Confrontation, Obama-style
What struck me most about Obama's Notre Dame commencement speech yesterday was it was just another example of Obama diffusing controversy by confronting it head on.
In this case, he handled the hullabaloo over his pro-choice views by focusing on the importance of finding common ground. He addressed abortion specifically, dusting off a story he's told before about how a pro-life doctor emailed him during his 2004 Senate run to complain about copy on Obama's campaign website that assailed abortion opponents as "right-wing ideologues who want to take away a woman's right to choose" -- as if those on the conservative side of the debate were devoid of reason and motived by sadism. The doctor demanded not that Obama switch positions on abortion, but simply that he use "fair-minded words" when talking about it. Obama suggested yesterday that such fair-mindedness -- a willingness to engage in dialogue and a refusal to caricature the other side -- was a starting point for social progress.
Obama could have avoided abortion altogether, or perhaps referred to his Notre Dame protesters obliquely by getting the "common ground" stuff out of the way in a line or two. But instead he selected the topic as the very focus of his remarks -- even as he insisted on treading sensitively and soberly. In the process, he made himself look big and his opponents look small. That's classic Obama.
After all, he did the same thing last week at Arizona State University. When Obama was asked to speak at commencement yet denied an honorary degree on the grounds that he hadn't achieved enough yet, he spoke about the true meaning of achivement -- and how we all must spend our lives striving to accomplish more. The takeaway was the same: Obama big, critics small.
Coming up with more examples of Obama taking this approach isn't hard -- there's the Jeremiah Wright race speech, for example, and several others. This is Obama's rhetorical way: confront discomfort head on, do it with class, and use the opportunity to communicate a broader message. The approach is literally confrontational, though disarmingly so, for at the same time that it pushes back, it also beckons.
Is it any wonder this guy's "improbable" presidential campaign ended up victorious?
In this case, he handled the hullabaloo over his pro-choice views by focusing on the importance of finding common ground. He addressed abortion specifically, dusting off a story he's told before about how a pro-life doctor emailed him during his 2004 Senate run to complain about copy on Obama's campaign website that assailed abortion opponents as "right-wing ideologues who want to take away a woman's right to choose" -- as if those on the conservative side of the debate were devoid of reason and motived by sadism. The doctor demanded not that Obama switch positions on abortion, but simply that he use "fair-minded words" when talking about it. Obama suggested yesterday that such fair-mindedness -- a willingness to engage in dialogue and a refusal to caricature the other side -- was a starting point for social progress.
Obama could have avoided abortion altogether, or perhaps referred to his Notre Dame protesters obliquely by getting the "common ground" stuff out of the way in a line or two. But instead he selected the topic as the very focus of his remarks -- even as he insisted on treading sensitively and soberly. In the process, he made himself look big and his opponents look small. That's classic Obama.
After all, he did the same thing last week at Arizona State University. When Obama was asked to speak at commencement yet denied an honorary degree on the grounds that he hadn't achieved enough yet, he spoke about the true meaning of achivement -- and how we all must spend our lives striving to accomplish more. The takeaway was the same: Obama big, critics small.
Coming up with more examples of Obama taking this approach isn't hard -- there's the Jeremiah Wright race speech, for example, and several others. This is Obama's rhetorical way: confront discomfort head on, do it with class, and use the opportunity to communicate a broader message. The approach is literally confrontational, though disarmingly so, for at the same time that it pushes back, it also beckons.
Is it any wonder this guy's "improbable" presidential campaign ended up victorious?
Crossposted at jesselava.com.
Advertisement
And No One does it better!
May 18, 2009 2:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Confronting it head-on with honesty. What a change from 8 years of Bush-speak.
May 18, 2009 3:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
The lip service is fine. Maybe that will somehow allow progress and bring more of the good kind of unity. Centered centrist talk definitely does make the wackos on the right look bad by comparison.
The "walking the walk" is obscure and rated Neutral overall. Needs work.
May 18, 2009 6:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed that his lip service has been better than his performance thus far.
May 18, 2009 6:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah it can be better, but you can't say it hasn't been all bad. I've seen an alright preformance by him so far, he could of done better during the stimulus debste though. That we probally agree on.
May 18, 2009 8:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think he's done one thing really well so far: his budget. The stimulus was a half-loaf, the bailout situation is abysmal, he's almost as bad as Bush on state secrets (and in a couple cases worse), his moves to withdraw from Iraq have been halting, etc. If he gets a real health reform bill done -- one with a public insurance option -- he can redeem himself. Otherwise, not sure how much would really be left.
May 18, 2009 11:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah I agree there have been things I disagree with him on (Stimulus handling, state secrets, Afghanistan). But his plan for Iraq is still in tact, yeah it's kinds been slowing but is still committed to getting them out within 1-2 years (most out within the first year). Could he be better: yes. Do I like what I see for the most part: absolutely. I don't know if you feel about that Jesse, but I do. And about the stimulus, atleast he adknowledged there was mistakes made on how he handle it with the GOP and that it won't happen again. You could say that because during the stimulus he was using the word "Bi-Partianship" in sentences as much as Bush did with "9/11". Even since then it's almost dissappeared from his vocabulary.
Now you said the one thing you really like about what he's done was thr budget, you pointed that out. Why? I'm curious to hear your opinion on this.
But honestly, when you put it altogether, what are your opinion of the man? You said in few words he could be better and I agreed, but do you approved overall or are you a fencesitter to say it atleast.
But still regardless of what our opinions are of him, good post. Well written and well spoken. I will recommend it and you shoud be commended for writing it.
