Values Added: Special Shame Edition (Ann Althouse & Glenn Loury)

[Bloggingheads]

[bkjazfan]

In recent history high profile conservative blacks are considered to be "off the reservation." There are a few that come to mind: Herman Cain, Thomas Sowell, and Clarence Thomas. In the 80's and perhaps today they are hit with derogatory terms like boot lickers and Uncle Toms. Ebony Magazine every year rates the 100 most inflential blacks in the country and Clarence Thomas has never made the list. Feature that: a U.S. Supreme Court Justice is not considered influential. I would venture to say if he was as liberal justice his name would certainly be on the list.

[badhatharry]

Originally Posted by bkjazfan

Ebony Magazine every year rates the 100 most inflential blacks in the country and Clarence Thomas has never made the list.

He made the cover of Emerge.

[bkjazfan]

That picture from Emerge is par for the course.

[miceelf]

Originally Posted by bkjazfan

That picture from Emerge is par for the course.

The cover was from 1996, by way of providing additional information. It's a little later than the 80s that you referred to, but closer to then than to now.

[Brn]

Since Glen mentioned the story, it is worth pointing out that Newt Gingrich's daughter says that the whole Gingrich divorced his wife on her deathbed story is wrong

Originally Posted by Brn

Since Glen mentioned the story, it is worth pointing out that Newt Gingrich's daughter says that the whole Gingrich divorced his wife on her deathbed story is wrong

I don't see a denial. But of course, someone of Gingrich's stellar moral character wouldn't do something like that.

[chamblee54]

Originally Posted by Brn

Since Glen mentioned the story, it is worth pointing out that Newt Gingrich's daughter says that the whole Gingrich divorced his wife on her deathbed story is wrong

The comments to that article are enlightening.
Apparently, the first wife has told this story before. The daughter is telling a different story. Also, the daughter does not dispute that the divorce was discussed at the hospital visit, or that papers were signed. Also, there are reports that Mr. Gingrich did not like to pay child support.
The first wife is still alive.
chamblee54

[Brn]

It is always good to see the attitude "I don't like X, therefore I will continue to believe every horrible thing about X that I hear, regardless of the evidence" out in the open. Please continue, because you are self-refuting.

Originally Posted by Brn

It is always good to see the attitude "I don't like X, therefore I will continue to believe every horrible thing about X that I hear, regardless of the evidence" out in the open. Please continue, because you are self-refuting.

Well, we don't have any evidence, because the piece you cited did not even include an explicit denial, and there are multiple sources confirming that he indeed did serve her with divorce papers, but we can all rest assured that this never happened, because of Newt's impeccable moral standards. He just does not seem like the kind of man who would do something like this.

[Brn]

Really? "My mother, Jackie Battley Gingrich, is very much alive" is not a refutation of what Glen said (and Chris Matthes and many, many others say) http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/398...:39&out=17:45? "As for my parents' divorce, I can remember when they told me... I was 13 years old, and we were about to leave Fairfax, Va., and drive to Carrollton, Ga., for the summer", which was prior to the hospital visit, isn't a refutation of the "Newt served his wife with divorce papers in the hospital" story? And that this divorce "which [my mom] requested" isn't a refutation? What do you want, a video tape of the event?

Maybe both Mr. Gingrich and his daughter are wrong, but if two people at an event say X happened and one says Y, which is more likely to be the truth?

This attitude that you are exhibiting is the one thing that drives me nuts about political discussions. It isn't enough to disagree with Mr. Gingrich's political views. Instead he has to be turned into a Bond villain, to hell with the facts. This is exactly the same as when Rush Limbaugh accuses the president of trying to deliberately ruin the economy. It isn't enough just say that he is implementing bad policies - his motives have to be evil.

Originally Posted by Brn

Really? "My mother, Jackie Battley Gingrich, is very much alive" is not a refutation of what Glen said (and Chris Matthes and many, many others say) http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/398...:39&out=17:45?

I don't know what Glen said (I didn't listen to the whole dialog), but based on what you are citing as a refutation, I presume he said that Newt's wife was dying. Obviously, that's not true (what would be the point of asking for a divorce, if she's dying anyway), but that was not the point I was arguing.

