Obama and Niebuhr

In comments, Chris M. points us to a fascinating discussion of "Obama and Niebuhr" from Casey Blake of The New Republic. Times Select columnist David Brooks apparently asked the Illinois senator about theologian Reinhold Niebuhr. "What Do you take away from him?" Brooks asked:

"I take away," Obama answered in a rush of words, "the compelling idea that there's serious evil in the world, and hardship and pain. And we should be humble and modest in our belief we can eliminate those things. But we shouldn't use that as an excuse for cynicism and inaction. I take away ... the sense we have to make these efforts knowing they are hard, and not swinging from naïve idealism to bitter realism."

Without even considering the substance of Obama's comment, it's easy to see from this why his campaign has generated so much excitement. Here is a man who speaks off the cuff in complete sentences and complete paragraphs. The contrast with our current president couldn't be more stark.

I share Obama's admiration for Niebuhr, who was probably the greatest 20th-century theologian, particularly on the subject of human nature. The overall gist of his perspective could be summed up in one of my favorite lines from Neil Gaiman and Terry Pratchett's Good Omens:

It may help to understand human affairs to be clear that most of the great triumphs and tragedies of history are caused, not by people being fundamentally good or fundamentally bad, but by people being fundamentally people.

Niebuhr's greatest influence is probably in the area of foreign policy. He is usually characterized, somewhat misleadingly, as a "realist." "Chastened idealist" might be more apt. Niebuhr's outlook on all policy matters -- international and domestic -- is best summarized through his most famous, though seldom attributed, words, those of his "Serenity Prayer":

God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change; courage to change the things I can; and wisdom to know the difference.

The courage and wisdom there are reflected in the comments above from Sen. Obama. Blake astutely notes the way neoconservatives, like Brooks, have glommed onto Niebuhr's critique of early 20th-century optimism while -- astonishingly -- failing to see how that critique applied to the optimistic fantasies underlying their own foreign policy:

Neoconservatives like Brooks summon up Niebuhr's ghost to counter what they see as the naiveté of liberal and leftist social programs that ignore humans' limitations and propensity for evil. Niebuhr's work serves them as a Burkean corrective to hubristic, utopian schemes for ending poverty, crime and ignorance through "social engineering." ... Democrats like Peter Beinart and the late Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. have drawn on Niebuhr in excoriating the left wing of their party for its sentimental approach to international affairs. Curiously, many of Niebuhr's contemporary admirers miss the irony (as it were) of enlisting their hero in the service of projects to remake the Middle East that are stunning in their naiveté, hubris and utopianism.

Indeed, Niebuhr could have written volumes vivisecting the arrogance of a Paul Wolfowitz or a Kenneth Pollack. Actually, he already has written such volumes -- thoroughly dismantling the foolishness of the Project for a New American Century decades before the organization was even conceived.

Markadelphia has liberated the entire Brooks column here, but I think Anthony B. Robinson offers more insight into Obama's comments to Brooks in his column, "Obama's faith plays crucial role in shaping his views." Here's Robinson:

In deftly summarizing Niebuhr's thought, Illinois's junior senator provides insight into his own. Unlike some religious liberals, Obama understands that there's real evil in the world and that saying "peace" will not bring it about.

But unlike many contemporary religious conservatives, Obama believes that we must be humble and modest in our ambitions as well as in our claims for our own virtue. In contrast to the evangelical fervor of President Bush and his grand idea of bringing freedom and planting democracy, Obama appears to be a man of more modest hopes. Modest hopes, hope tempered by realism, and awareness of our own fallibility are themes Niebuhr brought to American life and theology.

Obama's faith also affects his views toward those with whom he disagrees. "It would be helpful, in debates touching on matters of religion, if we could resist the temptation to impute bad faith to those who disagree with us." The presidential candidate's generous instincts, instincts supported by his actions, are rooted in a faith that is reminiscent of another Illinois politician, Abraham Lincoln.

"We must talk and reach for common understandings," Obama said, "precisely because all of us are imperfect and can never act with the certainty that God is on our side."

