Reader Posts
« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
How will his power be kept under control?
So? Will the power go to his head Or is he really what we see?
As the results from the National Day of Voter Registration start to come in - the photos, the numbers of people who came, the process laid out, the high energy, the belief - I have been thinking about the power accruing to this inspiring man.
As part of that I have been reading a bio of him by David Mendell, Obama from Promise to Power. Mendell has been covering him since he started to run for state Senate in IL. for the Chicago Trib.
Mendell tries to show as many sides of this person as he's given access to. He shows Obama grumpy, shows him unsuccessful and trying to figure out why, shows him happy, loving, caustic, tender, guarding his privacy, thinking things through. But always from the distance of a newspaper writer without full access.
So for me, an enthusiastic supporter, there's still the question of whether this guy is who he appears to be.
And that has a lot to do with just how much of a liability it could be for him to consolidate so much power.
When I consider what's gone on for the last 5 months since the primary season began and those who really don't pay a lot of attention to politics have started to become aware of Obama, I'm deeply impressed by the things that Matt Stoller has explicated here http://openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=5637
Obama's oratorical skill
his forging of a new path to organizing people (using the new media, finessing Fox News, raising so much money in little amounts, binding his fans together through the site)
his dogged insistance on taking the highest road he can find even in the face of the Clintons' so-called kitchen sink strategy
his distancing himself from the party (so much so that for a long time now it's seemed to me that he is not part of the party at all)
his committment to the 50-state Strategy and campaigning in all the states (reaching out to the mob and the little corner pizza place)
But as these tactics succeed, and the mob gets bigger, it gets harder to control. And those who don't get it resent it.
Control of the entire thing is clearly part of the Obama script. The further some person or group is from being willing to accept his being top dog, the further he wishes to distance himself from them. The blogosphere is too hard to bring under control, cannot be counted on to hew to his party line. Jeremiah Wright was uncontrollable and way too close to keep at arm's length and therefore was a liability.
So the real question is: what will he be with all this power? Just how strong will the Republicans have to be to keep that power from doing something seriously wrong for the country - even defining seriously wrong in progressive terms? Just how strong will we have to be to be part of the control? Will he be able to maintain his mediating skills once it's too easy to get enough to go along? Will he look outside his own box when he's infatuated with his own ideas?
Who will be there to keep him on track?
Comments (19)
Does that not apply to every President?
May 10, 2008 3:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, but not to this degree, I believe.
There are different ways of consolidating power, and seducing people by drawing them into a club can be quite intoxicating.
The Gingrich/DeLay club was composed of a small group of people who used political threat to force those who resisted into cooperation, for instance. But it was an exclusive club of a small number of people.
The thing about what Obama's doing, bringing mobs of people together by channelling their energies to fulfill his policies, is different because of how widely the net is being cast.
Ill and Good can be done either way, but it's vastly easier, I think, for the mob to be caught in the net by the means we're seeing here than by the Gingrich/DeLay method, and it seems to me vastly more difficult for the mob to stop the process when it's so enthralled.
So I come back to the question - will this power be used the way he says, or will it go awry? And will the mob be able to tear itself out of its thrall if it does go awry?
May 10, 2008 4:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
You had me until you mentioned the Chicago Tribune.
May 10, 2008 3:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's not a bad book. Give it a try.
May 10, 2008 4:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, thanks.
It might cause me to take the position of applying social consciousness into a model of a neoclassical model as you have done. You're giving no credit to the enlightened consciousness of the individual to the process as a whole.
That's why you can so freely use the term "mob". Here is the definition of mob.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/mob
Pronunciation:
\ˈmäb\
Function:
noun
Etymology:
Latin mobile vulgus vacillating crowd
Date:
1688
1: a large or disorderly crowd; especially : one bent on riotous or destructive action
2: the lower classes of a community : masses, rabble
3chiefly Australian : a flock, drove, or herd of animals
4: a criminal set : gang; especially often capitalized : mafia 1
5chiefly British : a group of people : crowd
May 10, 2008 5:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tell me more about what you mean.
May 10, 2008 6:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
The old addage is that power corrupts.
I think its also true that the job itself causes the President to move toward the center. George the Second is an exception to this rule and the consequences of his failure to moderate his ideology have led to disaster of unprecedented proportions.
But assume the negative scenario you hint at should come to pass. What do you see as the likely abuse of power that Obama would indulge? What particular ax do you see him preparing to grind?
May 10, 2008 5:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not actually positing a negative scenario. I'm definitely alert to the impact on the rational mind of all this adulation - and the mind I'm thinking of first is that of the mobs of people who are coming to believe.
Clearly, to me, the general populace does not have a long attention span, and it seems to me also that Democracy, as the bunch in Philly so long ago imagined it, required not only a long attention span but a willingness, if not downright gusto, for participation, critical thinking and persistence.
Once this guy is elected, and the real work begins, how many are going to do it? It appears to me that he's trying to lay the groundwork in a contemporary way for reaching people to inspire them to persist.
But whether all this inspiration will actually do anything more than give him carte blanche to do what he proposes is a different question.
And from there I get to the impact of all this adulation on him. When the going gets hard, due to circumstance or opposition, will he stick to his egalitarian ideals?
May 10, 2008 6:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
And in the meantime what will YOU contribute?
