Tag Archives: obama

“What Happened to Obama’s Passion?”

Posted by —

2

This post is in response to a fascinating, thought-provoking, and (in many respects) spot-on op-ed in the nytimes.com: “What Happened to Obama’s Passion?” by Drew Westen (Aug. 6. 2011). Let me insert this disclaimer: this isn’t a personal rant against Obama. I’m a moderate Republican, but when Obama was elected, I had high hopes for him. I really hoped he could accomplish all that he said he would, and if he had done so, I would have been happy. I’m an American before I’m a Republican, and I try to keep a balanced approach when making up my mind about things. So this isn’t a witchhunt or an “I told you so” post — it’s merely a follow-up to an intelligent op-ed that caught my eye. The article raised some questions in my mind, and also echoed some questions that were already present.

Dr. Westen begins by explaining something that I’ve long believed but struggled to actually define. It was a nebulous feeling I had that I couldn’t quite describe, and I’m thrilled that other people have noticed too: that there is something wrong with Obama’s storytelling. The link between American politics and storytelling is utterly fascinating to me — I don’t know if such a link is present in all politics or just in ours, seeing as we are so clearly a nation of idealistic dreamers (even the most cynical among us, arguably, are steeped in disappointment at what they see in real life versus the stories of America we were told as schoolchildren). Anyway, I firmly believe in the good of storytelling, and even its necessity in politics and society. To quote Westen:

The stories our leaders tell us matter, probably almost as much as the stories our parents tell us as children, because they orient us to what is, what could be, and what should be; to the worldviews they hold and to the values they hold sacred.

The nebulous idea I’ve struggled to pinpoint, however, is Obama’s lack of storytelling. In Westen’s words:

When Barack Obama rose to the lectern on Inauguration Day, the nation was in tatters…In that context, Americans needed their president to tell them a story that made sense of what they had just been through, what caused it, and how it was going to end. They needed to hear that he understood what they were feeling, that he would track down those responsible for their pain and suffering, and that he would restore order and safety…But there was no story — and there has been none since…In contrast, when faced with the greatest economic crisis, the greatest levels of economic inequality, and the greatest levels of corporate influence on politics since the Depression, Barack Obama stared into the eyes of history and chose to avert his gaze. Instead of indicting the people whose recklessness wrecked the economy, he put them in charge of it. He never explained that decision to the public — a failure in storytelling as extraordinary as the failure in judgment behind it.

Yes. Exactly.

It seems that  Obama (and everyone else in government) doesn’t ever explain why the government is doing what it’s doing. I consider myself a moderately-educated person (college degree; literate; i try to keep up with the news and current events, etc.), and I can recall specific moments where I wished someone would explain the rationale of decisions made in Washington to me. I don’t believe in complete direct democracy (anymore than I believe in mayhem and panic) as an effective form of government, so I recognize the responsibility of my leaders to be “experts” in the field of governing (as it were), to make decisions with a finesse I don’t really have the time to develop. However, in this age of information some kind of balance must be struck. With data as wide-spread as it is, we form opinions about everything. And in the absence of reasonable, articulated explanations from the leaders themselves, we end up taking the scraps of sense that the media tosses down. And you know how much I trust, like, and respect the media.

(TANGENT: I’m reminded of a quote from The West Wing (I don’t have the actual citation; I’m sorry). C.J., the press secretary, is talking to Charlie, the president’s assistant.

C.J. Cregg: Everybody’s stupid in an election year, Charlie.
Charlie Young: No, everybody gets treated stupid in an election year, C.J.

Even not in election years, it seems. It seems that Washington doesn’t believe we deserve or need to be told the reasoning behind their decisions; that miscalculation is part of the reason that extremists like the Tea Party can rise to such heights. Fueled with more passion than reason now, and with no central story to guide them, Americans are left to steer off into the narrative that suits them best.)

Westen goes on to discuss why the president has left the nation in such a state:

The real conundrum is why the president seems so compelled to take both sides of every issue, encouraging voters to project whatever they want on him, and hoping they won’t realize which hand is holding the rabbit. That a large section of the country views him as a socialist while many in his own party are concluding that he does not share their values speaks volumes — but not the volumes his advisers are selling: that if you make both the right and left mad, you must be doing something right…The most charitable explanation is that he and his advisers have succumbed to a view of electoral success to which many Democrats succumb — that “centrist” voters like “centrist” politicians. Unfortunately, reality is more complicated. Centrist voters prefer honest politicians who help them solve their problems. A second possibility is that he is simply not up to the task by virtue of his lack of experience and a character defect that might not have been so debilitating at some other time in history. Those of us who were bewitched by his eloquence on the campaign trail chose to ignore some disquieting aspects of his biography: that he had accomplished very little before he ran for president, having never run a business or a state; that he had a singularly unremarkable career as a law professor, publishing nothing in 12 years at the University of Chicago other than an autobiography; and that, before joining the United States Senate, he had voted “present” (instead of “yea” or “nay”) 130 times, sometimes dodging difficult issues.

