Demagogue Elect
George Will takes aim at the boorish behavior of Jim Webb at a White House reception for new lawmakers. I read about this and came to the same conclusion. As Will points out, Webb was insufferably rude for no other real reason than to stoke his own, already over sized, ego. But wait, there's more:
Wednesday's Post reported that at a White House reception for newly elected members of Congress, Webb "tried to avoid President Bush," refusing to pass through the reception line or have his picture taken with the president. When Bush asked Webb, whose son is a Marine in Iraq, "How's your boy?" Webb replied, "I'd like to get them [sic] out of Iraq." When the president again asked "How's your boy?" Webb replied, "That's between me and my boy." Webb told The Post:
"I'm not particularly interested in having a picture of me and George W. Bush on my wall. No offense to the institution of the presidency, and I'm certainly looking forward to working with him and his administration. [But] leaders do some symbolic things to try to convey who they are and what the message is."
Webb certainly has conveyed what he is: a boor. Never mind the patent disrespect for the presidency. Webb's more gross offense was calculated rudeness toward another human being — one who, disregarding many hard things Webb had said about him during the campaign, asked a civil and caring question, as one parent to another. When — if ever — Webb grows weary of admiring his new grandeur as a "leader" who carefully calibrates the "symbolic things" he does to convey messages, he might consider this: In a republic, people decline to be led by leaders who are insufferably full of themselves.
The speculation in the original story was that Webb might be a bit more than just difficult to work with in the Senate. He may also find his abrasiveness might cause him problems with getting things accomplished. Will takes him to task for another bit of hyperbolic rhetoric as well:
In his novels and his political commentary, Webb has been a writer of genuine distinction, using language with care and precision. But just days after winning an election, he was turning out slapdash prose that would be rejected by a reasonably demanding high school teacher.
Never mind Webb's careless and absurd assertion that the nation's incessantly discussed wealth gap is "the least debated" issue in American politics.
And never mind his use of the word "literally," although even with private schools and a large share of the nation's wealth, the "top tier" — whatever cohort he intends to denote by that phrase; he is suddenly too inflamed by social injustice to tarry over the task of defining his terms — does not "literally" live in another country.
We'll see how Webb does soon enough. But he is off to a graceless start.
UPDATE: Bingo. I think we have a winner here. Ann Althouse says that the problem with Webb is that he is thinking, and acting out, as if he were the hero in his own little novel. In other words, he has set himself as the Hero Senator character in a little novel he has perking along in his head.
Ordinarily, in all sorts of social and political situations, people try to figure out how other people usually act and to stick to the convention and proceed smoothly along. This is nice enough, but rather boring. In a novel, a conventional social situation tends to be a set up for our hero to do something that shakes things up. The ordinary characters are aghast. They condemn the bad behavior of the protaganist, and we readers, in our armchairs, know how right he is. Of course, a novelist who concocts scenes like that is himself utterly conventional.
I don't think Webb has quickly picked up the Washington style. I think he's got the novelist's style, and he's his own hero Senator in a novel about Washington. And, what immense fun this is going to be!
I think that fits it exactly.
Other Links to this Post
-
CARRY ON AMERICA » Blog Archive » Jim Webb Is Too Big for His Britches—–Already — Thursday, 30 November , 2006 @ 12:18 pm
By JR Horner, Thursday, 30 November , 2006 @ 8:50 am
Boorish behavior? Please. Senator-elect Webb has finally done what seems these days a majority of Americans would do if they had been allowed access to any number of invitation-only campaign events of the past year: he told the President exactly what he thinks of his policies. His very personal investment in the situation carried more weight than any executive privilege or ordained requirement for politeness and civility ever could. He did not mince words, and was true to his beliefs—truly a rare occurrence in Will’s so called city of civility and clear speaking. On civility, had not Mr. Will seen or heard the charges of borderline treason levied by George W. Bush and his administration and the GOP throughout the course of the past campaign? “Democrats want the terrorists to win…, etc.†And clear speaking? From this administration? From this president? Will’s take on the entire episode is boorish; painfully so, from a man who usually has something intelligent and provocative to say.
By Kathy, Thursday, 30 November , 2006 @ 6:15 pm
“Will’s take on the entire episode is boorish; painfully so, from a man who usually has something intelligent and provocative to say. ”
Plus, Will leaves out Bush’s boorish reply to Webb’s statement, “We’d like to have them come home.” Bush’s answer to that was, “That’s not what I asked you. How’s your boy?”
That’s very dishonest on Will’s part.
By Gaius, Thursday, 30 November , 2006 @ 6:41 pm
I see they don’t teach manners anymore.
By Kathy, Thursday, 30 November , 2006 @ 9:31 pm
“I see they don’t teach manners anymore.”
No, that stopped when they started calling Americans who opposed Bush’s policies terrorist sympathizers and traitors.