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.