Fear mongering?
May 10, 2008 6:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
The answer is Congress. If it properly investigates and acts on the usurpations performed by the Bush White House a new administration will be on short leash.
Alternatively, you don't really want an answer, but want to make us nervous about Obama. This seems rather more likely.
May 10, 2008 6:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Most of us here are Democrats. We don't handle authority nearly as well as our more conservative brothers and sisters. If anything we are a rowdy bunch prone to question everything.
I for one plan to keep my eyes wide open. Reagan was right about one thing: Trust, but Verify.
May 10, 2008 6:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe. But look at how we've been so unsuccessful at handling the Cheney presidency for the last 7 years. Are we really rowdy? Or have we been cowed, or drugged? Aren't we still playing video games and buying cars that get less than 20 mpg?
May 10, 2008 6:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Another poster focusing on the fear of what might happen.
Cheney and Obama may be cousins, Elf, but seriously, get a grip.
He inspires people. He's created immense support.
Not everyone capable of doing this is Hitler.
No one thinks he's perfect. He doesn't think he's perfect.
If you're going to speculate, why only speculate negative?
May 10, 2008 7:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
If Elf really wanted to make a substantive post then we would pour over Obama's policy and issue papers on his barackobama.com before making unfounded claims.
(e.g. Obama 's position on the issue of the unitary executive and contextual grounds for the use of the signing statement).
May 10, 2008 9:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
correction:
If Elf really wanted to make a substantive post then he would pour over Obama's policy and issue papers on his website barackobama.com, and listen to his policy speeches before making histrionic claims.
May 10, 2008 9:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here, this should help.
Obama's views on executive power. Interview by the Boston Globe:
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2008/specials/CandidateQA/ObamaQA/
May 10, 2008 11:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Neither Bush, nor Obama, nor Clinton, nor McCain will do anything we don't allow them to. It up to all of us to be watchful of our government.
And yes, I believe that Bush has been able to do everything he has because we collectively have allowed him to. If Bush bombs Iran it will be because we have not been sufficiently willing to force his impeachment yet.
May 11, 2008 1:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
"just how strong will the Republicans have to be to keep that power from doing something seriously wrong for the country" -from the above blog
OK, all credibility out the window for this "elf". This reads like one of those very scary and spooky emails about the antichrist is Obama.
and what is up with this "the mob" like only stupid idiots support Obama? Polls show he does better with college graduates like myself than Clinton. That might be because we take the time to know what he is about, and put more faith in him than NAFTA/Welfare Reform legacy. I would bet Obama has more supporters who would ideally have Kucinich, or Feingold, or Dodd, or Biden be the nominee, and they think he is most like them agenda wise.
I think you don't really want to ask a question, you want to push your opinion that Obama's support comes from hero worshippers. I think he this is true to a degree, and it is very dangerous for the country. I would say Clinton has more hero worship than Obama, and we could argue about that forever.
I wouldn't care too much this time if the "mob" got it right finally, by supporting the candidate I support. We should all work to defeat hero worship type politics for the future, but the corporate media will be doing their bit to fight us all the way.
I asked the same question (how do we hold Obama accountable to our goals?) to Markos Moulitsas at a lecture he gave, and his answer was that elections are accountability. Both accountability for impeachment worthy offenses of the Bush admin, and for the Dem president if they don't work towards the right things. I don't like that answer for the lawbreaking Bush admin, but I guess it is the true answer for just bad, not illegal President-ing.
Maybe it was supposed to be a vigilant press that would embarrass politicians into doing the right things , but that is a laugher for Judy Miller and the rest of us. Nowadays I guess impeachment is out of style, so it comes down to death or elections. I wish there was a nation wide no-confidence vote every so often with a threshold that would lead to a new election for President. Maybe under 40% approval yearly?
If only 28% of the country approves, and 81% think we are headed in the wrong direction WTF are we stuck with a leader like that for? It is stupid and bad for the country, I don't care about transition issues, Bush is doing massive harm every day, and we need somebody who will stop torture, stop illegal spying, get out of Iraq, and fix every last corrupt part of the govt. It can't start soon enough for me before we bomb Iran, or give amnesty to AT&T.
It's ridiculous to be stuck with a complete bust. Bush's presidency is like Vietnam or Iraq. It is bad for the country every day.
May 11, 2008 4:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
I wouldn't support Obama if I thought he was likely to abuse executive power. The presidency requires making decisions, often unpopular ones. Power corrupts, but in Obama's case I'm more certain than I have been in a long time that we'll see more integrity than we've had since Carter. Not that Carter was a saint, but I don't expect sainthood. But I think Obama might manage to combine power and integrity.
But for those who doubt, there are two reasons to be at least a little less worried:
#1: Americans are uncharacteristically concerned about the campaigns and overall policy issues. Both Clinton and Obama supporters are going to continue to be attentive to how government is working. And as we've seen, it's a whole lot harder to keep things secret than it used to be.
#2: Captain's right about elections keeping politicians accountable, especially in light of #1. As we saw in Clinton I, a weakened executive means losses in both houses, often devastating losses. And without a Democratic-led Congress, we're back to complete gridlock.
I believe Obama will win in November. I think it'll be enough to give him a mandate but not a Reaganesque landslide.
May 11, 2008 2:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment