Obama and the Art of Wu Wei

I keep hearing pundits say that McCain won the three debates “on points” but that Obama won “on style.” I think these guys were watching a different sports event from the one I watched.

The “on points” pundits were scoring a boxing match. McCain was more aggressive. He landed punches. He got in zingers. Last night Pat Buchanan compared Obama to a boxer in the late rounds who was sitting on a lead (doesn’t that mean he was ahead “on points”?) and was dancing around to avoid being knocked out while he ran out the clock.

What I watched was more like kung fu. In the martial arts, aggression for the sake of aggression is more likely to work against you than with you. The master knows how to use his opponent’s energy against him. He lets the more unskilled fighter beat himself.

Martial arts masters employ the principle of wu wei — the action of non-action. This sounds like passivity — it often looks like passivity — but it is the art of channeling the flow of energy around you to accomplish a task or defeat an opponent. Put another way, it is the art of letting action act itself, or letting movement move itself, while you go with the flow.

It’s also the art of knowing when not to act. If your opponent is beating himself up, don’t get in his way.

Those who think Barack Obama should have been more aggressive in his debates with McCain are, IMO, entirely wrong. If Obama had been more aggressive, he risked seeming angry or mean and giving McCain sympathy points. Instead, Obama masterfully let McCain beat himself and didn’t get in the way.

McCain, IMO, lost the debate when he got stuck in whiny, petulant mode and wouldn’t let go of statements by Congressman John Lewis — which were not spelled out in the debate, and I doubt most viewers had any idea what McCain was talking about — and Bill Ayers. Obama actually gave McCain several opportunities to drop the subject, and McCain would not. For that entire sequence McCain was, in effect, punching himself in the face, while Obama stood aside and let him do it.

This was skillful. It also took discipline — a lesser debater would have interrupted McCain to defend himself more forcefully, and I’m sure that’s what Pat Buchanan et al. thought Obama was supposed to do. But Buchanan and McCain are old-style Irish pugilists who stand straight up and punch away. Obama was in crouching tiger, hidden dragon mode.

______

I was struck by the pundits’ reactions to the abortion section of the debate. Granted, I was mostly watching MSNBC — sometimes flipping over to CNN — and I realize reactions may have been different elsewhere. But pundits I saw were shaking their heads over this part of McCain’s argument:

MCCAIN: Just again, the example of the eloquence of Senator Obama. He’s health for the mother. You know, that’s been stretched by the pro-abortion movement in America to mean almost anything.

That’s the extreme pro-abortion position, quote, “health.” But, look, Cindy and I are adoptive parents. We know what a treasure and joy it is to have an adopted child in our lives. We’ll do everything we can to improve adoption in this country.

McCain spoke of women’s health with a sneer on his face. He made “air quotation marks” around the word “health,” as if the mother’s health concerns were some kind of joke. He can’t stop whining about what John Lewis said about him, but women facing health complications in their pregnancies are just supposed to suck it up.

I realize the “criminalize abortion” movement routinely argues that “health of the mother” can mean a bad hair day, but in the real world pregnancies — including planned and wanted pregnancies — don’t always go well. I think most adults understand that. And most of the post-debate commentary I saw criticized McCain for the “health” comment.

Four years ago, in the Kerry-Bush debates, Bush had a simple message on abortion — he was against it. Poor Kerry had to put together more than two sentences to explain his position — that he opposed it personally but didn’t intend to impose his views on others. The post-debate commenters — including Andrea Mitchell, as I recall — said of this that Kerry doesn’t know how to talk about abortion. (What the hell was he supposed to say? “I’m for it”?)

But now it’s the Republican who doesn’t know how to talk about abortion. Times, I believe, have changed.

And I’m sure you enjoyed this bit —

MCCAIN: I would consider anyone in their qualifications. I do not believe that someone who has supported Roe v. Wade that would be part of those qualifications. But I certainly would not impose any litmus test

Um, dude? You just imposed a litmus test.

Third Presidential Debate: Live Blog

First off, let’s stop thinking about a landslide. The remaining “undecided” voters are mostly older, less educated and white, I understand. It’s like a majority of them will move to McCain and tighten up the race in the last three weeks. No complacency.

Here we go.

Jeez, McCain is being friendly to Obama. The nice and calm McCain showed up tonight.

