Jan
23
2009
While I respect his opinions and enjoy listening to his take on things, I don’t often find myself in agreement with Juan Williams. In his recent Wall Street Journal opinion piece Judge Obama on Performance Alone, however, I must say that I think Mr. Williams has brilliantly articulated a thought that I have been trying to put into words for some time now…
If his presidency is to represent the full power of the idea that black Americans are just like everyone else — fully human and fully capable of intellect, courage and patriotism — then Barack Obama has to be subject to the same rough and tumble of political criticism experienced by his predecessors. To treat the first black president as if he is a fragile flower is certain to hobble him. It is also to waste a tremendous opportunity for improving race relations by doing away with stereotypes and seeing the potential in all Americans.
Yet there is fear, especially among black people, that criticism of him or any of his failures might be twisted into evidence that people of color cannot effectively lead. That amounts to wasting time and energy reacting to hateful stereotypes. It also leads to treating all criticism of Mr. Obama, whether legitimate, wrong-headed or even mean-spirited, as racist.
This is patronizing. Worse, it carries an implicit presumption of inferiority. Every American president must be held to the highest standard. No president of any color should be given a free pass for screw-ups, lies or failure to keep a promise.
That is a profound idea. Someone claiming that criticism I may express regarding the policies and actions of the President are racist (because I am White and Barack Obama is Black) are themselves being “patronizing” and making “an implicit presumption of inferiority” regarding the President. I love it.
Yet isn’t this exactly what we are seeing already from the sycophantic press? Claims that any criticism of the President’s policies as being racist or unpatriotic are already happening. The questions we need to be putting to the fawning MSM-types are this: Does President Obama possess so fragile a persona that his opponents are not allowed to criticize him, yet vitriolic, spiteful and truly hateful criticism of former President Bush (43) is deemed warranted, and even patriotic? Doesn’t that kind of logic only work if you think our new President to be less able to handle such criticism, or his policy positions to be so weak that they cannot stand tough scrutiny?
Will anyone (more important or less reviled than a simple blogger) dare ask those questions to anyone in the MSM whose answers might carry some weight? And can those who do dare offer a response afford to answer truthfully?
Jan
22
2009
How many times have you heard “charismatic” used to describe the man that is our current President? Read this analysis, then click the at the end for the punchline.
The word Charisma is derived from a Greek word meaning “gift of grace.” For years, social scientists have analyzed and debated the origin of charisma and why people gravitate toward charismatic leaders. Influential sociologist Max Weber was one of the first to study the theory of charismatic leadership. According to Weber, social actions are controlled and directed by a general belief on the part of the members of a society that a legitimate social order exists. The probability that social behavior will be oriented in terms of that order constitutes the basis for its authority. Weber postulated that there were three ways to convert power into legitimate authority: rational, traditional, and charismatic, and that each type of authority was validated differently. Established orders such as educational institutions or courts of law give rise to rational authority. Traditional authority arises when leader and follower relationships such as parent/child, teacher/student, or officer/soldier are bounded by long-standing traditions. Traditional and rational bases of authority are not effective forms of authority to bring social or organizational changes.
Charismatic authority, on the other hand, is part of the expression of schismatic tendencies in society. In contrast to legal or traditional authority, charismatic authority is the antithesis of routine activities and represents the desire for disruption and change of the prevailing social order. It is a necessary part of the dialectic between the human need for structure and the equally human need for variation and innovation in society. Charismatic authority is different from rational or traditional authority in that it spawns not from established orders or traditions, but rather from the special trust the charismatic leader induces in his followers, the peculiar powers he exhibits, and the unique qualities he possesses. According to Weber, it is difficult for charismatic leaders to maintain their authority because followers must continue to legitimize this authority. There is a need for the charismatic leader to constantly exhibit leadership performance to his followers to reinforce the legitimacy of his authority.
Several theoretical frameworks have been put forth to explain the crucial elements that give rise to charismatic leadership. Our psychological sense of self worth or self-esteem is a function of the status of our identifications with certain self-objects. These self-objects may be tangible (i.e., a social class to which we belong or a car we drive) or intangible (i.e., a belief or a cause). When the status of the self-objects with which we identify increases, our self-esteem increases. When the status of the self-objects with which we identify diminishes in value, our self-esteem diminishes. Effective leaders elevate the status of the self-objects with which their followers identify, raising their followers’ self-esteem to new heights. When followers identify with a leader, and that leader enhances their self-esteem, the followers perceive the leader as charismatic.
