Obama: The Style, the Thought, the Rhetoric
Don't miss James Fallows' characteristically penetrating piece in the current Atlantic about the seven thousand primary debates and what they reveal about Barack Obama's forthcoming faceoffs with John McCain and even the kind of president he might be, insh'allah. It will likely prove one of very few journalistic exercises worth reconsulting as we try to take the measure of the Obama phenomenon in the years to come.
One of his clear takeaways--but this is almost by-the-by--is that the presumption of TV's so-called moderators is a disgrace, and that the worst offender by far was the late, grandstanding Tim Russert. Fallows is too polite to say so, but a world in which Chris Matthews sounds like the sage of television commentary is--well, it's the world we live in, ain't it the truth.
But I digress. On Obama, Fallows emphasizes that the man's debating style among the Dems put on display Man Thinking, and that, when he was more relaxed, with less to prove, against Alan Keyes in the farcical Illinois Senate race, he was wittier, more commanding. I agree that Obama is Man Thinking, and that this is one of the most attractive things about him. But if we are thinking about Obama in the entirety of the campaign I would emphasize rather more that, when he pulls out the stops, Obama is also Man Orating--conveying rhetoric that carries beyond the occasion. What distinguishes Obama is that he can not only reason but inspire.
He'll need both to deliver on the promise that a post-Bush administration would be anything more than a noble exercise in undoing some of the damage.
Peggy Noonan gets the kicker quote in Fallows' piece: "I see Obama as like this: things will come over the transom and he'll approach them as a thoughtful sophisticate. He'll think." It speaks well for a Republican to be impressed by a candidate who thinks, and I hope that more Republicans feel that way than Democrats feel that they would rather he didn't think, or at least changed color. But if Obama simply waits to see what comes over the transom, he'll flop. (Already what's come in is South Ossetia, where the United States' clout is so minimal, there's more risk than reward for any grown-up president.)
The opportunity Obama affords is something Peggy Noonan doesn't see, perhaps doesn't want to see. He offers the opportunity to be transformational. If he is to be that, a necessary condition is that he be able to mobilize enthusiasm in the populace. This is where his rhetorical power comes in.
To me, a transformational presidency would include three big items: 1. Universal health care or something approximating it. 2. Crash investment in environmentally sound, fossil-fuel-reducing, job-creating programs, from energy efficiency to alternative fuels. 3. Rapid withdrawal from Iraq, no war with Iran, and a generally sane and modest) foreign policy. In addition, of course, he needs to think his way pragmatically through many policy thickets.
The last Democratic presidents to attempt anything transformational on this plane were FDR and LBJ. (For the moment, leave aside LBJ's catastrophic war and concentrate the mind on his remarkable domestic reforms.) Both had the advantage of social movements (labor and civil rights, respectively) that the president not only helped arouse but helped arouse him. The equivalent outsider movement doesn't exist now. A President Obama would need to stir it up--whence his stadium speeches make sense, and the soaring style that enables a critical mass of people to believe that something big is possible, and mobilizes them to lean on their elected politicians to deliver on the promise. (If Bill Clinton had filled stadiums in behalf of universal health care, we just might have gotten it in 1993.)
It's for this reason that one of Obama's airy slogans--"Change We Can Believe In," really!--strikes me as vapid but not meaningless, and huge rallies don't put me in mind of Nuremberg. Imagine, a president who can both think and inspire! If only "An American President Who Inspires America" fit on a bumper sticker. Maybe "Better Angels of Our Nature" would do.
Every new President offers the opportunity to be "transformational". I fail to see any evidence at all that all the discussion and speculation about Obama being transformational has any basis in fact. Objectively, because it's doubtful Obama will lead the Democrats to an overwhelming landslide nationwide, he won't have the numbers in Congress to achieve anything transformational even if he tries to do so. But I frankly doubt he will actually try. He's an incrementalists like the rest of them and he's made clear that he prefers the model of bipartisan "collegiality" over partisan achievement of political and policy goals.
Yes, he sometimes inspires with his rhetorical delivery, but if you look at what he's actually saying it's pretty general stuff that doesn't really get specific. It's just a sad reality that Obama is credited with being a great orator for two reasons in my opinion. First, there aren't that many good speakers in American politics today and second, most Democrats have so long ago abandonded the sorts ideals and goals for our country that are the stuff of inspiration they only speak in terms of the tiniest reforms, etc... and thus preclude themselves from being inspiring and just don't have the material for good oratory as a result.