So far we haven’t heard anything new, except that McCain apparently has decided to be soothing rather than angry.

OK, McCain is back to taxes.

McCain indeed is planning to cut corporate taxes.

Class warfare! Yes! Grumpy McCain is coming back!

Why increase taxes? Because we’ve got a kajillion dollar deficit, you creep.

McCain the asshole is coming back. You can’t keep him down for long.

Does McCain understand what “spread the wealth around” means?

Invest in America. Yes! Obama said “Invest in America.” This should be a campaign slogan.

Wow, the moderator wants McCain to answer the question that was asked. That’s new.

John, we owe China a lot more than half a trillion dollars.

He can save billions by eliminating the tarrif on sugar from Brazil? I think I missed part of that.

Earmarks! Pork! boogaboogaboogabooga

Balance the budget in four years? That’s insane.

We’re going to balance the budget by job creation and energy independence?

I mean, is it me, or is McCain an asshole?

Here we go … say it to his face.

Town hall meetings? The negative campaigns are Obama’s fault for not doing town hall meetings?

Whine whine whine. Oh, McCain has not repudiated nasty remarks. He repeats them.

He’s not bringing up Ayers. Coward.

Yes. The American people are not interested in our hurt feelings. Perfect.

Comment about Chico and the Man — LOL! Chico and the Man in the Twilight Zone.

Yes, John, keep whining.

John is angry.

Oh, Obama brought up the “pal around with terrorists” line.

McCain didn’t take the Ayers bait.

Oh, yes, Ayers, ACORN, the whole thing. I think McCain is giving in to his temper. I wonder if this was the plan.

McCain is losing this debate worse than the other two. People don’t give a bleep about Ayers and ACORN.

I forgot about CNN’s squiggly lines. I just flipped to CNN.

At the name “Sarah Palin” the squiggly lines dropped like a rock. Flatline, folks. Oh, the “men” line is up just a tad. Well, men. You know.

Iraqis united? People are being killed for returning to their homes.

I swear, McCain is losing this one worse than the other two.

Three Mile Island. Chernobyl. Very safe.

Easily eliminate dependence on foreign oil?

Obama is being realistic. Talking to the camera.

Does John think NAFTA is popular?

Community colleges have what to do with free trade?

I think McCain is right on the edge of blowing a gasket.

Oh, I love the split screen. McCain’s inner asshole is there for all the world to see.

Here Obama is presenting a clear and sensible plan for health care, even though it doesn’t go nearly as far as I’d like. Now McCain will lie about his plan.

Yeah, John, blame it on fat people.

He’s going to repeat the lie about fining small business again.

I mean, is McCain is an asshole or what? He’s not even making sense. The fine again.

That mean old Obama is going to make employers provide health benefits. For shame.

Oh, the gold-plated insurance that no one has. Yes, John, show us how out of touch with reality you are.

Senator Obama wants government to do a job. Well, yes.

Roe v. Wade. Somebody finally brings it up.

“Strict adherence to Constitution” = anti-choice.

“We have to change the culture of America.”

The “present” vote is a procedural thing in the Illinois Senate. It sounds weird but is no big deal, I understand.

Keep smirking and smiling, John.

We can’t have healthy mothers. “Health of the mother” is an extreme position, according to John.

“We have to work together” for John means abortion gets banned.

Make college affordable. It is a disgrace that there is such a barrier for people to get an education.

McCain begins to speak, the squiggly lines drop. “School choice” has not been “proven” in New Orleans, John.

“Competition” doesn’t help schools, John. Now he’s repeating the old right-wing canard that some of the best schools cost the least money. Those are the exceptions, not the rule.

Vouchers = yesterday’s issue. Even the wingnuts are abandoning it.

Sarah Palin has an autistic child?

Vouchers have not been proven. Where they’ve been in place a long time they haven’t done squat.

Almost over.

John, I don’t trust you as far as I can throw you.

Invest in the American people. I like it.

Sacrifice, service responsibility. We can do it. Work for you.

_______

I sincerely think McCain sucked at least as bad, if not worse, than he has in the other two debates.

David Gergen is saying that McCain got over-emotional and angry in the middle of the debate. Obama won the last half hour, he said.