Originally Posted by Brn

"As for my parents' divorce, I can remember when they told me... I was 13 years old, and we were about to leave Fairfax, Va., and drive to Carrollton, Ga., for the summer", which was prior to the hospital visit, isn't a refutation of the "Newt served his wife with divorce papers in the hospital" story?

No, because the allegation isn't that Newt filed for divorce when she was recovering from surgery, but that he pressured her to sign papers related to the divorce (i.e., divorce papers).

Originally Posted by Brn

And that this divorce "which [my mom] requested" isn't a refutation?

See the above. Also, it's only natural that his wife would file for divorce, since Newt is not burdened in any way by being married.

Originally Posted by Brn

Maybe both Mr. Gingrich and his daughter are wrong, but if two people at an event say X happened and one says Y, which is more likely to be the truth?

When there is the word of an adult who is not accused of wrongdoing against the word of an adulterous wretch and a 13-year-old girl (who may or may not have been present), I trust the adult. I also trust the adult more because it's consistent with Newt's reckless disregard for his marriages and marital partners. Also, although I am hardly an expert on Newt's various actions, when I looked into it, it appeared that the allegations of the first wife were supported by at least one other individual.

Originally Posted by Brn

This attitude that you are exhibiting is the one thing that drives me nuts about political discussions. It isn't enough to disagree with Mr. Gingrich's political views.

Who says that I disagree with his political views, insofar as they are consistent and coherent? He's mostly an opportunist without core convictions anyway, so I wouldn't know with what I should disagree.

Originally Posted by Brn

Instead he has to be turned into a Bond villain, to hell with the facts.

Of course he's a Bond villain, he's a politician, for Pete's sake.

Originally Posted by Brn

This is exactly the same as when Rush Limbaugh accuses the president of trying to deliberately ruin the economy. It isn't enough just say that he is implementing bad policies - his motives have to be evil.

No, that's just stupid, not evil. If Obama were deliberately trying to ruin the economy (and succeeded), he'd destroy his own re-election chances. As for Newt, he didn't do this to his wife because he wanted to hurt her, but simply because he didn't care enough about her not to do it. He did what was to his own advantage and recklessly disregarded the interest of his then-wife. Just like he didn't care enough about her to remain faithful to her - same thing with the mistress with whom he was cheating on his first wife, he cheated on her, too.

Because he loved his country too much. Right.

[Sulla the Dictator]

I can't imagine anyone actually cares about the marital history of a politician after the Clinton affair. We need to establish a unified standard here.

[Brn]

Originally Posted by apple

I don't know what Glen said

I posted a link to what he said, and it lasted all of seven seconds. Perhaps you could take seven seconds to listen to what he said so that you could see that what she wrote is a clear refutation.

[stephanie]

Originally Posted by Brn

I posted a link to what he said, and it lasted all of seven seconds. Perhaps you could take seven seconds to listen to what he said so that you could see that what she wrote is a clear refutation.

Your link didn't work. But what Glenn said was in the context of not seeing the Cain allegations as disqualifying -- "it's not necessarily attractive, but I don't know, when you lay it along side Newt Gingrich leaving his wife when she was dying of cancer...."

Glenn was referring to the story and its political effect, not asserting it -- and particularly not the fact the wife supposedly died -- as reason not to vote for Newt. The problem with pointing to the daughter's account (and here's a discussion of how it relates to the original account and the story the ex-wife told) is that, as apple noted, it doesn't make the facts sound all that much better. Any focus on that whole thing is bad for Newt. Getting into "oh, she had cancer and sure was in the hospital to have a new tumor biopsied, but it didn't turn out to be malignant and she didn't end up actually dying -- a claim which doesn't address the perceived state of her health at the time, btw -- so no biggie" doesn't actually address the issue that Glenn was making a passing reference to.

I'm not saying it's disqualifying under any version of the facts (it's hard for me to predict how it would play to someone otherwise attracted by Newt), but does it make it harder to see Gingrich as the person who can take down Mitt, who the Republicans will decide can beat Obama? Sure, as part of the overall Newt package.