As for what we might expect of Obama if he actually gets elected, it's hard for me to understand why so many otherwise insightful and intelligent observers simply refuse to take off the rose-colored glasses about this particular politician and look at where he actually comes down on issues and what it's likely to mean in terms of outcomes. He could not have made his intentions of being a typical DC Democrat plainer, yet many still treat him as some sort of exceptional leader. He's a very pro-corporate/ pro-Wall Street middle of the roader (and has the contributions from them to prove it). He has made his centrism very evident since it became clear he would win the nomination. Furthermore, as a legislator he has a record that puts his unexceptional, nontransformational, centrist politics out there for all to see... And people would see it if only they will look at what's there and not what they wish to see there.
Obama is a damn sight better than McCain. No question about it. Nearly any Democrat would be. And it's a good thing Obama spoke out against the idiotic war at the beginning. Obama is a unique figure in American politics and may well be a harbinger of some transformation down the road, but I find it hard to believe he will be so during his own Presidency if he has one. FDR and LBJ certainly were transformational leaders. Obama? Based on his record as a legislator and as a Presidential candidate, I don't think so. And while I hope very much that I am wrong, I cannot help but to conclude that those who believe that if he's elected we will see any significant progress on universal health care, global warming, or a rapid end to the war are going to be sorely disappointed. Realistically, we are far more likely to see something akin to Jimmy Carter's presidency in terms of accomplishments in Congress as opposed to FDR or LBJ.
I think it's time for people to quit kidding themselves about who Obama actually is and what kind of politician he is. He isn't a bad man or even a bad politician. He seems to be a good man and he's obviously a good politician. But other than his ethnicity, he's a pretty run of the mill, standard-issue centrist Democrat. As such, the very idea of such a politician being transformational is a pretty big stretch. The centrists of the Democratic Party have been the primary force preventing transformational change in our politics for nearly 40 years.
August 15, 2008 11:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think Todd's point is that *not* "every new President offers the opportunity to be 'transformational'", because "a necessary condition is that he be able to mobilize enthusiasm in the populace." Obama clearly has this ability; not every new President does.
I agree with your thesis that Obama, so far, has been a rather ordinary, middle-of-the-road politician. But I feel a confluence of events coming on, and a general populace truly ready and willing to work for change.
Plus, I think some really nasty economic s**t will hit the fan in the next few years. When that happens, we'll need a leader who (A) knows the right way, and (B) can get the people to follow him there. Call it faith, or naivetee, but I think Obama will be that kind of a leader.
Somebody once said, "Some men are great, and other have greatness thrust upon them." Your argument might be that there is no evidence that Obama is great. My counter argument is that I think he will have greatness thrust upon him, and I think he can and will rise to the occasion.
My earnest hope is that we'll get the opportunity to find out.
-- ARG
August 15, 2008 12:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
He still won't have a Congress willing to follow as FDR or LBJ did and he's got no experience or track record of mobilizing them. The Congress, particularly the DINO's are a cesspool of corruption and are owned by corporate interests.
I remain highly skeptical and still marvel at the willingness of people to bet on Obama on the "if come" when again, there's just no evidence he's the sort who would be able to be the sort of transformational leader we all hope for. My fingers are crossed of course, but I'm unwilling to risk much betting he'll be the man so many want him to be when all signs point to him being something very different than that.
August 15, 2008 1:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree that Congress could be a problem, for the reasons you describe. However, I think this illustrates the potential of a transformational leader.
If Obama can use his rhetorical skills to mobilize public opinion on any given issue, then the Congress, despite the influence of corporate money, may feel enough the heat from their own constituents to go along. Ultimately the members of Congress want to get re-elected. (That's the main reason corporations have influence -- they offer money, which translates to votes.)
Now, I tend to be skeptical and cynical. So I'm not making a prediction. But I feel that it is possible with Obama that real changes could be made, because he might be able to get enough of the slumbering electorate to give a damn for 15 minutes and take some action.
And the primary place we need "transformation" (if I could add to Todd's list) is in the influence of corporate money in elections. Again, I'm not holding my breath, but maybe, over the course of 8 years, we could move toward reversing the notion of corporate citizenship (with Bill of Rights protections), and getting corporate money out of politics, returning the power to We the People.
As I said, I hope we'll get a chance to see whether Obama has the right stuff for this sort of thing.
-- ARG
August 15, 2008 3:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, I hope we get the chance too.
As for his transformational role... I'll believe it when I see it. Till then, I'm not going to try and convince myself there's any real chance he will be that transformational leader any more than I'm going to try to convince myself that I bought the winning Powerball ticket for Saturday.
