"The New Yorker" Endorses Obama
No surprise there, I know--nor come to think of it, is there even any surprise in the way the endorsement, which appears in the current issue of the magazine, opens: "The morning was cold and the sky was bright....On that day in Washington—Inauguration Day, January 20, 2009—the blustery chill penetrated every coat, yet the discomfort was no impediment to joy." We're in New Yorker world, where everything sentence is oh-so-precious and every article moves oh-so-slowly.
Yet the novella-length endorsement--it runs to 3,600 words--is, in a way, perfect, presenting every argument on behalf of Barack Obama that can possibly be mustered while offering an exquisite articulation of a worldview in which reelecting Obama not only makes sense but represents a moral duty.
As I read the endorsement, I kept thinking, What is there to say to people who would write this stuff? And then--but of course!--it struck me: I'd ask you, the Ricochetti.
Herewith, the first of several excerpts I'd like to post:
Perhaps inevitably, the President has disappointed some of his most ardent supporters. Part of their disappointment is a reflection of the fantastical expectations that attached to him. Some, quite reasonably, are disappointed in his policy failures (on Guantánamo, climate change, and gun control); others question the morality of the persistent use of predator drones. And, of course, 2012 offers nothing like the ecstasy of taking part in a historical advance: the reëlection of the first African-American President does not inspire the same level of communal pride. But the reëlection of a President who has been progressive, competent, rational, decent, and, at times, visionary is a serious matter. The President has achieved a run of ambitious legislative, social, and foreign-policy successes that relieved a large measure of the human suffering and national shame inflicted by the Bush Administration. Obama has renewed the honor of the office he holds.
The question, again, is simple:
What is there to say to these people?
- Comment (53)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (5)
Comments:
Jul '10
Re: "The New Yorker" Endorses Obama
I'm shocked, simply shocked! Round up the usual suspects!
Aug '10
Re: "The New Yorker" Endorses Obama
Peter Robinson
What is there to say to these people?
"Nice diaeresis, dude."
Peter Robinson
We're inNew Yorker world, where everything sentence is oh-so-precious, and every article moves oh-so-slowly.
Heh.
Edited on October 30, 2012 at 5:32amAug '10
Re: "The New Yorker" Endorses Obama
I said " please cancel my subscription " early in the first Bush term when Hertzberg started to foam at the mouth .
It was hard after years of faithful readership , but they went south faster than Andrew Sullivan at a Wasilla Prom .
Haven't missed much I bet .
Feb '12
Re: "The New Yorker" Endorses Obama
Why is it any less historical to elect the first Mormon President?
Oct '10
Re: "The New Yorker" Endorses Obama
Peter Robinson
The question, again, is simple:
What is there to say to these people?
I can think of four words: talk to the hand.
Aug '10
Re: "The New Yorker" Endorses Obama
I miss James Thurber.
Oct '10
Re: "The New Yorker" Endorses Obama
I miss when The Atlantic was worth reading. Seems like eons ago.
Jun '10
Re: "The New Yorker" Endorses Obama
Peter Robinson
The question, again, is simple:
What is there to say to these people?
See you on the 6th.
Jul '11
Re: "The New Yorker" Endorses Obama
A list of Obama's strengths from the article refuted.
progressive, undemocratic: Obamacare opposed by more than half the electorate
competent, incompetent: Libya, statues of forces agreement, fast and furious.
rational, irrational: hatred of Romney clearly outstrips Romney's actual flaws.
decent,indecent: politicizing Osama's death, guns and religion comment, denial of terrorism Benghazi.
visionary, short-sighted: all those green jobs projects and a failed stimulus.
Just look at the situation of the United States in both foreign and domestic affairs. In all categories we are worse off than four years ago. The New Yorker has the uncanny ability to ignore reality for large swaths of time, but willful ignorance can only be sustained for a limited period of time before reality sneaks in the cracks and tilts your worldview.
