In a prior post, I took a swipe at the Obama campaign as “Populist” and asserted that Obama lacks the demonstrated competence, experience, and intestinal fortitude to be President.
Ipsit Dixit responded with a thoroughly academic critique of my internet post.
In my experience, little internet discussion follows the structure of academic discourse. It rarely defines terms, presents both sides of an argument, or fairly discusses complex issues. Internet postings have more in common with Thomas Paine’s tracts than Blackstone’s commentaries.
While thoroughly researched, painstakingly attributed, carefully constructed, and eminently fair discussion of current events is of great value, my post was not intended to fulfill those worthy goals. It was, instead, intended to draw on common definitions and ideas to express frustration with what I see as another example of “king-making” by the media.
Perhaps I will be more successful in my second attempt.
In my opinion, it is “Populism” that underpins the Obama campaign.
I did some research into the term “Populism” and found that there is little agreement on its meaning. It appears to have been coined to represent the People’s Party of the late-1800s through early 1900s. These early Populists favored monetary policies that supported labor unions and policy that favored the maintaining of privately owned farms. The also opposed the private ownership of utilities and multi-state corporations.
I have understood “Populism” to be the symbiotic relationship between political leadership that seeks to appeal to a broad “common-man” interest and a population that seeks controls over interests perceived to be uncontrolled by the larger society. So, Populism in 1920 favored labor over owners, government control over railroads, and greater regulation of financial interests. To my mind, Populism today favors US labor over globalization, control over mortgage finance and markets, and the greater regulation of financial interests. The common thread is that the interests of the “common man” trump the interests of corporations and those at the top of the economic ladder.
“Populism” is a pejorative term in my eyes.
Guilty as charged.
It is pejorative because the attempt to appeal to the “common-man’s” interests through the distilling of complex problems to catch-phrases, a common technique of Populists, is, to my mind, inherently dishonest. It seeks power by promising the democratization of financial interests and the socialization of services without possession of the mandate or power to accomplish those ends.
Ultimately, my gripe with the Obama campaign is that it has its roots in a Populist appeal and that it draws its strength from and the complicity of a media that is engaged in “king-making”- by which I mean the ability of the media to decide a winner and then manipulate the populace into voting for that person.
Obama is a fine speaker. He is charismatic and his speech-writers are at the top of their game. When “on-script,” Obama makes few gaffs and his campaign has deftly handled any mistakes.
Obama also has an excellent groups of “handlers”- by which I mean those persons who day-in and day-out manage the complex affairs of a politician so that the politician can concentrate on appearances. This group includes high-level strategists, personal dressers, marketing people, administrators, and a host of paid and volunteer people without whom a candidate would be overwhelmed with tasks.
If we want to think ill of “handlers,” there is some cause.
Handlers refine the message and shield the candidate from scrutiny. So it was with Clinton, whose handlers snuffed story after story during his presidential campaign. So it is with Obama whose handlers have kept discussions of Obama’s stand on issues important to religious voters off the table.
McCain has handlers too. (I like to think that McCain’s greater experience and stature in politics gives him greater control over his message, but I may be deluding myself.)
One of the most important job for handlers is to place candidates in the most favorable position to receive accolades without risk of de-masking their weaknesses. Obama’s handlers have been particularly good at this task and McCain’s particularly bad.
One strategy that Obama’s team employed to great effect during the Primary (hard to believe that we are still in the Primary season, given the present contest) was to overwhelm one’s experienced opponent with media saturation. Undoubtably, it is Obama’s personal magnetism that has made this possible, but it is to his handler’s credit that Obama has been able to capitalize on that advantage.
Almost as soon as he won his Senate seat, Obama began running for President. Obama has no experience with the hard-fought compromises that make this deliberative body work. He simply hasn’t been there long enough to learn the complex inter-personal relationships that bring a bill to a vote or doom it to committee. Unlike LBJ, a man with an immense amount of experience in pushing through legislation, if Obama becomes President, he will be forced to rely upon others for the skills and experience in legislating that he lacks. In this respect, Obama reminds me of Kennedy.
Hillary Clinton had considerably more experience but was much less likable. Consequently, Obama’s team was able to develop a relationship with the media that made every Clinton misstep a catastrophe and most Obama missteps an asset. Obama’s call for unspecified change received unmitigated support from the popular media and uncritical reporting has bolstered his bid for election even beyond that of far more experienced contenders.
Compared to Obama and Clinton, McCain is an “expert” on legislation and the relationship between the Legislature and the Administration and among the Houses, Members, and Senators.
(McCain became an US Representative in 1982 and has served continuously as an US Senator since 1986. He has also been either the sponsor of or co-sponsor to some of the most complex pieces of legislation in history such as that which took on campaign finance and immigration overhaul. Like or hate those bills, McCain was instrumental in bringing them to the floor.)
The crux of the matter is that Obama has not demonstrated an ability to lead and relies upon celebrity to create the impression of charismatic leadership.
