EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- 'The Gilded Age' Statistics Corporations Don't Want Workers, or Anyone, to See
- As Death Toll Rises Beyond 500, Garment Factory Disaster 'Worst in World History'
- Wisconsin Bill Would Treat Organic Milk, Sharp Cheddar, Brown Eggs as "Junk Food"
- Report: Toxic Chemicals Found in Thousands of Children's Products
- Climate Change's 'Evil Twin': Ocean Acidification
- Report: Toxic Chemicals Found in Thousands of Children's Products
- Move Over, Koch Brothers: A Bigger, Darker Rightwing Funder Is Out to Destroy Public Education
- 'The Gilded Age' Statistics Corporations Don't Want Workers, or Anyone, to See
- Time for Big Green to Go Fossil Free
- Wisconsin Bill Would Treat Organic Milk, Sharp Cheddar, Brown Eggs as "Junk Food"
Popular content
Today's Top News
Obama Won as Cool and Unflappable. But Presidents Need to Act Angry Too
Americans want a leader they can relate to, as well as revere. Until Obama delivers, he must at least reflect the public mood
In the runup to the inauguration of its first president, the republic of the United States was engaged in an earnest debate over how to address its new leader. After a month the joint congressional committee on titles came up with: "His High Mightiness, the President of the United States and Protector of their Liberties." By some accounts George Washington was more than happy, but others feared that it smacked too much of the deferent, monarchical culture they had just deposed. After much discussion they agreed on "Mr President" – ensuring that for all the trappings of office and power enshrined in the constitution nobody in the country enjoyed a higher title than Mr.
More than two centuries later the basic tensions highlighted by those deliberations still inform the contradictory characteristics Americans seek in a president. On the one hand they want him (and so far it has always been a him) to be just like them. Frustrating though it may be to those who follow policies and platforms, the polling questions about whom voters would most like to have a beer or carpool with matter. They suggest a human connection, even if it is only imagined, that is neither irrational nor entirely shallow. People want to know that the person they are electing can relate to them and their daily lives. When George Bush Sr announced himself "amazed" at the sight of an electronic scanner in 1992 it helped frame him as out of touch as the nation emerged from recession.
On the other hand there is a desire for the president to exude the gravitas of the office. Indeed, there is a reverence for the post that verges on the indecent in a democracy. So when people refer to "presidential" qualities they are not talking about human attributes but traits that might emerge almost magically from the seal itself. It's as though the occupant of the West Wing must have singularly impressive and uncommon abilities and judgment worthy of heading a nation many refer to as "God's own country".
Needless to say this navigation between the ordinary and the extraordinary is little more than a mediated performance. The fact that George W Bush clears brush, Barack Obama plays basketball or Bill Clinton eats fast food is unremarkable. The fact that they are seen doing it is what is significant. In a controlled media environment what you are allowed to see them doing matters.
Obama performs the presidency badly. Over the past two years he has managed to come across as aloof, detached and occasionally dithering. On a human level his professorial demeanour makes him look like a leader who understands but does not necessarily feel. On a presidential level it makes him look like a leader who prefers to think than to act.
This dislocation is particularly acute because his candidacy – rooted in the promise of change – endowed his presidency with expectations of transformation both symbolic and substantial that no individual could possibly meet.
This became painfully apparent last week during a televised town hall meeting when Velma Hart, a black woman – the demographic bedrock of Obama's base – expressed her frustration with his presidency. "I'm exhausted. I'm exhausted of defending you, defending your administration, defending the mantle of change that I voted for, and deeply disappointed with where we are right now."
Obama acknowledged hard times but went on to answer with a laundry list of achievements. His answer was competent but at no time did it emotionally connect with her or anyone else. Afterwards, Hart told the Washington Post: "I think he has made progress. I just thought by now the progress would be more evident for the man-on-the-street level. I thought there was something special and secret he knew that would make things operate differently."
Asked if she thought her expectations had been unrealistic, she said: "Absolutely. It took decades to get here. He's only been in office for two years. But I guess I started to believe, on some small level, that he had a magic wand."
In the absence of a magic wand Obama's task is to funnel that utopian energy he unleashed into the incremental realities and institutional limits of his office. He campaigned in the big picture; now he must govern in detail. In a practical sense this is not a problem: he is clearly more comfortable in shades of grey than in black or white. For example, in Bob Woodward's new book, Obama's Wars, he says he doesn't think about the Afghan war in "classic" terms of winning or losing: "I think about it more in terms of: do you successfully prosecute a strategy that results in the country being stronger rather than weaker at the end?"
