Wednesday, April 16, 2008
|
|
All Their Friends Are Lawyers ...
|
|
Posted by:
Matt Lewis at
9:37 AM
|
 The Obama campaign has sought to counter the "elitist" argument by sending out Michelle Obama as a surrogate. This, of course, is sort of like sending out Bill Clinton to say you're not a womanizer.
Predictably, the same spouse who famously said she was finally proud of America promptly reinforced the notion that she is, in fact, out of touch, when this video surfaced: "Barack’s a lawyer, I’m a lawyer, everybody we know are lawyers. I’m sure half the people in this audience are lawyers ...” ... Yeah. They're "average" alright.
Of course, we expect the Obamas to attempt to extricate themselves from this mess, which, after all quite possibly did in John Kerry (Windsurfer-MA).
More troubling, perhaps, is that it has become vogue for intellectual writers and pundits to actually buy into this argument. After all, the inherent problem with attacking someone for being an elitist is that you tend to step on the toes of the elitists who report the news in the first place ...
Recently, some have argued that in order to have the means to run for president in the modern age, you, by definition, are an elitist. I would offer that there is a distinction between being "elite" and being an "elitist," inasmuch as an elitist is someone who believes they are better than the masses. A great number of highly intelligent men and women do not believe they are wiser than "we the people."
Others argue that elitism is actually a good thing. After all, they ask, don't we want someone better than us as president? For those of us who love liberty, the real problem with taking the elitism argument to its conclusion is that dictators are the ultimate elitists. After all, if a leader believes that he is wiser than everyone else, then why trouble with all the messyness of democracy?
It's also true that there is a lot of hypocrisy on both sides of this issue. Liberals who are angered at Dick Cheney for answering:"so?" when asked if he cares what the American people think of Iraq -- are the same folks arguing we should elect people smarter than us (they would argue that Cheney isn't smarter than us, but the inherent problem is: who decides who is smarter than whom?).
Conservatives who accuse Obama of elitism may view Cheney's remarks as merely an example of strong leadership. After all, they may reason, we don't have a direct democracy. And aren't elected officials elected precisely in order to be representatives of the people?
Intelligence does not necessarily indicate whether or not someone will be a good leader. Jimmy Carter, a very bright man who graduated from the Naval Academy at Annapolis and was a nuclear submariner was a miserable president. Meanwhile, a "C" student from Eureka College was the greatest president of my lifetime. And wasn't it all those "pointy-headed intellectuals who got us into Vietnam (assuming you believe that war was a mistake ...).
Of course, the other extreme is no more preferable. The populist demagogues who use overblown rhetoric -- and attack the "elites" in business, etc. -- can be equally as dangerous -- and as dictatorial.
This all reminds me a bit of a line from the movie Rushmore: I know you probably think I was born with a silver spoon in my mouth, but I'm no elitist. I think you've got some great facilities, and I'm really looking forward to making the best of it here at Grover Cleveland. Well said, Max Fisher. Perhaps Obama might borrow it?
|
|
|
|
is the best, most efficient form of government
... if you have the right dictator.
I think a progressive (I can't remember whom) once said something like that while praising Moussolini.
|
|
"The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers" Henry VI Part 2, Act 4, Scene 2
All I have to say is that it would be good to start over. Lawyers should be permanently barred from all political offices. There is an inherent conflict of interest when lawyers are involved in making the laws. |
|
is that the underlying assumption to your article is that Barack and Michelle would be smarter to NOT tell the truth. What is wrong with Michelle saying that most of their friends are lawyers. By nature, we are attracted to who have common intersts as ourselves. It is illogical to assume that that means they can't relate to anyone but fellow lawyers, or even that lawyers are by nature "elistist". I think what you mean when you use the word "highly-intelligent" is "well-educated" (pretty much all people have a similar level of "intelligence"...it's training thatmakes the difference). Only an idiot would prefer to have someone who is less well-educated running the country than someone who is better educated. Government is in the realm of the developed intellect, not the "natural man".
Your argument is one that continues to erode the minds of our young and works to destroy our great democracy...at it's core it is anti-intellectual.