I agree with Gergen. I think that when McCain would not let go of his personal hurt feelings about being insulted, he was losing big time.

I’m going to guess that this debate won’t change the trajectory of the opinion polls. I think the polls will tighten up at the end for reasons explained at the top of the post, but this debate won’t change the polls.

Just picked this up at Huffington Post:

Watch the eye roll.

I also am not sure the “I am not George Bush” line will help McCain much. Right now his biggest problem is that he is John McCain.

Fights and the Fighters Who Fight Them

At the risk of destroying space and time as we know it, I have to say Bill Kristol had some good advice for the McCain campaign today. Go back to what you do best, Kristol says to McCain. Drop the negative ads and be the happy warrior from 2000. Never mind that Kristol gave the opposite advice just seven days ago.

Let’s be frank; the silvery-haired white guy came into the contest with a built-in advantage — being a silvery-haired white guy. I suspect a whole lot of voters wanted to support him over Obama. The erratic, hateful, nearly substance-free campaign McCain has waged has driven people to Obama, however. And with just three weeks to go, isn’t it a bit late for a complete re-tool of the campaign?

It’s way early to begin the victory party, but if McCain loses in the landslide it’s shaping up to be, gonna be a whole lotta finger-pointing going on. At least, I hope it finally puts to rest the myth of Karl Rove’s political genius, as I believe Rove more than McCain is the one calling the shots in the Campaign to Nowhere.

But what’s really fascinating, in a morbid way, is watching the McCain campaign fire back at Kristol for similar criticism elsewhere — “he has bought into the Obama campaign’s party line.”

McCain debuted his “rebooted” campaign today. The Word of the Day is fight. Apparently in a speech today McCain used the word fight nearly 20 times. Here’s a bit:

I know what hopelessness feels like. It’s an enemy who defeats your will. I felt those things once before. I will never let them in again. I’m an American. And I choose to fight. Don’t give up hope. Be strong. Have courage. And fight. Fight for a new direction for our country. Fight for what’s right for America. Fight to clean up the mess of corruption, infighting and selfishness in Washington. Fight to get our economy out of the ditch and back in the lead. Fight for the ideals and character of a free people. Fight for our children’s future. Fight for justice and opportunity for all. Stand up to defend our country from its enemies. Stand up, stand up, stand up and fight. America is worth fighting for. Nothing is inevitable here. We never give up. We never quit. We never hide from history. We make history.

David Corn:

This new pitch doesn’t even qualify as a Hail Mary. It seems not substantial enough to rate as a real play. It’s as if McCain’s handlers did a focus group and found that the one word undecided voters associate positively with McCain is “fighter.” And that’s all McCain’s strategist have to work with.

And didn’t Hillary Clinton run with “I’m a fighter” for awhile? See where it got her.

The thing is, I believe most Americans feel they’ve already been fighting for quite some time. They’ve been fighting stagnant wages, rising prices, precarious health care, job losses, and in too many cases bankruptcies and foreclosures. They don’t need a leader who is going to lead them into a fight, because they’re already in it. And they’re tired of it. I think they want someone to bring back stability and put an end to the fighting. And it that’s a skinny black guy, so be it.

True and Real

Why is John McCain wasting time campaigning in Iowa? And why in eastern Iowa, which is next to Illinois, which you know is in the tank for Obama? John Deeth writes for the Iowa Independent:

So, with pundits rapidly moving Iowa into the Safe Democratic column, why is McCain making his third visit to the state? The pollsters “aren’t talking to true Iowans,” said Janice Levsen of Muscatine. “He needs to show us he cares about us, because we care about him.”

So what makes an Iowan a “true” Iowan? As opposed to someone who was born and lives in Iowa but is not, you know, “true”? Is there a secret True Iowan Society?

And then there’s the matter of what’s real.

Mark Gardner of Colona, Ill. says Republicans are frustrated. “People want him to go after the real Obama.” Is the campaign getting too personal? “Only if you’re a Democrat,” says a friend of Gardner’s, who moves ahead in line before I get his name.

OK, but is Mr. Gardner a true Illini? Just askin’.

Questions are flying — who is the real Barack Obama? Who is the real Sarah Palin? Who is the real John McCain? One wonders if the candidates might shed their skins and turn into that giant bug thing from Men in Black.

