hard work

Right now it looks pretty bad for Obama - he can't win the general. Some have said his career might be over. I don't think his career is sunk, if he is willing to take a major humiliation so that he can have a "rise again" moment. Then he could repent, denounce any philosophies that need denouncing, and could start building again.

What is more troubling is that he doesn't seem to want to build. This would not be happening if he had researched, learning about the voters, offering us what we want. I don't think we really need to learn more of his own bio, his single mother and all that (as if we didn't all know about that "typical white" granny who raised him). Once more we have that liberal mentality, Brad Pitt on ice skates, when really the rest of us want it to be all about us. How come he can't seem to say one articulate thing about what he's going to do to address our immediate crisis - that is, economic insecurity?

Put this together with how little real good he did in Chicago and how little real good he has done in Congress and it's hard to escape the conclusion that Obama doesn't seem to like to work hard, and maybe he doesn't even know how to do what I mean when I speak of working hard:

• how to identify and solve problems
  
  
• how to receive input and deal with feedback
  
  
• how to accept responsibility or take the initiative
  
  
• how to fight - taking a stand and all the risks that go with it
  
  
• how to persevere instead of quitting when things seem impossible (is he really "bored" already?)
  

All of these things seem to be problems that are not just his, but are problems I associate with liberals past and present. And the more "liberal", the more true this seems to be.

An example from Riehl World View:

There's a lesson in this. And it isn't how evil or mean can be the Right. We all know both sides have their unhinged elements capable of writing pathetic emails, or issuing mostly ridiculous threats. The lesson is represented by the decision both Marcotte and McEwan willfully made - to play the victims and lose, as opposed to coming out on top....

At some point you have to fight for what you want. If you're just going to roll over like you're Nancy Pelosi faced with the probability of (gasp) conflict - well, might as well stay home from the start.

To be a Republican at its extremes is to accept no excuses (which is nice if you happen to be born rich). Anything is possible if you just choose to make it so. Inspiration frequently involves motifs such as the person who falls - to be crippled physically or mentally or spiritually or socially - rising up to do great and miraculous things anyway.

Of course the big problem with this is the failure to recognize limits. Some things genuinely aren't possible. The 'no excuses, no blaming, no whining' approach frequently turns to dumping it on the victim, as if to say "oh well doing that was never my responsibility anyway". Meanwhile W. is still trying to bluff off failures as successes by ignoring or sometimes even just rewriting reality.

Democrats, though, live at the other end of this extreme. Nothing is their fault. They encourage blame and victimization. Look at Jeremiah Wright.

From ShrinkWrapped Conspiracy Theories and Victimization:

...Those conspiracy theories are the ones that support the holder's view that he or she is the victim of circumstances, forces, and people that are much more powerful than they, are inimical to them, and are beyond their control. Those beliefs lead to passivity and anger, and away from self reflection and responsibility.

Why should a young black man who is struggling in school put in the hard work required to learn when it is all for naught? If the "white man" is only going to keep him down, what is the point?

...Once a person has embraced victimhood, which includes the belief that their problems are essentially not of their own making, they are lost. The typically short sighted and cynical empowerment movement is designed to reinforce victimhood and extort reparations of one kind or another from those who have the money and the disinclination to fight back. The victim "wins" by getting what he deserves from the "man". This leaves the victim forever at the mercy of others, unable to change in ways which could enable them to live more productive and successful lives, and basing their entire sense of self on their grievances. A community that accepts such a designation can only be an abject failure.

(emphasis mine)

Obama frequently falls into the conservative-sounding rhetoric of positive thinking (in fact, a lot of the appeal of his campaign appears to rely on that nice conservative miracles motif). The problem with his affirmations are that they are just words. Magical thinking. There are no actions to follow up with. It's as if he is trying to combine the worst of both worlds - wedding the politics of blame and victimization to the delusional belief that you can do anything if you just want to hard enough.

Bill Clinton did it exactly the other way around. He rejected the politics of blame and victimization, and he didn't go in for feel-good beliefs about how you can do anything if you just buy New Age prayer beads. Instead, he gave us accountability and expectations coupled with real action toward increased opportunities.

That is what is meant when people say he "moved to the center". He broke the Republican monopoly on the issue of personal responsibility. That might sound ironic, seeing as how later Clinton would get busted for not taking responsibility for what he did with Lewinsky. But before Clinton ran for office, liberals were all about blame and victimization. Nothing was within your power to achieve. Everything is out of your control - everything was legacy and environment. That is what Bill Clinton weeded out of the party when he "moved to the center" and became what Michael Moore famously called our "best Republican President".

If Bill Clinton was really a Republican, I'd switch parties. It's too bad the wing libs can't see that. There is a real split between two groups who want an inclusive society - but differ sharply on the best way to achieve that.

The old-style liberal approach is not the only option out there. Those who act like Democrats who reject their victimhood are "not true Democrats" or are "Republicans" are not being fair to the changes that have happened. They say, "but poverty/injustice/inequality still exists". True enough - but that does not mean all the dynamics are frozen in place, and wanting to go back to 1968 is not a very good answer.

From this article on bell hooks:

Rather than associating "white people" with being the "enemy" or the "man" as most radical dogma is known to reiterate, as well as within the "white guilt" sentiments of white liberals, she suggested an approach that mirrors Buddhism (ms. hooks is also a Buddhist), to have a sense of "agency" when faced with racism, and, in turn, to confront your opponent with love, not in reaction with hate. This way, the offensive party will walk away with a greater sense of awareness about his/her own prejudice rather than have a tendency to stay on his/her side based on race or sex.

Most Eugenians could not wrap their minds around this concept...basically because it is common for ethnic studies programs to be steeped in a victimization mentality, comparable to the tendency for white liberals and radicals to have a knee-jerk "white guilt" reaction when faced with race issues; but for me, hook's disdain for "victimization" was my key into ethnic and womens studies.

It takes a certain out-of-touch quality to not get that things have changed. Most people who have not acknowledged that reality are either so angry they are actually creating the bias against them (as in the hostile, aggressive witness in the Bell shooting) or are just, like John Kerry, incredibly out of touch. Throw in college students who don't know a lot about history, and haven't seen a lot of the world - and you see the groups who support Barack Obama even into his digging in about race and the politics of victimization.