We have just suffered through 8 years of the worst administration this great country has ever seen and it was headed up by a man who is exceedingly proud to tout his anti-intellectualism.
Enough is enough.....Obama is honest and WELL-EDUCATED, smart. It's time we had such a leader. |
|
I'm reading a 2007 book titled "Thank You for Arguing" by Jay Heinrichs. In Chapter 6, the author discusses converting character into a tool of persuasion. If you look at the three qualities below, it's easy to see why Obama fails to connect with independent voters.
Namely, the three qualities of persuasive ethos are the following:
(1) virtue: the audience believes you share their values--does anyone believe he shares the values of most people in this country? After Jeremiah Wright? After Bittergate? After [insert problem area]
(2) practical wisdom: street smarts, seeming to know the right thing to do at all times--he clearly fails here--arugula, bowling, Jeremiah Wright, Bittergate, [insert problem area].
(3) selflessness: the audience’s interest seems to be your only concern--here, despite the accolades of supporters, the Philadelphia speech fell flat because he didn't tell the independents what they needed to hear; instead, he dwelled on the source of Wright's anger and pointed his finger back at the audience; Bittergate also demonstrates that the audience isn't his concern.
So can we be surprised that he appeals only to black voters and pockets of white voters. I don't see how he bridges the chasm. And make no mistake, it's his problem, not the rest of America's.
|
|
|
check out that lawyer quote. It is said by Dick the Butcher, part of a violent group knwon as Jack Cade's rebels, who are being incited to vilonce by York to advance York's own ends (and who York unti,ately supresses). Actually, sort of the way Iran might encourage violence by militias in Iraq. They want to kill the lawyers for the same reason Musharrif threw the lawyers in jail recently in Pakistan -- to supress the rule of law and seize power by violence. So -- Shakespeare's point is actually 100% the opposite of what you are trying to say. |
|
|
is not the size of your wallet but a frame of mine. This is why Michelle and Barack's argument about not being elitist because they were born middle class doesn't hold up. |
|
is not the size of your wallet but a frame of mind. This is why Michelle and Barack's argument about not being elitist because they were born middle class doesn't hold up.
|
|
|
I know, I just hate lawyers. |
|
Observe1234 makes a good point about the context of the "let's kill all the lawyers" quote.
Nonetheless, anti-McCain commenter Virginia Patriot still wants to kill all the lawyers...just not all the Islamic Jihadists ! |
|
What SAM just wrote above (three qualities of persuasive) is a classic example of grasping at straws to make an argument.
What are the values of most people in America? They do not associate with anyone who they differ with politically?
He cannot bowl so he must not have practical wisdom.
He is selfish because to indicated that there are differences in America that we need to acknowledge and work on.
I am an Independent voter, tending to lean republican because of fiscal issues, but I have to say republicans, more so than democrats, are willing to suspend common sense and flat out lie to make their point. |
|
“Enough is enough.....Obama is honest and WELL-EDUCATED, smart. It's time we had such a leader.” … chibri
Smart people DO NOT smoke cigarettes at 46 years old.
Smart people DO NOT smoke crack cocaine when in college.
Smart people have REAL WORLD common sense.
Smart people have REAL WORLD working knowledge.
Barrack Obama is an ex-cocaine addict, a smoker presently, has no common sense and is an anti-American Communist.
Barrack Obama IS NOT smart.
|
|
Matt,
With this post, I think you ought to have explicitly focused on making a delineation between an "elitist" attitude VS an "elitist" background.
A person can have what most people would consider to be an elitist background, yet still retain respect and dignity for 'other' Americans.
The problem with what Obama said is that it reveals that his a-t-t-i-t-u-d-e toward 'other' Americans is elitist.
By contrast, Dick Cheney may have position and money, but he doesn't look down on 'other' Americans---he doesn't have an elitist attitude.
Also, when speaking of intelligence, you should probably delineate between "intelligence" and "wisdom."
There are plenty of people with Ivy League educations, PhDs,---in other words, folks who are conventionally considered to be "smart" or "intelligent,"---yet they lack wisdom.
By the same token, there are folks who are high school drop outs whom have wisdom. |
|
"Smart people DO NOT smoke crack cocaine when in college."