It's true I always assumed she was dead, though, so it's interesting to know she is not. I guess he got that marriage annulled somehow.

[bkjazfan]

Newt Gingrich is yesterdays news. He's doing well in the polls since he can speak intelligently in these debates and the field is a weak one. I doubt he will win any of the initial primaries which are crucial.

Ouch! I just checked the polling and he seems to be doing pretty well. Apparently, he is taken the votes that would have gone to Perry. Cain is still hot, pardon the pun, but that has to dissipate. Where his votes will go is anyone's guess. If they go to Newt than Romney will have problems which he is already laboring under.

Talking about OWS. How about the recent report that pols are benefitting from inside information and cashing in on there stock picks due to it. More reason for the unpopularity of those serving in Congress.

[miceelf]

Originally Posted by stephanie

It's true I always assumed she was dead, though, so it's interesting to know she is not. I guess he got that marriage annulled somehow.

When you truly believe in the sanctity of marriage, you want to be certain to get it right. So, you need a couple of practice runs before the Real Thing.

[Brn]

Originally Posted by stephanie

Your link didn't work.

Sorry. Here is it http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/398...7:39&out=17:45

[Brn]

Originally Posted by stephanie

Glenn was referring to the story and its political effect, not asserting it -- and particularly not the fact the wife supposedly died -- as reason not to vote for Newt.

I'm not saying that he is saying that it is a reason not to vote for Newt, I'm saying that he is saying that the story is true and widely known. Unless you mean that he isn't saying that story is true but just saying that the story is out there, but that isn't how I heard it. I grant that other interpretations are possible, but I think that in general if one wants to refer to something that way, one usually says something like "the general belief that X did Y", not just "X did Y". If I say something like "that charge, compared to Bill Clinton's rape of Juanita Broaddrick, seems pretty unimportant" I think most people would read that as my asserting that he did rape her, not that some people say that he did.

The problem with pointing to the daughter's account (and here's a discussion of how it relates to the original account and the story the ex-wife told) is that, as apple noted, it doesn't make the facts sound all that much better.

Again, I disagree and I frankly find it hard to believe that any fair observer cannot see the difference between "Newt served divorce papers to his wife on her deathbed" (which, again, is the version that my original post was pointing out is wrong, and which is repeated over and over again, even by well-informed people like Glen here, and as you yourself say, you thought that she was dead) and "Newt discussed an ongoing divorce (which she may have initiated) with his wife, while she was in the hospital, during a visit in which he brought their children to see her".

Should one discuss a divorce in that situation? I'd say in general no. But doing so seems like a very human thing to do, like losing your temper at an innocent person after a bad day. We shouldn't do it, but we all do.

Again, my point is not that nothing unpleasant happened at the hospital, it is that everyone seems to "know" that Newt left his wife on her deathbed, and I posted a link showing that that was not so. But for some people, that isn't enough. He has to be evil, not just wrong.

[chamblee54]

Originally Posted by Brn

It is always good to see the attitude "I don't like X, therefore I will continue to believe every horrible thing about X that I hear, regardless of the evidence" out in the open. Please continue, because you are self-refuting.

The bad news is not an issue. If you don't like someone to begin with, you are not going to start liking them because of rumors of dirty conduct. ( an exception might be if the dirty conduct is something you approve of.)
One example might be Katrina. I really don't think W did that bad of a job. However, I was angry with W because of the war in Babylon. If someone wanted to trash him because of Katrina, I enjoyed it.
I have not liked Mr. Cain since his days in radio. I am not going to start liking him because I think the dog stories are not true. (For the record, I am neutral about the veracity of the dog stories. I also don't care.)
This story makes him look worse. I thought it was pretty cool to catch Mr. Cain telling a lie. I have since decided it would be tougher to catch him telling the truth.
chamblee54

[Sulla the Dictator]

Originally Posted by chamblee54

The comments to that article are enlightening.
Apparently, the first wife has told this story before. The daughter is telling a different story. Also, the daughter does not dispute that the divorce was discussed at the hospital visit, or that papers were signed. Also, there are reports that Mr. Gingrich did not like to pay child support.
The first wife is still alive.
chamblee54

From what I've seen of people, even those who like their kids don't like paying child support. Not necessarily because they feel they shouldn't have to, but because they see the ex-wife spending the money in ways that don't always have anything to do with the child.

