TNR BLOGS

July 03, 2009 | 7:55 PM
July 03, 2009 | 7:37 PM
July 03, 2009 | 7:12 PM

March 09, 2009 | 5:19 PM
March 09, 2009 | 5:16 PM
January 07, 2009 | 12:20 PM

July 01, 2009 | 10:33 PM
June 30, 2009 | 8:42 AM
June 29, 2009 | 9:09 AM

July 26, 2008 | 2:24 PM
July 23, 2008 | 1:55 PM
July 17, 2008 | 3:56 PM

July 03, 2009 | 10:13 PM
July 02, 2009 | 12:57 PM
July 01, 2009 | 7:02 PM
COLUMNISTS
TODAY'S STORIES
10.12.2007
How Is Obama Like Dick Cheney and Fred Thompson?

He's got Stephen Hayes's love. I think Hayes's cover story on Obama in the new Weekly Standard is a pretty fascinating document--mainly because it's such a puff job. Indeed, from the gushing (and by now familiar) recitation of Obama's life story to the laudatory quotes from Obama supporters, Hayes--aka Dick Cheney's biographer and Fred Thompson's cheerleader--has nary a negative word to write about the Illinois Senator.

Maybe Hayes just has a soft spot for Obama because he's related to Cheney, but I think his fondness for Obama is better explained by this passage from his piece. After quoting an answer Obama gave to a question about immigration at an Iowa event, Hayes writes:

[W]hile Obama eventually settles on the mainstream liberal position--path to citizenship, crack down on employers, don't punish the workers--he does so only after acknowledging (and in some cases, embracing) the concerns of conservatives. He begins by criticizing George W. Bush on immigration from the right and says that his first priority in ending illegal immigration would be securing the borders. (Ask John McCain if it's important to list border security first when detailing your solution.)

"Hillary Clinton is running from the center," says Dennis Goldford, a Drake University political scientist. "John Edwards is running from the left. And Obama is running from above. He wants to be above politics."

This is the Obama trick, and it explains why, despite his very liberal voting record in the Senate (and in the Illinois Senate before that), he is not viewed as a left-wing ideologue. When a student asks Obama for his views on the Second Amendment, he reminds his audience that he taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago and is thus familiar with the arguments regarding the right to bear arms. He acknowledges "a tradition of gun ownership in this country that can be respected," and says that his academic studies convinced him gun ownership "is an individual right and not just the right of a militia."

The amazing thing is that Hayes recognizes this as a trick--and he still falls for it! Granted, Obama has disarmed any number of conservative writers--whether it's the quirky Peggy Noonan or the intellectually honest Andrew Ferguson--but Hayes has long struck me as someone who's in a different league from these folks; he's an ideological water carrier of the first order. Is there any conservative writer able to withstand Obama's charms? A nation turns its lonely eyes to Charles Krauthammer.

--Jason Zengerle 

Posted: Monday, December 10, 2007 4:53 PM with 8 comment(s)

Comments

You must be logged-in to comment.

Not a subscriber? Click here to get a digital or print and digital subscription to The New Republic!

Androscoggin said:

The quality Hayes notes is one of my favorite things about Obama, too.  He seems to take conservative ideas seriously (I know it's partly rhetoric, but still).  Which is good.  The sins of the Republican Party notwithstanding, the broader conservative movement has produced some good ideas and has been on the right side of a few issues over the last few decades.

December 10, 2007 1:18 PM

benjamin81 said:

It may be that Hayes likes this aspect of Obama because it means that someone is actually listening to the  conservatives' concerns, even if he doesn't agree with their solutions. This is a very professorial attitude, and is one of the nice things that Obama is taking away from the University of Chicago and adding to the public sphere.

December 10, 2007 1:34 PM

ralphnelle said:

If you read Mendell's book on Obama, which discusses his leadership style as president of the Harvard Law Review, it's clear that this has always been part of his personality, not just a cheap rhetorical or political trick he has adopted since starting this campaign. He takes conservative ideas seriously, and always has. Isn't this is a big part of what Obama has always meant by changing the tone of politics?

December 10, 2007 1:39 PM

teplukhin2you said:

<i>He seems to take conservative ideas seriously (I know it's partly rhetoric, but still).  Which is good.  The sins of the Republican Party notwithstanding, the broader conservative movement has produced some good ideas and has been on the right side of a few issues over the last few decades.</i>

Sounds nice, except that Obama doesn't distinguish between those ideas that are good (markets are better at valuing and allocating risk) and those that are utter horseshit (health care constitutes a "market" in which risk allocation should be left to for-profit insurers).

Or those areas in which conservatives have no sensible ideas at all, such as how to prevent low-end America's increasing slide into the Mexican model of sh*t wages and sh*t public services.

For such a smart guy, Obama's contributions to American political thought are surprisingly lame.

December 10, 2007 5:02 PM

teplukhin2you said:

Me, I'm with WF Buckley on this one. I don't want a perfesser as president. I want someone with real, gut-level understanding of the most important issues facing America's working families.

Not the super-poor, not the super-educated, but the tens of millions of ordinary shlumpfen struggling to get by and raise their families despite not having stellar academic credentials or connections that enable them to succeed in our brave new globalized capitalism.

Obama's a bright guy, smooth, glib etc, but I'm sorry, I just don't see the connection with those working families who will decide this election. Of course I'll vote for him, but I just don't see him beating McCain.

December 10, 2007 5:07 PM

psantillana said:

The reason he falls for the trick is because it's not really a trick, in that it's not actually deceptive. He doesn't pretend to respect the opposing view and then respectfully disagree, he actually does that. And people like respect, they like to be listened to. That is why he is the best shot to actually get stuff passed, not Ms. 35-years-of-experience-and-still-voted-for-the-war-and-to-ban-flag-burning.

Here:

www.stltoday.com/.../924725BBB328259D862573AB00145101

December 10, 2007 5:53 PM

kyrreholm said:

Good God, why on earth Americans (and indeed many other of the world's people) insist on being run by someone average rather than better than them is beyond me. Long live elitism, I say...the professorial aspects of Obama's candidacy are clearly the stronger ones IMO, even if they're hardly the ones likely to garner votes.

December 11, 2007 9:01 AM

The Plank said:

Sorry to waste the bandwidth doing this, but I see that Glenn Greenwald is quoting me out of context

April 28, 2008 3:54 PM