I don’t often endorse an op-ed that is so biased towards the Democrat’s party, but I think Westen raises some points that are critical to our going-forward in American politics. Westen lays a lot of blame for the national woes at the GOP’s door, and I definitely don’t share the intensity of that view (in fact, on some points, I vehemently disagree with him). However, in light of Westen’s statements about the president’s failure to narrate properly, the role of narration in our politics, and the chaos this failure has caused, I highly recommend you read this piece. It may be that we need to re-address what we look for when we choose our leaders and what we expect them to recognize in us.

BINGO, Mr. President

Posted by —

0

i’m not sure why we called it bingo, because it wasn’t actually a bingo game, per se. but my brothers and i each picked 5 keywords to watch out for as we watched the state of the union. each time the president said one of the words on your list, you got 1 point. the most points wins. there were a few restrictions: no proper nouns; no words like “nation,” “country,” or “union;” and no baby words “the” “and” “a” etc. everyone had to submit their five lists to the group and get approval. if more than 2 people had the same word on the list, no one could use it.

the thing is, we decided to do this only moments before the speech began — so we didn’t have much time to come up with words, or to really consider upsides and downsides of certain phrases. in the end, i picked these words:

new (24), clear (4), time (4), strong (1), aisle (0). new was easy enough — figured they would have “new” ideas and so forth, but i defintiely thought i would get more for “clear.” doesn’t the president always say “let me be clear”? maybe he got tired of being heckled for it and changed his words. i figured he would end with “the state of the union is strong,” because the news reported last night that every president since reagan has done so, but i kinda thought he would say it was strong a few more times than just the once. and i should have picked bipartisan instead of aisle; not sure why i didnt.

my brothers’ words, in order of popularity, were:  future (15), spending (13),  responsibility (6), troops (6), “men and women” (5), rescue(4), consumer (1),  fiscal (1), recovery(0), outlook (0).

ok then on to my more-serious thoughts:

i liked the speech. i liked most of what the president put forward–although i do agree with the post-speech pundits who noted that obama took a very conciliatory tone. he was trying to unify america, as well he should. so he didn’t spend much time on the issues that deeply divide us. but you know what, i’m okay with that. americans DO disagree, and we ARE passionate about our beliefs but its also good to be reminded that we also agree and we are also passionate about being one nation. i was reminded that, in spite of all my political whining and rants, i really am appreciative to be an american. i love this country, and i respect those who try to lead us. my favorite quote from the whole thing was this:

We should have no illusions about the work ahead of us…none of this is easy. All of it will take time. And it will be harder because we will argue about everything. The cost. The details. The letter of every law. Of course, some countries don’t have this problem. If the central government wants a railroad, they get a railroad — no matter how many homes are bulldozed. If they don’t want a bad story in the newspaper, it doesn’t get written. And yet, as contentious and frustrating and messy as our democracy can sometimes be, I know there isn’t a person here who would trade places with any other nation on Earth.

some of the others that i thought were great:

Now, by itself, this simple recognition won’t usher in a new era of cooperation. What comes of this moment is up to us. What comes of this moment will be determined not by whether we can sit together tonight, but whether we can work together tomorrow. I believe we can. I believe we must. That’s what the people who sent us here expect of us. With their votes, they’ve determined that governing will now be a shared responsibility between parties. New laws will only pass with support from Democrats and Republicans. We will move forward together, or not at all — for the challenges we face are bigger than party, and bigger than politics.

…

What’s more, we are the first nation to be founded for the sake of an idea — the idea that each of us deserves the chance to shape our own destiny. That is why centuries of pioneers and immigrants have risked everything to come here. It’s why our students don’t just memorize equations, but answer questions like “What do you think of that idea? What would you change about the world? What do you want to be when you grow up?”

…

That responsibility begins not in our classrooms, but in our homes and communities. It’s family that first instills the love of learning in a child. Only parents can make sure the TV is turned off and homework gets done. We need to teach our kids that it’s not just the winner of the Super Bowl who deserves to be celebrated, but the winner of the science fair; that success is not a function of fame or PR, but of hard work and discipline.