The McCain campaign wants you to believe the “real” Barack Obama is a Muslim planning to put the U.S. under Shariah law. Uh, sure. You try to make Michelle Obama wear a burqa. I dare you.

Real Americans wonder why so many of us don’t see that Barack Obama is a wild-eyed radical. Well, I don’t see it because I’m in the tank for Obama. This means little nano-thingies crawled into my ear when I was sleeping and implanted an Obama microchip in my brain. Hillary Clinton tried to warn us, but it was too late for me.

Real Americans know that the real Barack Obama was programmed as a small child to enable the Soviet takeover of America. Too bad the Soviet Union collapsed before Obama was old enough to run for President and carry out the plan. Or maybe the real Soviet Union is alive and well and hiding under the ice in Siberia, ready to sweep across the Bering Strait and into Alaska as soon as it gets the radio signal?

At the same time, Sarah Palin has been lured out of Alaska, where she might have been watching Russia from her house. John McCain chose her to be veep. Is McCain in on the conspiracy, too?

It’s all starting to fit. But why is McCain in Iowa? Hmmm.

Update:
More real true stuff — documented proof that Barack Obama was born in Kenya, and even if he was born in Hawaii and not Kenya, he lost his natural-born citizenship status because his stepfather moved to Indonesia and … OK, I can’t follow it after that. But it’s truthy as hell.

BTW, is the video producer pulling our leg with this?

Still Crazy After All These Years

Senator Joe McCarthy began his witch hunts by accusing Asian policy experts in the State Department of being Communists, and by the end of his volatile career he had charged General George Marshall, President Dwight Eisenhower, and the United States Army with treason as well. In 1954 the double punch of Edward R. Murrow’s “See It Now” exposé and McCarthy’s televised bullying during the Army-McCarthy hearings finally brought him down. But before the double punch, in January 1954, 50 percent of Americans polled by Gallup were “highly favorable” of McCarthy.

In other words, 50 percent of Americans thought it perfectly reasonable to accuse General George Marshall, President Dwight Eisenhower, and the United States Army with treason.

And even after his dénouement, and even as the Senate and the Republican Party publicly were turning their backs on McCarthy, he remained a hero to a substantial minority of Americans. Gallup polls said 35 percent of Americans were highly favorable of McCarthy as late as November 1954, after the Army-McCarthy hearings had concluded.

I thought of McCarthy today after I saw this headline on a right-wing blog: “Question: Does Barack Obama Have Any Friends Who AREN’T Communists?” Tail-gunner Joe would be proud.

I believe — this is based on my observations, not scientific research — that Americans on the whole are harder to demagogue now than they were in 1954. But “on the whole” clearly doesn’t include everybody.

I also believe that people get suckered by demagoguery because, on some level, they want to be suckered. The demagogue is telling them something they want to believe, even if it’s nuts. For example, when people are genuinely afraid of something, many people prefer a demagogue to an honest statesman.

An honest statesman tells people that, while there’s a real threat and our options are limited, we can get through this crisis if we keep our heads and don’t let fear get the best of us. The demagogue validates and reinforces fear and promises absolute protection if people will follow him. Lots of people prefer option B. Option A is weak and, you know, French.

The problem with option B is that the demagogue is promising something — absolute protection from the bad scary thing — that he cannot deliver, especially if the bad scary thing is way bigger than he is and not under his control. So the next thing the demagogue does is identify proxy scary things, preferably small and weak ones that won’t bite back. Thus, McCarthy was much less focused on international politics than on domestic threats.

Yes, McCarthy accused the State Department of losing China and made a great show of clearing alleged Communist literature out of U.S. embassy libraries around the world. But most of his targets were domestic and about as threatening to the security of the United States as tapioca pudding. Yes, there had been Soviet espionage cells in Washington, but not one of McCarthy’s targets was ever found to be part of them.

Back to the present: The more volatile people at McCain rallies, especially the ones who booed McCain when he called Obama a “decent man,” are people who want to be demagogued. They don’t give a bleep about McCain’s policy proposals; they want him to lie to them. Apparently McCain has a couple of scruples still knocking about his psyche and isn’t really into the demagogue thing, although he’s been giving it his best shot.

Sarah Palin, on the other hand, is playing the demagogue role to the hilt. She’s got a natural talent for it. I don’t expect her to fade from the national political scene anytime soon.

