Some Sanity on the GOP Presidential Race
The further we get into the Republican presidential race, the more I'm struck by a sensation I've never experienced during primary season before: the feeling of being an observer at a spectator sport where I'm not truly invested in either of the teams.
That's one of the reasons I think the following, from today's edition of Jim Geraghty's "Morning Jolt" newsletter at NRO (subscribe here, if you haven't already -- it's mandatory reading), is so sound:
If you can't read any anecdote or account of your preferred guy and conclude, "Yeah, he was in the wrong there," or "Yeah, that's going to be a challenging weakness to overcome," well then, when you read or listen to or watch the news, you're not really trying to learn new information about what's going on. You're really just looking for more anecdotes and evidence to reconfirm what you already believe and know. (Confirmation bias, they call it.)
We all probably do this to some extent, but no matter how much you may believe that your guy rocks, the day will come when he doesn't rock. I thought what separated us from the "O-BA-MA" chanting cult of personality on the other side was that we didn't need to see our presidential candidates in messianic terms. For all the hoopla and the fancy plane and the band playing "Hail to the Chief," presidents are guys (and someday, gals) we hire to do a job under a four-year contract with a possibility of a four-year extension. We hope they make enough of the big calls right.
Representative government -- and life, in fact -- require a certain ability to see hard truths, mistakes, things that don't turn out the way you wanted. I'm starting to wonder if that quality is much rarer than I thought. I'd like to see all agricultural subsidies eliminated, but the votes aren't there (at least for now) and proposing the policy would make any candidate toxic and unelectable in big chunks of the country. I'd like to see a grade-A candidate in the GOP field, but instead we've got a bunch of B minuses, C pluses, and below.
- Comment (27)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (1)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments:
Jan '11
Re: Some Sanity on the GOP Presidential Race
Sorry, National Review and NRO are no longer on my Take Seriously list, anymore than MSNBC is. In the course of this primary season, I've come to believe that NR reporting and commentary are mission directed, and I don't eat pablum.
May '10
Re: Some Sanity on the GOP Presidential Race
Good point
Tommy De Seno
Casey
I wonder to what degree that is true.... perhaps I'll pray to Reagan tonight for the answer. · 2 hours ago
Funny!
But I don't recall Reagan being a cult-like figure when we first elected him.
He grew into it! · 2 hours ago
Dec '10
Re: Some Sanity on the GOP Presidential Race
Israel P.
She
Israel P.
Like a Steelers fan watching the Ravens and the Patriots in the AFC Championship, hoping they both lose. This is a metaphor I really understand. · 20 minutes ago
That's funny. I didn't see you in the room with us . . . · 24 minutes ago
Remember, I'm in Jerusalem, so I knew the score seven hours before the rest of you. · 5 hours ago
It's a shame you didn't do something about it, then . . .
Aug '10
Re: Some Sanity on the GOP Presidential Race
I've noticed that Newt has tapped into that. Frankly, that disturbs me. Ever since the debates in South Carolina I started noticing Newt fans tended to take any criticism of him as coming from the "Establishment" (queue the scary music) and thus invalid. That emotional fervency isn't as wide-spread in his supporters as it was in Obama supporters in 2008, but it is there. Some view him as the embodiment of true conservatism. At least that's how they portray it.
We all wanted a candidate we could get behind, but perhaps it's better to have the opposite approach that so many had in 2008. We're going to vote for the Republican (most of us are) anyway. I'd rather clearly define conservatism for the public rather than rest it's laurels on a candidate that may or may not act in its best interest.
Aug '10
Re: Some Sanity on the GOP Presidential Race
Still being undecided and not really for anyone as of yet, I feel the same way some of the time.
May '10
Re: Some Sanity on the GOP Presidential Race
They're not. They usually end up with a lot of people dead or damaged for life.
May '10
Re: Some Sanity on the GOP Presidential Race
St. Salieri
1. I didn't have a say in 1968-1994 ....
..................
3. I do have a say in the hear (sic) and now, and I have the right try to leverage the party that ......I have faithfully supported for 20 years, and that is supposed to represent me.
........
5. Perfection - jeeze - how about not going along with socialized medicine and a balloning national debt due to entitlements; and this from the party of free markets, free labor, and free men.
Spare me the "grow up" and vote GOP talk. ·
You don't have to, St. Salieri. The choice of candidates has come through an open process. I recommend that you check into history, because your expectations are wildly unrealistic.
Obama had 60 in the Senate and a 60 vote majority in the House, and he learned that when you push a radical program through the voters, who are process-conservative, slightly collectivist on policy, will push back.
Ron Paul will be eliminated because he doesn't represent more than 5% or so of the electorate. The voters decide.
It is up to you if you choose to re-elect Obama because your dream date didn't run.