Daniel Larison responds to Peter Hitchens’ analysis of an Obama presidency:
I don’t know how many other people outside Chicago know these things, but I would be willing to bet that if all Obama voters knew his close ties to the Daley machine and his relationship with Tony Rezko they would not be very troubled. That may be more bothersome in its way than mass ignorance, but I think Mr. Hitchens here mistakes their lack of response to Obama’s cues for some cynical acknowledgement of the less glamorous details of the man’s career. It was, I suspect, silence kept out of deference to the President-elect combined with amazement that he had, in fact, won. Mr. Hitchens is falling into the trap of believing the hype about Obama, but interpreting it in a negative way. I suppose I might be inclined to the same interpretation, if I believed it, but I don’t. It is important to bear in mind that Obama’s election may be historic in certain respects, but it is not nearly as significant as his foes fear and his friends hope. As I have been stressing all year, the thing that disturbs me about Obama is not that he represents some dramatic change in American politics, but that he represents depressing, miserable continuity.
I think I agree with Larison. Comments?
I’d like to disagree with Larison.
While I may not necessarily agree with all of Mr Hitchens’ comments, I do think he understands American votes better than Larison. Because the Obama supporters I’ve heard speak and talk to around here (average Joes, city councilmen, etc.) all voted for Obama because he reminded them of JFK. Or because they were thrilled by his promise of hope and change: they sincerely believed that he would be a different kind of politician. And when names like Rezko, Axelrod, etc., were brought up, they didn’t ring any bells.
Also, I don’t think that Peter Hitchens was believing the hype. The man lives in Great Britain and has lived through Tony Blair. He knows more about political crazes than we do. Yet.