Another theory states that individuals who have solved for themselves problems the followers have not been able to solve for themselves are perceived as charismatic. The perception of charisma is of great importance only between the leaders and their followers. How non-followers perceive the leaders has very little relevance to the notion of charisma. According to Weber, people have extraordinary needs, especially in times of great stress and crisis in a society, and leaders who are able to satisfy these needs are considered charismatic. Charismatic leaders help their followers achieve a state of transcendence by becoming the embodiment of the qualities they wish that they possessed. Charismatic leaders appear most frequently in times of societal crisis.
What are some of the common qualities and characteristics of charismatic leaders? Charismatic leaders are able to distill complex thoughts and ideas into simple messages through the use of symbolism, analogies, and metaphors. Charismatic leaders embrace risk and feel empty in its absence. And, they take chances without fear of failure. Charismatic leaders rebel against the status quo and conventional wisdom. According to Weber, charismatic leaders reject rational, economic objectives and orders, choosing more “irrational” but more humanistic pursuits, and that one of the signs of charismatic leadership lies in the leader’s ability to leave a significant mark on the traditional institutionalized structure that he rejects. Charismatic leaders have robust empathic capacity – they attempt to see the world through their followers’ eyes. Finally, charismatic leaders challenge, prod, and poke their followers to test their courage and their commitment. Charismatic leaders score high on expression of values, emphasis on commitment, setting high standards, stressing a sense of mission, talking optimistically about the future, expressing confidence, making personal sacrifices, providing encouragement to followers, and displaying conviction in ideals.”
Jan
22
2009
But sometimes they can become Secretary of the Treasury.
Republican senators are putting up a good front for the constituents, but aren’t working too hard trying to defeat Mr. Geithner’s nomination. If he is confirmed, conservatives have a damaged Secretary collecting tax receipts for Uncle Sam. Champions for reform will have pages and pages of apologies they can use to defend the oppressed taxpayers who make innocent mistakes, “just like Secretary Geithner.” And best of all (he says, seeing the silver lining and not the cloud), should the economy not turn around, Republicans will have the chance to say, “We’re not surprised, since President Obama can’t even find a Treasury Secretary who can fill out his 1040, nevermind fix this economy.” On the other hand, if the Democrats buy a clue and pull the nomination, they won’t get their favorite TARP-loving choice for the job.
It’s a wonderful win-win scenario for Republicans… if they can avoid finding a way to screw it up.
Jan
21
2009
‘Hopes for the Obama Presidency’
Filed Under Economics, Foreign Affairs, Politics | Leave a Comment
‘Hopes for the Obama Presidency’
Filed Under Economics, Foreign Affairs, Politics | Leave a Comment
Last night, The Wall Street Journal posted an interesting symposium of Hopes for the Obama Presidency, with a wide variety of influential contributors joining in. Expectedly, there are voices like Katrina vanden Heuvel and George McGovern calling for the President to “Marshal the Power of Liberalism Government” and “Feed the Hungry”. (Just as an aside: Is there anyone in this country really hungry? I thought the latest talking point was that we’re too fat, and I don’t think the food stamp program has been abolished or local charities have stopped feeding the poor.)
But two of the offerings stand out. One came closest to my own thoughts yesterday, and asks for us to “Show Each Other Some Respect”. It took a double-take to notice that the contributor was none other than Glenn Reynolds:
I agree with Barack Obama on some issues and disagree on others, but my hopes for the Obama presidency have mostly to do with tone. By reaching out to conservative columnists, and by going out of his way to say that he thinks George W. Bush is “a good man,” Mr. Obama has made some efforts to transcend the nastiness that has emanated from much of the Democratic Party over the past eight years, where open hatred of Mr. Bush and Republicans has been a major source of social bonding. That is a wise move on his part, as it makes it less likely that Republicans will return the favor. Venomous hatred by the opposition seriously harmed the Clinton and Bush administrations, and Mr. Obama will have a much more successful presidency if he can avoid similar problems. Whether this approach succeeds or not, however, will depend on whether his followers go along; in this, it is an early test of President Obama’s ability to lead.
