In the monomaniacal world of moveon.org and the Daily Kos, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have committed an unforgivable sin. By appearing on Fox News the Democrats have proven themselves unserious in the apocalyptically serious fight against Rupert Murdoch’s quest for world domination.
Back when Obama was the unflappable boy wonder of the Left, the Kos crowd was savoring the accumulated days (771) that the I’ll-talk-to-Tehran candidate had abstained from talking to
Why does the far Left so despise Fox, anyway? Here’s “
To understand why bloggers are so upset about Fox News’ co-sponsorship [of a since-cancelled Democratic debate] , look at how the station hosted a Democratic presidential debate last time around in 2003. During its live coverage, the Fox News graphic – as well as a banner over the stage – titled the event “Democrat Candidate Presidential Debate,” a right-wing epithet made famous most recently in George Bush’s State of the Union Address.
It doesn’t matter how many times you re-read that; it still makes no sense. Nevertheless, the
Last fall, moveon.org ran the ridiculous “General Betray Us” ad, and serious Democrats began to distance themselves. But Obama’s appearance on Fox News this past Sunday was the real beginning of the end. At the very same time that
“What explains this appeal?”
Briefly: He’s not Bush.
Great column, Peter. I especially like the Meyerson quote and the close.
#1 (shd be #10): Brilliant, doggie, though not brief enough! What he IS is a cowardly hypocritical little liar with opinion and love of self that are insanely inflated — i.e., the perfect mirror ideal for the favorite folk of Twain, Barnum, and Mencken.
I don’t have the time to do it, but I wish someone would research what went on before and immediately after JFKs election. To be sure, a great deal of the working press was fair, and the new forms of the media had not yet emerged, so some comparisons may be difficult. But being a teenager who followed politics even then, I remember a great deal of adoration and rock-star like reactions to him. If I’m right that there is a parallel, what did JFKs approval numbers peak at and when did they decline?
#4
“If I’m right that there is a parallel, what did JFKs approval numbers peak at and when did they decline”
I saw a table and chart of presidential approval ratings recently. All modern presidents (those voted into office) started with approval better than 50%, (Reagan and HW Bush were lowest, at 51%, Kennedy and Eisenhower, at 72% and 68%, respectively, were highest). All but Carter and Clinton climbed for several months. After 100 days, Kennedy was at 83% and I think he was still well above 60% when he died (I want to say 66%). Based on history, Obama’s support should climb for the next several months. But I’d say we are more ideologically divided than we have been in the past, which should limit Obama’s upside.
It’s sort of sad to see Peter Wehner groping for reasons Obama is popular. But to get at the truth, he’d have to admit to the shortcomings of the Bush administration and the contrasts America sees in Obama. And we all know, that ain’t going to happen.
Just a few:
Bush was partisan. Obama is less so.
People love Obama’s tone. As much as possible, for someone elected to reverse the policies of his predecessor, Obama emphasizes respect for the opinions of the other side, conciliation. This stands in stark contrast to the hard edged partisanship of the Bush administration.
Bush was insular. Obama seeks input.
Bush was viewed as living in a bubble, oblivious to the outside world and disdainful of Congress. America knew Iraq was going poorly and that Rumsfeld was failing, long before Bush took action. America knew Katrina victims needed help, while Bush was still claiming that everything was fine. Obama, by contrast, fought to keep his blackberry so that he would have a direct connection to the outside world. He is, by nature it seems, inclusive and inviting of other opinions.
Bush was incompetent. Obama appears to be the opposite.
Bush’s views on torture and war were immoral. Obama appears to be the opposite.
Bush became president because of his father’s name, not his intellect. Obama became president because of his intellect, not his father’s name.
Of course, Obama is charismatic and we are all proud to see an African American reach the White House. But America elected Obama to change the direction of the country. As long as he navigates away from Bush policies, he will be popular.
Since so few of the workers and drones in the hive actually know Obama on any realistic level, their concept of him is based on carefully orchestrated appearances designed to accentuate what are felt to be his positive qualities; healthy, pleasant, minority visual image, basso profundo oratory, and sophisticated, hip manner. In other words, the first president elected for his potential as a television news anchor.
DDR #6 you just exemplify the phenomenon that Mr. Wehner seeks to explain. Obama is Bobby Sherman, his supporters, nominally adults, are the screaming pre-adolescent girls. Why?
One half of the electorate had spent eight years thirsting for blood and the other half is ecstatic that (so far at least) none has been spilled. Peter, who says you can’t get fashionable sunglasses?
Case, thank you. That’s very helpful for this discussion of Obama’s popularity and projections of its direction. He does seem to parallel Kennedy which means, even with some likely loss over the year, he will be a very formidable opponent which will very likely help his party pare their losses in the 2010 off year election. Democrats’ lost very few seats in 1962.
