On Political Writing and Reading… and Kinda Obama… by Lawrence Spaulding

Oh, what a little fantasy it is to imagine that all one’s thoughts were or even could be one’s own. Credit (and blame) would be uniquely ours, whether the witty bon mot or the crude faux pas. But what we add to most conversations is almost never a wholly new product, rather some collection of borrowings from others. Not to say we add nothing, only to note that for most of us the creation is in the editing, the curating, the cutting and pasting that creates something new. Some of us are Danger Mouse, some of us are Jason Blair, most of us are neither, but something in between.

It also used to sadden me when I thought I had an original take on something, prepared to write on it, only to find that someone else had already made the point—and often better than I could. Now it saddens me a lot less as I realize I can write something that can highlight these for a reader.

Here is an example of what I mean. On Thursday, when I first opened the New York Times, this is the first article that I latched onto: For G.O.P., End of the Preordained Candidate

Being a bit of a political junkie this sort of stuff fascinates me; yet even though I know I shouldn’t judge an article by its headline, I sensed trouble. Sure enough, a good example of poor political reporting from the school of “let’s take a shibboleth with little historical basis, treat it as if it does, and then show why it (might) no longer be the case.” I won’t go into details as I might have because someone else has already made the point. And thus let me introduce you, if you have not already met, to A Plain Blog About Politics. This blog written by a political scientist is a daily read for me. The Plain Blogger is no Andrew Sullivan positing 20 times a day; instead he offers usually one good post, maybe two, daily or he might even miss a day. But I highly recommend him to you because he has a long view based in social science and history, and skillfully has a foot in academic and political journalism.

I have a similar reaction to this article/analysis that suggests that Pres. Obama is bad at losing. This is a much different stripe the poor article above since it doesn’t come from a prominent writer at a major paper but one more blogging scribe like me. But the article does make a sort of major error at the outset. It is reasonable to suggest that Pres Obama is a poor negotiator or even a different strategy, but the first line suggests: “I expected Obama to be a better loser, specifically to be better at losing.” Really? Did the author really expect that? Based on what? His campaigns, where he won? When he lost in the primaries? Or was this based on Obama’s legislative record where he negotiated? My point is that he didn’t really expect this, he just wants Obama to act this way. But a better and more complete response comes from another writer, someone with a much higher profile than A Plain Blogger, and here I mean Ezra Klein of the Washington Post. Here is his nuanced take on the “Obama is a poor loser.” To return to my starting place in this post, why should I write a poorer version of this when Klein gets it right? Instead, I will suggest you read the original and Klein’s response.

More on the blogs I read in the future as well as suggestions on particular things to read.

– Lawrence Spaulding

.

More from Lawrence Spaulding:

On Wisconsin: Mr. Goose, Meet Ms. Gander by Lawrence Spaulding

Thoughts on Clearly Nebulous’ Query by Lawrence Spaulding

More (or Less, Really) on Words and Violence, by Lawrence Spaulding

Words and Actions, Words as Actions, by Lawrence Spaulding

On Political Writing and Reading… and Kinda Obama… by Lawrence Spaulding

Lame Ducks and Legitimacy, by Lawrence Spaulding

Will Progressives Treat BHO Better than Conservatives Treated GHWB?, by Lawrence Spaulding

Don’t Be Co-opted by the Naive, Even Dangerous, Viewpoint that Obama’s Tax Cuts/Unemployment Deal is Not Good for Democrats, by Lawrence Spaulding

.