That last phrase intentionally echoes Lincoln's Second Inaugural Address, which, like Niebuhr, always seems close at hand in Obama's rhetoric.

The knock on Niebuhr can also be best understood through the prism of his "Serenity Prayer." That serene willingness "to accept the things I cannot change" leads some to conclude that Niebuhr is nothing more than an apologist for the status quo. For a taste of that perspective, see Jeff Taylor in Counterpunch, on "The Foreign Policy of Barack Obama":

Niebuhr used theological arguments to defend the economic and political status quo, specifically monopoly capitalism seasoned with welfare programs at home and martial imperialism leaved [sic] with humanitarian rhetoric abroad.

Taylor's logic, such as it is, is that Niebuhr's refusal to blow up the world and start again from scratch implies an endorsement of the world as it now exists in every detail. That ignores -- deliberately, perhaps, or at best perversely -- the remainder of Niebuhr's prayer: "courage to change the things I can, and wisdom to know the difference."

Taylor's essay is not terribly coherent. At one point he decries Obama for saying, "We will ... begin the world anew" -- characterizing this as "revolutionary fervor a la Robespierre and Trotsky." Yet the entire thrust of Taylor's argument is that Obama, like Niebuhr, represents a realism that is excessively serene about the status quo. Beginning the world anew is exactly what Taylor wants. His impatience with Obama's Niebuhrian humility about the prospects for rapid, revolutionary change is the motive for his entire essay -- all the way through to his concluding call for a Paul-Gravel third-party ticket.

I suppose if you start with the premise that compromise and realism are unacceptable notions for the Children of Light, then a Paul-Gravel third-party candidacy might strike you as a wise and constructive course of action. (If Niebuhr was wrong about Heaven, then he is there, laughing at this.)

Part of what I take away from Niebuhr is this: If you want to change the world, plant a tree. If you don't have the patience for planting trees, you could always plant radishes instead. In 30 days or so, you will have radishes. But in 30 years or so, you won't have trees.

Comments

[Scott]

Neoconservatives like Brooks summon up Niebuhr's ghost to counter what they see as the naiveté of liberal and leftist social programs

Granted, neocons do fail "to see how that critique applied to the optimistic fantasies underlying their own foreign policy", but do you also see it being relevant to the optimistic fantasies of leftist social programs ALSO? We don't have to choose one party to be right and another to be wrong. We don't have to pick one and hate the other between Bush and Clinton. We are free to hold both in utter contempt. We are free to consider both neocons and liberals arrogant. Proving Brooks wrong about Iraq doesn't prove you right about domestic policy.

Obama believes that we must be humble and modest in our ambitions as well as in our claims for our own virtue.

You can't. Your double standard (the Constitution says no to the GOP, but never to us - you just have to trust our goodness to restrain our economic power) is incompatible w/ modest claims for your own virtue. If the left is at best moderately virtuous, it would have to see how some of us might want limits on what they can do if they're elected (and I don't mean "we can't do what we condemn conservatives for", I mean "we CANNOT do what we want, because the constitution limits both parties"). You don't have any more authority to establish a federal healthcare system than you do to wiretap everyone's email. Limits are for both sides, not as merely a club for use against your opposition.

Of course, Fred considers limits for the GOP but no limits for him to be temperate moderation, since it can be described as limits sometimes and no limits sometimes.

[Scott]

Liberals, I have a question for you. Compare and contrast Obama's qualifications to be President w/ GW Bush's in 2000. Part of a term as Senator vs. part of one as Governor?

[Drak Pope]

The only qualifications a President needs are the ones enumerated in the US Constitution -- which both George Bush and Barack Obama meet and exceed (Bush more so than Obama due to his age). And if you're talking about experience, well, you can have all the experience in the world but if you're a sneaky war criminal then you're still going to suck as a President. Really, I thought we've gone over this already, but apparently not.

[realityfighter]

Huh. I always thought of the Serenity Prayer as that thing every Texas housewife seems to have made a needlepoint of. I always thought it was unusually good theology for a needlepoint.

Oh, and Scott: "wiretap everyone's email" = priceless.

[85% Duane]

Compare and contrast Obama's qualifications to be President w/ GW Bush's in 2000. Part of a term as Senator vs. part of one as Governor?

Dumbass, I have a homework assignment for you: see if you can figure out what's different about the two men. Report back here with your answer when you sober up.

[Jeff]

You don't have any more authority to establish a federal healthcare system than you do to wiretap everyone's email.

Scott, if you can dig your head out of Ayn Rand's withered corpse's ass, you might want to try reading the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

This limits wiretaps and reading of e-mail. Show me where in the Constitution federal healthcare is so SPECIFICALLY located (you'll get 50,000 volts to your nuts if you cite the Tenth Amendment), and we'll talk.

Otherwise, you're just a hate-filled 29%er who'd rather see innocent people tortured than given health care. (We already know the answer to this one, too.)

[Jeff]

Dumbass, I have a homework assignment for you: see if you can figure out what's different about the two men.

[Frantically waves hand in air] I know! I know! could it have something to do with this:

Here is a man who speaks off the cuff in complete sentences and complete paragraphs

Do I get a cookie?

[realityfighter]

Wouldn't you just have to prove that healthcare access was a Ninth Amendment right? It wouldn't be that hard.

[Jeff]

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

That doesn't specifically address healthcare the way the Fourth addresses e-mail and wiretaps, though. the Ninth says they CAN have healthcare, not they MUST have healthcare or even that they should.

The Preamble doesn't have the force of law, but it state that a purpose of the Constitution is to "promote the general Welfare". One could argue that federal healthcare promotes this purpose, but it's a bit weak, and lacks the force of an Article or Amendment.

[Dave Lartigue]

There's a comic strip that I wish I had the talent to draw. It goes like this.

Two men are sitting on a park bench.

Man A: The world sure would be nicer if people weren't jerks.

Man B: I know. It really would be.

Man B then clocks Man A in the jaw for no apparent reason. Man A flies off the bench, landing on the ground, blood streaming from his face.

Man B: Sadly, it seems like that's just human nature. But you're right, it would be so much better.

That's how Conservatives sound to me. "The problem with your plan is that people are jerks. Like me. I'm a jerk, and I have no interest in not being a jerk. Your plan would work if people weren't jerks, but being a jerk is what I enjoy, so too bad. It's a good plan, though."

[realityfighter]

Hi Jeff; I'm not Scott. I'm friendly, I swear. *waves*

I see what you're saying. I've always read the Ninth as saying that there might be other rights on par with the ones in the Bill of Rights, but which the founders may not have thought to write down at the time, or may not have realized do exist, or may have taken for granted. When such rights come to light (like the right to Privacy), it would be within the scope of the federal government to defend them. I think. I don't know, I'm just brainstorming. But I'm pretty damn certain you're right that there's nothing in the Constitution outlawing a national health care system.

[M Groesbeck]

The sound-bite-sized prayer really seems so empty of content in terms of politics that claiming it in support of any political position seems ridiculous. The whole range of positions to the left of, say, Margaret Thatcher is a range of claims about what may or may not be "changed" in society. To quote Niebuhr's words in support of any of these positions is simply to suggest that the person quoting believes that they have access to a bit more "wisdom to know the difference". Beyond that, it's just a matter of sneering at the "lack of wisdom" of everyone to the left and bemoaning the defense of inhumanity by everyone to the right of whatever position the quoter chooses to claim.

[Fred]

Scott --

Looking back through the archives here I've found hundreds of repetitions of exactly the claims you're attributing to me here. Thing is, they're all stated by you. All of them. Never by me.

In other words, you're lying. Again. And you lie a lot. Over and over and over again. You put words in other people's mouths and then criticize them for saying such awful things.

Why? They know they never said such things, and you know they never said such things. And it's a simple matter for everyone else to go back and read what has been said, so *everyone* knows they never said such things. So what could possibly be the point?

