One Man's Banalities Are Another Man's First Principles
Ezra Klein is right that Brooks on Obama was a great read, but I think he gets Brooks (and thus the paradox of Obama) wrong. Klein takes Brooks' point to be that Obama has a tendency to "meta" campaign-- campaign by talking about campaigning-- in a way that obscures his actual policy prescriptions. Klein is "baffled" by the constant invoking of Reinhold Niebuhr and deems Obama's rhetoric "banal":
[Obama's understanding of Niebuhr] consists of banalities like "there’s serious evil in the world, and hardship and pain. And we should be humble and modest in our belief we can eliminate those things. But we shouldn’t use that as an excuse for cynicism and inaction."
Here's where I think Klein misses Brook's point: rather than just being "banal," Brooks argues that Obama is "either profound or vacuous, depending on your point of view." Filling out the paradox by considering why Obama's words can be considered profound might clarify some of Klein's confusion.




