"Obama speeches almost always have the same narrative arc. Some problem threatens. The odds are against the forces of righteousness. But then people of good faith unite and walls come tumbling down. Obama used the word “walls” 16 times in the Berlin speech, and in 11 of those cases, he was talking about walls coming down.
The Berlin blockade was thwarted because people came together. Apartheid ended because people came together and walls tumbled. Winning the cold war was the same: “People of the world,” Obama declared, “look at Berlin, where a wall came down, a continent came together and history proved there is no challenge too great for a world that stands as one.”
When I first heard this sort of radically optimistic speech in Iowa, I have to confess my American soul was stirred. It seemed like the overture for a new yet quintessentially American campaign.
But now it is more than half a year on, and the post-partisanship of Iowa has given way to the post-nationalism of Berlin, and it turns out that the vague overture is the entire symphony. The golden rhetoric impresses less, the evasion of hard choices strikes one more." David Brooks
------------------------------------------------------------------
Ah, but is the overture really "the whole symphony" or is there something else which is not seen?
Brooks has put his finger on one of the issues that Americans have with the man.
Obama is clearly Europe's man in the contest to become president of the United States next year, but the sale is not made to those who will elect the president. I think it is likely that Obama will be elected but the outcome is still in doubt.
Few Europeans understand the complexities of American politics or political culture. They think they do, but they do not. They tend to think that Americans are unsophisticated Europeans who would do better if they knew how. This view is largely self deception and based on a mistaken belief that the US is a cultural extension of Europe.
In fact, we are an alien race, far, far removed from ancestral roots. Most Americans are largely without ideology, without any sense of history that extends beyond the 4th of July and the date of their own birth, and without any interest in the outside world. Even the coastal zones are filled with people who have never been to any foreign country, do not have a passport and certainly do not speak any language other than the "English" of their region. Americans just do not care about worshipful crowds in any European city. A big crowd in Paris might actually hurt Obama's chances.
The soaring rhetoric of such speeches and the appeals to the better angels of our natures move people who are already within the percentage of the population who favor the idea of Barack Obama. John Kennedy's speeches moved many in 1960, but nothing like all. His false claims of a "missile gap" with the Soviets had as much to do with his election as his exhortation to become one of "freedom's frontiersmen." His wife and children were appealing, but by '63 he was thought by many Americans to be a remarkably ineffective president. At the same time, his picture was to be seen on the walls of shacks and mud huts around the world. Would he have been re-elected in 1964? This is an open question. Khrushchev thought him a posturing, empty suit. From that came much mischief. He forced the Soviet Army out of Cuba? Yes, but would they have been there if the Soviet leadership had not thought him weak and a dreamer?
There is something hollow about Obama's candidacy, something that gives citizens a chance to think him less rather than more. He should be far, far ahead of McCain in the polls. The Republican Party is a wounded beast. McCain increasingly looks like a declining, mean old man. Obama should be at least ten points ahead in national polls. Yes. Yes. I know we don't elect presidents on a national basis.
William Jennings Bryan was an orator at the soaring level of Barack Obama. His "cross of gold" speech still lives in legend, but he was never elected president. pl
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/25/opinion/25brooks.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin
Amazingly interesting post from a very sophisticated person. Hit the nail on the head. While America sleeps might still be the warning note. Even I would not have a feel for Europe (northern) if I had not had an extended deployment thanks to Uncle Sam. I only speak English (somewhat fluently often corrected by foreigners) smattering of French and German. Do have a passport. Did do the post-college grand tour little realizing would be drafted within 3 years of that trip. So the Presidential campaign is at least part educational for the voters of the US. It is interesting to see the choices made by politicians. McCain's basic choice status quo. Obama's change. Neither quite fits. In general Americans are conservative in lifestyle and choices, few bohemians and eccentrics really tolerated. Still there does seem to be a lessening of fear of what change will bring. In the west, there is a sense that the passage of time brings improvement. Not so in the East. Nevertheless, basically most Americans are optimistic. Question which better satisfies their optimism-potential for status quo or potential for change to benefit them. Low voter turnout will favor McCain. High voter turnout will favor Obama. Time will tell but under 120 days now to election. May we live n interesting times-we do!
Posted by: William R. Cumming | 25 July 2008 at 08:53 AM
I more or less agree with all your points, here on discussion radio in Ireland (where every home a picture of JFK next to the Sacred Heart back in the 60's) they are full od admiration for his rhetoric but cannot find substance in what he's saying.
