The smartest guys in the room - Writing in the Boston Globe, Neal Gabler discusses the intellectual superiority and hubris of the Obama White House in "The best and the brightest redux." I've used that title before in a book review on Enron.
6 comments:
Nigel Tufnel
said...
Can't you take the general observations from that article and apply them to the staff of any of the recent presidents? Hubris, self-righteousness, Ivy-league educations, etc., are nothing unique or new in White House staffers (or Presidents).
The big wrap-up quote in the end sounds exactly like what Democrats were thinking about Bush during his Presidency, and what Republicans were thinking about Wild Bill during his, etc., etc...:
"As Halberstam shows in “The Best and the Brightest,’’ people who are concerned not with the fundamental rightness of something but with its execution, because the rightness is assumed; people who see what they want to see rather than what is; people who see things in terms of preconceptions rather than of human conduct; people who are incapable of admitting error; people who lack skepticism and the capacity to grow beyond their certainties are the sorts of people who are likely to get us in trouble..."
N.T. is correct. Is it even worth listing the many Ivy Leaguers and aristocrats from the Bush administration? Including a few who were asked to stay on staff to be some of the arrogant elitists Obama "has packed his administration with"? Some of whom are invoked by name in Gabler's piece?
Considering the topic (partisan "experts" who can't rise above their own preconceptions to see the way things are), Neal Gabler is his own punchline.
But considering Obama's paper-thin resume coming into the 2008 campaign, wasn't the big selling point on this guy that he's smarter than the average bear?
In his endorsement of Obama, Colin Powell had to fall back on unicorn imagary of a "transformational figure" who had "intellectual curiosity and a depth of knowledge."
In my mind, no issue more perfectly displays the "we know better" attitude of Washington Democrats than the health care bill. Opposed by wide margins, the Dems passed it anyway then told us we'd love it once we figured out what was in it.
'cause readin' is tough! Hey, when's the NASCAR race start?
And doesn't a major chunk of the "opposition" come from the left, which wanted a much more expansive bill, including a public option? And aren't the individual features of the bill almost uniformly popular?
Oh well, details, shmetails. The point is that America is being held hostage by a snooty know-it-all who thinks he can tell us regular folks what to do because he went to a fancy-pants Ivy League college. It makes one nostalgic for the common, populist touch of George W. Bush (attended the DeVry Institute), Bill Clinton (attended Hamburger U.) and George Bush Sr. (drew Tippy the Turtle on the matchbook to qualify for the Famous Artists School course).
So there's: GW Bush - governor of Texas Bill Clinton - governor of Arkansas GHW Bush - senator and VP Barack Obama - Community organizer and serial "present" voter.
Your health care analysis is interesting: slightly less people hate it = victory! Of course right before the cramdown vote, several polls showed 20% gap of disapproval over approval. But now it's only in the teens - yay!
And the part about opposition from the liberal side (approx. 25% of the "against" side) having no similarity to conservative opposition? That minor contextual distinction just zinged right by, eh? This poll goes to eleven!
Nate Silver: "One way to look at this: 43 percent of people favor health care reform, whereas 38 percent oppose it (20 percent are undecided). But the actual plan under consideration gets numbers that are more or less the reverse of that -- 34 percent in favor, 46 percent opposed -- because a significant number of people think the plan doesn't go far enough."
What the Governorship of Texas has to do with Neal Gabler's piece, it's hard to see. Gabler's point is about arrogant government officials like Tim Geithner demonstrating Oval Office hubris (starting when Obama took over).
But it takes a very straight face to tout George W. Bush's personal record of accomplishment over Barack Obama's at the times of their respective campaigns.
6 comments:
Can't you take the general observations from that article and apply them to the staff of any of the recent presidents? Hubris, self-righteousness, Ivy-league educations, etc., are nothing unique or new in White House staffers (or Presidents).
