This is a Guest Post. Please feel free to submit your article for consideration.
Jack Camwell is author of the blog Christian Fearing God-Man and blogs about politics, culture, and other interesting topics. Be sure to check him out!
Michele Bachmann Sucks, Too
By Jack Camwell
From what I’ve been reading about the debate last night—which I fully intended to watch, but the call to Deadwood was simply too strong—Michele Bachmann seems to have impressed a lot of pundits. I guess she was poised, confident, and made few (if any) factual errors.
Sorry to say it, but I think she still sucks. It’s not my general disdain for Tea Partiers that I have arrived at this conclusion: it’s because of everything else.
I’ve been known to make a few factual errors here and there, but it’s usually on minute details. For instance, I made some reference to the Court Packing thing with FDR and I said that it happened in the ‘40s. Some commenter, likely from Crooks and Liars, thought that the fact that the Court Packing incident happened in the late ‘30s that somehow my entire argument was invalidated by that slight mistake.
But Michele Bachmann doesn’t make tiny factual errors. Hers are usually large and egregious. For example, she seems to think that the first shots of the Revolutionary War were fired in New Hampshire. And apparently she likes to make up numbers in terms of tax-payer burden.
What ticks me off about it is that for some reason, some conservatives still think that she’s an “able politician.” Making up statistics and being woefully inaccurate about your nation’s history does not signify an able politician to me. It shows that she is just another average American who is stuck in her own pre-conceived notions. The difference between her and anyone else is that she’s easy on the eyes, articulate, and can generate campaign funds.
I can forgive all of that, even the factual errors (so long as she admits that she is mistaken and corrects herself), but what I can’t forgive is the notion that she will “bring common sense to Washington.” Wouldn’t you question the “common sense,” of someone who apparently doesn’t feel that factual accuracy is important?
But isn’t that what they all say, that governing the most powerful nation in the world just takes a normal, average Joe approach? The problems with which our federal government is faced are so easy that all it takes is a little common sense, right? If only there was a non-intellectual visionary to lead us, someone who understands that politics is really just a simple matter of plain observation and action to bring sanity to Washington DC, then the nation would surely prosper forevermore.
In that regard, Bachman is no better than Obama. How many times did Obama evince that all what was needed was a fresh perspective? And how many campaign promises has he had to revise or completely abandon?
After three years in office, I think we can safely say that Obama realizes that there is no magical panacea that will cure all America’s ills, nor is there some idyllic hopeful horizon just waiting for the right person to sail us there. Similarly, there is no “common sense,” approach that is going to make American politics work better or any differently than its current form.
The fact of the matter is that government and politics are incredibly complex institutions, and their complexity is directly proportional to the size of a nation. We’re a country of over 350 million people, a fairly large size in terms of land mass. These 350 million citizens have all sorts of varied interests, sentiments, and political alignments, and there are forces and ideas constantly at odds with each other. So, we’re to believe that governing a large country with such diversity just takes a little common sense?
If Michele Bachmann were to be elected president, she’d share the same fate as Obama: she won’t realize just how screwed up it is until she’s there, and prudence would most certainly force her to change her approach.