This cerebral trait was once regarded as an asset. Whereas his predecessor was impetuous, Obama was praised for being contemplative and unflappable. Bush had a gut; Obama had a brain. Bush was the "decider"; Obama was the thinker. After eight years of a president who mastered a performance that did not square with reality and had no patience for policy, the country was ready for more substance.
But performatively, it is insufficient. It turns out that there are moments when flappable beats stoic in public perception. His slow-burn approach to problem-solving conveys to many not deliberation but detachment. He has proved, at times, unable or unwilling to reflect the public mood. During the Louisiana oil spill he came off as insufficiently angry and urgent.
Whether one thinks these impressions should matter or not is an entirely different issue to whether they do. Take the economy. Throughout the recession Obama has appeared insufficiently impatient and distraught at the pace of improvement and the toll it is taking on ordinary families. Perceptions of his lack of urgency relate to the slow rate of progress his policies are having on the economy and the fact that most of his signature achievements – the stimulus bill and healthcare reform – have not been experienced by most as having improved their lot.
When he took office 72% of voters believed he understood "the problems of people like you" – that figure is now down to 50%. Many Democrats are desperate for him to feel somebody's pain.
'I would like to see him be a lot less cerebral and a little more emotional," Jim Moran, a Democratic congressman from Virginia, told the New York Times. Others just want him to come across as more accessible. "He needs more Ray's Hell Burgers and less candlelight dinners," said Kenneth Duberstein, Ronald Reagan's former chief of staff (who supported Obama in 2008).
Last week Bill Clinton, the performer- in-chief, gave his advice: "Embrace people's anger, including their disappointment at you," he told politico.com. "And just ask 'em to not let the anger cloud their judgment. Let it concentrate their judgment. And then make your case."
Obama does have a case. But his tepid economic policies mean it's not as good as it might be and his poor performance means he doesn't make it as well as he might do. The next time he meets someone like Hart he not only needs something more impressive to say to her, he needs to find a more impressive way of saying it.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
50 Comments so far
Show AllReally, what a stupid article. Obama lacks the proper emotional posturing. Who cares? Maybe if he took his cue from Glenn Beck his ratings would go up!
"This cerebral trait was once regarded as an asset," Gary writes.
‘Cerebral’ my ass; the proper word is ‘calculating’. He reminds me of a dog I once had, who so wanted to be in charge (but would cave).
There are any number of bloggers on this site who 'out-cerebral' Obama by an aardvark's nose (that's quite a lot, especially if you measure in millimeters).
Gary also writes, 'he needs to ACT' - isn't that what he's been doing?
Jill, this brings to mind your cult theory regarding Obama. Have you firmed up your thoughts on this? Do you have more to add?
Your story is all too familiar. It’s all so disheartening, to say the least.
Many years ago now, I was a district sales manager and had a salesman in Toledo, also one in Lansing, two in Detroit, etc. I stayed at the Holiday Inn, Ann Arbor (it was a comfortable stay, back then). Working with my salesman, my largest ever single-sale was to the University of Michigan library. Things were so much different then. Even Cleveland was one of my favorite spots.
It is sad to hear, from reading your posts, how drastically the situation has changed in your area.
I’m a Mike Malloy fan; his home town is Toledo.
As far as the cult thing is concerned, I was interested on your take on Obama’s perceptible (to us) cult-like behavior. I don’t have anything to add. I believe you said you were still formulating an opinion on this.
Personally, I see cult-like behavior everywhere and sometimes wonder if it’s just me.
Thanks Jill,
I can imagine Ann Arbor today is ‘Yuppieville Central’, perhaps more so than before. When I worked in the area, I was young and concentrated on doing a good job. I’ve posted before words to this effect, but in the 50s and 60s corporations offered a real opportunity to employees who did a good job for them. That is why the generation before me votes Republican – because they were rewarded for their work and loyalty.
That reality changed, but mindsets never do, it seems. Many corporations were founded at that time by decent individuals, but when they died, the bandits took over. As the saying goes, ‘Corporations were founded by geniuses, but are now run by idiots’. Merge. Free money for us! To those who were put out of work, advice: ‘Perhaps you need to learn how to be clever, like us.’
