Obama's Summer of Discontent

**Gauvin** · August 25, 2009, 03:46 PM

The politics of charisma is so Third World. Americans were never going to buy into it for long.

This is a near perfect article by Fouad Ajami for the Wall Street Journal about Barack Obama:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...468452872.html

His politics of charisma was reminiscent of the Third World. A leader steps forth, better yet someone with no discernible trail, someone hard to pin down to a specific political program, and the crowd could read into him what it wished, what it needed.

At the core of the Reagan mission was the recovery of the nation's esteem and self-regard. Reagan was an optimist. He was Hollywood glamour to be sure, but he was also Peoria, Ill. His faith in the country was boundless, and when he said it was "morning in America" he meant it; he believed in America's miracle and had seen it in his own life, in his rise from a child of the Depression to the summit of political power.

In contrast, there is joylessness in Mr. Obama. He is a scold, the "Yes we can!" mantra is shallow, and at any rate, it is about the coming to power of a man, and a political class, invested in its own sense of smarts and wisdom, and its right to alter the social contract of the land. In this view, the country had lost its way and the new leader and the political class arrayed around him will bring it back to the right path.

Discuss.

**bushbush** · August 25, 2009, 03:57 PM

reagan being all charismatic, "boundless"
obama being the exact same type of politician , "shallow".

what a piece of double standard crap article.

btw, what has reagan done that's so great?
Iran-Contra scandal? record deficit at the time? subsequent recession following his term? star war? what has he done lol.....

**Mikelus Trento** · August 26, 2009, 09:45 AM

Originally Posted by bushbush

reagan being all charismatic, "boundless"
obama being the exact same type of politician , "shallow".

what a piece of double standard crap article.

btw, what has reagan done that's so great?
Iran-Contra scandal? record deficit at the time? subsequent recession following his term? star war? what has he done lol.....

The Repubs use him as their inspiration since between the time of Nixon (the crook) and Bush II (the idjit), he's the only Repub President they can point to as someone slightly better than a disaster.

**Sphere** · August 25, 2009, 04:01 PM

Not a lot of objective facts in this article

So our new president wanted a fundamental overhaul of the health-care system—17% of our GDP—without a serious debate, and without "loud voices." It is akin to government by emergency decrees. How dare those townhallers (the voters) heckle Arlen Specter! Americans eager to rein in this runaway populism were now guilty of lèse-majesté by talking back to the political class.

Obama promised healthcare reform during the campaign, laid out a set of broad guidelines to the congress, and said that he wanted a bill by the end of his first year, and that's somehow akin to government by emergency decree?

I think the better anaylsis here is that Obama said repeatedly during the campaign that there were a list of very difficult reforms that needed to be done (his list was healthcare, Energy, and education), and he is actually trying to do them.

**Каие** · August 25, 2009, 04:18 PM

Bias. Of course, partisan articles are bias, naturally. Hence of no worth to me. I like articles which tell both sides of the story, with a little objectivity.. particularly playing devil's advocate against their own arguments... instead of wasting my time and elongating the phrase ''Reagan = good, Obama = bad'' into a whole article.

**Gauvin** · August 25, 2009, 04:35 PM

Originally Posted by Яome kb8

Bias. Of course, partisan articles are bias, naturally. Hence of no worth to me. I like articles which tell both sides of the story, with a little objectivity.. particularly playing devil's advocate against their own arguments... instead of wasting my time and elongating the phrase ''Reagan = good, Obama = bad'' into a whole article.

Why can it not be true that Reagan was in fact a better president than Obama?

The article is written by an Arab shi'ite, you'd think his bias would lead him in another direction.

**Каие** · August 25, 2009, 05:09 PM

Originally Posted by Gauvin

Why can it not be true that Reagan was in fact a better president than Obama?

Because Reagan is past tense... Obama is present tense.

The article is written by an Arab shi'ite, you'd think his bias would lead him in another direction.

No I wouldn't ''think'' anything, as unlike many other certain members here.. I do not operate under the presumption that a human being is supposed to think or behave in a certain way on the basis of his religion, political orientation, nationality or race. Certainly not one based on a fallacy...

**Каие** · August 25, 2009, 05:19 PM

Originally Posted by Gauvin

But isn't that what bias is? If a Christian writes an article critical of abortion what would you suggest influences his decisions?

Not unless he stated a faith based based argument. And a christian one at that.

If a Serb writes an article criticizing the establishment of Kosovo, would you claim bias?

I would be indifferent... a Serb is as capable of formulating an argument criticising as he is praising.

Sorry, bud, but to believe in bias, is to believe people are influenced by their religion, ethnicity, political affiliation and etc.

Nope. No, I don't. You can though.

Originally Posted by touchmaster

To claim an article has to show "both sides" is impossible, period.

No it isn't. At all. All that does is say a lot about your politics and habits. Perhaps that's how you justify yourself a refusal to ever read anything by the ''other side'' hence forever remaining a partisan and ignorant of the true reality. This idea of course is what fuels the hyperbolic and intellectually lazy demonisation of the opposition.

You are always going to have bias, especially in political articles.

Which does not at all stop an honest principled REAL journalist from playing devil's advocate against his own arguments and presenting a balanced picture.. whilst putting his own opinion in the concluding half. I believe that's what I was taught to do in school history and political essays.