And then there’s the perennial threat of intellectualism, also a target of McCarthy’s. I give you this rightie blog post, called “Intellectualism & Sarah Palin: Or How The Smarty Pants Set Are Threatened By Someone Who Knows Sense .” It’s a classic bit of anti-intellectual literature; someone should shove it into a bell jar to preserve it for posterity.

In her rantings in favor of “common sense” the blogger in truth is exposing her inner insecurities, neuroses and resentments for all the world to see. She divides the nation into “coastal elites” and everybody else. The “coastal elites” live inside their airy-fairy theories; “everybody else” is practical and makes decisions based on real-world experience. If you’ve read Hofstadter’s Anti-Intellectualism in American Life you’ll recognize all the themes.

Here we see why the coastal elite hate Sarah Palin:

Why do they dislike her so?

  1. Her state school education and path to power devalues the elite’s Harvard training.
  2. She’s homespun. Intellectuals despise homespun. They prefer the calculated indifference they’ve worked so hard to master over the years.
  3. Sarah doesn’t seem to care what they think. Perhaps her most grievous error is that she just doesn’t give a moose turd what David Brooks thinks. Everyone should care what David Brooks thinks. And Peggy Noonan. And the rest of the obnoxious snobs.

Speaking as a graduate of the University of Missouri with deep Ozark Mountain roots and who genuinely doesn’t give a bleep about what David Brooks or Peggy Noonan think, I suppose I should love Sarah Palin.

I, um, don’t.

Another rightie blogger links to the one above and expands some of her themes. Buried in this diatribe we see the yearning for a daddy figure who will take over and make everything better:

So if you’re Yin, you may feel anger like anybody else, but you get over it. You live in a world of IF…THEN. The Yang live in a world of protocol. “S’poseda.” You’re s’poseda cut your carbon emissions. You’re s’poseda behave humbly so the rest of the world likes us more.

The decision-making is always externalized to someone else. And that “someone else” is always some vague, non-corporeal, undefinable entity. “Them.” “The People.” “Everybody.” “Us.” “Out There.” You dare to make this distinction, after awhile you see this everywhere. I see it in this Charles Gibson interview with The Messiah — Gibson explicitly asks him “what will you do different from what the current administration is doing now” (or some such)…and here comes the reply. The People have lost confidence. It’s always someone else making the decision that matters.

People who populate this whole other world, have good reason to be jealous. Once they own a task, a task that depends on real decisions being made by an individual who’s directly responsible for how things turn out — they’re lost. And they know it. They’ve spent too much of their lives living theoretically…spooning out the right answers to please others. Ignoring cause and effect.

Government of the people, by the people and for the people be damned. This guy wants a dictator.

(Also, dude, if you are so concerned about cause and effect, you might want to consider the effects of not cutting carbon emissions. And I’m not sure you understand yin and yang. Yang is male, direct, assertive, rational, bright, clear. Yin is female, indirect, reticent, emotional, dark and murky. Obviously some male chauvinist guy came up with the yin and yang dichotomy, but that’s what it is.)

If you read these two posts, you see what I mean about absolute protection. Both writers seem to believe that the United States can absolutely protect itself and solve its problems without the cooperation of anyone else on the planet. They don’t want to believe there are big, scary things that we cannot control or bomb into oblivion.

Just as, fifty-something years ago, Americans didn’t want to believe that China was not ours to lose, or that Joe McCarthy’s threats and blustering would not protect them from the Soviet Union.

Still crazy after all these years.

Time and Tides

I don’t expect the “Troopergate” report released tonight to make a big difference in the presidential campaign. People who still love the Moosewoman will dismiss it as “political.” People who don’t think much of her will still not think much of her.

More interesting to me is that today McCain supporters booed and jeered at McCain when he said Barack Obama is a “decent person.”

Not Exactly the Better Angels of Our Nature

Headline on the New York Times website: “Global Markets Dive in Relentless Selloff.” A British news site says this is Freefall Friday. By 9:30 this morning the NYSE was down more than 460 points.

On the plus side, nobody’s complaining about the “angry Left” any more.