He’s so popular because he’s a Neo-Reaganite. Reagan had nothing in common with the Neotrots;he was a uniter. And BHO is his protege.
“Obama is Bobby Sherman, his supporters, nominally adults, are the screaming pre-adolescent girls. Why?”
Here:
“Of course, Obama is charismatic…”
Some people are far too easily taken in. Embarrassing, really.
Meyerson was referring to Obama’s words that “the old hatreds” and “the lines of tribe” shall soon dissolve, and in a sense Obama *is* the incarnation of liberal dreams. If my colleagues at Harvard were to form a committee and draw up their ideal politician, and if they were forced to make that ideal politician male (which otherwise they probably would not, preferring a female or–even better!–a one-legged transgendered lesbian midget), he would look an awful lot like Barack Obama. This is not coincidental, as Obama is a product of a Columbia/Harvard education. But in Obama the lines of black and white (the most important lines of all in the liberal worldview) have dissolved; he seems free of hatreds and grievances, he is fresh and new, articulate and intelligent, sober and dignified, and he manages to speak of change and post-partisanship without proposing any change to or abandoning his partisan leftism. In other words, he says everything they want him to say, and does all the things they want him to do–even though they want him to say one thing (post-partisanship, etc.) and do another (advance a thoroughly liberal agenda). They want left and right to come together–but on the left. They want an end to bickering, and mutual-understanding–but they believe that only the right bickers (the left does not bicker, it speaks truth to power) and only the right needs to be educated about the left (the left understands the right better than the right understands itself, they think, but the right is only on the right because it has never truly understood the arguments of the left).
And the media and entertainment elite, who completely and uncritically absorb whatever the liberal intelligentsia tell them, find their inherited dreams coming true in front of their eyes. This is why those conservatives who believe that the “honeymoon” will eventually end are in, I’m afraid, for a grave disappointment. There are four reasons why the adoration of the media/entertainment crowd is not going to change. First, the liberals in the media will continue to support Obama because they truly and deeply believe in what he’s selling. This is not going to change. Most of those who voted for Obama had very little idea what he actually stood for–but this is not true of the media (though it may be true of Hollywood), and the media want done exactly what Obama has said he will do. And the various crises we face make it especially important, in their view, that they not oppose Obama. The media dons know that this is a crucial moment, and anyone who dares impede Obama’s march forward on the great liberal causes will earn the immediate hatred of the media. The times are too serious, we will hear, for this kind of partisan bickering. We heard it from Chris Matthews: the media’s job is to help Barack Obama, because America needs him to be successful. In other words, a new rule is in place: dissent is now unpatriotic.
The second reason the media/entertainment world will never turn on Obama is because of simple psychology. The more you struggle and sacrifice for something, the more tightly you will hold onto it. Many in the media/entertainment world lavished Obama with support, gave him their blood, sweat and tears, and even sacrificed their professional integrity (such as it was) to write articles on Obama that were blatantly prejudicial. They’ve invested their hopes and dreams in Obama, and they will make sure he does not fail. He cannot fail. If he fails, then all their efforts were wasted, and they were made fools. Admitting that Obama is a failure (if he becomes so) would be tantamount to admitting that they were wrong, tantamount to abandoning their faith.
Third, the alternative to Obama is, at least in the mind of the devoted liberal, George W. Bush. Obama rescued liberals from the grasp of George W. Bush, and they will be eternally grateful to Obama for bringing them out of the “hell” of the Bush/Rove years. If Obama fails, they think, we will fall back into Bush-style Republicanism, and Bush (don’t you know) was responsible for countless disasters.
Fourth, and simply, the first black President cannot be seen to fail. As one of the old news anchors said the other day, he watched the inauguration and thought of all the “rednecks and bigots” he had met over the years, and thought, “Take this!” It was a childish comment, but revealing. Liberals view the Obama Presidency as an ongoing object-lesson for all those racist whites who (presumably) think that blacks are lazy and incompetent. (Of course, the fact is that it was liberals and not conservatives who were surprised that the ostensibly racist-infested America would elect a black President, but let’s not interrupt.) If Obama fails, those bigoted rednecks will not learn their lesson.
So if you are waiting for the honeymoon to end…I wouldn’t hold my breath.
Ahithophel, what you describe is an extended holiday from reality. And as we all know reality has a sudden and unpredictable way of biting politicians on the ass. Eventually Obama, too, will become just another flawed human being.
Ahithophel:
As usual, thank you for a very informative and perceptive comment, and you portrait of the Harvard faculty is spot on for my colleagues out here. But I also tend to agree with CB. Liberals are a fickle crowd who tend to turn on their own and devour them with relish. I recall how they turned on Lyndon and abandoned Carter. Obama will not have Clinton’s luxury of doing nothing while saying what they want to hear, and, given that he must actually attempt to do something, runs a serious risk of either offending them, or losing support among the broad population to the extent that he is not longer a plausible champion for their cause. In my guess, the turn will come when two criticisms begin to appear: he is elitist (being elitists themselves, the intellectual left is terrified of this one – they prefer politicians like Charley Rangel) and he is not a “real African-American” (i.e., neither a descendant of slaves or a product of the inner city) and hence unworthy of racist support.
