Will Wilkinson - Latest Comments in One Night of Romance

Re: One Night of Romance

ed Short — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 11:24:26 -0000

typo last comment, the Kass article, 13 yr old challanged when she wore a "I'm a MacCain Girl" next day she wore an O T shirt, and suddenly she was correct. Even one teacher asked about her choice! tolerence?> not yet!!

Re: One Night of Romance

ed Short — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 11:21:20 -0000

John Kass in the Chcgo trib of Thurs Nov. 13, read it! We have progressed very little. We have just shifted to a new Idol. Tolerance is only the fad of the moment. Now we are challanged if we dare to wear an O T shirt!

Re: One Night of Romance

Tiffany Oakeshott — Sat, 08 Nov 2008 07:26:15 -0000

Bitter? Mais non, mon vieux!

Just puzzled that there are people who admire writing so poorly reasoned as to seem unhinged.

Has anyone, even Wilkinson himself, followed his thoughts, one after the other, to see where they might lead?

For example: his apparent advocacy for the public's adoption of Buddhist-like non-attachment to politicians, lest we regard them as our "leaders."

What on earth could this possibly mean? In precisely which alternate reality does this make sense?

Just how would Wilkinsonian non-attachment have played out in, say, early April, 1963, in Birmingham, Alabama?

"Pay no attention to the attack dogs ripping flesh from your thighs because GOVERNOR WALLACE IS NOT OUR 'LEADER'! Do NOT surrender to the totalitarian impulse! IGNORE THE ATTACK DOGS! Governor Wallace is only a PUBLIC SERVANT! And because he's a PUBLIC SERVANT the attack dogs ripping flesh from your thighs ARE NOT REAL! OR AT LEAST NOT ENTIRELY REAL!"

Oh, good grief. If an outpouring of enthusiasm and warm sentiment for Senator Obama is the creation of a "personality cult" leading inexorably to totalitarian dictatorship, then why, oh why, did our nation's generalized mistrust of and disdain for our current president not lead inexorably to communist anarchism?

Mind you, I'm not asking that Wilkinson's arguments be scientifically verifiable, only that they be grounded even vaguely in the commonplaces of American history as the majority of sane, educated adults have experienced them.

Wilkinson's arguments make no sense because he lacks the moral imagination to admit that his thinking about Obama is conflicted and confused.

On the one hand he's justifiably moved by the fact that Obama's victory signals a preliminary resolution to America's long history of violent racism.

On the other hand, he can't but feel that there's something unsettling about so many people expressing so much admiration for Obama and so much happiness over his victory.

Since there's no evidence whatsoever that the US has so much as flirted with cults of personality or totalitarian dictatorship, Wilkinson knows that Obama-mania is in all likelihood benign. But in the absence of moral imagination, Wilkinson decides to just go with the totalitarianism angle and work it as best he can.

Were Wilkinson honest, he'd say that, deep down, his regard for African Americans is such that overwhelming admiration and support for a black president can mean only that something sinister's at work.

He believes that it's natural for people who aren't African American to despise African Americans.

And he almost certainly believes this while knowing that it absolutely betrays what's best in him.

But he believes it nonetheless.

Which is why he cried on election night.

Re: One Night of Romance

The ZSpot — Sat, 08 Nov 2008 05:26:15 -0000

Great article. I think the big irony is that Obama is talking about "yes, we can." He's talking about "us" changing. And, whether or not on purpose, he has created a huge cult of personality around himself. We cannot do anything right now. He can.

In fact, at the same time, I think that Obama's election has changed this country for the better. And, the fact that it was Obama, and that race played (at least on the part of the official campaigns) such a small part in the race itself is also a very positive thing. Obama was not elected because he was going to be America's first black president. There are plenty of people out there who would love to run specifically to become America's first black president, and I'm glad that Obama beat Jesse, Louis, and the rest of them to it. Eventually, America would get so self-conscious of not having had a minority of women president that just race would have been enough to get someone elected, and to define their presidency. I don't think that will be the case with Obama. I don't think that Obama, the press, or the people of this country, will let "being the first black president" be enough. He will have to, and hopefully will, achieve more.

http://thezspot.today.com
http://gamingtips.today.com

Re: One Night of Romance

themightypuck — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 00:20:59 -0000

Excellent post. I was going to donate $25 bucks to Cato to put my money where my thoughts are. Minimum contribution is $50 bucks which is over my hi5 limit during these difficult times.

Re: One Night of Romance

Brad Stone — Thu, 06 Nov 2008 17:15:33 -0000

Yeah, I certainly agree that there are "believable arguments on both sides of the question". In my initial post I said that "too much" emotion in politics is bothersome to me - and stated why. I'm not saying that I want all emotion ripped out of politics. It's not an all-or-nothing issue, at least not to me. Did Obama incite (I mean inspire) too much emotion? We each as individuals have to decided that on our own. For me, he was pushing the line. For others he wasn't.

Drew Westing just wrote an essay that touches on this subject on CNN's web site today:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/11/06/westen.w...