While I am disappointed and wary of what a new progressivism may bring us, I most dread a continuation of the senseless and increasing hatred that has been thrown back and forth between Democrats and Republicans since Bill Clinton defeated George H.W. Bush. The more recent President Bush entered office with eggs being thrown at his inaugural motorcade, and left Washington yesterday afternoon to the infantile jeers of the inauguration revelers, singing “Hey, Hey, Good-Bye”. Let’s find a way to share our respective opinions with spirit and candor (and yes, humor), but without senseless anger and hate. I’ll start by pointing out to my conservative colleagues that you can’t call President Obama a smooth talker with empty rhetoric, and then accuse him of being a Marxist totalitarian, all in one breath. Uncle Joe was many evil things, but he wasn’t subtle; Obama is not Bill or Hillary Clinton (let’s thank God above for that).
The other notable post in the WSJ column was from Shelby Steele, who noted, “I feel earnest goodwill toward this new administration, but I’m afraid my actual ‘hopes’ for it run to the negative.” He then proceeded to explain how he “hopes” the President fails to find traction for the progressive agenda he seems poised to implement, and how he “despair(s) at seeing the moral capital of my race put to these ends.” The title of Mr. Steele’s post: “Black America Could Have Done Better”. There’s a simple, honest statement of dispute without bomb-throwing. I couldn’t agree more.
Jan
20
2009
Transition
Filed Under History | Leave a Comment
Transition
Filed Under History | Leave a Comment
The other day, I saw something on the TV grid on my DVR that I missed a long time ago when it was first shown on The History Channel. I jumped at the chance to record Andrew Jackson, one of those two-hour documentaries THC is so good for. It wasn’t flashy, but was occasionally biased, and as usual it was harping on some theme that documentarians today believe they have to pummel us with. Inevitably, such a theme revolves around an idea which today we take for granted that every enlightened democratic liberal should have understood in any era. In Andrew Jackson’s case it was Old Hickory’s treatment of “Native Americans”, and they made sure to include historians of Indian descent complaining how much they hate the $20 bill.
Andrew Jackson hung around on my “Recorded” list for a few days until I finally got a chance to watch it last night, but it wasn’t until this morning that the significance of watching the program on January 19th sunk in. John Steele Gordon does an excellent job pointing out how millions of Americans in Washington for today’s events might be likened to the mobs who trashed the White House in 1829. Of course, we hope today’s festivities are accompanied by a little more decorum and a lot better manners, but otherwise we’re a lot more likely to see symbolism from a Jacksonian parallel than a Lincolnian one, as Mr. Obama’s schedule has been trying to hint at, or an FDR parallel, like his conservative critics are (rightfully) aiming at.
But Inauguration Day isn’t supposed to be a time when we dwell on politics, but on the remarkable event that occurred almost two hundred and eight years ago – an event so monumental I think January 20th should really be one of our most sacred national holidays. Changes to our Constitution have thrown off the accounting, because Presidents are no longer inaugurated in March, but the significance of that Inauguration Day was never about the date. In retrospect, that Inauguration Day may have been the most important single event in American history. This was not an Experiment yet to be proven, like the Declaration, or the Constitution. And it wasn’t a long, drawn-out series of many smaller events, like the Civil War or World War II.
On March 4, 1801, for the first time in human history, one man peacefully and willingly handed political power to a rival. Not every Inauguration Day gets to be so awesome a recreation of that day, but even for those of us on the losing side of the recent election, this is a special moment. Indeed, perhaps more for us than for our own rivals. Because it is in our capitulation to the will of the people at the ballot box that we perpetuate existence of the Republic.
Jan
13
2009
Mongo hate carbon
Filed Under Economics, Lies, Corruption and Scandals, Science | Leave a Comment
Mongo hate carbon
Filed Under Economics, Lies, Corruption and Scandals, Science | Leave a Comment
So, word comes out today that the word out yesterday was just an evil plot by the meanies at the Times Online: Google is no more guilty of Carbon Crime than any other presence on the Web, and it’s “footprint” is as pristine as Neil Armstrong’s lunar calling-card. Color me shocked.