[badhatharry]

I love Glenn in this diavlog. He ends this wonderful rant with the question:

"What is revealed about the intellectual inadequacy of this grand edifice we've constructed."

Hayek answered the question this way: "The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."

The most important lesson in all of this is humility.

[harkin]

I really think you have to put the Emerge cover in its proper context, a successful black man who thinks for himself and practices/espouses conservative values must be destroyed lest he influence other blacks to think/act likewise. A valuable and taken-for-granted voting bloc of government dependents must not be allowed to think for themselves. Notice its usually the left that trots out the ugliest racial stereotypes? Now watching them try and brand non-black Cain supporters as racists wishing to conceal their racism is a lesson in mental contortion.

And there are still people supporting Day Of Rage/Occupy/Obamaville? Imagine if the Tea Party had murders, rapes, assaults, riots, disease, filth, crime, negative effects on local businesses etc. Even UC Berkeley is sick of these useful idiots who equate freedom of speech with freedom to camp and trespass while handing someone else the bill.

Now that some in the movement (when they aren't figuring out ways to steal the cash) are saying they will move to college campuses, you have to wonder if the schools are looking forward to an occupation by mobs who want to do plenty but alas never want to pay the bill. Those administrators and public unions sure arent going to want to actually have to financially support the cause they celebrate when it's on someone else's turf.

"What is revealed about the intellectual inadequacy of this grand edifice we've constructed."

Glenn's beautiful use of language always delights, especially when it can be used to describe the nanny state.

[badhatharry]

Originally Posted by harkin

Glenn's beautiful use of language always delights, especially when it can be used to describe the nanny state.

I think Glenn was talking, not just about government intervention, but monetary policy. Unless we want to go back to carrying around gold in our pockets we need to have a monetary system. The question is how it should operate. What should the Fed do? Should it be in the business of boosting the economy as someone like Krugman suggests? Should it have the dual mandates it currently has? Should we tie the monetary supply to the NGDP as Scott Sumner is advocating?

The people who make these decisions and suggestions come out of the academy, as Glenn points out. What do they really know and what skin do any of them have in the game as they manipulate things? Usually, no matter how things go if their recommendations are followed, they walk away clean. Should we put our trust in any of them? Things may go well for a while, but I suspect there will always be a day of reckoning...unintended consequences.

[Don Zeko]

Originally Posted by badhatharry

Should it be in the business of boosting the economy as someone like Krugman suggests? Should it have the dual mandates it currently has?

What do you think the difference is between these two things?

[badhatharry]

Originally Posted by Don Zeko

What do you think the difference is between these two things?

How do you expect someone who doesn't know what the FDIC is to answer this question?

The current dual mandate of the Fed is maximum employment and stable prices, which speaks to inflation. It tries to find the sweet spot between those two tasks by manipulating interest rates and the money supply.

Krugman has all sorts of recommendations to boost the economy primarily in the realm of having the government either borrow money or use tax revenue to stimulate the economy, thereby increasing (theoretically) aggregate demand. In my uneducated opinion, I think Krugman's recommendations are much more proactive than the role the Fed is tasked with.

They have in common that they are short term remedies which need to be adjusted as conditions change.

[Don Zeko]

Originally Posted by badhatharry

How do you expect someone who doesn't know what the FDIC is to answer this question?

My expectations and your answer line up quite well.

Originally Posted by badhatharry

The current dual mandate of the Fed is maximum employment and stable prices, which speaks to inflation. It tries to find the sweet spot between those two tasks by manipulating interest rates and the money supply.

Krugman has all sorts of recommendations to boost the economy primarily in the realm of having the government either borrow money or use tax revenue to stimulate the economy, thereby increasing (theoretically) aggregate demand. In my uneducated opinion, I think Krugman's recommendations are much more proactive than the role the Fed is tasked with.

The Fed doesn't tax or spend. It buys and sells US debt, and acts as a lender of last resort. So when Krugman advocates fiscal stimulus, that's an argument that Congress should do something, not the Fed.