Westin basically concludes that Obama is the both of best worlds, in that he can think like a professor and "inspire like a preacher." Again, we each have to determine the amounts of those two items (think vs. inspire) that we feel comfortable with coming from our candidates and poltical leaders. I lean more toward the former and less toward the latter. As a liberal who often votes Democratic, I did find this passage from Westin to be a little disturbing:

"And (Democrats) finally abandoned the approach to campaigning that has been their downfall for generations: peppering voters with facts, figures, and policy positions and assuming they will see what a rational choice the candidate is."

Re: One Night of Romance

mk — Thu, 06 Nov 2008 14:14:42 -0000

The partisan impulse in politics is a tough challenge to sound governance. But is this not the equilibrium of a democratic political system? We saw this clearly over the last eight years -- Republicans ran a tight, partisan ship, and Democrats got creamed until they hunkered down and did the same (one of their first political successes was the party-line defeat of Bush's Social Security reform).

In other words, partisanship succeeds, and begets more partisanship. Politics is ugly.

And yet, (1) we agree that governance is important, and (2) we each want our ideas to win out. So what's an intellectually honest person to do?

If all the intellectually honest people avoided politics, or didn't vote out of cynicism, that would be a terrible result. So what's the right thing to do? I don't quite know.

Certainly one can support a set of ideas, but remain willing to give one's own side grief when it's not living up to those ideas. That's fine.

But that's not enough. Partisanship, romance, hero-worship -- these things work, politically. They are part of the equilibrium of democratic politics. What if you really care that policy XYZ is enacted? What if that's your passion? Is a sacrifice of some intellectual independence, of some rationality, so wrong? It's a prisoner's dilemma -- if only one side is willing to sacrifice some rationality, that group has a political advantage. Do you want to yield that advantage in the name of rationality and independence?

I agree that politics would be different in a perfect world. But given this world, are you really sure that you can justify non-participation in the uglier side of politics, even at the cost of undermining the policies you advocate for?

I'm not saying this is an easy decision. And we can fight for more rationality in general even as we suspend it for this or that particular battle. Will (and Brad and other commenters) make good points. But I'm saying there are believable arguments on both sides of the question.

Re: One Night of Romance

Lemon — Thu, 06 Nov 2008 12:33:32 -0000

Excellent post.

I note that Andrew Sullivan gave it an "amen", which is interesting given that he is completed besotted with the president-elect.

Re: One Night of Romance

Sheldon Richman — Thu, 06 Nov 2008 12:28:45 -0000

Hear, hear! For what it's worth, Obama told John Meacham of Newsweek that two of the most significant books he's read are The Wealth of Nations and The Theory of Moral Sentiments. http://tinyurl.com/5dthob

Re: One Night of Romance

rm1948 — Thu, 06 Nov 2008 12:00:29 -0000

Bluntly, what a bunch of crap.

Obama is to our leader. So are our Congresscritters and mayors. We elect them to lead with certain limitations. That is what representatives do in our form of goverment.

Re: One Night of Romance

Brad Stone — Thu, 06 Nov 2008 11:58:00 -0000

Excellent essay. I'm a socially-liberal Democrat and I've had this exact discussion with several of my liberal friends. Like you, I'm fairly emotional for a guy - enjoy being moved by books, movies and music. But I find too much emotion *in politics* a bit dangerous. It often seems to result in group think. Even worse, the emotive impluse in politics causes "supporters" to turn into "fans" and to then lose their objectivity. For instance, over the past two years I've found many instances where I thought Obama crossed the line with mixing too much religion into politics (which only helps keep our de facto religious test for political participation soundly in place - other Western Democracies have outgrown this). Some of the things Obama said and did would have been strongly objected to by my liberal friends if a conservative had done them. But they kept their voices silent. He could do little wrong in their eyes.

Re: One Night of Romance

Anon Only — Thu, 06 Nov 2008 10:57:58 -0000

Tiffany, you sound so bitter. I wonder why...

Re: One Night of Romance

Brian Kaller — Thu, 06 Nov 2008 09:02:06 -0000

Thank you so much, Mr. Wilkinson. I wrote a similar piece for the St. Louis Post-Dispatch before the election, and your thoughts mirror my own.

As I said in my commentary, this is not the Super Bowl, a New Top Model, an American Idol, the Oscars or an apocalyptic smackdown. It simply should be a job interview, and we are the employer.

On a related note, I wish people would stop referring to the president as "our commander-in-chief." Unless you are actively serving in the military, we do not have a commander-in-chief, any more than we have a sergeant. And he should not be "taking power," the phrase used by the media.

An acquaintance of mine even said he heard NPR saying Obama could have "eight years to rule." As my friend put it, the word you're looking for is "serve."

An acquaintance

Re: One Night of Romance

Tiffany Oakeshott — Thu, 06 Nov 2008 05:43:52 -0000

Dear Will,

It's nice to see that those sharing your views are so unselfconscious in their enthusiasm as to use fresh 'n' tasty idioms about drinking Kool-Aid, and misuse words like "enormity," without irony.