The search-engine phenom is perhaps the best example of Silicon Valley gone Hollywood – and by that, of course, I mean leftist chic. As with the rich and famous in LA, Google is all about the Great Liberal Dichotomy, “More for me, less for thee.” It proposes and supports every Democratic boondoggle it can dream up, from confiscatory taxes to entangling carbon-emission regulations, but it continues to get wealthier and wealthier, and every suggestion that it gets its hands dirty is scrubbed clean.
Not that there’s anything wrong with full pockets and clean hands, except for the hypocrisy of it all.
On a related but contrary note, I’m delighted to hear that the U.S. Army is going electric for some of its on-base vehicles. While I don’t give a rat’s tail about “carbon emissions” unrelated to pollution (and even then, maintaining clean air and water should be a corporate responsibility, not a government regulation), I’m very happy whenever we take steps to wean ourselves from non-renewable, and especially foreign, sources of energy.
If only we could bottle this carbon emission and power our cars with it…. but likely there’ll be a restriction proposed against pork and beans sometime soon from Google.
Jan
11
2009
It takes all kinds
Filed Under Economics, Liberty and Democracy, Politics | Leave a Comment
It takes all kinds
Filed Under Economics, Liberty and Democracy, Politics | Leave a Comment
I was actually looking for a picture of Frederick Douglass, and Google Images sent me here. But curiosity got the better of me, and I stopped worrying about the image, and started poking around the site. I was somewhat confused by the tone of the rhetoric until I caught sight of this image and commentary:
The Sunday-only version of Opus or Outland or whatever Breathed calls it now lacks the daily wit and topical humor of the old Bloom County.
Take, for example, this prescient cartoon panel from 1988, when Frank Jones, the father of Oliver Wendell Jones, accurately predicts the political leaning of the first black American president.
You’re absolutely right – we’re not in Kansas anymore, Toto. It’s Hartford, Connecticut, where “progressives” relieve the symptoms of leftism by cross-posting complaints at two different blogs (one of which is delightfully-named, but fairly obscene) about how Chris Dodd let them down for not wanting to burn Joe Lieberman at the stake.
Since the Breathed article was posted back in July, I wondered if the blogger in question had since been captivated by the spell of The One leading up to, or after, the election. I was rewarded by finding this “thrilling” post:
The verdict is far from in on Obama. I am trying not to form an opinion of his presidency yet. He hasn’t even taken the oath of office.
Yet the soft changes his leadership brings are amazing. And I don’t use that lightly. He almost sounds like Spiderman talking to Barbara Walters:
That if you’re placed in a position of power, then you’ve got responsibilities to your workers. You’ve got a responsibility to your community. That if – there’s got to be a point where you say, ‘You know what, I have enough, and now I’m in this position of responsibility, let me make sure that I’m doing right by people, and, and, acting in a way that is responsible.’ And that’s true, by the way, for members of Congress, that’s true for the president, that’s true for Cabinet members, that’s true for parents. I want all of us to start thinking a little but more, not just about what’s good for me, but let’s start thinking about what’s good for our children, what’s good for our country. The more we do that, the better off we are going to be.
Not only that, but he is calling for captains of industry to forego their end-of-the-year bonuses. His rhetoric of veiled redistribution is thrilling. When was the last time we heard that out of the White House?
I post all this, so that when veiled redistribution takes it’s burka off in Washington, you won’t let life get you down. Just remember that somewhere in the Nutmeg State someone will be gnashing their teeth that Uncle Tom let you keep anything at all.
Jan
11
2009
Geography lesson
Filed Under Science | Leave a Comment
Geography lesson
Filed Under Science | Leave a Comment
Click the image to see a higher-resolution (and unspoiled) version.
In the shadow of Saturn, unexpected wonders appear. The robotic Cassini spacecraft now orbiting Saturn recently drifted in giant planet’s shadow for about 12 hours and looked back toward the eclipsed Sun. Cassini saw a view unlike any other. First, the night side of Saturn is seen to be partly lit by light reflected from its own majestic ring system. Next, the rings themselves appear dark when silhouetted against Saturn, but quite bright when viewed away from Saturn and slightly scattering sunlight, in the above exaggerated color image. Saturn’s rings light up so much that new rings were discovered, although they are hard to see in the above image. Visible in spectacular detail, however, is Saturn’s E ring, the ring created by the newly discovered ice-fountains of the moon Enceladus, and the outermost ring visible above. Far in the distance, visible on the image left just above the bright main rings, is the almost ignorable pale blue dot of Earth.