You disagree with my actual positions. Fine. Great. Feel free to do so honestly with your usual inchoate hostility.

But stop lying. Stop saying I've said things I've never said and then attacking me for saying them. Because that's the behavior of a small-minded, ignorant troll. So stop it. Just. Stop. It.

Thanks.

[hapax]

Scott, to quote the pluperfect James Garner in SUPPORT YOUR LOCAL SHERIFF, "You just make me feel tired all over when you talk like that."

[I'd applaud Fred, here, but I'm afraid of the reverberations in this echo chamber]

[Yet another Dave]

Scott was the first thing to come to mind the other night when LM and I were taking a trip on the city bus. This guy came aboard, and ranted at the driver nonstop about the evils of the Bush administration, then the Bush twins, sorority houses, various neighborhoods, certain nightclubs, and midgets. He spouted a lot of strange conspiracy theories, and several glaring contradictions. We thought it was entertaining, but I'm sure the bus driver was getting really uncomfortable, since he was stuck putting up with this guy. :P

[Till]

It's funny how different the international perception and influence of thinkers is. I never heard of Niebuhr, but what you quoted of him seems quite reasonable. Any suggested reading by him, perhaps?

Oh, and another question, regarding American constitutional issues. If you think a federal health care system makes sense, but the constitution doesn't allow it, just change the thing, for god's sake! I wouldn't let some guys who have been dead for two hundred years tell me how to run a country!

[Craig]

Without even considering the substance of Obama's comment, it's easy to see from this why his campaign has generated so much excitement. Here is a man who speaks off the cuff in complete sentences and complete paragraphs. The contrast with our current president couldn't be more stark.

1) That Bush has lowered our standards that much is just appalling.
2) It seems to me that Obama is generating excitement simply by switching around sections of the typical presidential campaign. Normally, they'd appeal to the wackos in order to gain the party nomination and then try to drag some moderates into their camp in order to get elected. Obama decided to focus on the latter first in order to give extra credence to his new campaign rhetoric. That so many are are jumping on his bandwagon is more a sign of how stagnant campaigns had become rather than anything particular to Obama.

That said, I dove headfirst into the "bitter realism" camp years ago. Maybe I'm just being too cynical (assuming there is such a thing in politics, which I doubt).

[magistra]

Niebuhr's 'The irony of American history' is definitely worth reading on foreign policy. It was online at Religion Online but doesn't seem to be anymore, although they've got other works of his. I quote some sections in my blog posts on him. He was more of a Cold War warrior than modern (European) liberals would go for, but then he was writing at a time when the Cold War was at his height. I think he is far-sighted for even then realising that just because you are fighting against something evil, that doesn't necessarily make you Good.

As for Niebuhr on the fallibility of humans proving that you should haven't a National Health Service, that seems to me completely ludicrous. But then I come from a country where even most of the Conservatives believe in the NHS. The NHS (unlike communism) doesn't rely on people being intrinisicly good. Traditionally it relied mainly on health care professionals being moderately, well, professional and worked OK (not brilliantly, but less badly than the US). Some of the biggest problems have come from assuming that professionals are untrustworthy and must be monitored to within an inch of their lives.

[Majromax]

This limits wiretaps and reading of e-mail. Show me where in the Constitution federal healthcare is so SPECIFICALLY located (you'll get 50,000 volts to your nuts if you cite the Tenth Amendment), and we'll talk.

Actually, this is a fun one on its own merits. By a naive reading of the Constitution, without the interpretation of 200+ years of judicial rulings, health care would seem to be very much a non-federal issue, falling under the states' purview.

Given the expansion of the commerce and necessary-and-proper clauses, the federal government could make a very convincing case that any provision of medical services is actually interstate commerce. After all, medical services affect the health of workers, and thus their ability to engage in interstate commerce. The logic is (objectively) incredibly flimsy, but it is nearly the same as is used (and was upheld!) to have federal marijuana laws take precedence over local (California) medicinal marijuana legality.