In any event, if the Obama administration turns out to be as demonstrably incompetent as some of us expect, the gyrations of our “intellectual betters” will be wondrous to behold and fascinating to follow.
Where are you writing from, materialist?
I don’t doubt that Obama is human, will make mistakes and etc., but I remain skeptical that the press as a whole will ever turn on Obama. I’m afraid their quasi-religious, quasi-romantic attachment to him will hinder their ability to see reality clearly. Then, even if they do so it clearly, I’m not sure they would be willing to report reality, for fear of harming the liberal agenda Obama represents and tarnishing the image and object lesson of the first black President.
I suppose there are a few questions one could ask here. What would it take for them to turn on him? How did they turn on their other liberal loves, and is there any reason to believe that Obama’s case will be different? And just what kind of Obama supporters are the media–are they “fickle” supporters who will turn their backs on Obama when they grow bored or disappointed in him, or are they “bitter-enders” who will insist upon his skill and goodness even when (if) the evidence against him becomes overwhelming?
They may snipe that he does not give them enough access–but this is more akin to a lover’s spat, where the wife is complaining that the husband does not pay her sufficient attention. They may criticize him for departing from liberal orthodoxy on little matters. But I don’t think they’re going to criticize him fundamentally, or confess that they were wrong in their support of him. That would be a devastating psychological blow to them, and it would open up the door (they will fear) to the return of the George Bush neocons.
Time will tell.
He is the fulfillment of our common dream from the late 50′s through the 60′s. Many if not all neos considered themselves part and parcel of the civil rights movement, so it is a happy thing to celebrate a great sea change in race relations.
His testy visit to the press room grunts and his lack of grace toward W in his inaugural speech illuminate a certain arrogance, which may worsen as the pressure mounts. Lincoln was modest, strong and caring through it all. If, as I suspect, Obama can not pull this off, he will be a one termer.
If his actions revert to form and if he pursues the failed policies of Carter and LBJ, hopefully we will be able to muddle through in spite of him. If Larry Sommers and others can introduce him to the economic facts of life, he could be a truly great President.
Ahithophel:
My home stomping ground is a famously liberal institution on the West Coast, and has been for a very long time.
As always, you make very good points. There is no question that the combination of personal, public commitment and (what I call) racist attachment (white guilt?) will make it very difficult for our colleagues to even question their devotion to their chosen leader. I do not dispute your analysis.
But I have lived through enough of these things to be stuck with a belief that events will force their hand. Who imagined how quickly Johnson would sink after the republican debacle of ’64, or Nixon after the destruction of the democrats in ’72? Or even Bush after his solid win in’04?
It is a tough world out there now, and “events are in the saddle.” Barack Obama is the least qualified person ever to assume the Presidency. His resume would hardly qualify him to manage the corner gas station, and he is the CEO of the largest and most complex organization on earth. My whole professional experience tells me that qualifications do count, and that leaders who have not honestly acquired competence will perform incompetently. It may be that Barack Obama is the great exception whose resume is meaningless. But permit me to doubt that.
If I am right his capabilities (or lack thereof) will be abundantly manifest very soon. Our esteemed colleagues will have to hang on or cut bait. I think they will eventually find a convenient excuse to do the latter.
Of course, if Obama does prove to be God’s special gift to the nation, they will be vindicated, and I shall have to admit I was wrong.
Time will tell. We live in interesting times.
#1 exactly, it is wonderful that Obama is not Bush
Well, materialist, wherever you may be (and don’t we all love mysteries?), it sounds like a real bear of a place. Given where I took my undergraduate degree, I make it my cardinal rule not to mess with bears. So let’s hope you’re right!
For the record, I absolutely agree with you that “leaders who have not honestly acquired competence will perform incompetently,” and Obama is certainly in a position far beyond his qualifications. So we will see how the press responds when Obama’s first major mistakes begin to appear.
“#1 exactly, it is wonderful that Obama is not Bush”
I was actually being ironic, but ok.
Proves my point. In the liberal mind, it is either Obama or Bush. Thus McCain became Bush–even though you could hardly find a Republican further from Bush than John McCain. Obama saved us from Bush, and for that liberals will be eternally grateful.
McCain “Voted with the President [Bush] 90% of the time.” McCain is 90% Bush, conservatism is 100% Bush
Materialist, are you in the Seattle area?
I like what you have to say.
I would be you are from Seattle or Portland, and I am amazed that there are people over in this area that would say the same things I would. You are very well spoken.