Columnist William Kristol, a high priest of the religion of stupid, wrote of Saturday night’s whatever it was:
Obama made no big mistakes. But his tendency to somewhat windy generalities meant he wasn’t particularly compelling. McCain, who went second, was crisp by contrast, and his anecdotes colorful.
Smart is boring. Stupid is much more “compelling,” i.e., entertaining and comforting.
(Later in the same column, Kristol challenges his readers: “Where in particular has the United States in recent years — at home or especially abroad — perpetrated evil in the name of confronting evil?” He really doesn’t know. Truly, this is the Stupidity of the Gods.)
She also talks, earlier in the post, about George W. Bush's supposed virtues versus Kerry's faults -- Bush was what they used the call a "wastrel," while Kerry oriented his whole life toward excellence. I don't know about anyone else (well, I do, based on election results and press coverage), but I've always felt that we should be selecting our best to lead the country. Quite aside from his policies (which, if you could filter out the bald-faced lies, were and are repellent), I would never have voted for Bush because he's a self-absorbed frat boy who failed at everything he put his hand to. I still don't understand why this country elected (and that just barely, the second time, at least -- the first time, he won by one black-robed vote in Washington) one of our worst.
I don't want a president who shares my failings -- I want someone better than that.
One thing that O'Brien hints at (evident in the quote from Kristol) is the role of the traditional corporate press in dumbing down the government. Granted, Kristol's an extreme example, but he's not really that far out of step with his colleagues in the Village. I find it instructive that now, when Bush's ratings have stayed in the basement for months, the press is finally finding the balls to be critical. Now, how did that happen? Do you suppose it's because their own ratings have tanked?
No comments:
Post a Comment