Mr. Tumnus, Fast Eddie And Misjudging Obama
Digg 
Stumble Upon 
Newsvine 
Slashdot 
Mixx 
Diigo 
Delicious 
Reddit 
Facebook
While the Blagosphere has been almost entirely consumed with our governor’s corruption and the state fair auction-like atmosphere that surrounded the Senate seat appointment, some bloggers on the left have begun noticing that reporting and commentary have tried to make the Blagojevich scandals into a serious problem for Obama, despite the evidence that shows Blagojevich to be deeply hostile to the President-elect and shows the latter to be uninvolved in any of the governor’s (alleged) crimes. One reason why this is happening is that a lot of journalists and pundits have become bored with the transition. It’s been going reasonably well, and it has been run so competently and with such an obvious emphasis on establishment-friendly appointments and merit (at least as merit is conventionally defined by that establishment) that most observers have been hungry for something else to talk about, and what better than a scandal involving all of the themes of the “old” politics, complete with bribery and shakedowns? You already have the makings of an overreaching and misleading narrative: “old Illinois politics mars transition period for Obama.”
On top of all of this, there is the problem that most people, especially journalists and pundits and even more particularly pundits on the right, seem to go through extreme mood swings when they talk and think about Obama. This is the tendency to swing between treating him, in John Kass’ memorable phrase, as the Mr. Tumnus of politics to regarding him as the canny Chicago pol, the Obama David Brooks referred to as “Fast Eddie,” or in other cases going between debating ridiculously whether he is more Maoist than Stalinist and then rejoicing childishly over the “centrism” of his appointments. In the mainstream media, it has gone from early adulation over the promised reform and transformation of Washington (whence the Messiah Watch) to a desire to play up conflict between Obama and the left, and now this latter theme has been partially replaced by the “Blagojevich taint” narrative.
Having finally recognized that Obama is a savvy political operator who is interested in effective government to pursue what are still broadly progressive goals, and having started to grasp that Obama is not a neo-McGovernite radical dove but is actually rather hawkish and establishmentarian in his instincts, the next thing for journalists and pundits to fixate on would have to be ethics and the political career in Illinois that virtually everyone ignored while they, again mostly in the mainstream press and on the right, were obsessing over his religious or tangential associations. Here we see the collective disbelief that a savvy Chicago pol could be at once more or less indifferent to the corruption of the machine politics around him (a guy who “won’t make no waves and won’t back no losers,” as Kass put it over six months ago), while nonetheless being free from any personal involvement in that corruption. People have a hard time making sense of a politician who can appear as the friend of the Hyde Park Independents and the Daley machine when each connection suits him, because it isn’t supposed to work that way.
Obama never transcends categories, as some people seemed to hope he could at one time, but he isn’t easily pigeonholed into any category, either, because he is very, very adaptable (which his admirers call “pragmatism”!). Just as they misjudged his political know-how because of his high-flown rhetoric, and just as they misjudged his foreign policy because of his opposition to the Iraq war, they are going to misjudge him again and try to tie him to Illinois corruption or claim that this reflects poorly on him or “taints” the incoming administration. Those who say this will be proven wrong again, and much to the frustration of his critics and enemies Obama will keep evading the categories and labels people try to stick to him and will separate himself from any associate, no matter how close or distant, the moment that associate becomes a liability.
Filed under: politics
16 Responses to “Mr. Tumnus, Fast Eddie And Misjudging Obama”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Well put Daniel.
Brooks is hilarious on Obama. Sometimes, he is very high, sometimes very low but he is always mistyeyed about Obama as being an ubermensch – either an unprincipled machiavellean pol from Chicago or as an enlightened academic instituiting Plato’s republic. Obama is very hard to figure out because there is something about him (an aura of inpenetrability?) that makes people entertain wild illusions about him and see their wildest fears or their wildest hopes.
Sadly I had just finished reading a blog entry on how the media was afraid to even imply Blogo and Obama could possibly have a relationship. Both sides need to come out of the bunker. At least then, we would have the benefit of a debate over truth. I can at least forgive your pessimism about Obama because it is based in reality.