Who needs irony?

Such a crowd enjoys, even needs, the sort of relentless condescension you offer in your piece about the totalitarian impulse simmering beneath the support that Asians, Hispanics, African-Americans, Semites, Caucasians, Pacific Islanders, Native Americans, and several erstwhile Republicans, demonstrated for Senator Obama.

The joyful, ritualistic invocation of a leader's name, the posting of "romanticized" portraits of him on walls both private and public, are symptoms of acute fascism. As proof, we need consider but the liturgical churches, such as the Anglican Communion, whose adherents incessantly chant, sing, and yodel the name "Jesus Christ," and decorate their homes, offices, and automobiles with symbols and pictures of his alleged martyrdom. (And as far as scary "victorious" leaders are concerned, how about one believed by his followers to be "victorious" over death? Yikes!) If the Anglican Communion hasn't steadfastly called for the arrest and imprisonment of libertarians and other assorted Ayn Rand enthusiasts, then no one has.

The expression of even the most artless admiration for any kind of leader, particularly a political one, is an open invitation to totalitarianism and the destruction of all the rights we hold most dear. Had our current president and vice-president been objects of ritualized adoration, they most certainly would have done everything in their power to subvert the rule of law and destroy the constitutionally guaranteed stuff that makes America such a really, really neat and fantastic country.

Thank God you had the courage to stomp your shiny little boot on the throat of unchecked Obamanism, even while you dried your tears over Obama's victory.

Yours in gratitude, but not adoration,

Tiffany Oakeshott

Re: One Night of Romance

GilM — Thu, 06 Nov 2008 02:14:39 -0000

I’m glad Barack Obama is going to be president. And I’m glad that the Republicans held enough Senate seats to offer significant opposition. Mostly, I’m really really glad to have a change.

That bit reminded me of what Glen Whitman wrote after the Democrats recaptured congress in 2006:

"I am really looking forward to hating Democrats again. I’m tired of hating Republicans."

Re: One Night of Romance

Anon — Thu, 06 Nov 2008 01:32:33 -0000

"Our Tribal Nature." Great band name.

Re: One Night of Romance

Bside — Thu, 06 Nov 2008 01:18:42 -0000

Will,

This might be the best thing written about this election. I live in San Francisco and I, like everybody else, am excited about the Obama presidency. But it scares me and pisses me off to see so many otherwise intelligent, skeptical people treating him as a savior or a saint. It isn't healthy to drink that much Kool-aid. Thank you for saying what I've been feeling in such an eloquent and persuasive way. I worry about my friends when they sober up and the disappointment begins.

Re: One Night of Romance

RogerMexico — Thu, 06 Nov 2008 00:31:54 -0000

Fucking A right. Obama deserved to win, but we truly need to remember that we are a free people whose ultimate destiny lies in our own, individual choices. Best of luck, President-elect Obama.

Re: One Night of Romance

Daniel — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 22:40:04 -0000

Great, great rumination. It has been very interesting to witness for much of the past eight years the almost mantra-like claims on the left that the U.S. was descending into facsism or at least in a facsist direction. This, while gradually, Obama-mania by that same left-wing part of the population increasingly exhibits a truly frightening degree of hero worship, unrealistic expectations placed in the "leader" and an blinkered inability to see how anybody could disagree with them. Had Obama lost, the riots that might have ensued should give further pause and cause for reflection about where the "facsist" tendencies lie in American politics. I don't mean to overstate the case, and I invoke the "f" word merely to point out the nascent tendencies and characteristics of the Obamamania phenonmenon, not do draw any kind of equivalence, either morally or in terms of its degree, with realized fascism. Again, thank you for a wonderful and thoughtful post that I will forward to many friends.

Re: One Night of Romance

Paul O'Pinion — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 21:38:33 -0000

Re: The People's Romance: Why People Love Government; From the day that I entered the Marine Corps until the day I got out, I counted those days. It was something that I knew that I would never do as a career. Having said that, it is something that I share with all other Jarheads and it is a unique bond. Robert Solow says that public schools and the U.S. Army made him an American. What was very cool about my service experience (there was a draft at the time) was that my unit had people from every walk of life in our country. It was a 'forced' melting pot. We were all the better for it.

Re: One Night of Romance

willwilkinson — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 21:14:33 -0000

No. I am in fact constantly moved to tears. So it's not that special, is it? But I WAS moved to tears.

Re: One Night of Romance

Pedantry — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 20:35:10 -0000

I think you meant you are the world's LEAST lachrymose man.

Re: One Night of Romance

willwilkinson — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 19:38:47 -0000

Gil, Indeed. Everyone should read Dan's awesome paper, which has deeply influenced me.

Re: One Night of Romance

tsparks — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 19:21:02 -0000

Let me see if I can get t the bottom of this.

Re: One Night of Romance

mk — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 19:11:25 -0000

I cannot believe you would talk down to Tom Sparks.