In reality, provision of universal (or quasi-universal) healthcare would likely come through the expansion of existing medicare and medicaid programs, already state-operated (but federally funded, in part). If medicaid qualification was extended to < 50% of median income (per family class) and doctors had to charge uniform prices, that'd be 95% of the way there. By uniform prices, I mean requiring doctors to bill, in total, the same amount for service X, regardless of whether the patient was on private insurance, public insurance, or paying out of pocket.

In Canada, the federalism question is really much more vibrant. The provinces have explicit jurisdiction on health care, but the federal government provides a substantial chunk of the funding, "strings attached" (Canada Health Act), which ensures essentially the same system across the provinces. Reimbursement rates (for doctors) and exact coverage is still managed by individual provinces, however.

[cjmr's husband]

The health "care" system in this country is very much an interstate commerce issue -- what state does your insurance company operate out of?

One "advantage" of Evil Socialized Medicine is that it *could* be managed by the states. There would still be need for some federal oversight, though, so that you could still go to the emergency room when you go on vacation, and to handle border cases where the doctor across the state line is closer.

The big debating point with state-run programs would be those states that want to outlaw certain procedures that I will not mention because I want this thread to stay someone polite.

But the only real problem with state-run programs is the differing levels of funding.

[cjmr's husband]

@Re: Serenity prayer needlepoint

You will notice that those are samplers made by Prairie Muffin women, and NOT bumper stickers on the back of their husbands' pickups.

[/strawman]

[indifferent children]

> The big debating point with state-run programs would be those states that want to outlaw certain procedures

The other big problem with having 50 different state-run programs is that you will have 50 sets of forms instead of one, probably 50 sets of 2,000 or so forms. You will have 50 different "XXXX State Health Services". You will have 50 different MD certification boards (like we do now, but with greater responsibility to perform ongoing MD evaluations). Can someone explain how an MD in Arkansas needs different medical skills to set a broken leg, than an MD in Florida?

There is a massive amount of "economy of scale" advantage to be tapped, if everything is under one program (look at the VA, and the drug prices that they have been able to negotiate!) Fifty programs would make everything more expensive.

[Mike Timonin]

"the evils of the Bush administration, then the Bush twins, sorority houses, various neighborhoods, certain nightclubs, and midgets. He spouted a lot of strange conspiracy theories"

Midgets! Why didn't I think of that before - it's all clear now! Midgets killed JFK!

[the opoponax]

Normally, they'd appeal to the wackos in order to gain the party nomination and then try to drag some moderates into their camp in order to get elected. Obama decided to focus on the latter first in order to give extra credence to his new campaign rhetoric. That so many are are jumping on his bandwagon is more a sign of how stagnant campaigns had become rather than anything particular to Obama.

None of the Democratic candidates are appealing to the Democratic "base" / "wackos" on the "left" at all. They're too busy playing to the Republican base. This isn't so much a campaign strategy of Obama's as a general strategy of the entire Dem party. In fact, part of what interests me about Barack is his tendency not to do this quite so much as some of the other candidates, and his willingness to talk rationally about issues and tell where he actually stands even if it betrays the fact that he's slightly to the left of Mussolini. I'm curious to see whether this will last post-primary (or even whether the other candidates' insistence that his willingness to do this makes him "naive" will whittle away at that tendency).

People like Obama's willingness to actually take real positions on the issues, not because we're a bunch of sheep, but because it's HUGE break from the usual Dem approach of simply refusing to verify any real stance on anything, especially if it might be *gasp* LIBRUHL! Also, because occasionally he has been known to make actual sense, as opposed to like every other candidate except maybe for Clinton.

[the opoponax]

There would still be need for some federal oversight, though, so that you could still go to the emergency room when you go on vacation, and to handle border cases where the doctor across the state line is closer.

Which, is, in fact, the original intent of the segment of the Constitution that deals with interstate commerce and the like. So that you could build a road from Maine to Connecticut without each state adding a zillion cooks to the kitchen, making sure a Georgia farmer whose nearest village is in South Carolina can bring his crop to market without miles of red tape, etc. So it's not a stretch in logic at all, it's exactly in the spirit of, even from the narrowest possible standpoint.

