New responsibilities have caused a slowdown in my commentary, at my place as well as at Cassy’s during my guest-blogging stint there (about which she was forewarned). And maybe that’s good, because I wanted to see the impact of Former Secretary of State Colin Powell’s endorsement of Barack Obama, and at the time he actually made it I was running into difficulty obtaining a complete transcript of his remarks.

Now that I’ve seen it from beginning to end, I must say I’m much more concerned than I was before. And that, in itself, is interesting. From time to time I have been commanded by the prevailing viewpoint to believe this-or-that personality was a Being of Greatness, when this was my opinion of such a person already. I notice, at such times, disappointment is assured. Colin Powell used to be the exception to this. Since I watched him command the military all those years ago, the first time Saddam Hussein had to be taken down a peg, I have been greatly impressed with him. Based on what little I personally knew about him, he struck me as something of an Omar Bradley, a “soldier’s general.” The guy at the top who keeps things real.

In fact, I would not have been called-upon to reconsider that, had the prevailing viewpoint not happened along to imperiously intone that I should worship Joint Chiefs Chairman Powell, then Secretary of State Powell; that I should start thinking what I was already thinking. But the prevailing viewpoint is a wonderful reverse-barometer.

When the prevailing viewpoint tells you to think what you’re already thinking, it’s a pretty good indication you should start re-thinking.

And I’m sad to say, that’s exactly what’s happened here. I don’t know what race Secretary Powell has been watching. I don’t know what Barack Obama he has been watching. The points that stood out for me, the most:

 • That Barack Obama is symbolism and substance;
 • That he is “intellectually curious”;
 • That he has the ability to inspire, to be a transformational figure;
 • That the McCain/Palin ticket has drifted “toward the right” and become all about Obama’s supposed relationship to William Ayers;
 • And, the implication that there is something significantly influential about the murmuring that Obama is a Muslim.

On that last one, I do agree with Powell about the underlying concern. This is an American value that goes all the way back to the beginning, that you should be able to run for President — or any high public office, for that matter — with whatever religious faith you exercise in your personal time, that you deem most appropriate. I agree with him a hundred percent that “Barack Obama is not a Muslim!” is not the correct retort (although it’s true), since this implies that if he was a Muslim, he’d be just as unfit to serve as if he was nineteen years old, or born in India.

On the other hand, as a fighting man, General Powell knows better than this. In a country attacked by Mongols, there would be a stigma attached to being Mongolian. Even if it was a misguided Mongolian sub-sect that did the attacking, the stigma would remain, and running for President of that country with even a hint of Mongolian heritage would be quite out of the question. That’s not racism. That’s a reasonable survival instinct. It is, to coin a phrase, an “attribute of sovereignty.”

But Powell overestimates the importance of this charge. Perhaps he has reason to; he cites remarks from people he knows, whom I don’t, who he says are responsible for peddling this myth that Obama is a Muslim. Whatever — it reads like Obama campaign talking points. It isn’t just Bill Ayers. Obama has a long history of associating with people who have lots of bad stuff to say about the country he seeks to lead…and not much history of associating with anyone with good things to say about it. I say again…a history. Not just an oopsie here & there.

As far as the intellectual curiosity — and halfway in between, there was something about unifying people, shared values, trying to make things work for everyone…can’t remember the exact words — who in the world has Powell been watching? Nobody I know.

Senator Obama, the one I’ve been watching, seems determined to make America work for that definition of “everyone” that has become, unfortunately, popular of late:

Everyone (modern):
1. Exact opposite of the classic definition. An elite class, which carries an identifying attribute that excludes others.
2. Me (as in, the person speaking).

Everyone is sick of this. Everyone is tired of you. We need to come up with a tax plan that works for everyone. This was the only time and date for this meeting we could find that would work for everyone (sorry you can’t come).

This is a symptom of the pestilence visited upon our modern times, that we have so many people running around in positions of power, babbling away with that word “everyone” and meaning something exactly the opposite. Keep your eyes and ears peeled in the days ahead, as we wind up the last two weeks of this campaign season, when people start talking about “everyone.” There’s always a definition. A distinction. Something that sets apart the “everyone” they really want to discuss, from the real “everyone.”

Obama wants to make our tax structure work for “everyone,” as an example. He means the opposite. To get to the “everyone” he really means, you have to mark off all the high income earners who justify compensation worth more than 250 thousand in a year, and break ‘em away — Obama’s “everyone” is whoever’s left over after that exercise.

“Everyone”‘s values — that doesn’t include some of us. It doesn’t include people who feel abortion is wrong, that it’s murder. So if you have a religious or personal problem with subsidizing this procedure with your tax money, then congratulations, you are officially outside the “everyone” Barack Obama likes to talk about.

On the intellectual curiosity. I’d love to see Secretary Powell sit down, in front of a small audience, and try to justify this. When has Sen. Obama ever been curious about anything? Ever? Oh yes he’s gifted at saying what he thinks ought to be done and ought not be done. I’ve been watching that guy all year long, and I haven’t seen him qualify any of it, even once. By that I mean, start to logically explore what’s likely to happen if we do what he wants done…or don’t do what he wants done. He’d probably have more reasonable opinions about things if he were to engage in that (see, I just did it myself). But he doesn’t do that. He just intones. He just commands. We should start doing this. We should stop doing that. Should, should, should. Must, gotta, ought to.

Sorry, that’s not being intellectually curious. That’s being a control freak.

I’m not a spring chicken anymore; in my early forties, I like to think I’m somewhere in the belly-button midpoint between crib and crypt. With the life I’ve already lived, I’ve spent all of it building things or participating in groups of people trying to build things. Every single month out of every single year, minus a brief sojourn here & there.

And I must say it bothers me mightily to see someone who’s shouldered so much responsibility in defending our country, engaging in this classic confusion between the following two:

1. “Style and substance”;
2. The readiness, willingness and ability to put a soothing and forceful voicebox behind an arbitrary opinion first.

That worries the dickens out of me. Believe me, I’m in a position to know: The first opinion voiced, is not necessarily the best one. It’s usually not. And it’s usually the most damaging opinion, because it tends to be the opinion that draws support, and the accompanying resources, when it lacks the merit to justify them.

I have seen so many people, do so much damage, that way. By chiming in, Obama-style, on their opinion of what’s “right,” while others in the room are more thoughtfully weighing the other alternatives, and the likely benefits and consequences of them. Powell, to me, represented the thoughtful presence in the room, the guy who was thoughtfully weighing likely benefits and consequences. If he has that much admiration for the guy who speaks up first and ends up running things, I guess I must have been wrong about him. Now I have an answer to my question about how he rose to the top so quickly — like all contradictions, it was ultimately resolved by my checking my premises. As Professor Hugh Axton promised, I found one of them was wrong.

Cross-posted at House of Eratosthenes.

(No Ratings Yet)

 Loading ...