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.

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

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.”

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.

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

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.