[McJulie]

We don't have to choose one party to be right and another to be wrong. We don't have to pick one and hate the other between Bush and Clinton. We are free to hold both in utter contempt.

You can, but that's mostly flattering to your ego, and doesn't accomplish anything. There's a difference between just sitting in your pub ranting about the awfulness of politicians, and actually trying to get them to do a better job. The former is what citizens of a monarchy do -- the latter is what citizens of a representative government do.

That's what you libertarian types don't seem to get -- it's our government. We built it. It's our instrument, our servant. If we don't like what it's doing, we're supposed to get out there and try to change it. You know, "petition the government for a redress of grievances." Run for office. Vote. It's imperfect, but so is everything else.

I mean "we CANNOT do what we want, because the constitution limits both parties").

Yes, the constitution specifically limits government power in order to secure individual liberties. Scott gets 1 in civics!

You don't have any more authority to establish a federal healthcare system than you do to wiretap everyone's email.

Other people have mentioned that this is nonsense -- there is less in the Constitution about health care than there is in the Bible about homosexuality. And, wiretapping email is funny.

But it's also insane to imagine that protecting the liberty of citizens to not be spied on is somehow akin to protecting the liberty of citizens to... er... get sick and die?

Anyway, I'm perfectly happy with the idea that the people who don't want national health care don't have to use it. It's America, you can form little libertarian free states in the Arizona desert or something. (And die out quickly because cooperating to get water smacks of communism.)

Re: Obama, I think talking about his lack of experience is a red herring. POTUS is a very specific job which no previous job can really prepare one for -- the only people who will ever have experience when they start are second-termers, and look how that turned out with Bush.

I think wisdom is more important than experience, and Obama seems to demonstrate that he has wisdom.

[J]

"In deftly summarizing Niebuhr's thought, Illinois's junior senator provides insight into his own. Unlike some religious liberals, Obama understands that there's real evil in the world and that saying "peace" will not bring it about."

Uh-huh. Because we've given peace so many chances, right? Because no one is or has ever been as powerful in foreign policy as peace activists, right? Really, there's no limit to our untrammeled power. We say "Jump" and the entire diplomatic community PLUS the entire military of our nation snaps-to as if poked in the anus with an ice cube.

Fuck that shit. I have NO FUCKING PATIENCE for pious Niebuhrian insistences that we "must" "fight" "evil"; "fight" always seeming to loop-de-loop in no time flat into bombs, generals, fire, and screaming children.

[LL]

Scott does what a lot of people do (not always Republicans, but it does seem to be a favorite tactic of theirs): restate something that someone says/writes in such a way that it completely changes the meaning and then demanding that the other person explain it. Not sure what can be done about this other than what Fred has done, ie, call him on it. But such people never seem to see (or don't want to acknowledge or are truly too stupid to understand) what they're doing, so they just keep saying things differently than you just said them and demanding "what about that, huh, what about that?" It's like arguing with a 3-year-old. Tiresome.

RE Obama: I would have no problem with him running, hell, I'd vote for him, unfortunately, as others have pointed out, Bush has lowered the bar so much that almost anyone would do better, which is maybe not the best way to select a leader. I don't know if he could win. I still think he should run as a Veep and then he'd be even better positioned to run for Prez next election. Whichever happens, I'm just sorry Strom Thurmond won't be around to see it.

[85% Duane]

Anyway, I'm perfectly happy with the idea that the people who don't want national health care don't have to use it. It's America, you can form little libertarian free states in the Arizona desert or something. (And die out quickly because cooperating to get water smacks of communism.)

If his internet use is any indication, Scott will be first in line to grab himself some free healthcare. All the while screaming about how unfair it is.

[cjmr's husband]

Here's a little song I saw on Fark just now:

Those lead toys were imported, from C-H-I-N-A
The other guy responsible is D-U-B-Y-A
The CPSC stayed away, and if you ask me why I'll say
Cause corporate lobbies have their way with A-M-E-R-I-C-A

[Jeff]

Hi Jeff; I'm not Scott. I'm friendly, I swear. *waves*

I can tell. I actually tried to answer your question, and others have followed along.