…

Every day, families sacrifice to live within their means. They deserve a government that does the same.

…

Tonight, let us speak with one voice in reaffirming that our nation is united in support of our troops and their families. Let us serve them as well as they have served us — by giving them the equipment they need; by providing them with the care and benefits they have earned; and by enlisting our veterans in the great task of building our own nation.

…

From the earliest days of our founding, America has been the story of ordinary people who dare to dream. That’s how we win the future.

…

The idea of America endures. Our destiny remains our choice. And tonight, more than two centuries later, it is because of our people that our future is hopeful, our journey goes forward, and the state of our union is strong.

state of the what?

Posted by —

2

in case anyone else was wondering why president obama’s speech tonight is being called “The State of the Nation” and not “The State of the Union:” it’s not called that because it isn’t that.

From Wikipedia:

The State of the Union is an annual message which the President of the United States gives to Congress, usually an address to a joint session of Congress (the House of Representatives and the Senate). It has occurred in January (except for six occasions in February) since 1934. Sometimes, especially in recent years, newly-inaugurated Presidents have delivered speeches to joint sessions of Congress only weeks into their respective terms, but these are not officially considered State of the Union addresses. The address is also most frequently used to outline the President’s legislative proposals for the upcoming year. For these reasons, a State of the Union address is generally not given in years in which a new president is inaugurated.

so obama’s speech, though basically intended to reflect upon the state of our great country, isn’t what we have come to know (and love?) as the official “State of the Union” address. tune in next january for that one.

hype

Posted by —

1

ok, so i AM excited for America today — don’t mistake me. i truly am. but i’ve just realized that i’m sort of naturally skeptical of anything that gets as much hype as Obama has been getting (unless, of course, it’s me :) ). So that’s my official stance. excited and interested to see what will happen. and slightly wary. in case you were wondering.

last look

Posted by —

3

The last day dawns – and while most Americans have already made up their mind about which candidate they will support, I think it’s fair to say a lingering sense of doubt still tugs at some. Not doubt as to which candidate to vote for, but doubt as to whether either man can actually extricate us from our current woes. Time Magazine runs an interesting article this morning, “How They Would Lead,” and highlights the idea that regardless of which candidate wins, he heads into one of the most difficult presidential transitions/inaugurations since Lincoln’s.

The article is interesting, and I encourage you to read it – it’s Time Magazine, so obviously it’s a bit on the left, but it was a much less biased assessment than I expected. Insightful too, not only insofar as it looks forward to the next presidency, but also as it recounts past ones.

But the article is only the impetus of my post today, not it’s center. Today’s rambling stems from a consideration I’ve been having over the past few months. Of course, I believe in voting for the person who will make the best president, as we all do. Occasionally, I suppose, we are actually voting for the candidate who will not make the worst president, but you know what I mean. And of course, from our next president, we need someone who will reform social security, reconcile the immigration issues, fight our energy crisis, stabilize our current economic nightmare, and so forth. And, because I am Republican and see things the way I do, I think McCain is a better bet for this.

On the other hand though, the issue bears considering: what kind of president does the country need — not what kind of president do the issues need (one president won’t solve them all anyway), but what about the nation itself? What does a McCain victory do for the country? Does it divide us further? Does it sink us deeper into this sort of national-melancholy we find ourselves in? I don’t know. In an almost entirely Democrat Congress, does a Republican president wreak more havoc than do good?

And what does it do to/for the GOP as a whole? As a party, should we back down, lay low for 4 years — let the Democrats have a run of it (especially since they basically own Congress and I just can’t see Pelosi-Reid cooperating with McCain), and regroup? Come back in 4 years with a stronger candidate, a stronger party, a stronger sense of mission? We’re a tired old party, and although I wish we weren’t, maybe it’s time not to fight, but to rebuild.

Does Obama fix all our problems? No. Good grief — he isn’t the Messiah. But he is young, idealistic (to the point of naivety?), driven, and inspiring. And so while I’m probably going to vote for McCain, I can’t help but wonder if an Obama victory might do more for the America I want to live in than my candidate’s victory. He brings the bright-eyed belief back into the American Dream. Change and Hope and Yes We Can and all that rhetoric that is sometimes more damaging than beneficial in politics. Sometimes the rhetoric detracts attention from the real issues (as in the first days of Obama’s campaign). But right now, I have to wonder, maybe the rhetoric has a place. Maybe before we can tackle any of the issues, we have to believe we’re a country that’s worth tackling issues for. Maybe we’re a nation in need of a dream again.

