A Portly Politico Two-Minute Update: Mark Sanford on Sean Hannity; President Obama=FDR or Peanut Farmer?

Last night South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford appeared on Hannity, Sean Hannity's nightly program (some of us remember when it was Hannity and Colmes, and even though Alan Colmes was usually wrong--and pretty much admitted it--it was nice having a balance of points of view), to discuss the stimulus money the South Carolina Supreme Court is forcing him to accept. He also talked about the state of the nation and even fielded a few questions about a possible presidential run in 2012. At this point, unfortunately, it seems that Sanford will return to the Lowcountry and to the world of business after his term ends in 2010.

Of course, as much as I admire Sanford, he is unlikely to be a viable presidential candidate, at least not right now. Sadly, his commitment to limited government and fiscal responsibility traditionally do not fare well in American politics since the Second World War. He may be picked up as a vice-presidential candidate on a future Republican ticket, especially because of his status as a prominent Southern politician, but this seems unlikely, too.

Then again, if government spending continues to get out of hand--and if the American people continue to express their displeasure with it--we could see a dramatic shift in Americans' attitudes toward the role of the government in the economy. I don't think this about-face is terribly likely, but it is possible. President Barack Obama could be end up being more Jimmy Carter than Franklin Roosevelt, although I'm afraid that's pretty unlikely, too, even if their approaches to foreign policy are essentially the same. Regardless, if something like this did happen, Mark Sanford would be a logical choice for a presidential run in 2012.

One last thought: has anyone else noticed that Obama is always compared or contrasted against past presidents? Sitting presidents are usually held up against their predecessors or past presidents with similar philosophical and political leanings, but it seems that these comparisons are made between Obama and past presidents more than other presidents. George W. Bush, love him or hate him, was rarely compared to past presidents, either Republican or Democratic. He was always judged on his own merits. Obama is constantly compared to, most frequently and depending on your side, FDR or Jimmy Carter (although Kevin Baker compared him quite favorably--and then quite unfavorably--to Herbert Hoover).

I'm willing to cede that maybe this is the case because Obama is the new kid on the block, but it's more likely because we don't really know that much about him. Sometimes I wonder if he knows much about himself. I know it's horribly cliched to question the curret President's motivation, but it's something that needs to be done for every president. Obama, however, has defied classification, which is both brilliant and disturbing: brilliant, because he made himself all things to most people; disturbing, because he ran the slickest advertising campaign in contemporary American history. People "bought" Obama like an uninformed teenager at a used car lot--they chose the shiniest package but didn't check the air in the tires or the quality of the engine.

And so there is a desperate need to pigeonhole Obama, and the next best equivalent is either as a well-intentioned failure (Carter) or a manipulative pragmatist (FDR). Of course, Sanford is the 21st-century Barry Goldwater, and we all know how that worked out for the Senator from Arizona. Sanford, a legitimately committed politician who is willing to make unpopular but necessary decisions, is almost always going to lose out to slippery conmen who relentlessly push their own agenda. That in a nutshell is what's wrong with American politics today.

Rustics Have Opinions, Too

I've noticed something about the American Left, specifically those members who claim to be "cultured": they share a distrust and even hatred for rural Americans. They constantly mock the values, feelings, and politics of this oft-derided constituency, framing them as stereotypical "rednecks" or "good ol' boys" who spend most of their time polishing their guns drunk while watching NASCAR.

Let's face it: stereotypes exist for a reason. Think of any offensive stereotype and there's a kernel of truth to it. But that doesn't mean we should go around judging people based on those stereotypes. Liberals are making that point all the time, and in this case they're actually right. As usual, though, they fall back into their old, hypocritical ways when it comes to rural Americans. It's "hate speech" if someone insinuates that an Asian is good at math, but it's perfectly acceptable to laugh at someone who's only skin pigmentation is on the back of his neck.

I'm not saying that having a sense of humor is wrong. Maybe white guys really aren't as cool as black dudes when they drive. Dave Chappelle had tons of great material and Boondocks deals with race relations in the United States today better than any other show out there. I want to make it clear that I have nothing against humor. By laughing at stereotypes, we rob them of their power, rather than adding to it.