Daniel, aren’t you one of the many people who have seriously misjudged Obama in the past? You used to admit this, which is good, but why should we assume your judgment of him is any more accurate now than it was then? Obama seems to be making fools of quite a lot of people who have underestimated or otherwise misjudged him. It’s fine to point out that other people have misjudged Obama, but shouldn’t that be done in full humility of your own misjudgment? Instead, we get this same certainty that you “know” Obama, and aren’t fooled. Aren’t you just setting yourself up for future embarassments?
Well put, Daniel. The press is just jonesing for something to write about, and scandal sells – the right has long been throwing every. single. thing. it. can. at the wall, in hopes something sticks – and this is just the latest incarnation.
I think the continual misjudgment of Obama is mostly due to a lack of information: We simply don’t know enough about the guy to know who he is.
The reason for this is that he’s got very little political history that we can actually look at and make a judgment on, and what history he does have largely consists of him calling in sick to avoid having to make any big stands. And, most of all, the media has been extremely remiss in reporting on what there is to be known of his background.
That’s why I would say that you are still being premature, Daniel. For instance, how do you know that the guy never got personally involved in Chicago corruption? Do you actually have detailed knowledge of what he did there for 20 years? No, you don’t. Nobody does. You can’t make a certain statement one way or another.
There are some things we can say about him though, with confidence. He’s definitely an establishmentarian and an opportunist, who goes along to get along with whoever holds the power, and doesn’t make waves. Whether or not he was personally involved in Chicago corruption, we do know for sure that he has no history of ever standing up to it.
While he made some sounds about opposing the Washington establishment during the campaign, he only actually opposed it insofar as he ran against the Clintons, and now that he’s won, he’s surrounding himself with establishment figures.
In Congress, he had the most far-left voting record of anybody during his tenure, but it’s hard to say whether this represents his real core, or if he was just going along with the Democratic establishment around him like he always does.
And, of course, he’s made a bunch of contradictory promises along the campaign, to appease whoever he needed to get to the next stage, in opportunistic fashion.
So why is it that he’s so unusually difficult to figure out for a Presidential candidate? What is it about him that makes it so that everyone is able to project their wildest fantasies on him? Why haven’t we had a candidate like this before? Is it because he’s so gosh-darned special?
Actually, I think it’s the opposite. It’s because he’s so mediocre. Normally, a politician with such an undistinguished career, who just goes along with everyone else and doesn’t make waves, and who avoids having to make any big decisions, wouldn’t get anywhere near the Presidency. That sort of modus operandi is good for keeping you out of trouble, and for ensuring you a permanent cushy job as a nameless bureaucrat, but it doesn’t make you stand out, and it doesn’t make you a leader that people will follow.
The thing that makes Obama so hard to define, and so easy to project onto, is precisely his lack of distinguishment and his go-along-to-get-along habits. The reason we haven’t had a President like this before is that we’ve never elected anybody so undistinguished before. Normally, the American people wouldn’t dream of putting in somebody that they didn’t know a thing about, and who had such a meager, unaccomplished record.
However, Obama has one special trait: he’s an articulate black guy. This fact makes half the country go into a rapturous bliss, and opens up opportunities for him that many anonymous politicians with a similar records to his could never dream of. And hence we end up in the unprecedented position of having a mysterious cipher of a President who nobody can figure out, but on whom everyone projects their hopes and fears.
Btw, I do have one prediction for how Obama will lead.
Based on his history, I’d venture to guess that he will simply do what the establishment around him thinks should be done. He’s never been a leader, and I doubt it’s something that will come to him all of a sudden.
So, similar to Bush, we’re going to see an extremely powerful Cabinet. Probably even moreso. And likely an extremely powerful Congress too.
Wow. You just summarized beautifully all of the ridiculous psychology behind this issue and Obama’s relationship with the media in general. Thank you.
Looking back through history, I think it’s clear that generational change can come rather quickly. Obama is commencing a new political strategy, and the media will continue to misapply old labels to Obama until they figure that out. Let us hope this comes sooner rather than later. I’m so very bored with their current performance.
It also makes it difficult for the press to properly police and monitor Obama when they all have their heads firmly up their backsides – and that’s something a benevolent leader needs just as much as a corrupt one, imho, so it doesn’t matter that we don’t know yet which one he’ll be. Some of them will never come up for air, but eventually some will.
