William Kristol: Here the People Rule

In the 1930s, the American people didn’t fall ”” unlike so many of their supposed intellectual betters ”” for either fascism or Communism. Since World War II, the American people have resisted the temptations of isolationism and protectionism, and have turned their backs on a history of bigotry.

Now, the Pew poll I cited earlier also showed Barack Obama holding a 50 percent to 40 percent lead over John McCain in the race for the White House. You might think this data point poses a challenge to my encomium to the good sense of the American people.

It does. But it’s hard to blame the public for preferring Obama at this stage ”” given the understandable desire to kick the Republicans out of the White House, and given the failure of the McCain campaign to make its case effectively. And some number of the public may change their minds in the final two weeks of the campaign, and may decide McCain-Palin offers a better kind of change ”” perhaps enough to give McCain-Palin a victory.

The media elites really hate that idea. Not just because so many of them prefer Obama. But because they like telling us what’s going to happen. They’re always annoyed when the people cross them up. Pundits spent all spring telling Hillary Clinton to give up in her contest against Obama ”” and the public kept on ignoring them and keeping her hopes alive.

Read it all.

print

Posted in * Culture-Watch, * Economics, Politics, * International News & Commentary, America/U.S.A., Media, Politics in General, US Presidential Election 2008

9 comments on “William Kristol: Here the People Rule

  1. Steven in Falls Church says:

    According to the silver-penned Peggy Noonan, writing in The Wall Street Journal over the weekend, “In the end the Palin candidacy is a symptom and expression of a new vulgarization in American politics.”

    Noonan should go back and read some of the things that were being said about her former boss, Ronald Reagan, and she may fine some striking similarities to what is being said today about Palin. The reason for such Palin Derangement Syndrome on the left is that they recognize her raw potential. Palin was a brilliant pick for McCain as she is about the only reason he is not down 20 points to Obama right now. (What other VP pick would be capable of drawing 60,000 in Florida, or 22,000 yesterday in western Colorado? Tim Pawlenty?) While the chances of having a Vice President Palin next January are not too good, the chances of a President Palin in 2013 or 2017 are, I think, very good.

  2. libraryjim says:

    One reason I don’t like the idea of early voting is that something may happen in the last week that drastically changes the political landscape.

    For example, Joe “The Six Term Senator” Biden coming out and saying that ‘in the first six months of the Obama Presidency, a generated national crisis will occur that will test Obama” and that “he needs you to stand with him, because it won’t be apparent that he knows how to handle it or that his actions in that crisis are the right way to proceed”.

    Just one Question for Sen Biden:

    Who’s side are you on???

  3. libraryjim says:

    grammatical errors! arrrgh. I do wish there were an ‘edit button’ option on self-posts.

    “Whose side are you on???”

    Googling turned up both as ok!

  4. John Wilkins says:

    This is a ridiculous article. “It’s hard to blame the American people” but, he really wants to resort to the Marxist dictum of false consciousness right there.

    “recognize her raw potential.”

    I wish she had raw potential. But if it were simply because she was an excellent Republican candidate, why are Republicans like Peggy Noonan, Kathleen Parker and Romesh Ponunu so dismissive?

    Reagan was demonized. I came from the kind of family that found him scary. But he managed California, not Alaska. He wrote his own speeches. At the very least, the man could communicate. And in the end, he recognized right from wrong (say the Iran-Contra). Palin is no Reagan. The person with the most Reagan-like qualities is “that guy.”

    The problem could be that Palin shows the same instincts as George Bush – even more than John McCain. She’s a woman of the people; she’s folksy; you can have a beer with her, and go shoot wolves. Like Bush, she’s been governor; and she’s not that caught up with intellectual things of the elites: like policy. Like Bush, she is surrounded by handlers. it’s not that she’s been tested. She has, and not done very well.

    I do think McCain would have done much better if he had chosen Pawlenty or Romney or Lieberman. No – it would not have been exciting, but all are in states that are Democratic; and their selection would not have energized the Democratic base. Which is what Palin did. Yes – after she was nominated, she energized the Democrats. No conservative would ever, ever, ever vote for a Democrat: and they would have probably held their nose for a Romney or even a Lieberman, because Obama is probably a baby killing socialist Muslim. But independents would probably would have remained interested in McCain.

    I am one of the few persons in the Obama camp who would not have declared a McCain victory a disaster for all concerned. I find him a bit temperamental, but, unlike Bush, he seems to care about policies and doesn’t need a bunch of yes-men around him. I think he does have a reflective streak.

    But as I am concerned about his health, I think that Palin could really be president. And that, I think, would be bad for our country.

  5. Irenaeus says:

    Sounds like Kristol would get along well with Rep. Robin Hayes (R-NC).

    Hayes declared on Oct. 18 that “Liberals hate real Americans that work and accomplish and achieve and believe in God.”
    http://politicalwire.com/archives/2008/10/21/bonus_quote_of_the_day.html

  6. Jeffersonian says:

    [blockquote]He wrote his own speeches.[/blockquote]

    Peggy Noonan wrote his speeches.

  7. Jeffersonian says:

    Oh, and can someone tell me which state John Edwards had run back in 2004?

  8. Steven in Falls Church says:

    Palin is no Reagan.

    Ahem. The only problem with that statement is that Reagan’s own son disagrees:

    I’ve been trying to convince my fellow conservatives that they have been wasting their time in a fruitless quest for a new Ronald Reagan to emerge and lead our party and our nation. I insisted that we’d never see his like again because he was one of a kind.

    I was wrong!

    Wednesday night I watched the Republican National Convention on television and there, before my very eyes, I saw my Dad reborn; only this time he’s a she.

    And what a she!

    In one blockbuster of a speech, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin resurrected my Dad’s indomitable spirit and sent it soaring above the convention center, shooting shock waves through the cynical media’s assigned spaces and electrifying the huge audience with the kind of inspiring rhetoric we haven’t heard since my Dad left the scene.

  9. John Wilkins says:

    Reagan’s son disagrees with me. And, why should I take him seriously? I don’t recall Michael being close with Reagan; nor was Michael Governor of California. And I don’t recall Michael and Ron being particularly close.

    One thing may be true: Palin can be as telegenic as Reagan. Just as Quayle was as telegenic as Kennedy. This is why Reagan could, through the TV, see that Palin was the new Ronald Reagan.