Now don’t get me wrong. Do I fear a country lead by the Obama-Pelosi-Reid triumvirate? Uh, yeah — it would be an absolute wreck (but McCain vs Pelosi-Reid won’t be pretty either, though in different ways).

(As a side note: an Obama victory may also help the economy because, however lame I find this, most Americans believe he can fix the economy. And really the biggest problem with the economy is that people think its tanking — so they don’t spend, they don’t lend, they don’t invest. When they believe it’s not going down as drastically, they increase their spending/lending/investing and the economy stabilizes. It’s the ultimate power of positive thinking. Yeah. That’s how this country works — on the feel-goodness of ordinary people. Go figure.)

Back on track – yes, I fear That Trimvirate — but I also have a healthy skepticism as to how much even our Congress with the President can mess up in 4 years. Look at all the promises Congress made to us 2 years ago when the Democrats desperately wanted to take control? And how many of those have been enacted? What’s that? Almost none, you say? Why, yes, yes, that’s right. Because the only thing that has a lower approval rating than President Bush right now is our Democrat-led Congress. And with the domestic/economic situation being what it is, priorities are realigning for all of us. Even the Democrats will find their noble hands tied in many ways. Time reports that even the staunchest supporters of tax increases realize that now isn’t the time to do it. In a period where all Americans are finding themselves stretched, even our elected leaders aren’t dumb enough to stretch more. For once in our lives, politicians’ secret agendas and personal egos may actually (maybe, perhaps, there is a tiny chance) take second stage to combatting the potentially debilitiating future that looms ahead of us all.

I also have a lot of faith in Americans’ ability to change their mind. The President gets, supposedly, 100 days to make a difference. What our leaders have done in their first 100 days have historically shaped their entire time in the White House. As citizens, we expect great things from our leaders, and when they don’t deliver, Americans rarely hesitate to throw support the other way. If Obama-Pelosi-Reid don’t bring about some real change pretty quick, chances are the GOP can come back more alive than ever in 4 years.

If, and only if, someone starts thinking over there at GOP headquarters.

I’d like to close my ranting here with the final quote from the Time article referenced above. It’s not directly related to what I was saying, but I think it’s an insightful observation of the current political scene:

A sad fact of contemporary politics is that we’ve lost the ability to get through a campaign without transforming honorable alternatives into cartoons of good and evil. Disagreement is out; denunciation is in. The distinctive tune of our day is hysteria with a drumbeat of hyperbole, all set in the key of bad faith.

Underneath, however, Americans still long for the mystic chords of memory strummed by the better angels of our nature — a patriotic harmony that we like to think is the song of our nation at its best. This is why the two candidates who fared best in this election were the ones who spoke most convincingly about bringing us together. When the two are finally narrowed to one, his mandate will be change, his timetable short and his environment stormy with division. At a historic moment desperate for a successful President, everything will hinge on one man’s ability to navigate by the clouded star of common purpose.

in a nutshell

Posted by —

2

this is an article from The Onion (a prime example of the fine, upstanding news media we have in this country) that i found funny.

and by “funny,” i mean FLAT HILARIOUS.

http://www.theonion.com/content/opinion/what_in_the_hecks_a_barack

the article does, however, raise some interesting questions. in a way, it expresses my views on Sen. Obama in a nutshell (I’ve been saying since Day 1: “it’s so shiny, but what is it?!?“) – but it does so through the voice of a hick farmer. so is the author implying that anyone who thinks obama is just a trend is a hick farmer and (by proxy) ignorant? And if that’s the case, then the last paragraph seems to undermine the stance. If the author is trying to present an ignorant hick farmer, why have that farmer mention (with some intelligence) the current issues at stake in this election?

That makes me wonder if perhaps the author is merely utilizing a hick farmer voice as a rhetorical device Who else – other than a hick farmer – wouldn’t know what an Obama is? (And without that premise, the article has no legs to stand on.) Is the hick farmer here akin to the Shakespearean fool — the only character who manages to stumble on the truth in any given tragedy (and plenty of the comedies, as well)? Can we read through the bumble of the hick farmer voice and find the blatant farce he presents?

I don’t read The Onion often, but I’m willing to bet that they’re politically liberal. I’m also willing to bet that, if something is funny enough, they don’t care what side of the fence it’s on.

The other interesting thing is that, in light of all the Joe the Plumber and ‘real americans’ debates this presidential election has fostered, the hick farmer may be seen to be as real as any of us. maybe when it comes to politics we’re all just hick farmers, buying the toys we’re persuaded to buy without really understanding what they are.

anyway. the article is funny.