Adversity and the Presidency

Malcolm Gladwell’s “The Uses of   Adversity”    reinforces Michael Barone’s argument in  Hard America, Soft America: Competition vs. Coddling and the Battle for the Nation’s Future.  Gladwell looks at difficulties:   poverty,  role as outsider,  such handicaps as dyslexia.    And he, too,  concludes that hard makes strong.   Gladwell’s rift is inspired by  The Partnership: The Making of Goldman Sachs, by Charles Ellis.   Gladwell’s focus is on   the first seventy pages, which follow  the ascent of Sidney Weinberg.   Bluffing his way into a janitorial job, Weinberg moves upward to run and enlarge the investment firm.   Language can be telling.   When the United States moved from governing the plural verb “are” to the singular “is”, Lincoln had won, more surely than with Lee’s signature at Appomattox or the golden spike connecting east with west.   Gladwell points to a changed idiom:   “Nowadays, we don’t learn from poverty, we escape from poverty.”   We valued hard; now, easy is default.   Still, our leaders emphasize their trials McCain’s in the Hanoi Hilton; Obama’s alienation  as  African-American.   They expect  respect  for overcoming difficulties; we give it, in part, I suspect, because we still believe that hard does, indeed, make strong.  

 

[Update:   November 11 – if anyone is still reading this far into our column.]   The ever helpful A&L Daily links to  Jason Zengerle’s lengthy piece on Gladwell, Geek Pop Star.   The lengthy portrait discusses his new book, The Outliers.    Zengerle credits Gladwell with the  uncontroversial observation that  success is not merely personal will but happenstate;  this writer seems less impressed by the hardening than reducing the losers damaged in the hardening process.  Hard can be good – it can also, of course, debilitate.   It is not an accident or even a surprise to any observer of human nature that a disproportionate number of quite successful businessmen are dyslexic – nor that a disproportionate number of felons are.  )

Read more

Kesler: “What McCain did Right and Conservatives Wrong”

My friend Bruce Kesler no longer is a “regular” blogger but he has recently found the time for an occasional guest-post at Maggie’s Farm. It’s good to see Bruce back in the game even on a sometime basis and I’m pleased to point your attention to his following post:

Appearances and Mood

What McCain did right and conservatives wrong

By Bruce Kesler

Over the past four years, conservatives have debated whether the Republican Party is serving them and the country. This discussion was stirred by several proposals by the Bush administration — particularly not vetoing some budget-busters, the nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court, and the immigration reforms that didn’t prioritize border controls – and the failure to fire back at the gross distortions and language by opponents.

Bush earned respect for his stalwart stance in
Iraq, but even there lost points for his failure to act earlier to change a troubled strategy and command. Seeming backpeddling and soft-shoeing on the threats from Iran and
North Korea, though following closer to the liberals’ playbook, didn’t earn him support from liberals or conservatives.

The debate among conservatives and libertarians after this election is likely to grow much more heated, whether McCain wins or loses.

Although conservatives have stood most strongly behind McCain, conservatives do not expect much thanks or loyalty from McCain if he wins, and do expect McCain to continue his practice of alliance with many liberal proposals, as he has in the past. That alone will add heat the pot. On the other hand, conservatives will welcome his Trumanesque temper and bluntness replying to the likely continuation of intemperate Democrats in the Congress.

If McCain loses, conservatives will likely place most of the blame on him and his campaign for failing to take more advantage of Obama’s coterie of radical mentors, to alert more voters of their dangers.

At the same time, in defense of McCain’s campaign approach, those most likely to hold these associations as important are aware of them. Meanwhile, in a campaign during which the overwhelming portion of the major media have utterly failed to research or expose Obama’s lack of record and record of shady allies, McCain would likely not have gotten much further in educating the wider public.

So, McCain has concentrated on trying to woo marginal voters. Those non-partisans react more to appearances and mood.

McCain earned none of the points he should have for trying to tackle the credit-economic meltdown, even by comparison to Obama’s passivity. Neither did McCain draw attention to the Congress’ tainted hands in creating it, but there are many Republican members who sat by and prospered from the false sense of well-being that preceded the deluge. McCain did not throw the Congressional Republicans under the bus, as Obama repeatedly did every time a mentor was exposed. And, McCain did exhibit a bully optimism in reacting to the meltdown and focused on quick actions.

It is that indefatigable optimism and sense of fair play that has been highlighted and redounded to his credit. This is in line with his military and political record of bravely meeting challenges. Despite every odd, McCain has fought the election to a near thing.

Conservatives must recognize that, for any of McCain or his campaign’s failings, it is among conservatives that reform must come. Much of our NY-DC commentariat are corrupted by overlong proximity to comfortable power and cocktail circuits, exhibiting callowness, lethargy or outright capitulation. Their lack of principle and intestinal fortitude must be replaced. Much of our bloggers have been consumed by editorializing and not organizing. The think-tanks we built and many major donors have been cringing or avoiding confrontation. Rank and file conservatives mostly looked to this inadequate leadership instead of to ourselves to step forward and fight.

It will take a major overhaul to revive the conservative movement. As in 1964, it will not come from the establishment, but must depend on openness to new participants and leaders. Of course, that does not mean fringe elements or ideas. The crucial role that National Review played post-1964 in guarding against that will require a new central forum of conservative sanity and principle.

No one can predict where they will come from. But they must be encouraged, welcomed and supported when they appear. Indeed, each of us must see in ourselves the willingness and determination to be those participants and leaders

Wise words.

American conservatism needs a substantial overhaul – perhaps even a 12 Step program – to recover it’s essence as an optimistic philosophy that profoundly empowers individuals and trusts them to make their own choices. Then, in my opinion, conservatives need to harness that spirit to a thorough comprehension of how globalization changed the world to operate in terms of metasystems and networks, so as to balance economic dynamism with resiliency (and learn how to get that point across in normal English). Then go on message and do not deviate.

The other side, if Senator Obama wins Tuesday, will be so consumed with jerry-rigging top-down, hierarchical, statist, solutions out of a fantasist version of the New Deal that they will inevitably overreach and create an opening for a new brand conservatism four years from now.

Or perhaps just two years. Time to get busy.

A Sandwich Story

Responding to criticism of his redistributive ideas, Obama waved it away…said he was being accused of being a Communist because he shared his peanut butter sandwich in the second grade.

I don’t think anyone objects to the kindly and generous second-grade Obama who shared his sandwich. What people are objecting to is another second grader–let’s call him “Billy O’Grabba.”

Read more

Why the Really Rich Love Socialists

This article [h/t Instapundit] shows that the U.S. has a more progressive tax code than the democratic-socialist states of Europe.  

Such a state of affairs should not come as a surprise. Our own history shows that the very wealthy benefit from leftist policies of high tax rates, “targeted” taxation and industrial policy.

Read more

Obama, the Democrats, and the Economy–continued

(This is a continuation of my post on the election and the economy from several days ago. At that time, I focused on energy and trade; in this update, I also talk about small business, the demonization of entire industries, the micromanagement of innovation, the proposed elimination of the secret ballot in union elections, and corporate tax policy.)

Read more