August 15, 2008 5:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, let's assume for sake of argument that circumstances cause Obama to try to lead America toward some semblance of the progressive vision that many of his supporters mistakenly thought he embraced. Presidents don't legislate, and both the DINOs and the DLC crowd will never allow anything more than incremental change to occur on their watch. Should they be concerned about being swept out of office if they don't bow to the will of their leader? Unlikely. Blue Dog dems would only be replaced by republicans. The states that elected most of them are not even remotely progressive, and probably nothing short of a full-blown recession would push many of them in that direction. The DLC crowd is very well financed and challengers have little chance of unseating established porkmeisters.
Obama will perhaps slow the decline of America and begin to restore our international reputation, but the former will likely be a slowing, not a turnaround, and the latter will take at least a generation if not more. The best we can hope for is that the Feds will no longer impede local politicians from doing the things that need to be done: real education and healthcare reform and the growth of the green economy. Perhaps when the inveterate red-staters masses see themselves getting left far behind places like California and Washington, they'll finally come around. But it ain't gonna have nothing to do with Obama, that's for sure.
August 17, 2008 9:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
So far Obama's ability to arouse public support, inspire those who listen to him, and charm the public, has not been matched by proposals that people can unite behind. Every time an opportunity presents itself for him to offer such a proposal, he blinks. I'm not sure if he is holding back, hoping not to encourage opposition to him, or just doesn't recognize what proposals are possible.
One of the opportunities he wasted was the Senate vote on the FISA bill. At no obvious cost to his campaign he could have generated widespread support for the Constitution, especially the Bill of Rights. But, he chose a conservative, don't rock the boat response. My fear is that this will be how he operates as President.
August 15, 2008 11:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
There is another aspect of Obama and the campaign that I think is truly transformational. Besides offering a president 'who thinks', he demands that we think as well.
For many on the left, without a real movement for quite some time and with and institutionalized 'oppositional' mentality, this seems to me a challenge as well. I include myself in this group but also see that so many of our positions amount to little more than reactions. Consider the reaction to Obama's position on Faith Based partnerships. Many reacted without reading his speech that 'Obama is throwing out the constitution'. Few actually responded to his argument for his position.
It seems to me that what this campaign offers and demands of us is a new kind of politics, where the citizenry is actively engaged, open to dialog and to action to improve the lives of all people. That’s different because it requires us to engage with ideas rather than simply noting our likes and dislikes, agreements and disagreements. If our only engagement is to agree or disagree, we are left as consumers of what’s available and prone to manipulation in the mass media and, yes, in the blogosphere.
August 15, 2008 12:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is truly crucial we have a president that is able to think and translate those thoughts and ideas into sensible action. We've not had that for a devsatating eight years or perhaps longer and could really do with some ethical, logical and pragmatic leadership.
The real key in the transformation you refer to is in our federal bureaucracy. Should Obama end up the winner he would necessarily have to do the scorched earth routine to try and cleanse that bureaucracy. I don't know if his conciliatory approach would get the job done. He can't fire congresspersons but he can certainly law down the law inside the executive branch and try and influence the legislative side to clean up their operation. We are where we are because Bush is a real hard nose in a way opposite from what is good for the country and it could well take a hard nose with an opposite view to move it back the other way.
August 15, 2008 12:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, dear Lord help us all if we don't elect Obama. I don't think I can stand another four years of idiocy.
August 15, 2008 12:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Amen!
August 15, 2008 12:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Give our choices in November, we had all better pray that Obama, first gets elected, then is able to utilize his skills effectively in a progressive direction. McCain is a walking disaster, and I doubt that our country would be recognizable 4 years later if he is elected.
August 15, 2008 6:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
I really like Gitlin and his thinking. But if the conclusion that you draw (God help us if we don't elect Obama) is indeed what Gitlin suggests in his post, then it goes to one of the few things I passionately dislike about the Democrats.
The cosmis apocalyptic catastrophe that the country is about to unleash upon itself unless a warm and living Democratic body sleeps in WH bedroom, come January.
I think (and hope) that this is not what Gitlin wanted to suggest, even as a sidenote.
August 16, 2008 2:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Laloo35adm says:
Considering what power the Bush/Cheney gang have taken for themselves, with the acquiescence of the Congress, Republican and Democratic, a McCain Presidency just MIGHT unleash that catastrophe.
McCain is a militarist and a guy who is still fighting the Vietnam war. I think he feels that all he gave in the war was for naught in a lost cause. He wants to win a war and come home with honor,(whatever the frig that means), to ameliorate his Vietnam experience.
As an anti war liberal, having McCain in the White House with the power and authority Bush took for himself, and reinforced with a right wing Supreme Court, well, that scares the shit out of me.
August 17, 2008 7:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Apropos to Mr. Gitlin's post above is a commentary by Glenn Ford at Blackagendareport.com. It is worth a read by those interested in the "transformational" promise of Obama.