He reminds me of Blair, and look at what his legacy is now!
Posted by: Cloned Poster | 25 July 2008 at 09:25 AM
1. "Bethlehem – Ma'an - US democratic candidate Barak Obama said during a press conference on Wednesday in Sderot, a city in the south of Israel, that he does not support the idea of East Jerusalem as the capital of a Palestinian state.
Obama made it clear that Jerusalem would remain the capital of Israel and that he would not see the city divided."
http://www.maannews.net/en/index.php?opr=ShowDetails&ID=30771
2. Whether it is dumpy and old McCain or natty and young Obama, it seems to me we will continue to have a dysfunctional foreign policy based on geopolitical narcissism. Perhaps if the situation gets catastrophic enough by 2012, slight modifications may be possible. I do not count on this owing to the power of the long entrenched imperial faction.
3. Do the Euros see Obama as a product of recent British colonialism in West Africa, hence more open to Euro/British suggestion than old Yankees, Southern whites, and African-Americans who arrived here centuries ago?
Posted by: Clifford Kiracofe | 25 July 2008 at 09:41 AM
The fact that Obama doesn't clearly lead McCain in the polls may have a bit more to do with his complexion than any hollowness in his rhetoric. You mention the complexities of American politics. One of the main complexities, in fact more like a hideously deformed club foot, is the rampant racism that has been a chief impediment, if not the worst, to acheiving any sort of real democracy in America.
Posted by: Cato | 25 July 2008 at 09:44 AM
If we judge events in a one year time frame, sure, it is surprising that the Dem nominee is up by the margin he is up by. But if we judge events in a larger historical framework, it is astounding that the nominee, given who he is, is in the lead. Period.
Throw in, that in one sense, but only one sense, we are a nation at war; That the newcomer, seeing who he is running against, is up at all is equally astounding.
And for the record I disagree with the conventional 'wisdom' regarding Khrushchev, Kennedy, and the empty suit syndrome. I would argue that, perhaps, K's military advisers, and rivals, thought Kennedy was an empty suit and tried him on Cuba. This all has whiff of Soviet domestic politics. In any event, whomever thought Kennedy a "empty suit", they were rebuked, in clearly the most important--and potentially deadly--confrontation the world has ever known.
And besides....this empty suit stuff fits right into this all too familiar post WW II narrative that said wherever and whenever the Soviets decided to hand the US a 'check' we had to 'cash' it for to do otherwise was to raise issues of credibility. It seemed a simplistic theory then....and it seems one now. But it's hold on Americans is tenacious.
Posted by: jonst | 25 July 2008 at 09:48 AM
Hollow, compared to what? George W. Bush in 200? He's a politician with a short resume, sure.
Polls - how much are the polls affected by race & slanders about his religious background? Can you tell me? McCain was, two years ago, an extremely popular politician, and it will take time for Americans to decide if they will reject his candidacy.
Anyway, my cardinal rule is that if you quote David Brooks, you have automatically lost the argument.
Posted by: Walter R. Moore | 25 July 2008 at 09:49 AM
As a European, I'd merely comment that I thought Obama in Berlin - and on his (one third) world tour - is appealing to the American electorate.
I thought the strategy was that a majority of Americans - who polls show are fed up with America having such a negative image abroad - was being shown that it is possible for an American leader to be looked up to abroad. I got the impression that he was (successfully) appealing to the (mistaken) notion that the world still wants to be led by American idealists.
Posted by: johnf | 25 July 2008 at 10:16 AM
I'll probably vote for the O-Man but still the questions linger: where on earth did this guy come from and how did this happen? (I've read plenty about him but still...) One thing's for sure, he's the owner of a vertical political learning curve. 2000 was McCain's year if he had one and he got shredded by the Rove bad guys.
Posted by: DLB | 25 July 2008 at 10:24 AM
I supported Obama initially, and will certainly vote for him over McCain, but my enthusiasm has waned. He seems increasingly the post-modern 'statue without eyeballs' - superficial, hollow, blank.
On two international issues - Palestine and Muslim-American relations in general - he's hopeless. His pathetic abasement to Israel and refusal to be photographed with any Muslim (minus the comical exception of Hadrat HRH the Hashemite Dumpling) indicate more speechifying with zero action.
Frankly, I found his Berlin speech ridiculous. His history lesson was for his die hard camp followers, the modern incarnations of Orwell's 'dreary tribe'.