I’ve been thinking about how to respond to our ‘cult’ thoughts; today, the NY Times posted an excellent article by Roger Cohen – linked below:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/28/opinion/28iht-edcohen.html?hp
“I found a mood of deep unease in an America that seems to have descended into tribalism — not ethnic, but political, economic and social.
America is a land of associations. Solidarity has not vanished from the land. But it’s in retreat.
Fragmentation holds sway. The stock market used to be a fair proxy for the state of the economy. Now it’s a market of traders, not investors. They want to know what the spread is today and tomorrow; they can make money on the way up or down; they care far less about U.S.A. Inc.”
‘Tribalism’ may be a better word. It’s in line with my thinking.
You read between the lines better than anyone; any further thoughts?
Jill, do you still live in Ohio? We are fortunate to have recognized Minor parties now, but the membership is really low.
I don't know whether you would call it a cult, but I feel sure that those voters who identified with the Libertarians would never have voted for the Democrats no matter what. They may have voted Green in support of another third party, but too many people think Greens are all communists or socialists and that socialism is a bad thing.
That's where I agree with you on the fear-mongering part. I'm amazed at the way people are induced to promote policies that are against their best interests, or inversely to be against those (like universal health care) that are good for everyone.
Call it a cult, a brand or conditioned denial, we have been twisted and shaped to believe what we know isn't true. The powers that practice this manipulation do it really well; whether it's Kool-aid, presidents or occupations, we can be sold.
It would appear to be less about actual "cult" and more to the point that Americans have been so 'conditioned' by being fed a constant menu of bullshit/propaganda/entertainment that they are primarily delusional and act accordingley - which is usually AGAINST thier own interest.
I think many posters here on CD would agree with the premise that a majority of American citizens have lost (or never had) the capacity to mentally filter information. The ability to decipher bullshit/propaganda from real facts has largely been lost in a very large portion of the population and they believe the lies dispensed by the corporate media because they have been conditioned to do so.
All of the psy-ops certainly have a 'cult' component to them but it would seem to be far larger than just cult appeal.
Chris Hedges has a very good piece on this topic today at Truthdig.com
Well said!!
I had read that article too and got interested in doing a comparison of the two. My overall thoughts were that most of us here who see beyond simple reality are cast aside as "out of touch" and yet when we step outside of fixed "reality" and see it from the outside, we actually get more in touch with reality than we would have ever realized. This is why most are conditioned into thinking and acting the wrong ways in life. Our attempts to break them out of this conditioning are not easy and there is no definite strategy on doing it. This will leave many of us unsure as to whether we should try to get them out of it or just let it all collapse and hope that everyone automatically reforms on their own.
Hi Jill,
Thank you for your comments. I always enjoy reading them.
"Orthodoxy, of whatever color, seems to demand a lifeless, imitative style." - Orwell
I am not an expert on cults, but I have been reading a lot of George Orwell lately (I recently purchased a book that has compiled all of his essays into 1350 pages). I thought I might add something to your Obama cult idea by forwarding you to two of his brilliant essay's, "Notes on Nationalism", and "Politics and the English Language". You may have already read them, but if you haven't, it might give you some new insights into your cult idea.
Notes on Nationalism: http://www.orwell.ru/library/essays/
nationalism/english/e_nat
Politics and the English Language: http://www.mtholyoke.edu/
acad/intrel/orwell46.htm
Orwell writes: "A nationalist is one who thinks solely, or mainly, in terms of competitive prestige. He may be a positive or a negative nationalist — that is, he may use his mental energy either in boosting or in denigrating — but at any rate his thoughts always turn on victories, defeats, triumphs and humiliations. He sees history, especially contemporary history, as the endless rise and decline of great power units, and every event that happens seems to him a demonstration that his own side is on the upgrade and some hated rival is on the downgrade. But finally, it is important not to confuse nationalism with mere worship of success. The nationalist does not go on the principle of simply ganging up with the strongest side. On the contrary, having picked his side, he persuades himself that it is the strongest, and is able to stick to his belief even when the facts are overwhelmingly against him. Nationalism is power-hunger tempered by self-deception. Every nationalist is capable of the most flagrant dishonesty, but he is also — since he is conscious of serving something bigger than himself — unshakeably certain of being in the right."
