Reflecting Obama

In a recent post, I referred to Elena Kagan as a 'Jewish female Obama'.  Here is what Bill Maher says, in discussion with guests on his TV show:

Pointing to questions about Kagan's judicial philosophy, Maher wondered why President Obama would nominate a person who is a "huge question mark."

"I find it very scary that the liberals win two elections in a row, the Democrats at least, and the best they can put on the Supreme Court is a huge question mark," Maher said. "The Republicans don't do it that way. Bush wins an election, he gets John Roberts a known, dyed in the wool conservative on the court. He gets Alito. Why can't the liberals get somebody who's a liberal on the court to balance it.?"

[Cory]Booker defended Kagan's nomination and said that he expects she will reflect Obama's presidency:

"...We elected Barack Obama, we didn't elect a liberal, we elected somebody to lead our nation. We put our faith in him. And he's chosen somebody that he knows very well. He's known her for years. He chose her for a very significant position. She passed a Senate confirmation. And trust me, they looked into her background to understand who she is. She's a pragmatist, she's somebody that's going to look at the issues. She's somebody who's going to reflect the kind of president we have right now."

Exactly.  It seems to me that President Obama is the Democrat's George H. W. Bush.  In fact, he likes Bush's people, including Robert Gates.  They're both non-ideological pragmatists, which is good, I suppose, in some ways. 

But there is an irreducible ideological component to politics in America, such that if you don't have principles and convictions (which is what I mean by 'ideological' here), then you sway with the wind and go with whoever has the money and the power in society:  Oil in Bush's case, Big Bankers  in Obama's case.  Meanwhile, the average person is mostly screwed.