Posted by: jr786 | 25 July 2008 at 10:50 AM
"He should be far, far ahead of McCain in the polls. The Republican Party is a wounded beast. McCain increasingly looks like a declining, mean old man."
Obama was a relatively unknown black male with a funny name to many people, and previous to a couple of weeks ago, McCain was the media's darling. Fickle them.
Posted by: Bartolo | 25 July 2008 at 11:05 AM
I'd suggest examining Obama's last campaign for clues as to who supports his opponent, and thus why the polls are closer than one might expect.
After a string of failed attempts to find a Senate candidate, the Illinois GOP recruited Alan Keyes to run against Obama in 2004, and while Keyes lost badly, he still managed to get 27% of the vote in a state that has often been friendly to Democratic candidates.
Keyes was not even a resident of Illinois, and skin color was not an issue in the campaign (how could it be?). His campaign was incompetent and underfunded, and his personal behavior was appalling (he even refused to congratulate Obama on his win).
And he won nearly 30% of a supposedly-Dem-friendly electorate.
Note that this is essentially the same percentage of residual support for George W in current approval polls.
Hmmmmm......
One obvious inference is that around 30% of American voters are politically clueless GOP supporters who would vote for Satan if he ran as a GOP candidate. If this is true, then the 2008 presidential race is going to be run within the remaining 70% of the electorate, and that's a big part of why Obama can't open up an insurmountable lead.
McCain has plenty of money, the corporate media have so far insulated him from his worst liabilities, he's got a war hero record ready-made for our times, and his skin color is white. And over a quarter of the population is likely to vote for him no matter what.
That's what any Democratic candidate has to overcome, and it's a big part of why the race will always seem closer than it ought to be.
Posted by: Cieran | 25 July 2008 at 11:12 AM
David Brooks is showing his triple-citizenship (U.S., Canadian, and Israeli) sentiment. Reality and power, as he expresses it, is code for: “let’s kick the crap out of those who don’t roll over”.
Surely no one expected Obama to deliver warmongering rhetoric in Berlin. Since Brooks could not attack the gist of Obama’s words, he complains about the repetition of Obama’s stump speech. Imagine McCain delivering his stump speech to a crowd of Europeans.
It is doubtful that Brooks spent much time with ORDINARY people in Europe. He would find that most Europeans are dismayed because they cannot understand why Bush has been allowed to stay in office given his administration’s abuse of power. Europeans are in a good position to observe and judge, from afar, how America’s ideals have diminished.
There was a time when America was home to the underdog. “Anyone can succeed in America” was the mantra that brought so many talented and capable people to our shores. That idea was swept aside by the collective (and repressive) force of the present administration, corporate America and the news outlets.
Obama’s political elevation suggests that underdogs can still win something. But most in the over-50 crowd will not vote for Obama for it is inconceivable to them that a black guy should be in the White House. They seem to prefer the paranoid and eternal-war world of Bush/Cheney/ McCain.
Posted by: Paul | 25 July 2008 at 11:20 AM
Only one political party in the world could mangle it up so bad as to lose to the Republicans at this time in history. Woodstock generation Democrats. Remarkable when you think about it.
No, I am not voting for McCain under any circumstances. And there are people I greatly respect now circling in the orbit of the Obama star. Hagel in particular. Nunn, apparently. And others. But as Zanzibar as so wisely written, Obama is not the second coming of Thomas Jefferson. No where close. More Chicago than Monticello.
Of course, McCain isn’t Jefferson either and therein lies the problem. Neither presidential candidate has even remotely reaffirmed a long forgotten Jeffersonian principle that the people and the States created the Federal government. Didn’t our founding fathers establish sovereignty with the people through the States so as to place a check on the rise of a centralized and imperial government? Honestly, they did.
No wonder the McCain neoconservatives worship Lincoln. No wonder that Obama started his campaign at Springfield. It’s all about the centralization of the government and imperialism, both here and abroad.
Neither is going to solve America’s acute problems. But for those who jumped on the Obama bandwagon from the get go, the fact he doesn’t have a 10 percentage point lead now is disconcerting, to say the least.
