Comments on: Obama And Globalism

By: Eunomia » Definitely Not Helping

Eunomia » Definitely Not Helping — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 08:00:09 +0000

[...] Almost everyone except for the people who work at The New Yorker seems to have grasped that, whether intended as satire or not, the effect of the cover image is disastrous for the Obama campaign.Â The timingÂ might have been worse, but not by much, since Obama isÂ getting ready to go on his trip out of the country.Â The image is the most complete expression of the inexplicable desire of Obama supporters to “help” the candidate by portraying him in what are actuallyÂ the most unflattering and politically damaging ways possible while simultaneously believing that they are pre-emptively defending and praising the things they are describing.Â Â This cover image is slightly different, in that it is trying to undermine the worstÂ attacks by revealing them to be nonsensical caricatures, but nonetheless the artistÂ seems incapable of imagining that there are many voters, particularly those who don’t know that much about Obama, who will see this image flashed on their television screens or attached toÂ chain e-mails and think, “I knew there was something about that Obama I didn’t like, and now I see what it is!”Â No doubtÂ many Obama supporters thinks this gives a lot of voters too little credit, but theyÂ have been giving them too much for a long time.Â Besides, this isn’t just a question of voter savviness–the powerÂ of suggestionÂ can be great, and in a tightly contested race, in which the challenger has not yet won the confidence of a majority of voters, any lingering doubts that preventÂ people from supporting the challenger could be decisive.Â The less informed undecided voters are, the more susceptible they will be toÂ such an image, which will plant seeds of doubt where there might have been none before.Â [...]

By: Daniel Larison

Daniel Larison — Mon, 17 Mar 2008 19:57:58 +0000

I remembered your discussion of their meeting in the book review you wrote for TAC. I had forgotten that his whereabouts were not revealed earlier than this week. It is unfortunate that he’s being dragged out by Cohen as a prop for his column.

By: Steve Sailer

Steve Sailer — Mon, 17 Mar 2008 18:21:14 +0000

Roger Cohen’s column is asinine. He had no right to blow the cover of Obama’s half-brother Mark.

I discovered Mark’s identity back on January 8, 2008, but I refused to reveal where he lived because I saw no evidence that this very private man wants to cash in on being the half-brother of the candidate.

And the relationship between Barack and Mark, at least as described in Obama’s book, is not warm and fuzzy, as seen here:

http://isteve.blogspot.com/2008/03/new-york-times-blows-obamas-half.html

By: jaloren

jaloren — Mon, 17 Mar 2008 16:31:20 +0000

“The profusion of choices, the plentiful options that globalists believe is the obvious argument in favour of globalisation, strike people who wish to preserve their cultural values as a constant barrage of threats.”

Actually, I believe you are conceding more ground to the globalists than they deserve. Globalists assert that globalization creates a profusions of choices and that this is a good thing. However, it has always been unclear to me what exactly globalists are basing that assertion on.

While it is true that globalization creates massive economies of scale, size does not equal variety. In fact, I would argue that globalization is a great leveler due to those economies of scale. The bigger the size the more risky complexity becomes and thus a bias against variety arises creating a vast homogenization. As a result, globalization reduces the barriers to goods (it makes things cheaper), while simultaneously constraining the range of options that people can choose from.

This isn’t to say I am opposed to globalization per se, I belong to the high-income and highly educated professional class after all. But it is an acknowledgment that globalization comes with extremely high costs, ones that are disproportionately paid by low income people and those with traditionalist values.

With that said, I always found the argument that globalists were incapable of seeing and addressing those concerns odd. While its probably true, that in some ways globalists aren’t capable of seeing these problems I would wager that most do but simply don’t care to address them. In other words, they are fine with a status quo that doesn’t negatively affect their interests.