May 19, 2009 12:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
My overall feeling of the man? It was (political) love at first sight when I saw him at a backyard fundraiser in in May or June of 2003 in Evanston, Illinois. He was just starting to run for US Senate, and he used a bunch of the same lines he ended up using in the 2004 DNC speech: when there's a senior citizen who can't afford prescriptions, that matters to me, even if it's not my grandmother; etc. The whole "mutual obligations" thing -- along with his oozing of intelligence -- won me over. He also appeared to be the most progressive candidate in the Democratic field -- or at least the most viable progressive. And then when he got to the Senate, he turned into a moderate. And it's been up and down ever since; sometimes I like him and sometimes I don't.
As for the budget, I think Krugman articulated it pretty well when the budget came out: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/27/opinion/27krugman.html
May 19, 2009 1:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well then Krugman said it very well when it came to the budget and there's no wonder why you liked him on that.
So basically to sum it up, you feeling about him overall are good but mixed at the same time. You like his communication, but your views about him on the issues varies from issue to issue. Not a bad outlook because that's how I feel about him. I like the man and at the same time disagree with on some issues. KGB said it best when he said it's alright to like a certain politican and criticize him when you feel he's wrong on a certain issue. Another poster with thr name resox said that although he loves the President, he feels good to criticize him because it pushes him in the right direction and that he (Obama) wouldn't want it any other way.
May 19, 2009 1:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
I had the same reaction Jesse thinking of the speech on race while watching the commencement at Notre Dame. A lesser politician would have just avoided the subject, Obama takes them on and in doing so, wins the middle. Moderates (myself included) who despise the disproportionate attention paid to wedge issues, appreciate this approach. By making himself out to be the reasonable man in the room on controversial issues, it actually draws people to what we know his viewpoint to be (pro-choice.)
Look at it this way, if you are uncomfortable with the idea of abortion but aren't sure it should be made illegal (like me) and you're presented with Obama on one side and some lunatic screaming "BABY KILLER" on the other... which are you more likely to side with and respect on other issues.
It's a brilliant strategy. Some times I think he picked up Biden just to ensure he would, in fact, have a weak spot or at least to keep Jon Stewart in business.
Call him the Comedy Central Stimulus Plan.
May 18, 2009 10:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great point. It is kind of interesting that he speaks of not creating caricatures of your opponents, but this allows the listeners to see the extremes as caricatures. Don't think of an elephant! There is no alternative to the extremes being portrayed as caricatures, but he gives it to both sides without taking one. Deft political skill has That One!
May 19, 2009 11:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Good post. I think he was brave to confront this; he didn't know if the whole crowd would be screaming against him or not. This was not "lip service," it was a conversation -- something many people are incapable of appreciating. Good for him!
May 18, 2009 10:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fair enough. What I should have said is that he's been great on communication, rhetoric, politics, dialogue, etc., but his policies themselves have been more disappointing.
May 18, 2009 11:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow. Reasonable rational discussion! I thought we'd grown past this messy reasoned discourse thing and risen to the level of bombastic bufoonery for good.
Wait. I got that backward.
Obama is like a breath of fresh air!
May 18, 2009 10:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Heh! It was beginning to be like a text version of cable news. I agree it's nice to be nice for a change.
May 19, 2009 2:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is so nice to have a grown up in charge. Will he be as great as I think he is capable of being? I don't know yet. But the mere fact that it is he who is in charge gives me a great deal of comfort.
May 18, 2009 11:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
What struck me most about Obama's Notre Dame commencement speech yesterday was it was just another example of Obama diffusing controversy by confronting it head on.
Hey Jesse, I notice this every day. Because our President appears almost every god blessed day.
An amazing communicator.
Awesome.
Thanks Jesse, good post
May 18, 2009 11:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Excellent subject, and I agree on your points. The speech he gave about Race is a great document which I know for a fact affected many older white people who never really listened to words and ideas on that level. Really a great focus. Thanks.
May 19, 2009 12:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
I was making the exact same point to a friend the other day. It is the #1 reason why I admire Obama. His critics brush him off as some celebrity, but they don't get that people are drawn to him when they see and hear him in moments like this. Moments where he is serious, wise and gracious - not when he is cracking jokes and body surfing.
May 19, 2009 10:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Did Obama write his speech on race, of the speech at Notre Dame? I hear he often does, but is he still? I don't even know where to look for that.
May 19, 2009 11:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
He has a squadron of speechwriters now, but I suspect he's actively involved with the big stuff.
May 19, 2009 12:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great post Jesse. You caught the essence and the soul of Obama's speech. Best piece on it I've read on it, bar none.
May 19, 2009 1:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks Steve!
May 19, 2009 1:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
you may thnik that what you describe as obamas style is something to envy.
but, there are many times when direct in your face is the style that is needed.
obama is not capable of that and if you think obama will be a success by finding the middle ground with the republicans you are beyond wrong.
May 19, 2009 2:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think the question is whether his style disarms would-be opponents enough to get some major progressive stuff through. That's still an open question. Regardless, though, this rhetorical style is still a political benefit.
May 19, 2009 2:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's true, he works with his stances and gives reasons for them. How many people are against something or for something and cannot articulate why? I think that no matter your position on an issue, coming across someone who can actually give reasons is something to admire.
May 19, 2009 3:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nice post, thanks for pointing out the refreshing "if we're going to have a debate, let's have an honest debate" consistency he's demonstrated, perhaps not as much in actions as in speeches thus far, but disarming opponents is absolutely necessary before you can sit at a table with them and craft long term policy.
May 19, 2009 2:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for pointing out the postives, Jesse. Rec'd.
May 19, 2009 2:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks. I think it's important to give credit where due while also holding leaders accountable when necessary. No need to get starry-eyed about our leaders -- they're just human, and they're here to serve us, not vice-versa. But to do nothing but gripe, particularly when we have a president this smart, is just knee-jerk.
May 19, 2009 3:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed!
May 19, 2009 7:00 PM | Reply | Permalink