Shelby Steele, a man I greatly respect and admire, may offer an explanation as to problems facing Obama. Steele, who has written very incisively about the Obama phenomenon for over a year, has recently stated that Obama is more of a cultural candidate than political candidate. He wrote such in his WSJ screed titled, “Why Jesse Jackson Hates Obama”. It’s worth a look, but I admit, I like Steele and have ever since he wrote his courageous book, Content of Our Character. Here is a key quote:
“But here lies his essential contradiction: His campaign is more cultural than political. He sells himself more as a cultural breakthrough than as a candidate for office. To be a projection screen for the cultural aspirations of both blacks and whites one must be an invisible man politically. Real world politics, in their mundanity, interrupt cultural projections. And so Mr. Obama's political invisibility -- a charm that can only derive from a lack of deep political convictions -- may well serve his cultural appeal, but it also makes him something of a political mess.”
http://tinyurl.com/62dtrt
Steele sums up America well: a political mess. And just wait and sees what happens if a tape showing the rants of Michelle Obama truly exists and then magically appears after the Democratic convention, courtesy of the Republicans and Fox News.
Posted by: Sidney O. Smith III | 25 July 2008 at 11:30 AM
I'm disappointed with Obama's rhetoric on Palestine, too.
He is a politician, a good one, and he is doing what he must in order to win. He has the handicap not only of skin color but also of that funny name, which is a HUGE handicap in my opinion.
If you read about how his campaign is organized and you watch how he has handled all the slanders, scandals and silliness thrown at him, you must conclude that he is good at organizing large numbers of people, and responding to events while focusing on a larger goal.
If you read transcripts of his interviews or listen to him getting quizzed, you know that he reads widely and understands issues. He's a professor of constitutional law. He's good at explaining things so that people who don't know as much as he does can understand.
He's good at communicating - he can change the style and content of his message to reflect the audience and the venue. For a crowd of 75k you have to speak in a different way than for a group of 20 lawyers.
I think he's shown as well as anybody can before the fact that he can handle the pressures of the Presidency.
Caviling about "empty suit" is sour grapes in my opinion. People don't like how photogenic he is and how well he's playing the media even though the media wants to keep sticking him with "Muslim" "scary" "empty suit" "angry Black wife" and so on.
Presidential elections are won on image. Obama, a Harvard Law grad, professor, senator, with a keen mind and a good hook shot, also has a natural ability to look good on camera. Perhaps it's that he's a Leo - many Leos have that natural ability to attract attention - see Bill Clinton. (I'm one). It pisses other people off...
I am pretty resistant to visual imagery as propaganda but I can see why Obama enchants.
The charge that he's an "empty suit" is unfounded. Vague? He has put out mind-numbing specifics. But you can't spew wonky platform paragraphs in campaign speeches and TV appearances - you'll lose your audience and they'll call you a geek or a bore (see Kerry).
I think the "empty suit" crowd are just whining because the popular kid is getting all the goodies and attention. Sometimes when a real star appears, the rest of us peons feel resentful. Why is he so special? He's got that "it" factor and it's just not fair. *I* work hard, I am smart, why don't I get all that glory?
Col. Lang, in your case, I just think the man is not exactly to your taste. I wonder how you would feel about him after a private meeting though.
Posted by: Leila Abu-Saba | 25 July 2008 at 12:43 PM
On night, in Columbus, GA, I met a beautiful woman at a night club and dance with her several times.
Latter, she asked what I did and she was shocked that I was training at Fort Benning, GA.
When I asked why she was surprised, she replied, "I thought you were a foreigner plus you have to be a U.S. citizen to attend that course."
Still brings a laugh to me every time I think about it.
Posted by: Jose | 25 July 2008 at 01:04 PM
If Brooks were a columnist in Nineteen Eighty-Four, his columns would feature titles like 'We have always been friends with Oceana.' Let's start with Brooks' last sentence:
But substantively, optimism without reality isn’t eloquence. It’s just Disney.
Uh huh. And yet what about the people who 'believed' in Reagan's 'Morning in America?' What was the 'reality' behind that catchphrase? Also, wasn't one of Reagan's chief appeals his sunny optimism?
I also recall 'The Man From Hope.' Did he have to face similar skepticism, or was the imprimatur of governing such an important state as Arkansas relieve him of this burden?
Regarding Obama's speeches, and MSM backlash, my response would be that the exceedingly positive nature of his oration is an attempt at starting to mend the fences that have been trampled by the Bush administration. Yes, it is true that America needs good PR right now in the world, just as it needs to build bridges once again with the countries that didn't go along with the 'coalition of the willing.'
