Or should that be aloof and remote? The New York Time's Helene Cooper profiles President Obama's apparent distaste for the "glad-handing, ego-stroking" aspects of the political art and while her piece is clearly sympathetic, she does point out the potential costs to a politician who eschews politics.
I argue about this often with my wife and with many friends as well, but I actually think I could like Barack Obama personally, the un-Bill Clinton, if it weren't for his unalloyed Leftism. At the risk of indicting myself for the same crime, Obama doesn't like playing politics for the same reason I don't: He knows he's right and he knows you're wrong.
As it happens, my positions are consistent with the Founding, with maximal liberty, with keeping alive the distinction between the personal and the political, and are buttressed by a mountain of empirical evidence about delivering the goods the Left can never, ever, hope to match. His positions are the exact opposite in each particular and as for supporting evidence, well, there's little to none.
Charge each of us with arrogance if you like, but who would you rather trust? The guy who wants your liberty along with your property or the guy who doesn't?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment