainly don’t spend your grandchildren’s money with debt that they’re not at the table when the decision has been made to spend it.”
Objectivists At War
Ilana:
It has been years since I last read your articles, an unfortunate blunder on my part! Thank you for your clear unswerving thinking about the nature of just war, the injustice of American military adventures, the bloodcurdling totalitarianism of radical jihadists, and the ugly spectacle of Objectivists embracing the authoritarianism of the neo-conservatives.
For years, I have referred to myself as a “small o” objectivist, because I concur with Rand’s ideas about the logical primacy of reason to ethics; about morality as values proper to living in accordance with one’s nature, both as an individual and as a human being; and about capitalism as the only moral economic system. However, I shudder at the thought of being associated with neo-objectivist enforcers of cosmic “justice” and democracy. So I’ll have to devise some other label: classical individualist or objectivist libertarian or crank Austrian.
It is sad and amusing to read the attacks by “Objectivists” on Rand fans who oppose non-defensive American wars. One in particular holds forth like a Catholic Cardinal, beseeching his followers to avoid the snare of various subtle “philosophical errors” that supposedly delude those who disagree with him.
When one defends the view that non-interventionism is eminently practical for Americans, one of the Cardinal’s Cronies opines that “rationalists” are often forced into defensive mode, whereby they engage in throwing logically disconnected facts and figures at their opponents for the purpose, not of enlightenment, but of obscuration! This is a clear case, according to the Crony, and seconded by the Cardinal, of a “snowjob.”
Whew!
Your writing is a blizzard of clear thinking!
Yours truly,
Mark Humphrey