Brooks other straw man argument is that Obama didn't talk tough like JFK or Reagan, well, I suppose its too simple to say that the latter were sitting POTUS, while Obama is just a candidate. And, really, what was Obama supposed to talk tough about, given the global misdeeds of the US during the past 8 years?
Remember in 2000, due to Bush's thin resume, the bar was set low, at 'looking Presidential,' and the public was constantly reassured that Bush was indeed looking the part (as he was stage managed every step of the way). Like the content or not, Obama indeed looked presidential on this trip. Indeed, the unspoken frustration on the opposition's part is that they know inside that McCain is simply incapable of this level of oration, or inspiration.
I'd also want to cover up for McCain's concurrent gaffe about how 'the surge' is short for 'counterinsurgency,' and that he was really for the surge before it even began. (Someone else can unpack that one.) Or, his appearance with Bush I, where he looked more like he served with Poppy in WWII than anything else.
I recall that sort of 'he's not one of us' talk going on when Clinton was elected as well--in that regard, imo, Obama's 'change' will look a lot like Clinton's; it will be an improvement, yet essentially will still be bought and paid for by the powers that be (Wall Street, telcos, AIPAC, etc). It's not a coincidence that candidates who are out for 'real change,' like John Edwards or Ron Paul, are marginalized out of the race via the MSM. (This is not an endorsement of either of these candidates, however, if you wanted 'real change' in this election cycle, these are the candidates who really did take some radical positions)
I'm not an Obaman, and I haven't 'fallen' for his message, nor do I believe that we are just months away from a new Golden Age, yet, it should be some measure of comfort that Obama knows the difference between Sunni and Shia, and between Iraq, Iran and Vietnam.
Posted by: David W. | 25 July 2008 at 01:14 PM
col:
i guess you are right to be sceptical- obama has for now been short on specifics.
but it would be canny of him to make sure that he makes no promises now that he has to break later (i remember both clinton's and Bush I's promises not to increase taxes, as an example). it is also smart to not give the other side a grenade to lob back in his face.
but when i look at him and his seemingly effortless ability to move crowds, i wonder again, what should we really expect from a president? is speech not an essential part of leadership? we've seen these last years how dumb the presidency can become. perhaps it is enough to want a leader who can speak and compel others to listen.
Posted by: swerv21 | 25 July 2008 at 01:27 PM
Cieran, You said it better than I could. We know that 30% of the electorate are knuckle dragging Republicans. They'll vote for baby killers. Then there's the corporate Republicans who just don't want their taxes raised - that's got to be another 10-15% right there. I think Obama's work is cut out for him.
I don't get the same sense of a hollow suit that Colonel Lang has. I think there's plenty of substance there. In fact, I get the sense that Obama is like an ice berg. We're only seeing the 10% that's above the water. He's a campaigner right now. He's hiding his real substance because Americans aren't known for electing the best and the brightest. He's playing a role - that of a campaigner running for office, but it's not who he is. If he showed himself as he really is he'd be open to "elitist" charges. That's my opinion for what it's worth.
Posted by: ExBrit | 25 July 2008 at 01:48 PM
Exbrit
I believe I said that his CANDIDACY was hollow. pl
Posted by: Patrick Lang | 25 July 2008 at 01:59 PM
Col. Lang -so you say the candidacy is hollow but not the man. OK. This distinction is subtle and was not clear to me in your previous arguments. Thank you for the clarification.
If the man is running a hollow candidacy in order to win at a game which favors the hollow (see Bush), but behind that hollow candidacy he is a smart, complex thinker who is good at organizing people and making decisions, then how is that a bad thing?
To win the presidency in our era a candidate has to be able to ride the bucking demon of the media while juggling fundraising, interest groups, corporate lobbyists, international concerns, and building a cabinet to start governing once the exhausting campaign is over.
I think Obama is showing signs that he can handle all this.
Do we know what decisions he's going to make once he's in office? Hmmm... not sure. But I think most modern Presidents have surprised their supporters (and detractors) once in office with their decisions. Lots of Arab Americans voted for Bush II because they thought he was going to be "fair" to the ARab MIddle East. Hah. Plenty of liberals were mad at Clinton for his welfare reform and other decisions. Plenty of conservatives were upset with Reagan and Bush I for certain of their court appointments and political decisions as well. We'll just have to see.
I doubt that Obama is going to get into office and turn this country into East Germany. I bet he'll play to the center, anger a lot of far lefties (they're mad already), and fail to convince the knuckle-draggers that he is not Satan.