Jan
9
2009
This is really several different posts, but the ideas taste great together.
First off, I got an idea yesterday as I was constructing the new blogroll, and I’ve been running with it. The blogroll is now broken down by category into sections that (somewhat sarcastically) mirror respective counterparts during the Civil War. After all, if I’m “The Black Republican”, then there must be abolitionists and copperheads out there somewhere, and we should pick them out and identify with them as such. (I can understand how some will question my ego and sanity, but it’s all in fun. Mostly.)
I’m not necessarily asking that the site we’re linking to be somewhere I’d enjoy visiting – only that it be something that significantly adds to the discussion. In terms of those sites closer to the bottom of the list (but above “Ford’s Theatre”, where my personal hobby/friends lists begin), I’m suggesting Democratic and liberal sites that a well-informed conservative should occasionally visit to get the opposing viewpoint. Daily Kos is a great example: I haven’t really visited much at all – especially since the days of “screw ‘em” – and I get ill just reading the posts there sometimes, but you can’t deny that this is where the Dems now go to figure out where their base is on a subject, and Markos has tooled it into a powerful political machine.
A counter example would be Daily Dish. Let’s face it folks, Andrew Sullivan is just too weird a product of our weird century to have any corollary in the 1860’s, and is only talked about because of that weirdness. The closest I can think of in Lincoln’s day was John Brown, but Sullivan is playing for the wrong team for that analogy to work. (pun absolutely intended)
I think we’ve covered all the possible categories, but if you think one is missing, or if there’s a better name for that section of the blogroll, please let me know. If you know of a “respected” or “influential” site that deserves mention (or one that ought to be “respected” or “influential”), feel free to suggest a new link. But as I’ve already said, I’m rather picky about who I’ll accept.
I’ve always had a methodology to my linking that seems to confuse up-and-coming bloggers. Look kids, if you want to link to me, thanks – I appreciate that you like TBR. But I’m just not looking to artificially generate traffic. If you are looking for traffic, and you’re coming to me for it, I’ll bet my dinky little site with its paltry and intermittent content still gets more hits than yours does.
So here’s my other point, one that I’ve meant to make for some time: if you want me to link to you, there’d better be content on your site that I find interesting and compelling, and it would help if other people thought so too before you asked me, because I’m far from a trend-setter. Don’t ask for a “link exchange”, because I don’t do that schtick. I’ll link to you when someone else tells me your site is great and I should check it out. When I find out they’re right, or if I stumble on your page myself and like what I see so much that I start telling other people to check you out, you go on the blogroll.
UPDATE: I’m finding that which categories we have, what they’re called, and who goes in them is an exploration more than a decision, and it will probably be an ongoing process. At first I imagined that a category stood for one thing, then I reasoned it out differently and half the links had to move somewhere else. I’m pretty sure I’ve got the categories down for now, but I can see (as one example) that where I put the RNC is a pessimistic commentary on the state of the post-McCain party. I expect (and hope!) that the fight for who goes where ends up a source of some interesting debates as we move along through the Obama Era.
Jan
8
2009
Finally Rolling
Filed Under Internet and Blogging | 2 Comments
Finally Rolling
Filed Under Internet and Blogging | 2 Comments
As you may have seen, the last attempt to renovate the site met with less than desired results. Among the problems we were having, the most annoying was that MovableType’s installation was dumping perl error logs, and since an answer for the problem wasn’t forthcoming it was hard to keep up with deleting all the crap.
So we’re now on WordPress, and so far it’s been a lot easier, a bit nicer looking, and best of all – it actually works. I wasn’t able to get motivated to post to a blog that wouldn’t render pages properly and that for all intents and purposes wouldn’t allow comments. Since I have a hard enough time getting motivated sometimes, I didn’t need that.
While I continue to pretty-up the place, feel free to request additions to the blogroll and post suggestions for enhancements in the comments. Among the things left to do:
- Re-create the About Us page
- Find or create a new Recommended Reading widget
- Find a way to redirect the old permalinks to the new post URLs (everything that’s ever linked here is now broken)
- Police bad code in the old posts
Somewhere amid all that, I’ve got to get back into the habit of reading news and talking about it. And I’m feeling I’d better, because I doubt I can ignore politics for four more years.