[badhatharry]

Originally Posted by Don Zeko

The Fed doesn't tax or spend. It buys and sells US debt, and acts as a lender of last resort. So when Krugman advocates fiscal stimulus, that's an argument that Congress should do something, not the Fed.

I never said the Fed taxes or spends. Perhaps you can show me how you came to think that I did.

As for Krugman, I thought you'd be familiar with his views of how the Fed should act to stimulate the economy. For instance, he thinks that the economy will do better if the dollar is devalued, He was also quite the fan of quantitative easing, another Fed activity.

Presumably Krugman thinks these actions will stimulate the economy in the ways in which he thinks the economy should be stimulated. Stimulation R Us.

[Don Zeko]

Originally Posted by badhatharry

I never said the Fed taxes or spends. Perhaps you can show me how you came to think that I did.

If you insist. This exchange began when, after specifically identifying your comment as dealing with monetary policy, you described the dual mandate, the Krugman view, and NGDP targeting as competing theories of how the Fed should act.

Originally Posted by badhatharry

I think Glenn was talking, not just about government intervention, but monetary policy. Unless we want to go back to carrying around gold in our pockets we need to have a monetary system. The question is how it should operate. What should the Fed do? Should it be in the business of boosting the economy as someone like Krugman suggests? Should it have the dual mandates it currently has? Should we tie the monetary supply to the NGDP as Scott Sumner is advocating?

I asked you what you thought the difference was between "boosting the economy as someone like Krugman suggests" and the dual mandate was, because of course Krugman and I think that more aggressive policy would be perfectly consistent with the dual mandate to stabilize prices and keep unemployment low, and that current Fed policy is not. You responded by describing the Krugman position as advocating fiscal stimulus and describing such policies as "more proactive than the role the Fed is tasked with."

Originally Posted by badhatharry

The current dual mandate of the Fed is maximum employment and stable prices, which speaks to inflation. It tries to find the sweet spot between those two tasks by manipulating interest rates and the money supply.

Krugman has all sorts of recommendations to boost the economy primarily in the realm of having the government either borrow money or use tax revenue to stimulate the economy, thereby increasing (theoretically) aggregate demand. In my uneducated opinion, I think Krugman's recommendations are much more proactive than the role the Fed is tasked with.

I responded by saying that you were describing fiscal policy, which isn't what the Fed does, and then you switched to discussing a different position of Krugman's entirely: that the Fed should be pursuing a more expansionary monetary policy:

Originally Posted by badhatharry

As for Krugman, I thought you'd be familiar with his views of how the Fed should act to stimulate the economy. For instance, he thinks that the economy will do better if the dollar is devalued, He was also quite the fan of quantitative easing, another Fed activity.

Presumably Krugman thinks these actions will stimulate the economy in the ways in which he thinks the economy should be stimulated. Stimulation R Us.

A couple things about Krugman's views. For one, they are, as I suggested earlier, entirely consistent with the dual mandate, because Krugman bases these arguments on observations that inflation is too low and unemployment is too high. In other words, he is arguing that the Fed's excessive inflation hawkishness is violating the dual mandate. Also, the devaluation Krugman is discussing is inflation. Higher inflation is, of course, the result of more expansionary monetary policy, and Krugman thinks, correctly, that more quantitative easing and a commitment by the fed to tolerate higher inflation would have a beneficial effect on the economy.

But Krugman's advocacy of fiscal stimulus and more aggressive Fed action are distinct from each other. They describe different policies, and one could easily favor one while opposing the other, yet you seem unable to distinguish between the two.

[badhatharry]

Originally Posted by Don Zeko

If you insist. This exchange began when, after specifically identifying your comment as dealing with monetary policy, you described the dual mandate, the Krugman view, and NGDP targeting as competing theories of how the Fed should act.

I never said they were competing theories, merely examples of the different ways in which economists' actions and theories affect the economy. The dual mandate isn't a theory, it's a mandate, although I guess when it was established there was a theory that it would be a great thing.

And I have shown you that Krugman's view of boosting the economy includes Fed policy changes. You asked me what the difference was between two specific examples I gave. I can now see that I misconstrued your question but that does not mean that I don't know the difference between monetary and fiscal policy.