------------------------------------------
Orwell's idea about the nationalist would work well for describing the propagandists (like Younge) and the power players. But, to describe why the cultists always follow the leader would require probably getting into understanding how authority works. I recently read a J Krishnamurti essay (Intellect, Authority and Intelligence... http://krishnamurti-and-education.org/
edu_and_signif_ch3.htm
In this essay he writes about the effects of authority.
Krishnamurti says: "Philosophy and religion lay down certain methods whereby we can come to the realization of truth or God; yet merely to follow a method is to remain thoughtless and unintegrated, however beneficial the method may seem to be in our daily social life. The urge to conform, which is the desire for security, breeds fear and brings to the fore the political and religious authorities, the leaders and heroes who encourage subservience and by whom we are subtly or grossly dominated..."
And... "One of the results of fear is the acceptance of authority in human affairs. Authority is created by our desire to be right, to be secure, to be comfortable, to have no conscious conflicts or disturbances; but nothing which results from fear can help us to understand our problems, even though fear may take the form of respect and submission to the so-called wise. The wise wield no authority, and those in authority are not wise. Fear in whatever form prevents the understanding of ourselves and of our relationship to all things.
The following of authority is the denial of intelligence. To accept authority is to submit to domination to subjugate oneself to an individual, to a group, or to an ideology, whether religious or political; and this subjugation of oneself to authority is the denial, not only of intelligence, but also of individual freedom. Compliance with a creed or a system of ideas is a self-protective reaction. The acceptance of authority may help us temporarily to cover up our difficulties and problems; but to avoid a problem is only to intensify it, and in the process, self-knowledge and freedom are abandoned. "
And... "We worship authority in various forms: knowledge, success, power, and so on. We exert authority on the young, and at the same time we are afraid of superior authority. When man himself has no inward vision, outward power and position assume vast importance, and then the individual is more and more subject to authority and compulsion, he becomes the instrument of others. We can see this process going on around us: in moments of crisis, the democratic nations act like the totalitarian, forgetting their democracy and forcing man to conform.
If we can understand the compulsion behind our desire to dominate or to be dominated, then perhaps we can be free from the crippling effects of authority."
-----------------
I have listened to my liberal friends in recent months talk about how the right is a bunch of stupid sheep. One of my friends (and I love her much) proudly talks about her bumper sticker that says, "Think: It's Patriotic". The irony (as I see it) is that she does think about things more than the average beer drinking sports person, but her thinking stops when it comes to critiquing the Democrats; the 'lifeless, imitative style' becomes apparent. 'The appropriate noises are coming out of [her] larynx, but [her] brain is not involved as it would be if [she] were choosing [her words for [herself.]'
Take care
Thanks for supplying those quotes from Krishnamurti. I read him prodigiously many years ago and have yet to find anyone who understands the pernicious nature of authority, nationalism, tribalism, and all the conformity these demand better than Krishnamurti. His was of an order of intelligence few ever attain, mainly because he wasn't talking about getting advanced university degrees and being all credentialed up in the professional world. After years of studying him and listening to many of his discussions on tape, I concluded that Americans couldn't possibly be further from what he was trying to teach if they were denizens of Dante's Inferno. I gave up expecting anyone to pay attention to what he was teaching. His whole perspective was just too radical. Americans are more comfortable playing ping pong with Democrat and Republican paddles, and endlessly bitching about how "disappointed" they are with the flip-flopping results. What Krishnnamurti tries to teach compared with the way American politics works, is like the difference between quantum physics and tic-tac-toe.
...After a month the joint congressional committee on titles came up with: "His High Mightiness, the President of the United States and Protector of their Liberties."
I don't need a month nor a committee for a new better title:
"His/Her Low Neandertal Warmongering Bloodsucking Corporatist Facscist PIG-let of the United States and Destroyer of all Liberties and Humanity"
PS - my apologies to any Neandertals who may be listening.
Geez, another article hoping Obama will change. Why waste the ink?
Obama's proven to be a useless empty suit. Useful to those in power and nothing else.
It'll be interesting to see Obama spins the latest bitch slapping he's received from the Israeli's over the settlement moratorium.
If he were a true leader, he'd send a message by, say, firing Rahm!!
The problem here is the concept of branding. We did not elect a man or a policy, but a brand. Obama is a phony because the whole concept of "branding" is phony. Brands are meant to deceive. There is no difference between brand name products and their generic equivalents. "Rolling Oats" are not different than "Cheerios", yet one costs three times as much. Inanimate objects cannot possess pride, class or integrity nor can they be sexy or exciting. They just are what they are. Until the people at large get this concept, they are doomed to be constantly deceived.