Adding to the links in the last post — at the Washington Post, Michael D. Shear and Perry Bacon Jr. write “Anger Is Crowd’s Overarching Emotion at McCain Rally.” Anger my ass; this is white-hot rage. See also “Panic attacks: Voters unload at GOP rallies” by Jonathan Martin and “Is Negative Rhetoric a License to Taunt?” by Russell Goldman.

Steve M asks if the Right really is more deranged than during past elections. In many ways, no. But in some ways, yes.

The difference now is that, in the past, they were winners. This is not just in the sense of winning elections. I believe in recent years they felt some sense of power, of control, especially with George Bush in the White House.

How many times have we observed that the only thing holding the conservative coalition together was resentment — of liberals, of intellectuals, of Europeans, of anything that picked the scab off their inner insecurities? For a time, George Bush gave them the upper hand. He was their middle finger by proxy, extended to the rest of the world.

However, now it’s starting to dawn on them that they are losing. This could get dangerous. Think cornered, wounded animal.

It’s gotten so bad that even David Brooks is beginning to catch on. In the past several years “Republican political tacticians decided to mobilize their coalition with a form of social class warfare,” he writes.

And for how many years have we progressives been saying that? But whenever we brought it up, we were told we were the ones trying to play “class warfare.” Brooks continues,

Over the past 15 years, the same argument has been heard from a thousand politicians and a hundred television and talk-radio jocks. The nation is divided between the wholesome Joe Sixpacks in the heartland and the oversophisticated, overeducated, oversecularized denizens of the coasts.

What had been a disdain for liberal intellectuals slipped into a disdain for the educated class as a whole. The liberals had coastal condescension, so the conservatives developed their own anti-elitism, with mirror-image categories and mirror-image resentments, but with the same corrosive effect.

The Right has been running against the mythical “liberal elite” for a lot longer than 15 years. You might remember Richard Hofstadter’s Anti-Intellectualism in American Life, published in 1963, that documents disdain for the educated class as a whole going back to the colonial period. In the early Cold War era — heyday of the House Un-American Activities Committee and Joe McCarthy — merely discussing Communism with scholarly objectivity was attacked by the witch-hunters as disloyal.

Now, Brooks notes, the GOP has not only alienated the highly educated regions of the country, it has blown off entire professions.

Lawyers now donate to the Democratic Party over the Republican Party at 4-to-1 rates. With doctors, it’s 2-to-1. With tech executives, it’s 5-to-1. With investment bankers, it’s 2-to-1. It took talent for Republicans to lose the banking community.

So now the modern GOP has been stripped down to its core social pathology, its soul laid bear for the world to see. And it ain’t pretty.

See also:

A Conspiracy So Immense

Hilzoy says the gang at The Corner “seems to have gone well and truly insane.” I don’t know where she gets the “seems.”

The wingnuts discovered that in his 1996 state senate campaign, Obama was endorsed by the New Party, a branch of the Democratic Socialists of America. Some 12-year-old New Party campaign literature identifies Obama as “a member,” and of course it doesn’t occur to the wingnuts that a fringe group would ever resort to padding and propaganda.

And if we’re going to play Joe McCarthy’s old “guilt by association” game, let’s talk about John McCain sitting on the board of the U.S. Council for World Freedom, a group linked to former Nazi collaborators and ultra-right-wing death squads in Central America.

Never mind that. The New Party and ACORN (boogaboogaboogabooga!) have infiltrated and hijacked the Democratic Party. See, the entire Democratic Party is nothing but a front for socialist world domination.

I wonder if we shouldn’t just open some Evil Empire amusement parks so that the wingnuts can act out their fantasies in a safer environment.

You know the Right has slipped its tether when even David Frum is telling them to chill out.

Those who press this Ayers line of attack are whipping Republicans and conservatives into a fury that is going to be very hard to calm after November. Is it really wise to send conservatives into opposition in a mood of disdain and fury for a man who may well be the next president of the United States, incidentally the first African-American president? Anger is a very bad political adviser. It can isolate us and push us to the extremes at exactly the moment when we ought to be rebuilding, rethinking, regrouping and recruiting.

A McCain supporter was arrested for threatening to empty his shotgun at the California Louisiana registrar’s office unless he got his voter registration card faster. Someone at a Palin-McCain rally shieks “kill him!” at the mention of Obama and Ayers. We’re going to be very lucky if no one else flips out and launches a killing spree.