Note this cartoon of Abraham Lincoln as a scary Muslim - there were rumors at the time that his mother was actually Ethiopian:
http://www.geocities.com/cureworks1/blackabe.htm
Some sentiments in American life persist...
Posted by: Leila Abu-Saba | 25 July 2008 at 02:48 PM
Campaigns in America have NEVER been about substance, so why are people so shocked by the lack of it now? As The Onion has put it, http://www.theonion.com/content/news_briefs/number_of_acceptable_things>the number of acceptable things a candidate can say can be counted on one hand, anything else is considered an embarrassing "gaffe." Both candidates are equal in their refusal to paint in anything but the broadest of strokes.
American campaigns are all about image control and to a lesser extent a dry run at managing a large, fast-paced organization. By all accounts http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/06/16/america/obama.php>Obama is improving as a manager: pulling off an upset against Clinton, keeping leaks to a minimum, and http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/18/us/politics/18advisers.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin>running a miniature state department of 300 foreign policy advisers. In contrast, http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/08/us/politics/08mccain.html?_r=2&hp&oref=slogin&oref=slogin>McCain has done very poorly as a manager. If he doesn't have the balls to fire a campaign manager, how can he be expected to fire a problem Secretary of Defense? If his campaign is a unstructured nest of in-fighting and confusion, how can he be expected to successfully manage the entire executive branch?
But if you really want to see what kind of policies Obama would *really* implement, don't listen to campaign speeches, look at his adviser list and read what they're writing about in the think tank/academia world. Yeah that's a lot of work, but if one is to bitch about a lack of substance, then one can't very well turn around and bitch about how it's too much work to do a little due diligence on a candidate for the most powerful position on earth. What else do you have to do over the next 3 months that's more important?
Posted by: Yohan | 25 July 2008 at 02:53 PM
Point taken, Colonel. I agree that it's worrisome Obama isn't way ahead in the polls. I hope the polls are missing the younger cell phone users who don't bother with a land line.
I don't get the feeling that his candidacy is hollow. I do sense, however, that the media covers him in a typically vacuous way. Main stream media doesn't do nuance and depth.
Posted by: ExBrit | 25 July 2008 at 03:55 PM
I think I understand what you're saying, but I think you're overlooking something that people outside DC feel acutely. Whatever side of any fence people are on, something over 4/5s of the country thinks Washington is broken.
Okay, you say, that's why both Obama and McCain are running against Washington. The question is, "Which better represents un-Washington?"
Obama, to me, is substantively close to center-right Democratic Washington but personally miles outside it, so he's running as "cultural change" embodied in one person.
He does it after nearly 40 years of cultural politics from the right-- they've prepared the ground for him well, or , alternatively, he's taking advantage of the terrain they shaped. Reagan was a cultural avatar before anything else, Bush sr. couldn't persuade anyone he was one and lost, Clinton ran as one and was made into one (and helped in the process), and bush jr. ran as one and has run the White House as one. That's the terrain of contemporary presidential politics.
But the cultural features the right plays on are out of date by at least 20 years or more, which is the opening he's trying to exploit and a symbol of where DC is broken.
Who used to guard the racial/ethnic gates more fiercely than any other group in America? The white working class. Think Rizzo's Philly, think South Boston and busing. Yet at one point we suddenly saw white working class boys wearing Michael Jordan jerseys, idolizing Shaq, lusting after J Lo and Kimora. Middle-class boys want to be Tiger Woods.
And most important, the white working class *is* mixed-race now. Not just the welfare class, but the working class too. The earliest of this wave is now college-age; I see them everywhere in this mostly working-class town and on its campus.
To the extent that McCain and Rove want to make this election about racial purity-- which is really the underlying theme-- they'll mobilize old farts and some Appalachian middle-aged whites, and they'll profoundly alienate 2/3 of the people under 35. Yet they might win if they can keep turnout low enough.
To a large extent Obama's tactics have to depend on McCain's. It looks like Rove isn't even going to try to split the attacking duties away from McCain (apparently the idea is that he'll win by appearing genial while showing he's mean enough to say the unsayable himself instead of leaving it to the 527s). But it's still early, and Obama's been overseas for a while after a long and bruising primary fight.
