As an early supporter of Obama, I'm surprised at how uncomfortable he has come to make me feel. Originally, I had heard of his rousing 2004 convention speech, and I was struck by the lucidity of his opposition to the Iraq war. The idea that foreigners don't appreciate being invaded for their own good, any more than we would, may not seem like rocket science, but try telling that to our elected officials. I initially thought of Obama as an undoctrinaire thinker, a progressive with a healthy conservative skepticism toward government's ability to change society. This impression was reinforced by such things as Obama's cautious embrace of nuclear energy - a sensible but daring position. Add a big dose of charisma to that and you'd think you have the perfect statesman.
That early enthusiasm has faded, though. Part of it is that Obama increasingly strikes me as a handsome version of Joe Lieberman - they share a certain sanctimoniousness, as well as a reflexive splitting the difference with the Republicans on every issue.
Aside from that, Obama's ever-increasing focus on himself frightens me. His stated goal of bringing the country together is something we can all support. His repeated and, increasingly, his only message, however, is that he alone has the ability to bring us together. This is presumptuous, to put it mildly. It also indicates that the focus of his attention is somewhere completely different from where I want my president's attention.
Listening to Obama campaigning is like listening to a historian describing a great man, only it's himself he's describing, and that's just creepy. It's as if Bill Clinton, for example, had campaigned in 1992 on the platform that he was a tireless negotiator, that he could argue an opponent's position even better than the opponent could, that he would combine personal charisma and a stunning command of policy details to negotiate great deals. Clinton never said these things about himself, of course; these and other qualities became clear to the electorate from watching him argue issues, not from listening to him extol his own virtues. The only thing becoming clear to me about Obama, however, is that he sees himself as America's only chance at coming together.
Particularly telling is Obama's attempt to don the Reagan mantle. Just as Reagan created a group called the "Reagan democrats," Obama tells us, he wants there to be a group that will become known as the "Obama republicans"! It's nice to be able to compare your own political gifts to Reagan's that way, with a straight face no less, but I don't recall Reagan ever using the phrase "Reagan democrats." As a matter of fact, I don't recall Reagan saying the word "Reagan," or ever talking about himself at all. His campaigning consisted of communicating a series of positions in a way that would appeal to the maximum number of voters from both parties. We subsequently learned that Reagan had personally crafted and endlessly reworked all of his speeches for decades, by hand. Think what you will of his positions, his focus was on what he believed and on communicating those positions effectively in order to convince the American public. He didn't talk about himself. Famously, Reagan told the Religious Roundtable's National Affairs Briefing in 1980, "I know you can't endorse me, but I endorse you." Reagan spoke of his own admiration for FDR; he explained his subsequent disenchantment with the democratic party on ideological grounds; but I don't recall that he ever compared himself to FDR, although plenty of others certainly did.
And that's really the crux. It's doubtful that anyone can legitimately speak of Obama in messianic terms at such an early stage in his career, but in any case he certainly shouldn't be doing it. Obama's comparison of himself with Reagan goes far beyond even what any of the Republican candidates dared. In general, his campaign message seems to be that he will be a historic figure, included in the pantheon of great leaders. Well, we'll let others be the judge of that, thank you. I get the feeling that the democratic party may be in the midst of an infatuation from which it will wake up only after it's too late.
2 comments:
Vroom vroom (ex-500) : ]
I wasn't sure what to expect so found your thoughts interesting. While I understand that many folks prefer a leader who SEEMS modest (ny nature or by practice) to one who acts superior (rightfully or not).
I figure most people expect a president to be a rare and talented individual... who does not forget that the Constitution and the government are for THE PEOPLE.
Your concerns about Obama are about the image you'd rather he portray & you mention little of the issues, or his life record of values and actions. If a person who is constantly in the public eye & gains confidence begins to ACT confident & kind of special... that seems human enough. When the going gets tough people behave built on their inner strengths, determination, understanding & intelligence.
I WANT a person who is superior in those qualities. If his worst flaw is some pride & faltering humility... OMG... that;s not a big deal.
Good writing & a provoking perspective. MST
Your attack on Obama falls in the same category as the folks from the Hillary campaign who call the Obama supporters "latte-sipping crowd." They tell us he's all words and speeches. What they don't know is that his speeches are more than words; they're perspectives; they're wisdom that challenges the status quo and bring a "true change" by bringing the people together.
Well, your piece even goes so far to insult the democratic party as if they’re delusion and need to awake to reality. You’re basically saying they are duped. Well, that attack is also birthed by his opponent who, after being defeated in eleven straight contests, went on full attack by saying, “let’s get real!”
Obama is no narcissist. If you listen to him how describes his straight victories in multiple states, as opposed to narcissists, he uses the pronoun: “we” as opposed to “I”: “We won in Vermont,” he says, “We won in Nebraska….We won in Washington State.” After winning the Iowa causes, he said, “we are one nation; we are one people. I know you didn’t do this for me: you did this because you believed deeply in the most American of ideas....in face of impossible odds, people who love this country can change it.”
Post a Comment