So apparently you were asking me what about Krugman's view differs from the dual mandate. Well, I never said it did. I would imagine that everything Krugman advocates he believes will stabilize prices and encourage maximum employment eventually. Besides, the question itself actually doesn't make sense. It's like asking what the difference is between weight loss and the Atkins diet. The Fed has mandates. Krugman has ideas about how to achieve them. Am I wrong about this?

My main point was that economists think that their prescriptions will work because they think they will work. They study, make charts, analyze data and make educated guesses on both monetary and fiscal policy. They enter the halls of the government and help make laws based on their best guesses. Glenn spoke of the grand edifices they erect. And we need them because we need a central bank and a way to fund what the government does. The problem is that they affect us all in ways that we never imagine and sometimes they make things worse than if they had just stayed away. But they won't.

[Don Zeko]

Originally Posted by badhatharry

I never said they were competing theories, merely examples of the different ways in which economists' actions and theories affect the economy. The dual mandate isn't a theory, it's a mandate, although I guess when it was established there was a theory that it would be a great thing.

And I have shown you that Krugman's view of boosting the economy includes Fed policy changes. You asked me what the difference was between two specific examples I gave. I can now see that I misconstrued your question but that does not mean that I don't know the difference between monetary and fiscal policy.

So apparently you were asking me what about Krugman's view differs from the dual mandate. Well, I never said it did. I would imagine that everything Krugman advocates he believes will stabilize prices and encourage maximum employment eventually. Besides, the question itself actually doesn't make sense. It's like asking what the difference is between weight loss and the Atkins diet. The Fed has mandates. Krugman has ideas about how to achieve them. Am I wrong about this?

Now you're just declaring that you said something other than what you said. It was crystal clear in your first post that you were discussing the dual mandate, Krugman's prescriptions, and NGDP targeting as alternatives.

Originally Posted by badhatharry

I think Glenn was talking, not just about government intervention, but monetary policy. Unless we want to go back to carrying around gold in our pockets we need to have a monetary system. The question is how it should operate. What should the Fed do? Should it be in the business of boosting the economy as someone like Krugman suggests? Should it have the dual mandates it currently has? Should we tie the monetary supply to the NGDP as Scott Sumner is advocating?

Originally Posted by badhatharry

My main point was that economists think that their prescriptions will work because they think they will work. They study, make charts, analyze data and make educated guesses on both monetary and fiscal policy. They enter the halls of the government and help make laws based on their best guesses. Glenn spoke of the grand edifices they erect. And we need them because we need a central bank and a way to fund what the government does. The problem is that they affect us all in ways that we never imagine and sometimes they make things worse than if they had just stayed away. But they won't.

How should economists or policy makers "just stay away" from the economy?

[badhatharry]

Originally Posted by Don Zeko

Now you're just declaring that you said something other than what you said. It was crystal clear in your first post that you were discussing the dual mandate, Krugman's prescriptions, and NGDP targeting as alternatives.

Bullshit. There are no 'ors' in that array. This is a series of independent questions not alternatives. We both misread each other. But since it is your goal to denigrate me you won't admit it.

[Starwatcher162536]

I wonder if it's an act; I've seen Perry speak off script where he seemed, not eloquent, but informed over a number of different issues. It's possible he is only acting ... dumb. Many areas where Perry's base is located when he was campaigning for Governor have a less of stellar view of education. In these areas where much of Perry's instincts were cultivated being smart and knowledgeable is viewed as somewhat effeminate and do not mesh well with Perry's tough guy cowboy public image.

[badhatharry]

Originally Posted by Starwatcher162536

I wonder if it's an act; I've seen Perry speak off script where he seemed, not eloquent, but informed over a number of different issues. It's possible he is only acting ... dumb. Many areas where Perry's base is located when he was campaigning for Governor have a less of stellar view of education. In these areas where much of Perry's instincts were cultivated being smart and knowledgeable is viewed as somewhat effeminate and do not mesh well with Perry's tough guy cowboy public image.

In this day and age if you can't debate you can't run. It's sort of come down to that, unfortunately.