The big wrap-up quote in the end sounds exactly like what Democrats were thinking about Bush during his Presidency, and what Republicans were thinking about Wild Bill during his, etc., etc...:
"As Halberstam shows in “The Best and the Brightest,’’ people who are concerned not with the fundamental rightness of something but with its execution, because the rightness is assumed; people who see what they want to see rather than what is; people who see things in terms of preconceptions rather than of human conduct; people who are incapable of admitting error; people who lack skepticism and the capacity to grow beyond their certainties are the sorts of people who are likely to get us in trouble..."
N.T. is correct. Is it even worth listing the many Ivy Leaguers and aristocrats from the Bush administration? Including a few who were asked to stay on staff to be some of the arrogant elitists Obama "has packed his administration with"? Some of whom are invoked by name in Gabler's piece?
Considering the topic (partisan "experts" who can't rise above their own preconceptions to see the way things are), Neal Gabler is his own punchline.
Maybe.
But considering Obama's paper-thin resume coming into the 2008 campaign, wasn't the big selling point on this guy that he's smarter than the average bear?
In his endorsement of Obama, Colin Powell had to fall back on unicorn imagary of a "transformational figure" who had "intellectual curiosity and a depth of knowledge."
In my mind, no issue more perfectly displays the "we know better" attitude of Washington Democrats than the health care bill. Opposed by wide margins, the Dems passed it anyway then told us we'd love it once we figured out what was in it.
'cause readin' is tough! Hey, when's the NASCAR race start?
And yet... wasn't a big selling point on this guy that he swore to make health care reform a centerpiece of his Presidency?
And isn't it completely untrue that health reform is opposed by "wide margins"?
http://blogs.wsj.com/health/2010/06/30/poll-health-care-overhaul-law-more-popular-but-still-divisive/
http://www.pollster.com/polls/us/healthplan.php?xml=http://www.pollster.com/flashcharts/content/xml/HealthCare.xml&choices=Oppose,Favor&phone=&ivr=&internet=&mail=&smoothing=&from_date=&to_date=&min_pct=&max_pct=&grid=&points=1&lines=1&colors=Favor-000000,Oppose-BF0014,Undecided-A69A37,No%20Opinion-68228B
And doesn't a major chunk of the "opposition" come from the left, which wanted a much more expansive bill, including a public option? And aren't the individual features of the bill almost uniformly popular?
Oh well, details, shmetails. The point is that America is being held hostage by a snooty know-it-all who thinks he can tell us regular folks what to do because he went to a fancy-pants Ivy League college. It makes one nostalgic for the common, populist touch of George W. Bush (attended the DeVry Institute), Bill Clinton (attended Hamburger U.) and George Bush Sr. (drew Tippy the Turtle on the matchbook to qualify for the Famous Artists School course).
So there's:
GW Bush - governor of Texas
Bill Clinton - governor of Arkansas
GHW Bush - senator and VP
Barack Obama - Community organizer and serial "present" voter.
Your health care analysis is interesting: slightly less people hate it = victory! Of course right before the cramdown vote, several polls showed 20% gap of disapproval over approval. But now it's only in the teens - yay!
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/obama_and_democrats_health_care_plan-1130.html
And the part about opposition from the liberal side (approx. 25% of the "against" side) having no similarity to conservative opposition? That minor contextual distinction just zinged right by, eh? This poll goes to eleven!
Nate Silver:
"One way to look at this: 43 percent of people favor health care reform, whereas 38 percent oppose it (20 percent are undecided). But the actual plan under consideration gets numbers that are more or less the reverse of that -- 34 percent in favor, 46 percent opposed -- because a significant number of people think the plan doesn't go far enough."
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/12/in-polls-much-opposition-to-health-care.html
What the Governorship of Texas has to do with Neal Gabler's piece, it's hard to see. Gabler's point is about arrogant government officials like Tim Geithner demonstrating Oval Office hubris (starting when Obama took over).
But it takes a very straight face to tout George W. Bush's personal record of accomplishment over Barack Obama's at the times of their respective campaigns.
Post a Comment