Actually Top Gun, here's some more SMART "FACTS" for you to use against Obama:
Not only did he smoke crack in college, but is in fact a crack addict TO THIS DAY. I saw him light up a rock about 10 minutes ago. Not smart!
Also, Barack was an alcoholic until the age of 40!!! In fact, once he tried to start a fight was his father after coming home drunk and his father told him to "grow up." Not smart!
Let me tell you this TOP GUN--and I am very smart--smart people definitely make statements like this: "Barrack Obama is an ex-cocaine addict, a smoker presently, has no common sense and is an anti-American Communist." The part that is especially smart is the anti-American Communist statement. What could be smarter than that? I mean, the guy is definitely anti-American and he has stated many times that he's a communist. You are SO SMART!
Aren't you smart enough to remember to take your medications before going online and sharing all your "smartness"? |
|
|
One Hot Minute--Matt was on Sirius Patriot Monday where he brought up just your point. Using George H.W. Bush as an example of how you can be elitist by birth but not have it reflect in your attitude. I'm sorry if you missed him making that point. |
|
Whenever I look at a cause and effect revolving around politics it always comes back to the same thing...elitest Lawyers running the show...
SO when do we take Shakespear's advice? |
|
|
Shakespeare was making the exact opposite point. Go ahead and hate lawyers if you wish, but don't drag Shakespeare into it. And if you take a look at the play, it is actually very interesting, as York uses a violent rebel group to foster chaos as long as it suits him, and then he supresses them violently as well of course. |
|
“Aren't you smart enough to remember to take your medications before going online and sharing all your "smartness"?” … the great patriot
I know it is difficult for you Obama supporters to grasp reality and not have the wisdom to see a “con” job when it is being fed to you, but ignoring the facts of his past and how these facts show his character flows, while you blindly support him, shows how our public education, which you liberals have destroyed, has failed in providing an education for you.
|
|
“Aren't you smart enough to remember to take your medications before going online and sharing all your "smartness"?” … the great patriot
Oh, and one other thing, Mr. the great patriot, you should have said, “getting online” or “signing onto the internet” instead of your statement of “going online”
Go is a term used when describing an object or person moving from one place to another like “going to lunch”, “going on a vacation”.
Thanks for showing us “your” lack of smarts. It is always quite entertaining from the left.
|
|
Melissa S wrote;
------------
"One Hot Minute--Matt was on Sirius Patriot Monday where he brought up just your point. Using George H.W. Bush as an example of how you can be elitist by birth but not have it reflect in your attitude. I'm sorry if you missed him making that point."
------------
Great, if Matt made that point in another venue, that's fine, but I was merely characterizing "this" particular blog post.
I wasn't busting Matt's chops---it's basically a good post. I was just recommending he narrow his focus of the debate against Obama.
As you know, the lefties always move the goalposts of the debate---they're trying to distract everyone away from Obama's elitist remarks about small town folks & God, guns, anti-immigrant sentiment, opposition to free trade agreements.
Instead, the lefties want to make it a populist referendum against either "rich people," or folks who went to an Ivy League school---in which case, it "incriminates" everyone else including Cheney, Bush 41, Bush 43, Romney, Rush Limbaugh, Hugh Hewitt, Michael Medved, Hillary & Bill, et al.
And we all know that is a context which is light years away from what he actually had said.
We can't allow Obama to get away with that garbage. |
|
|
...are an excessively prolific profession in America that produces neither food, shelter, energy or comfort (or good legal product, for that matter). The two greatest presidents in my lifetime were not lawyers. One was an army general, Dwight Eisenhower, and the other was "only" an actor, Ronald Reagan. The worst have all been Democrats and lawyers except two. Jimmy Carter and any Bush. |
|
should not be allowed to be judges, nor should they be allowed to be politicians. That would solve a lot of problems.
Let me check with my lawyer before I wipe my butt. Wasn't that what a presidential candidate said just recently, when he answered a question on national defense. HA HA HA! Hey, aren't most republican politicians lawyers, too?
We are in trouble. Real big trouble. |
|
|
|