On an unrelated note, Daniel, I just wanted to say, I’m a new poster but an old reader. I always enjoy your posts, even though I’m a scorching liberal and disagree with you on a great many things. So thank you. *waves*
[...] Sometimes I honestly think Daniel Larison is the only person on the planet who can clearly measure up Obama: [...]
Deuce, maybe you, like Daniel, are just tempermentally unable to understand Obama. I don’t really have that problem, because I think I come at things in a way much more similar to Obama than you do. He’s not a cipher to me, or a mysterious object of fascination. He’s a guy I root for because I see someone who approaches things in a fashion I like and admire and even aspire towards. Obviously you and I are very different people, and empathize with very different types. Maybe George Bush was your kind of guy. Well, Obama’s my kind of guy, at least the closest I’ve seen on the national political stage, so I’m neither threatend by nor feel the need to glamorize him. The best thing you said is that you didn’t know much about him, and didn’t know what he’d do. The worst thing you said was everything after that, when you told us what Obama was and what he’d do. Stick with what you don’t know.
Excellent, Mr.Larison!
Except, you cynically adapt your prose to accommodate your conservative base. Real progressives, i.e., people who came to the table with no money at all, do not jettison their political allies out of convenience. They do it when they sense immorality because to them, the ends do not necessarily justify the means and are equally deserving of study and reflection.
It’s really unfortunate that you and so many other cynical pundits cannot find the meaning of that word in your lexicon: MORALITY is not a theory. It has to do with idealism, a vision of how things ought to be and the willingness to hew to those principles and to people even when it is inconvenient or painful. Note how long it took for Obama to “jettison” his relationship with his controversial pastor and you see a man who agonized over the charges and counter-charges. You call the delay in his repudiation of Wright pragmatic? I was amazed that it took so long, for I can match your cynicism in a twinkling. It takes one to know one.
I disagree, The Deuce. Obama has a mediocre record but his charisma does not have to do with being only an articulate black guy (otherwise would you not hear praise of Harold Ford Jr. if he had won his seat in Tennessee?). There are *articulate* young black politicians like Deval Patrick (but do you think Deval Patrick would have been elected to the White house?) but what distinguishes Obama is that he is really really hip and is more of a cultural icon. There is an “it” factor about him, something similar to the Kennedys. Never underestimate the “it” factor. I don’t know why people keep resurrecting the articulate black guy as the only reason Obama is so appealing.
I agree with you, Conrad. I too for some odd reason keep rooting for him especially when times were rough and he does share my concerns on what to do next, at least compared to most politicians (which is why I voted for him). I disagree with his foreign policy decisions but I don’t really think he is that much of a mystery.
JohnUllmann:
Progressivism = morality? Hunh, here I am a life-long progressive, and I must’ve missed a newsletter! Seriously, that’s a mighty high horse you’ve got there.
Progressives and conservatives are after the same basic thing: a healthy nation. They have different priorities and different ideas about how to go about it, that’s all. Until we fully digest that fact, we’re neither of us going to get much done. I feel fairly confidant that Obama, the man you seem to admire, would agree with me.
I don’t deny that the conservative movement and the Republicans in general have been suffering under a scourge of deeply flawed leaders and one might say, through them, a scourge of immorality. But I, personally, don’t have any interest in taking up the mantle of “gut-level” sanctimonious moral certitude, do you? Let it retire with Bush.
Deval Patrick may be articulate, but he’s also rather boring as a speaker.
“One reason why this is happening is that a lot of journalists and pundits have become bored with the transition.”
There’s a steaming garbage mountain of Bush administration scandals still to be even glanced at, and lots of people whose mouths will loosen as they anticipate that administration’s retaliatory power slackening. But the journalists don’t cover that.
There’s 1/3 of a trillion $ given to Wall St, with no strings attached, for all practical purposes, money which Wall St seems to regard as a gift with no need of repayment or accountability. But the journalists don’t cover that (at least, to the extent that a Wall St melt-down and a 1/3 $trillion christmas gift to Wall St deserves).
Instead, the journalists are gleefullying noting that Obama and Blagowhatever came from the same state. And not even the governor being recording cursing Obama for not playing ball, and the GOP prosecutor not finding any connection, will get in the way of Whitewater II.
It’s amazing; it’s almost like the mass media, despite social liberalism, is really run by the financial elites of our country, who have serious ideas of what is and is not newsworthy.