Go here:
http://www.blackagendareport.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=739&Itemid=1
August 15, 2008 2:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Transformational shmansformational. He's a competent politician in the Democratic Party. That in itself is transformational.
Listen, folks, forget the package. That's the window dressing. Barack Obama is a product of the rough-and-tumble politics of the Chicago South Side, where I grew up, and he figured out how to win the support of both Hyde Park progressives and the Daley machine. He, and his staff, know how to count votes, staff precinct offices, send volunteers door-to-door. I'm told (I don't know if it's correct) that McCain has one district office in Iowa at the moment, while Obama has nineteen.
He's also running what is, for a Democrat, a very unusual campaign. Most Dems rely on their core states (California, Illinois, New York and the New England states), then battle in the traditional swing states (Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania, Michigan). Obama's not neglecting those states, but he's also putting resources into some non-traditional places, like the Dakotas, Virginia, Georgia (helped by Barr's Libertarian candidate, which will pull votes from McCain). A few electoral votes here, a few there, and pretty soon you're talking about real victory. It's worked for Republicans for decades, and it worked just fine in the primary campaign, when Obama pieced together a lead Hillary could never overcome.
So I think he has the stuff to get elected. What kind of president would he be? His instinct is centrist, without question. (I don't think the country is willing to elect anyone to the left of centrist, and won't be for years.) So was Roosevelt's, until events (the banking and unemployment crises) and individuals (Huey Long, Francis Townsend)pushed him into liberalism. A similar convergence could push Obama the same way, if progressives are well-organized and not too busy kneecapping each other.
Obama will never be the darling of the Left. Anyone who thinks he's the Progressive Knight in Armor will wind up with a broken heart. But he might do some good things, and avoid doing some horrible things, and I suspect he has the political talent to push decent legislation through Congress. That's reason enough to support him, with eyes open. Oh yeah, and the Supreme Court, too.
Peace,
Paul
August 15, 2008 3:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well said, Paul. Obama's people know how to do the basics, how to block and tackle. And, as I said upthread, I expect a convergence of events within the next four years that will require great leadership. Which, I think, Obama can provide. Not to mention the Supremes, also very key.
-- ARG
August 15, 2008 3:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
pstamler,
I'd address the "Transformational shmansformational" issues but I can't spel them. them.
I are very good at grammar, but speling is not my fort.
August 17, 2008 12:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
The soaring rhetoric is nice but it has to be translated into the 'vision thing'. There has to be something specific (or a small group of core issues) that matter to the American people. Being for 'change' is all fine and dandy...he needs to get far more specific about what he intends to change. Todd had 3 good issues but I think he missed the best one. In the words of the last enormously successful Democratic politician...IT'S THE ECONOMY STUPID!!!!
Health care and ending our dependence on fossil fuels are all fine and dandy...but take a back seat when people are worried about losing their jobs and being able to keep their houses.
This week we have James Galbraith here. The discussion of our economy has been enlightening...and VERY robust one with more participation than I have seen in a long time with any guest poster here. So what conclusions can be drawn from that?
August 15, 2008 3:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
The country is in such a degenerated state that the bar is VERY low for 'transformational'. The public has been the target of a misinformation campaign hidden behind a 'culture war' that has been a red herring now, for decades. No hope on any policy front is possible until the disinformation war is impeded or thwarted. The majority simply will not take responsibility to inform themselves, and are so oriented towards authoritarianism and the cult of personality, that they wait for a trusted leader to tell them the truth. If Obama can become that trusted leader--owing to his command of rhetoric--and he is willing to speak the truth--that in and of itself would be transformational. When has GW Bush ever told the truth accept by accident? Here is John McCain describing the kerfluffle in Georgia as the most serious international crisis since the cold war. Is this true? Does he truly believe this? And just what, exactly, are America's interests in this? And why? Just to have a national figure who fears not to speak truth would be extraordinary. If he could figure out a way to prevent any more stolen elections, it might be possible to turn around. Until then, it's hopeless. I agree his policy formulations are pretty mild--but I am more interested in the process by which policy is defined. Do we know this, yet? I don't know if he is shaping himself as a moderate centrist, or really believes this stuff. It may not matter if he can define a policy process that allows the very highest quality of information to inform the outcome.
August 15, 2008 7:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Amen.
August 15, 2008 7:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
I personally believe that Obama will be as transformational as we are willing to be. Because for wide-sweeping and much needed changes WE have to be willing to pay the price. And unless we quit being so selfish (and yes, buck up and pay more for gas or ride a bike as we were going to have to do eventually), then change just ain't gonna happen.
It really is a bottom up thing, folks. Obama is there if we take the leap.
August 16, 2008 1:23 AM | Reply | Permalink