May '10
Re: "The New Yorker" Endorses Obama
In Gingrichian fashion, I reject the premise of the question. Is there a need to say anything to these people?
They are a self-selected group of partisans who won't listen to reason and change their minds. So why talk to those who don't listen?
(Being intellectually honest, there are some on the Right who are the same, but I like to think reason underpins the Right's thinking more than the Left, so the numbers are fewer).
May '10
Re: "The New Yorker" Endorses Obama
There is nothing to say to these people. All we can do is minimize the number of people who enter their brainwashing camp.
May '10
Re: "The New Yorker" Endorses Obama
Peter Robinson
Decent? The Demonizer-in-Chief?
Anyone who believes the President an honest and decent man is so divorced from reality, be it from ignorance or willfulness, to be far beyond correction in the final week before the election.
Oct '10
Re: "The New Yorker" Endorses Obama
Peter Robinson
I wonder where those fantastical expectations come from. There must be sympathetic magazines responsible for them.
On a less sarcastic note, has Obama really improved America's image in, say, the Middle East? Really? How about Europe?
Do you think the Democrat members of Congress think Obama is a great leader after what happened in the first half of his term with Obamacare and debt ceiling negotiations? These legislative "achievements" were accomplished by Pelosi.
Those writers don't need a rebuttal. They need "political" therapy.
Jul '11
Re: "The New Yorker" Endorses Obama
I grew up reading the Thurber Carnival and still routinely think of his stories. I love the cartoon," You're not my patient Mrs Quist, you're my meat" , from some odd doctor. I've never tried the line to a patient yet but I've leveled some Thurberworthy doozies.
Jul '11
Re: "The New Yorker" Endorses Obama
I talk to well intentioned democrats but won't engage the lunatic fringe. The best thing I can tell you is that the higher level financial people I know(as in some you'd recognize), have no confidence our economy can do well under Obama. Usually these men talk me out of some weird tree I'm in. When nationally recognized folks start telling me to make sure my gold, food, and ammo stores should be up to snuff if Obama wins, then I freak out.
Romney at least has a chance if we ramp up energy and drop the rate for companies to return off shore assets as well as create stability by ditching obamacare thereby allowing reinvestment of US companies here who are sitting on cash and waiting for confidence.
Obama, zero chance of recovery ever. Romney, 25-50% chance.
The long and short is that they won't care what you say. See, you're either stupid or evil. I know how these "conversations"end and I now just jump straight to evil(with an evil face) to shut them up and not waste the oxygen. Unless they join Ricochet, then we can have fun debating.
Edited on October 30, 2012 at 6:57amJul '12
Re: "The New Yorker" Endorses Obama
Who is "Some"? Is that you?
Oct '10
Re: "The New Yorker" Endorses Obama
Tell them this:
All one needs to know about Obama's failed Presidency is that it it took 3600 words to convince readers of The New Yorker to stick with him for four more years. If it takes that much effort to make the case with that audience, there is no case.
Apr '12
Re: "The New Yorker" Endorses Obama
"President Obama has not gotten the job done in four years. He's fired. And you're on notice, because whatever the job happens to be, you aren't getting it done either."
May '10
Re: "The New Yorker" Endorses Obama
Collectivism rests on such a rotten foundation, I don't see a single shared brick that could even spark comprehension of what makes America great. These three sentences say it all:
Not even Obama's many shocking scandals provide a wedge for reason to get in; I doubt anyone who would write that endorsement in the face of Benghazi, Fast & Furious, Solyndra, a floundering economy, and routine trillion-plus deficits is even susceptible to something so pedestrian as common sense.
Actually, it seems the whole endorsement can be summarized in one thought: "Progressive" is used as a compliment.
Aug '12
Re: "The New Yorker" Endorses Obama
"Is there another country of which Obama is concurrently president whose newcasts you've been watching for the last four years? Because this doesn't sound like the same man who drove me from the democratic party." Or more succinctly, "Dude, take your meds. You sound manic."