Discriminations

I thought the RealClearPolitics link to Anna Quindlen’s Newsweek article, “Obama Won. Now Follow the Leader,” was a mischaracterization of it. She couldn’t have really said that. But she did, and it isn’t.

The article’s actual title accurately summarizes its argument: “Follow the Leader. We elected him to do the right thing — Not take dictation.”

Quindlen believes Massachusetts sent no message in electing Scott Brown. His election “was a classic toss-the-bums-out event, neither specific nor illuminating.” For some reason, though, Obama’s election came with a clear mandate to do ... what Quindlen would like him to do.

It’s not surprising that Quindlen was not illuminated by Scott Brown’s election, because her quotient for illumination seems quite limited. Her understanding of the past, for example, is a dim as of present:

... we forget that most of the things that make America great—civil rights, the safety net, Social Security—were pushed through despite their unpopularity.

Even the editors of the New York Times begrudgingly recognize that “Eighty Republicans in the House voted for the Social Security Act in 1935,” and the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights were both passed with bi-partisan majorities.

In the final analysis, Quindlen’s theory — we should follow the president wherever he leads because he won — falls of its own weight, even though that weight is slight. True, Obama won, but so did the senators and representatives whom Quindlen blames for blocking his path. She must think that they, unlike Obama, were not “elected to do the right thing.”