I'm not sure you can label healthcare as a "interstate commerce" without also including education (textbooks come from out of state; the nearest school might be across state lines, etc). No School Left With Money No Child Left Behind is an indication that education is considered, at least in part, a federal matter. If so, why would healthcare not be?

In short, Scott is, as usual, full of it.

Fred, time for the disemvoweller!

[the opoponax]

I don't know if he could win.

This isn't a slight on you, LL, but it's starting to really seem to be that people who say Obama "couldn't win" or "isn't electable" really mean "oh, come on, you know we can't have a black president."

Why? Again, polls show that we can. 94% of Americans would vote for a black candidate. Among democrats, that number is even higher. This is a situation where we're so blinkered by "the conventional wisdom" that we can't see the reality. Again, why cater to the 6% of Americans who are still so racist they think a black person can't be president (most of whom are the extreme of the right wing extremists)?

This kind of falls in line with my theory that most people who are going for Edwards only favor him because he's the frontrunning white male.

[the opoponax]

shit, that should be "it's starting to seem to ME", not "to be".

[Geds]

I have, um, at least two dumb questions.

1. Fred, why don't you just block Scott? You did it before with somebody.

2. Why do we make such a big deal out of lack of experience re: Obama again?

Obama was a state legislator before doing the whole Senate thing. I'm pretty sure that actually gives him more actual lawmaker experience than Hillary, who, if memory serves, was the first to bring up that issue (although that's an interesting discussion: First Spouse or Vice President, who's better suited to step in to the Presidential role based entirely on experience?).

That being said, Presidents without much prior experience aren't exactly unprecedented. George Washington did okay. That guy from Illinois everyone keeps comparing Obama to didn't do anything beyond the state legislature level before becoming President and, y'know, holding the Union together during a war.

Meanwhile, there are the counter-examples. Richard Nixon had lots of experience before he got elected but he didn't really do all that great of a job. And we can always look at Andrew Johnson and William Taft as examples of Vice Presidents who didn't exactly make good Presidents.

Somewhere in the middle is Harry Truman, who had a term and a half as Senator (with a black cloud for suspicions of vote fixing) and about six months as Veep before becoming President at a really difficult time and doing a bang-up job of helping get NATO and the U.N. off the ground and avoiding war with Russia.

I don't actually think we can know how good somebody will be as President until after they've been in office and no previous experience is enough to educate us on how they'll handle it. The trick is to find someone with character and wisdom who looks like s/he can handle the stress and work with people all over.

Other than that it's a crapshoot. Assuming a Governor or Veep will make a good President is kind of like watching a super-prospect work his way through the minors in baseball. Sometimes you get a Ryan Howard (Philadelphia All-Star), sometimes you get a Brian Anderson (sucked it up in '06, can't get a spot on the woeful White Sox roster anymore). And sometimes you end up with the Nationals' Ryan Zimmerman, who spent exactly a month in the minors before getting promoted and probably won't be going back any time soon...

[cjmr]

The trick is to find someone with character and wisdom who looks like s/he can handle the stress and work with people all over.

Which--since the campaign process tends to highlight charisma over character and carefully tailored sound-bites over actual knowledge/wisdom--is a task-and-a-half most election cycles.

[hapax]

From way upstream: . Can someone explain how an MD in Arkansas needs different medical skills to set a broken leg, than an MD in Florida?

I can, having lived in both states. In Arkansas, you have to clear the bills with Wal-Mart. In Florida, you send them to Disney.

[Gavin Barnett]

Many Thanks for this incisive blog entry. If my memory serves me, I think I learned back in theological college days that the Serenity Prayer was written by Reinhold Niebuhr's brother Richard.
You might want to check it out. GB

[Prankster]

I find "rooted in faith" a strange description of Lincoln, who was an atheist, but there you go.