Obama, “national conversations,” and you
Carlos Lozada at the Washington Post-It has cracked the President’s code on the political class’s call for all sorts of “national conversations.”
There’s the national conversation on gun violence. And the one on immigration. And income inequality. And marriage equality. And debt. And climate change. And obesity. And bullying. And, of course, race.
And, of course, it’s about to get worse.
Speaking last month with the New Republic, Obama affirmed that, in his second term, he and his White House team will be “spending a lot more time in terms of being in a conversation with the American people as opposed to just playing an insider game here in Washington.”
Mr. Lozada sees through the Presidential propaganda.
First, Mr. Obama is a super-partisan. Next, he’s just another Washington insider. Finally, the President has no real desire for a “national conversation.” (Now as for the President’s speechwriters crafting more and more “national lectures,” that’s another story….)
But are these national conversations really conversations? Or is the term a political ploy, a kindly euphemism for our bitter divides? Or, in Obama’s case, is a national conversation a fail-safe when face-to-face conversations fall short?
Answers (in order): no, yes, and yes.
No, these aren’t national conversations: they’re efforts from the political and media left to control the message, push the agenda, and stifle dissent.
The President doesn’t have the arguments, intellect, or temperament to engage in a national discussion (let alone debate) and as such, he is reduced to calling for a national conversation, something he—and his fellow travelers—really have no interest in.
What is the real reason for the call for myriad “national conversations”? It’s the unending campaign. Don’t believe me? Think of the post-election evolution of the President’s PAC.