Excellent. "The whole concept of branding is phony. Brand are meant to deceive."
People are constantly reaching for the same tools - branding, marketing, selling. It is very American. Those tools are not neutral, they advance the very social arrangements and conventions that are themselves the root cause of the political problems. They will always work for the ruling class, never for the working class. The idea that you can set up an organization that is modeled on commercial corporate organizations and approaches - as all of the liberal and progressive organizations are - but be selling a "progressive" product instead of a "conservative" or "corporate" product is ludicrous.
Branding, sales and marketing are for the purpose of deceiving people and are used by those who cannot tell the truth.
The Obama administration and the Democratic party are the perfect expression of liberal and progressive politics, the ultimate and inevitable outcome. The fact that so many are in denial about this, and are unhappy because the inevitable result of their work does not match some fantasy in their minds about what the result would be does not change that.
Progressive and liberal politics are a brand, and nothing else. This is how things turn out with the approach people have been taking for the past 40 years. Those who are seriously dissatisfied with the results need to re-think the methods and approaches, examine their premises and assumptions. You cannot "work within the system" and get results that are different than the system.
Actually, he comes across elitist and disinterested-- a disappointment at best. Complicit and ineffectual, he is constitutionally unfit in many ways and his administration is a disaster. And his appointments reflect his true agenda-in contrast to his lofty rhetoric.
And why, after the "fierce urgency of now", are we expected to accept the crumbs of incremental change? In terms of Bush achieving his objectives--he was much more successful and didn't only toss a bone. Continually we are lectured that it took so long to wrought the damage and it will take time to fix it while we continue down the same path with only an obligatory bandaid here and there supposed to represent big change.
What a squandered opportunity of epic proportions.
Failure.
Very well said. A comprehensive eulogy.
Its not a personality problem. It is a policy problem. I could care less what Obama's mood is if he would promote good policy.
Sometimes I think The Guardian reporters that report on Obama are too detached from the US (even if they are here) to understand how bad Obama is. If they would read CD posts, rather than follow M$M, they may get a clue.
Yes, agreed. British journalists, apart from John Pilger (not Brit by birth) haven't really "got it" yet, regarding Obama. Having lived most of my life in the UK, and watched events in the USA from that perspective, I can understand why. In Britain-before-Blair we did have a general feeling of trust our politicians, even if their views didn't align with our own. There was never a thouight that they were a "tool" of corporations or any other entity. Not so here, for many understandable reasons.
"Its not a personality problem. It is a policy problem. I could care less what Obama's mood is if he would promote good policy."
Is there any chance that anyone will understand this truth before the deluge of defeat over the next decade?
The tone and basis for Younge's analysis reminds me of the way "learned" spectators defined the powerful figurehead's MISSING robes in the satire, "The Emperor's New Clothes."
All this emphasis on minutiae, and missing traits of the president's character provides an endless atmophere of smoke and mirrors, one sufficient to deflect more significant bases for analysis. Such things as:
1. Why the MIC gets access to 50% of the nation's bank account, especially now with so many out of work, thousands of foreclosures, and nature being raped, species by species to extinction.
2. Why and how lobbies have taken over Washington to effectively turn government itself into endless deals of quid pro quo. ONLY money votes.
3. That there is no longer a substantial difference between the platforms of both "allowable" parties.
4. That while it is certainly true that Obama inherited a mess on every imaginable level, instead of altering the nation's path through genuine policy changes, he went along with all the egregious sins, errors, graft, corruption (down to the allowance of torture!) of his predecessor.
When a sane individual takes stock of the awful state of our nation, it becomes ludicrous to place any credence in this type of article. It splits hairs over the insubstantial while not mentioning the dire facts that the nation is in despair, if not its death throes.
SR
Though the first 4 are true, you left out 5. Which would be... he also went where no one wanted to go with Obamacare. While enjoying the performance of number 4 he also divided the country dramatically and gifted the American people with a Frankenstein that no one loves.
MIGHTY: I didn't intend to write a comprehensive list. I'm sure there are MANY items that could be added. I agree about #5. I will NOT pay some insurance company to play arbiter on whether or not a medical procedure will be covered. I see how they operate when it comes to property insurance. It's an elaborate labyrinth that only owns the appearance of legality, while functioning to make sure the company profits at everyone else's significant loss/expense.