To get back to the point: we don't know the there that's there in him, in part because he's new on the scene and in part because that's how campaigns are run these days; and his campaign is going to aim itself at showing that as a cultural figure he's more in touch with the America that exists now than with the one that might have existed 20 years ago and has changed completely while the political memes have yet to catch up.
There are lots of things I don't like about him, starting with his personal resemblance to george w bush (speech mannerisms, etc). On the other hand he's obviously a smart guy and a good organizer, a skilled politician who managed to find a way through very complicated Chicago politics. I don't underestimate those attributes.
It's frustrating that he won't let himself be pinned down to specifics, and I think that's part of what doesn't feel right to many people. That's not the terrain of presidential campaigns, though.
I wouldn't read too much into the not-ahead-by-a-landslide thing. It's the kind of ambivalence I think we'd feel if we had to move and had a choice between something in our current neighborhood whose problems we hate but at least we know them, against a newer one that looks good but assuredly will have things we don't like. We want to know what it is we won't like, already.
Posted by: Altoid | 25 July 2008 at 03:58 PM
Something valuable I have learned from Pat on my frequent visits to SST for which I am eternally grateful is to judge the content not the source. The source however like many of our leading punditry is amazingly transparent in his bias. All one needs to do is read Brooks columns from a few years and you'll see contradictions and hypocrisy elevated beyond an art form.
Now the criticism that the "vague overture is the entire symphony" is a valid one. But in my opinion that is more a reflection of us as the American electorate than if Obama the political candidate has depth. We want the guy who we can have a beer with. We want the "Mission Accomplished" jock. We want the guy that can wow us with bullshit. We want that "Slick Willie". We want pageantry and visions of "Morning in America". We want chanting of "USA. USA" as if were cheering for a football team.
We don't want nuance nor real debate on what are our national interests or what our priorities ought to be. We don't want the tough questions if we are prepared to be the sovereign and what does that mean. We don't demand accountability.
So its natural that in that environment we will get candidates that seem vacuous. Obama's campaign has deliberately made the overture the entire symphony so all of us have the ability to create our own symphony from the overture. He's got enough of a challenge being labeled a black, muslim, terrorist appeasing rag-head with a raving black panther wife and minister.
Lest we forget, he barely beat Hillary for the nomination. Were it not for those strong caucus wins in Feb and playing a close game on Super Tuesday and in NH - he would not be the nominee today. As Cieran and others point out there's around 35% of the electorate that no Democratic or Republican candidate will get. Each party has a core base. I also believe the mythical swing voter is basically voting the lesser of the two evils. They are not happy with either choice. So every election turns on who can turnout their base in larger numbers.
IMO, Obama has some unique challenges in this election cycle. His likely coalition is rather fickle and he does not have a lock on them. That's why I believe he is trying to run a "movement" campaign. A lot of imagery and pageantry. The early 21st century version of Morning in America after the Malaise. He's run a very well orchestrated campaign in that regard and he deserves credit for that.
The best thing that Obama has going for him is his opponent. Because for that mythical swing voter its going to be lesser of two evils and when it comes down to it even some Republicans will be afraid to leave McCain with the launch codes. That's why I believe Obama will prevail and win the electoral college decisively.
The real question that Pat is addressing I believe is what kind of Presidency will we get under Obama. What does he believe in? That in my opinion we really don't know. And if I am a betting man I would bet is going to be a very cautious DC-Wall Street insider thing. He will give us lot of populist rhetoric and Kennedyesque images but the plutocrats will still run the show. Expect to see sizeable representation from the corporate wings of both the Democratic and Republican parties in his Administration. In many ways I expect a Clinton redux. The biggest danger that I see is an overwhelming Democratic majority on Capitol Hill and a perception of Obama coattails. A sense of a mandate beyond what the American people really signed up for. That could very well lead us down ratholes and further exacerbate our precarious situation.
Posted by: zanzibar | 25 July 2008 at 04:27 PM
The election of a Democratic Congress in 2006 proved one thing very, very clearly: without a Democratic President, the Congress could be bomb-throwing Communists and the country would march to the Republican's tune.
And what a tune it is! Cut taxes, ignore the environment, and go to war. Oh, I forgot, bailout your plutocratic cronies.
If McCain is elected we will have at least 4 more years of this.
Everyone expresses suspicions of Obama, that he's not showing all his cards.
For the love of Heaven, what are the cards you're afraid he's hiding, because until I know, I don't really envision myself voting for McCain?
Posted by: arbogast | 25 July 2008 at 04:47 PM