[stephanie]

Originally Posted by Starwatcher162536

I wonder if it's an act; I've seen Perry speak off script where he seemed, not eloquent, but informed over a number of different issues. It's possible he is only acting ... dumb. Many areas where Perry's base is located when he was campaigning for Governor have a less of stellar view of education. In these areas where much of Perry's instincts were cultivated being smart and knowledgeable is viewed as somewhat effeminate and do not mesh well with Perry's tough guy cowboy public image.

I actually think the focus on intelligence in the discussion is overemphasizing that bit wrt Perry's problems. The huge debate flub wasn't about intelligence, and neither are some of the other debate screw ups (like the attempt to call Romney a flip-flopper). He's not a great debater, apparently, and way behind in getting up to speed.

Then again, I don't actually think Obama's appeal was based on the idea that he's smart. I thought that was a weird claim. Basically, people who like Obama already include that as something they find appealing, but it's not the motivating force. Also, I don't think anyone assumes intelligence makes one a good president, all else equal. Clinton usually gets credit for being smart and successful, but the intelligence of Nixon and Carter is often remarked upon by their critics.

[miceelf]

Originally Posted by stephanie

Then again, I don't actually think Obama's appeal was based on the idea that he's smart. I thought that was a weird claim. Basically, people who like Obama already include that as something they find appealing, but it's not the motivating force. Also, I don't think anyone assumes intelligence makes one a good president, all else equal. Clinton usually gets credit for being smart and successful, but the intelligence of Nixon and Carter is often remarked upon by their critics.

I suspect that different Obama supporters had different reasons. For me, "smart" wasn't exactly it, but it was certainly close. After 8 years of W., it was refreshing to me that there would be someone in the office who was thoughtful and somewhat reflective. Maybe because I am kind of an academic and so is the president, so it's some kind of cultural affinity that's idiosyncratic to me.

As for intelligence making a good president; i don't think it's sufficient, but I do think it's necessary. (again, intellgience in a broader sense than assessed by the WAIS; thoughtfulness/reflectiveness/openness to new information). Which brings me back to W.

I have to think being the anti-W was a big part of Obama's appeal more broadly and this was part of that.

[stephanie]

Originally Posted by miceelf

I suspect that different Obama supporters had different reasons. For me, "smart" wasn't exactly it, but it was certainly close.

One reason I'd debate the focus on intelligence is that it doesn't seem to distinguish him from Hillary, to me. The kinds of things you mention, the temperament, I think gets at it more and is a somewhat different issue. But like you said, I'm sure this varies from person to person.

I have to think being the anti-W was a big part of Obama's appeal more broadly and this was part of that.

Agreed, but I don't think the issue is intelligence per se.

[miceelf]

Originally Posted by stephanie

One reason I'd debate the focus on intelligence is that it doesn't seem to distinguish him from Hillary, to me. The kinds of things you mention, the temperament, I think gets at it more and is a somewhat different issue. But like you said, I'm sure this varies from person to person.

Well, yes. Although in my case, I would have been almost as happy with Hillary. I think it's a temperament thing with Obama that gets labeled "intellligence" (I think we agree somewhat inaccurately).

But then, I think in the general, almost any Dem nominee was going to benefit from a similar constrast with Bush, it's just that Obama had some academic signifiers. Well, any nominee except Edwards or Gravel. Neither of them are smart people. For different reasons.

[chamblee54]

Mr. Loury talks about the noteworthiness of Mr. Cain's campaign vis a vis the phenomenon of BHO becoming the POTUS.
I agree that it is noteworthy that the full blooded descendent of slaves is the darling of the "conservative" party, compared to a half white candidate being nominated by the "liberal" party. My thought is that BHO blazed the trail for dark skinned people to hit the political bigtime. We would not have Herman Cain as the darling of the Repubs if it were not for the success of BHO four years ago.
I smiled when I saw this pairing. Ms. Althouse and Mr. Loury are always entertaining.
chamblee54

[Starwatcher162536]

...maybe because people are tired of hearing about how historic this all is? I myself have already incurred much fatigue hearing about Obama's blackness. Not much interested in hearing about it all over again with respect to Cain.