SR
Frankly I thought your list was more than comprehensive enough. It pretty much covers the dishonesty and betrayal of this administration.
And thank you for outlining it. You and Vern together pretty much leave little to be said about this hack and his lackey's.
On the contrary, Sioux, I loved this article. From the operative word "Act" in the headline to the repeated mentions of his "performance" this author has it down exactly. It's what the president is "seen" to be. His critics are quoted with suggestions as to how he can improve his perceived performance, not his actual accomplishments.
Like Bill Clinton telling him how important it is to make sure people's heads are in the right place before he brings out his line of bullshit. It was all about what he looked like he would do that got him the Nobel Peace Prize without committing even one act of reconciliation. People don't care whether he's not really a good man, just that he's an apparently worse actor than they would have liked. More emotion! More drama!
People perceive that "Bush had a gut; Obama had a brain." Bush plays the Cowardly Lion, Obama the Scarecrow. For his audition Obama sang a piece from the Wizard of Oz, "Somewhere over the Rainbow". When he won the election, we all sang "Ding Dong the Witch is Dead". But when he actually started to play the part it turned out he was singing "Ol' Man River"...
As independent journalist and contributor to the web site ZNet, Paul Street points out in his new book The Empire's New Clothes: Barack Obama in the Real World of Power, it is extremely doubtful, as Gary Younge hopes, that Obama will suddenly become "angry" and start advocating for the American people. Street notes in his preface that:
"... the Democratic Party has moved even further away from its declared mission of representing workers, the poor, and minorities-the disadvantaged-in their continuing struggles with plutocracy, inequality, empire racism, and indifference."
As Street makes clear to the reader, someone like Obama is part of that group which belongs to the "privileged and the propertied and the power elite." This description would certainly appear to apply to Obama as Street writes of:
"Obama's careful, business-friendly handling of the economy [strong on bailouts for giant financial institutions and weak on support for the growing mass of unemployed and poor], the weakening of his 'health care reform' to a corporation-serving shadow of its original progressive promise, the passage of a record-setting Pentagon budget, and the related significant escalation of U.S. military violence in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia are just some of the many indication [detailed in the chapters that follow] of how deeply beholden Obama is to existing domestic and global hierarchies and doctrines."
The American public should not be under the illusion that Obama will become angry anytime soon in order to right the wrongs of the average American in this country since Obama, as C.Wright Mills noted in his classic work, belongs to that select group which so dominates and controls this country and which Mills had labeled as being The Power Elite.
Street's book, whose cover shows Obama mingling among adoring military cadets, is one that would most likely be welcomed by most progressives as it would affirm their belief that Obama is basically a tool for the corporate interests that run this country.
ERROLL: Excellent post.
Second that SR.
Paul Street had Barack Obama's number from the moment our leader entered the stage. I blogged with him a few times just to have a conversation with someone who wasn't madly in love, and therefore out of the reach of reason.
I recommend everything Paul Street has written. He's a brilliant political analyst.
again, that website is Znet.
I agree, great comment!
OilyBomber does not give a damn about the common person he is too busy twisting Bush's knife into the back of the common citizen.
Vote third party and party as OilyBomber is impeached.
I've said it before, I'll say it again:
Younge offers lightweight analysis within the mainstream Received Reality, on the superficial level of cable TV and PBS/NPR political analysis-- the pasteurized, homogenized, processed "Inside Politics" product peddled by Brooks & Shields, Tweety Matthews, etc.
And they have the equivalent of major-league baseball's minor-league "farm teams" in moderate "A-list bloggers", who break into the big leagues via mushy-progressive sites like the Huffington Post.
It's "Washington Week in Review"speak. One of the debilitating side-effects of the Teevee Age is the creation of the Frankenstein monster of the Talking Head, homo pundus.
It poses as a thoughtful, astute, savvy, sophisticated adult, but it actually has the mentality and world-view of a high school political science/forensics club adolescent geek.
This isn't to knock adolescent geeks, who still have a chance to outgrow their callow superficiality, uninformed by experience.
But Younge and the legion of fellow Talking Heads are given over to making a lucrative career out of their sociopolitical arrested development, one load at a time.
O.S. Excellent analysis.