**Gauvin** · August 25, 2009, 05:22 PM

Originally Posted by Яome kb8

Nope. No, I don't. You can though.

On what basis then should a person treat a subject unfairly?

In other words, what factors prejudice a person's opinion or argument?

I've been accused of being biased towards Islam because I'm an ex-Muslim. I believe I gave Islam a very fair looking over before I came to my conclusions, as most of my studies of Islam were actually done when I was a Muslim.

You've hinted before that I may be a secret Hindu, why would you suspect a Hindu would speak-ill of Islam?

**Lost Sultan** · August 25, 2009, 04:46 PM

Why can it not be true that Reagan was in fact a better president than Obama?

The article is written by an Arab shi'ite, you'd think his bias would lead him in another direction.

Does he know that Reagan supported a dictatorship that oppressed his people for two decades?

**Sphere** · August 25, 2009, 04:52 PM

Why can it not be true that Reagan was in fact a better president than Obama?

Reagan served 96 months, Obama has served 7. Making such grand conclusions can only be accomplished if use political ideology to fill in the gap.

**Gauvin** · August 25, 2009, 05:09 PM

Originally Posted by Sphere

Reagan served 96 months, Obama has served 7. Making such grand conclusions can only be accomplished if use political ideology to fill in the gap.

Well, to be honest, I don't think he was comparing the presidency but the attitudes.

Reagan affirmed his faith in the american way of life, and the american people, while Obama said america was broken and needs to be fixed (by democrats).

Originally Posted by Яome kb8

Because Reagan is past tense... Obama is present tense.

No I wouldn't ''think'' anything, as unlike many other certain members here.. I do not operate under the presumption that a human being is supposed to think or behave in a certain way on the basis of his religion, political orientation, nationality or race. Certainly not one based on a fallacy...

But isn't that what bias is? If a Christian writes an article critical of abortion what would you suggest influences his decisions?

If a Serb writes an article criticizing the establishment of Kosovo, would you claim bias?

Sorry, bud, but to believe in bias, is to believe people are influenced by their religion, ethnicity, political affiliation and etc.

**bushbush** · August 25, 2009, 05:17 PM

Originally Posted by Gauvin

Reagan affirmed his faith in the american way of life, and the american people, while Obama said america was broken and needs to be fixed (by democrats).

he really affirmed american way of life with the excessive spending and Iran-Contra scandal lol....what BS.

**touchmaster** · August 25, 2009, 05:15 PM

To claim an article has to show "both sides" is impossible, period.

You are always going to have bias, especially in political articles.

**Major.Stupidity** · August 25, 2009, 05:16 PM

Originally Posted by Gauvin

This is a near perfect article by Fouad Ajami for the Wall Street Journal about Barack Obama:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...468452872.html

Discuss.

I stopped reading at Fouad Ajami.

**Gauvin** · August 25, 2009, 05:18 PM

Originally Posted by Major.Stupidity

I stopped reading at Fouad Ajami.

Can I advise everyone else that it's not necessary to post that you didn't read the article, as the point of the thread is to discuss the contents of it and not whether you read it or not.

**Desperado †** · August 25, 2009, 05:24 PM

Originally Posted by Gauvin

But isn't that what bias is? If a Christian writes an article critical of abortion what would you suggest influences his decisions?

No, a statement's degree of bias is irrelevant to whom the author is. The article could make the author biased, or the author the article biased, but the one is not dependant on the other.

For example, an article can be logically judged as biased even if you don't know who the author is.

**Gauvin** · August 25, 2009, 05:32 PM

Originally Posted by Desperado †

For example, an article can be logically judged as biased even if you don't know who the author is.

Yes, it can, but assuming you knew the author was Christian, is it fair to suspect his beliefs may be driven by his religious beliefs instead of his knowledge of the subject? By all means read it first.

If you see an article written by Michael Moore, do you suspect right-wing content, or left-wing content?

One should not be prejudiced, and one should give the argument a chance, but it's clear that bias is driven by factors such as religious, and political affiliation and even ethnicity in some cases.

If an argument is unfair due to lack of knowledge, it is not bias, it is ignorance.

**Desperado †** · August 25, 2009, 05:44 PM

Originally Posted by Gauvin

Yes, it can, but assuming you knew the author was Christian, is it fair to suspect his beliefs may be driven by his religious beliefs instead of his knowledge of the subject? By all means read it first.

If you see an article written by Michael Moore, do you suspect right-wing content, or left-wing content?

One should not be prejudiced, and one should give the argument a chance, but it's clear that bias is [often] driven by factors such as religious, and political affiliation and even ethnicity in some cases.

Naturally, everyone suspects. But once reading the article an independent opinion of it's bias can be made regardless of the author.

By all means read it first.

I am disagreeing with your ideas on bias, not the bias of this specific article.

If an argument is unfair due to lack of knowledge, it is not bias, it is ignorance.

All bias is the result of a lack of knowledge/information.

**Gaidin** · August 26, 2009, 10:16 AM

Am I the only one amused by the fact that the OP claims its a near perfect article but then has to cherry pick quotes from it to get what he wants to say across?