The popular media is in the midst of a love-affair with Obama that has built him into a colossus of popular appeal. For example, People Magazine ran a front-page article about the Obama family. The unfettered praise heaped upon him by the mainstream media has only abated in the last week or so and then, only after McCain scored points against Obama by attacking Obama’s celebrity. However, being popular, even charismatic, is only valuable to a leader in-so-much-as those attributes compel cooperation from other government officials. Celebrity must not be a substitute for demonstrated experience, ability, and determination that we need in a President.
The short of it is that the media’s attempt to “sell” me on Obama makes me greatly mistrust him. The media’s attempt to dissuade me from voting for McCain makes me take McCain more seriously.
What concerns me is that Obama’s campaign and the media are so anxious to sell us on change for change’s sake that the particulars are lost. Obama’s website is no more illuminating because it speaks almost entirely in inspirational language. (Before you say it, my friend, I don’t have any idea what Conservative pundits say about Obama. I don’t listen to them and couldn’t care less about their opinions. In MY opinion, Obama’s “plans” are woefully short on details and it is those details that are supposed to substitute for legislative experience on which we are to base our support. If Obama wants my vote, he needs to explain the steps that will garner the support of the States and the US legislature. Without it, it is so much fluff.)
As importantly, I have not seen any reason to believe that Obama has a mandate for change within his own party- begging the question of whether Democratic control of both the Executive and Legislative branches will matter at all. (This is the nature of my attempt to parallel Obama and Bill Clinton as presidents.)
Ultimately, Democrat or Republican, the drafting and amending of legislation is shielded from popular review by an army of lawyers, lobbyists, party elite, and rules. A President cannot navigate that swamp of conflicting interests by popularity alone. A President must be able to harness their popular appeal.
I closed out the prior post by alleging that, like JFK, “Obama will find that there is a huge difference between conceptualizing a ‘better world’ and doing anything to get us there.” And further, that “[l]ike Clinton, he [Obama] will find that it is a lot more satisfying to make big speeches than to attend to the day-in-and-day-out functions of an Administration. And, like Clinton, I suspect that an Obama Administration will be rudderless and corrupt. He will likely be the unknowing chief of a scandal-plagued tribe.”
Though Ipsit Dixit took great offense at these conclusions, I must affirm that they represent a realistic assessment of the likely outcome of an Obama election. (I retract that allegation that Obama’s staff will walk off with White House property like Clinton’s did. Mine was an unfair shot.)
I don’t have any reason to believe that Democratic control of the Senate, House, and Presidency will make one iota of a difference to the vested interests that are aggressively shifting their funding from GOP to DNC. Obama and the national Democratic Party need filthy money as much as the GOP ever did. Once taken, whether through direct donations or through back doors like the 527s, those interests will continue pulling strings… the strings will just be a different color. Thus, even if we credit Obama as being scrupulous and faithful in his promise of “change,” there is no evidence that the presently Democratic controlled Senate and House will do more than give lip-service to that change.
Without the ability to insert himself into the legislative process, an ability that comes only with experience, Obama hasn’t got a prayer of making substantive change, not looked for by the national Democratic Party, a reality. We have been here before… JFK was President.
I suspect that Obama, who seems like a “good man,” will find, as Bill Clinton did before him, that the problems facing his administration are much greater and more complex than he ever imagined. The temptation to abdicate responsibility for those affairs to subordinates will be great. Since those subordinates will be chosen by the party’s elite, they will come to Obama (again, assuming Obama to be impeccably honest) tainted and corrupt. Without careful oversight, a skill not demonstrated by Obama due to his utter lack of executive experience and in serious question, as Ipsit Dixit notes in his reply to the previous post, during his campaign, how could his administration be other than corrupt? We have been here before too… Clinton was President.
Ipsit Dixit was offended by the perceived slight that Obama supporters “accept, without challenge, the assertions of others if assertions are spoken loudly enough and resonate with our desires.” He sees my noting that “I don’t think of myself as ‘smarter’ than other people’” as a mere feint.
The post was written with the mind to my fellow posters, all of whom are, in my esteem, brighter than me. To state that Ipsit Dixit is a critical and intelligent Obama supporter provides no answer to the charge that Obama is riding a Populist wave that may well sweep him into the Presidency.
There are lots of critical, intelligent persons who support Obama; but Obama’s campaign seeks supporters are reflexively supporting him. If they vote Obama because everyone else is or because George Clooney says they should, so be it.
Similarly, McCain is hoping to tap into the reflexive support of deeply conservative persons. If they vote for McCain because Chuck Norris says they should, so be it.
Both campaigns, I suspect, will take votes and money from any source in the offing. If it be racists, communists, atheists, or zealots… so long as they don’t claim to speak for the campaign, their offerings will be accepted.
Such is politics.
As for the foreign-policy credentials and such, that was all Ipsit Dixit. I actually didn’t post about the need for foreign policy experience in a President.
I will say, though, that my view of a presidency is more narrow than that commonly accepted and that foreign policy experience is invaluable.
