You’re More Or Less Aloof
Digg 
Stumble Upon 
Newsvine 
Slashdot 
Mixx 
Diigo 
Delicious 
Reddit 
Facebook
There are any number of theories offered for the tightness. One is that Obama is too temperamentally aloof for most Americans. ~Andrew Sullivan
The word choice here caught my attention. Over the last few months, I have noticed ”aloof” being used more and more often to describe Obama. This jumps out at me because I remember using it back in February to describe him, or more precisely to predict how he would be perceived in the general election and why this would end up being his downfall:
The reason why the relatively more wonkish, detail-oriented candidates repeatedly come up short is that they confuse a display of competence and understanding with demonstrating intense expertise with the specifics of their policies, which matter primarily to interest groups, bloggers and box-checking ideological gnomes. Romney could run rings around McCain and Huckabee with his expertise, but that didn’t matter. The same has been true with Clinton in her struggle with Obama.
All the things that horrify a republican about mass democracy–the identitarianism, the ”gut-level connection,” the vacuous rhetoric and the cheap, manipulative symbolism–help to explain why we end up with the candidates we do, and they will explain why the aloof, relatively more expert candidate in the general election, Obama, will end up losing.
Tagging Obama as aloof was not entirely new in February, but my commenters at the time thought I was off the mark. Politico apparently made the same claim in a December ‘07 article. However, I think the aloofness goes hand in hand with the wonkishness and expertise, so that while it is electorally a problem it is a signal of other desirable qualities. It’s just not often the case that someone with this combination prevails in a popular election. Most of McCain’s critics probably think that it deals him a serious blow to describe McCain as a visceral, emotionally-driven person, but I think those of us who are against McCain (regardless of whether we are for Obama) make a mistake if we treat this as an electoral weakness, just as we are missing something when we emphasize how little McCain knows about any policy questions. They are the sources of his strength as a candidate, and I suspect that they are part of the explanation for why he continues to run far ahead of the generic GOP candidate.
P.S. Extra points for identifying the origin of the title. It’s not hard, but I thought I would try something a bit less serious before I go on vacation.
Filed under: politics
Medvedev has promised to bring the war to its “logical conclusion” and the Russian Foreign Ministry has claimed that over 360 Russian citizens have been detained, in Georgia, trying to leave Georgia.
Dean was wonky. Obama is not. Dean was very happy, the day before the Iowa Caucus, to entirely shut up a large crowd by going into great detail about his health care plan. You can tell if they are being wonky… the crowd gets quiet and then starts to look uncomfortable as someone tries to educate them in public.
What theory of representative democracy to do you adhere to that says anything _but_ elites should be elected? Maybe part of the problem with the Bush administration was the election of a Joe Schmoe?
I know he was editor of the Harvard Law Review, the most prestigious position for any aspiring lawyer, and graduated Harvard Law School Magna Cum Laude, but he then went to work on the south side of Chicago.
McNasty (his real nickname when he was young) followed in his father and grandfather’s footsteps and has eight houses, threw away his old wife six months after her serious, life-altering accident. Are he and Newt Gingirch “down to earth” and not “aloof” for throwing out wives when they are sick? The guys who can totally ignore that “for better or worse” bit?
Which sounds more aloof?
Sorry, please ignore all of that except the parts about Medevedev and the question about what theory of representative democracy you adhere to that supports the election of people _other_ than elites.
Origin of the title:
The song You’re Sensational from the film High Society.
Yes, Josh has a point, it’s hard to be both “aloof” and an emotionally inspiring figure, which Obama clearly is. Somehow Obama manages to do the trick. Which is why McCain’s primary camaign objective seems to be to villify Obama for being a Messiah figure, rather than too aloof. The intended effect is to neutralize the emotional appeal Obama has, thus isolating him as purely “aloof”. This may or may not be working. The problem with attacking Obama as a superficial celebrity is that it’s hard to be that and an aloof wonk at the same time. It’s also hard to be a wonkish anti-Christ.
By which I mean there’s really a lot more to iMcCain’s negative campaigning than painting Obama as a cult figure. McCain is deliberately targeting Obama as the anti-Christ, in a symbolic fashion that is missed by the general media but read quite easily by the fundamentalist Christians, particularly in ads like “The One”, in which McCain clearly assocates Obama with the anti-Christ of the Tim LaHaye “Left Behind” novels. Anyone who still thinks the McCain people are too obtuse to use symbols in a covertly racist or religious manner ought to look at this link first:
http://niqnaq.wordpress.com/2008/08/07/obama-as-nicolae-carpathia/
The difference between McCain’s “visceral” appeal and Obama’s “hope” appeal has to do with the emotions involved. McCain plays on fear of evil, Obama on the desire for good. Both are essentially emotional candidates, not wonks. Obama is more detailed in policy matters than McCain, but he doesn’t really play that up, counting instead on a positive emotional appeal.