Right again, O.S. One guy who reminds me of Younge is Richard Wolffe, of MSNBC, who is always on Olbermann's show. He even wrote a book about Obama's campaign, titled "Renegade," as if that somehow describes one of the most conformist presidents in all US history. None of these disappointed dead-ender Democrats can ever stop arguing about how Obama "just needs to _______"(fill in the blank). If only he'd live up to his world-shaking, glorious campaign promises, then we'd be entering the utopia we all had a right to expect from this progressive savior. It's bound to happen soon, if only we have enough faith!
Awesome!
What part of "no drama Obama" wasn't clear? Now, all of a sudden, he's supposed to be Mr. Histrionic.
Ms. Hart's remarks put me in mind of an old "Saturday Night Live" skit with Eddie Murphy. I think the skit was called "White Like Me." Anybody remember that?
What a person does trumps what he says. And Obama has done Plenty 'O Bad.
No remake, remodel, makeover, or rebirth, can save this president, now. Too much damage has been done. Too many people killed. Too much money stolen. Too much "hope" replaced by "despair" by this man and his congress.
Thank God at least some of them will be gone soon.
From Younge's subtitle:
"Americans want a leader they can relate to, as well as revere."
Translation into reality:
"Americans are perfectly comfortable being fantasizing Zombies".
What emotion?? Obama is an eliteist-controlled, i.e. programmed, sociopath so perfect for the the job he was hired to do.
What Obama does to impress an audience makes no difference. People will either stick with the same celebrity or simply choose another one that just so happens to look better on the tubes. This brings me to today's article by Chris Hedges
http://www.truthdig.com
/report/item
/retribution_for_a_world_lost_in_screens_20100927/
Whereas Gary Younge focuses mainly on what personalities or movements Obama should exhibit to retain or enhance his star-struck audience, Hedges gets to the heart of the matter as to why we are stuck with filthy representation. I share his anger because so often I have to put up with the core Republican voters on the one hand who only want Republican celebrities. They couldn't care less about the content of Obama's policies or that most of them are identical to Dubya's. The only things that interest them are mindless entertainment be they "reality" shoes, money shows, or violence on television to keep them all pumped up. This need not be limited to the Republican supporters as I see a lot of this regardless of which major party they want to "have a beer" with.
The difference that interests me the most is the way each author views hope. From Hedges writes, hope can be viewed as always being vigilant about justice and decency along with looking beyond the tangible. Younge, on the other hand, makes the same mistake most party apologists make by simply believing that progress will come from this or that. Taking these differences into consideration, those of us who voted with conviction outside of Obama and Mccain had no reason to expect any progressive from Obama while the rest of the supposedly progressives and liberals who chose Obama bought into the wrong definition of "hope" by expecting something spectacular from someone operating within a broken system. Well, Obama not only went the wrong way but his administration was also "vigilant" enough to also see to it that progressive and liberal dissent was stifled from within the party as if the establishment wasn't enough to keep it that way. With the way Hedges knows what is really happening, he could easily crush Younge's argument that the economic policies are weak by easily proving that they are strongly against the working class and for the upper class but with a slick touch of too much happy talk cover up.
Obama won because of three factors: 1) he was running against a very weak opponent with an albatross (Miss Alaska) round his neck. 2) he could count on a motivated African American voter contingent, for obvious historical reasons. 3) he demonstrated an acute awareness of white voter sensitivities and thus avoided 'frightening' away this key demographic (this is where the 'unflappable' comes in. RIP Rev. Wright)
"This dislocation is particularly acute because (Obama's) candidacy – rooted in the promise of change – endowed his presidency with expectations of transformation both symbolic and substantial that no individual could possibly meet."
Obama never even tried because his entire campaign, except for what he said about Afghanistan, was a monumental lie and betrayal. He never even tried. Mr. Younge is another in a legion of cringing apologists who will diagnose you with cancer and tell you merely have the common cold.
You don't have to have the high expectations of a "magic wand" to level legitimate criticisms of Obama.
A holder of a magic wand, would still have intent of its use.
It would seem that someone not bestowed of a magic wand, such as Obama, would necessarily labor with such intent, as it would be so much more difficult to align tasks with intent, than if he had a magic wand.
Since, it is hard to discern any intent, as per his actions, of the kind of "Change" that he campaigned on, it is reasonable to question his intent, or at least his commitment to such intentions.