Comments on: The Lazy Factor

By: philosopher

philosopher — Fri, 26 Oct 2007 15:51:29 +0000

Erratum: That link and quote is of course from Clive _Crook_ of the FT, not Clive _Owen_ of, um, Croupier and Sin City. Hard to keep these Brits straight….

By: philosopher

philosopher — Fri, 26 Oct 2007 15:47:36 +0000

There are a couple of different strands that need to be disentangled here, but what I’m not hearing the pro-Thompson people address is the worry that Thompson’s candidacy is pretty much devoid of substance. One paragraph in the main post here seems to suggest that it’s ok if our president just “kicks back and wings it”. But whether it’s ok for someone to wing it depends absolutely enormously on how much relevant information & expertise they’ve already got under their wing. I’d trust Bill Clinton or George H. W. Bush to do a fair amount of winging, if they wanted, because I know that they’ve spent a lifetime gaining tremendous policy expertise. But Thompson keeps coming off like an under-read empty suit. See, e.g.,
http://www.danieldrezner.com/archives/003356.html
or
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/bae3345c-5bd8-11dc-bc97-0000779fd2ac.html?nclick_check=1
“Mr Thompson’s supporters, it is true, see him as Reagan’s political heir. His campaign will doubtless strive to exploit his minor celebrity outside politics and his potentially broad appeal. The role of Reagan seems made for the man: a B-list actor with an imposing physical presence, typecast for gruff charm, making a jocular virtue of his reputation for laziness. But is this anything more than a Reagan impersonation? The Gipper, despite the relaxed and off-hand manner, was intellectually committed to conservatism with a libertarian flavour. His position was thought through and he was true to it for decades. Judging by his record in the Senate, Mr Thompson really is as vague on policy as he seems. Reagan, ever the charmer, often pretended to be less ideological than he was. Mr Thompson has the same vacant style, but he is pretending to be pretending: his ideology is as shallow and rootless as it looks.”
Owen is definitely right that Thompson’s feather-light record as a senator is relevant here — it tells us that “doing things Fred’s way” doesn’t mean getting things done in an independent way, but rather just means not getting much done at all. Which might be fine if the circumstances for this election looked like what the 2000 election looked like, i.e., all we need is someone to manage our peace & prosperity. But this country has major, major challenges on our hands, and I think we should expect our president to be someone who is willing to put in whatever work is necessary to make themselves ready for those challenges.
Now, I agree that not wanting to pander is, ceteris paribus, a pretty good thing in a candidate. But what it is _supposed_ to mean is that the candidate will use their own judgment and knowledge to make key decisions, as opposed to using poll results or a policy pre-written for them by a key lobby. But that’s only a good thing if the candidate’s judgment and knowledge are themselves up to the task! I see zero evidence so far that this is true of Thompson. He lacks both the know-how to be a good president, and the drive to acquire it.

By: John425

John425 — Fri, 26 Oct 2007 15:43:43 +0000

I’ve twice donated to Fred and am hoping for a bit more activity for my money.

By: Eric Seymour

Eric Seymour — Fri, 26 Oct 2007 14:29:33 +0000

There’s a difference between not caring about other people’s opinions of you, and not taking into consideration valid arguments about an issue. The former is generally a good attribute of a leader, while the latter is bad. A good leader listens to all valid points of view, makes up his mind, and chooses a course of action he deems to be correct, even if it makes him unpopular with a lot of people.
I haven’t seen in Fred Thompson the arrogance that Joe claims to see. What I do see is a man who is not a pandering people-pleaser, and that’s one of the reasons I support him.
I like Huckabee. If Fred hadn’t entered the race, I’d probably support Huckabee. But I doubt he can win the primary, let alone the general election.

By: Joshua Claybourn

Joshua Claybourn — Fri, 26 Oct 2007 04:34:08 +0000

Joe,
Your comments are interesting in that your latest posts regarding Thompson focus almost exclusively on laziness; not on arrogance. In your words: “That’s precisely the problem, doing it ‘Fred’s Way’ means not doing much at all.” So is that “precisely” the problem, or is your problem with him something you haven’t mentioned until now, arrogance?

By: John Gorentz

John Gorentz — Fri, 26 Oct 2007 04:32:48 +0000

It’s a general problem with Republicans. For them, there is more to life than politics. So it’s not the end of the world for them if they don’t win. For Democrats, politics is all that gives meaning to their lives, so they work hard at it — harder than any Republicans. The Democrats have a superior work ethic.
It’s much the same with the way European-Americans conquered the natives. The conquerers were disciplined, nose-to-the-grindstone types. For the Native peoples, other things in life were important beyond the continual striving to accumulate. So they were conquered, just as surely as is happening to Republicans.

By: Joe Carter

Joe Carter — Thu, 25 Oct 2007 21:41:48 +0000

Mary is right. The problem with Thompson is not that he is lazy but that he is arrogant. He’s often ill-prepared and ill-informed and when someone points this out, he snarls that “he isn’t going to change to please anyone.” The cranky old man act is cute but its not the attitude I’m looking for in the leader of the free world.
What we need right now is someone like Reagan, a man who combined Presidential-level ambition with world-class humility. Instead we get Thompson, who combines slacker-level ambition with rock-star arrogance.

By: mary

mary — Thu, 25 Oct 2007 21:31:42 +0000

I didn’t mean “just in case you’re wrong” to necessarily mean you. I should have typed “in case one is wrong.” I do value other points of view. They help me examine and clarify my own positions and prejudices. It’s just that people don’t usually present their “stands” as a means of understanding or being understood. They intend something else, not useful sometimes. Again, not pointed at you necessarily.

By: Joshua Claybourn

Joshua Claybourn — Thu, 25 Oct 2007 21:15:48 +0000

mary, if only you would take time to care about what i think, you might see a different point of view on this issue.

By: mary

mary — Thu, 25 Oct 2007 21:09:04 +0000

–”Very true, but one can be principled on the right issues as well as the wrong ones.”–
And since “right” and “wrong” in this context are pretty subjective, all the more reason to care what others might think. You know, other points of view. Just in case you’re wrong.