The same holds true for "rednecks" or "white trash" or whatever label one uses. If it weren't, Jeff Foxworthy would be out of a job. The problem arises, however, when we start to marginalize those Americans because of the stereotypes that exist. Such marginalization of African Americans, for example, would be roundly denounced by the left, and rightfully so. Unfortunately, liberals often celebrate when such marginalization is applied to the rural white American.

In an otherwise excellent article in Harper's Magazine entitled "Barak Hoover Obama: The Best and the Brightest Blow it Again," Kevin Baker indulges in this marginalization to a sickening extent [Note--at the time of this writing, the full text of the article is only available to Harper's subscribers]. The bulk of the article draws historical parallels between Presidents Herbert Hoover and Barack Obama. Baker's research is impeccable and his understanding of an oft-maligned (and extremely intelligent) former president is refreshing. He implicitly challenges the more common "Obama-is-to-Roosevelt-as-Bush-is-to-Hoover" analogy and draws some pessimistic conclusions about Obama's approach to passing many of his long-promised, radically liberal reforms.

A large part of Baker's argument is that President Obama is proceeding with excessive caution and is relying too heavily on Congress to enact the changes he seeks for the nation (naturally, many conservatives would argue that the opposite is true, but suffice it to say that Baker is approaching Obama's proposed reforms from the point of view of a liberal supporter--he actually thinks that cap-and-trade is a good thing). Baker maintains that congressional Democrats from states with small populations like Montana are stepping up after years of quiet service to challenge many of Obama's efforts.

The language Baker uses to describe these representatives and senators is thick with disrespect. He talks about their states as filled with tumbleweeds and ignorance. He implicitly challenges the notion that these congressmen--and by extension their constituents--have no place in contemporary American politics and that they should be brushed aside and ignored, all because they're impeding Ossiah's democratic-socialist vision. This viewpoint is shared implicitly and explicitly by most liberals and leftists. The thinking is that because these states have small populations--and don't have a good place to get sushi or gourmet coffee--they don't deserve to have a place in the American political system (not to mention the fact that Baker is encouraging Obama to squelch dissent and open discussion, supposed bedrocks of modern liberalism).

What's most disturbing about this reasoning is that it is anathema to the very structural philosophy of the United States Constitution. The Constitution clearly sets out to create a structure that gives states with large populations more power in the House of Representatives, while allowing states with small populations to maintain an equal footing in the Senate. The same theory exists behind the Electoral College. If our system was not balanced in this way, New York and California would always pick the next president and would exert a dangerous amount of control over national politics (with only conservative Texas able to balance things out a bit). Regional interests do not necessarily coincide with national interests, and what's good for New York may not be good, and may even be bad, for Iowa.

Yet liberals consistently ignore this inconvenient truth and view it as a stumbling block to their pet projects, whatever they might be. At the risk of sounding like a blowhard conservative talk show host, leftists in America today have no respect for the Constitution except when it is politically advantageous or convenient. Now, I am willing to admit that there are plenty of conservatives who probably treat the Constitution in the same way, but they are much, much harder to find. This disrespect cannot endure for long, regardless of the side.

Therefore, I applaud what these rural Democrats are doing. Maybe they are dusty old relics of the party, but that's for the Democrats to sort out themselves, and that should not invalidate what these men have to say. Maybe most of them are blowhards and are simply seizing their moment to be in the spotlight or to play to their base, but some of them have useful objections and suggestions. I don't want to give liberals any additional aid, but it seems to me that they could use all the help they can get in the more rural parts of the country. Taking the interests of rural Democrats more seriously would be a great start.

Kevin Baker and his ilk live in a world of trendy green advertising and mocha lattes. They have no respect for hard working rural Americans--oh, heck, we'll call them "rednecks"--who help make this country into the wonderful tapestry of ideas and cultures it is today.

Besides, who wants to watch Jeff Gordon race in a Prius?