King of Hearts?
James Kirchik suggests that Barack Obama may be the new Princess Diana. God help us if he's correct.
Kirchik also recommends Fred Seigel's essay on Obama's candidacy in City Journal.
UPDATE: Even the Obamaphiles themselves are a little embarrassed.
Kirchik also recommends Fred Seigel's essay on Obama's candidacy in City Journal.
UPDATE: Even the Obamaphiles themselves are a little embarrassed.
posted by Kate Marie | 10:43 AM | Permalink
|
18 comments
18 Comments:
I suspect neither Kirchik or Seigel has read either of Obama's books. I read "The Audacity of Hope" over winter break, I would urge anyone tempted to sneer at Obama's candidacy to do so. Kirchik predicts "collective embarrassment" at the enthusiasm over Obama, but I can't credit him with much judgment unless he is already embarrassed about the election of George W. Bush to two consecutive terms.
Madman, I recently watched some sort of Democratic "ordinary voter" focus group being interviewed on television. Almost all of them were supporting Obama. When they were asked to name a specific policy/position/part of Obama's resume that influenced their decision, not one of them could do it. The closest anyone came was the woman who cited his "work with the elderly." I took Kirchik and Seigel to be sneering -- not at Obama himself -- but at the ridiculous emotional excesses of the cult that has arisen around him; hence the comparison with Princess Diana. You may be privy to some information that I'm unaware of about the motivations of typical voters (of either party), but I seriously doubt that most of the people who are going to vote for Obama have read his book. He does, however, represent Real Change You Can Believe In.
Obama is obviously very smart, and he seems like a decent guy. If I'm tempted to sneer at anything, it's at a campaign that panders to some of the embarrassing tendencies of the American public (emotionalism, Oprahism, the cult of celebrity, anti-intellectualism) even while it claims to represent something fresh and new and Real.
I'll grant you that part of the cult of Obama has been fed by elements outside the Obama campaign. And, in a way, I don't blame them for running with it. But Obama is not Princess Diana, so why present his candidacy and ask people to vote for him as if he *were?*
Dear Kate Marie,
I guess Obama is the first politician in the history of humankind who wants to win. For my part, I am less offended by the tendencies to which his campaign panders than those to which Republican candidates consistently do.
Dear Madman,
You're welcome to be as offended as you please.
For my part, I'm neither "offended" by Obama's campaign nor inclined at the moment to be drawn out by facile tu quoques.
Dear Kate Marie,
No one suggested that you were offended by Obama's campaign, though you are clearly offended by the tendencies to which it panders. As for my "tu quoque," it is only facile insofar as it is self-evidently true. I'm happy that you are not inclined to argue on this score, which would be boring and pointless, and we can both agree that each party is equally guilty of pandering to embarrassing and reprehensible tendencies of American society.
P..S. Let's include in the list of panderers you yourself, Kate Marie. This counter-narrative you and the writer's to whom you link are stumping (he's "Oprah's candidate," he's "Princess Diana") panders to the sexist and racist tendencies of the American electorate in the exact ways that you perceive Obama's campaign to operate. Good luck with getting that (rather facile) counter-narrative to stick, I don't see it getting much traction. "God help us" if it does.
You have me pegged, Madman. Kirchik and Siegel and I are either exhibiting our own unsavory sexist and racist tendencies or flashing the secret Oprah-Di code to the mouth-breathing, snake-handling racist wing of the Republican party.
On the other hand, maybe you've just jumped the shark. I don't think deploring the emotionalist, confessional, secular religionist culture of Oprah-watchers and Di-worshippers is my Willie Horton moment. Is that the way the Obama campaign is going to play it? *That's* not pandering to racialist identity-politics, is it?
So what are the rules? Who do I get to liken Obama's supporters to? Only white men?
P.S. Shall I now continue the game of "I know you are but what am I" that began with your first comment?
If I don't like the secular religionist/politics of aesthetics tendencies of Obama's campaign rhetoric and symbolism, and if I find the over the top reverence for Obama among his supporters to be reminiscent of the reverence for Oprah and Princess Diana, I'm either a racist or a racist-enabler?
Good luck getting that (rather facile) counter-counter-narrative to stick. I don't see it getting much traction. God help *you* and the Obama campaign if it does, since it seems to me the surest way to get the racists of either party to flock to Obama's opponent is by claiming -- on the flimsiest of pretexts -- that anyone who criticizes his campaign is a racist.
P.P.S. I just posted a critique of the Obama candidacy that associates his campaign with the mythologizing of "Camelot" and the Kennedys. Don't let it be said that I'm not an equal opportunity panderer. I figure why not reach out to the anti-Irish-Catholics along with the racists and sexists?
Dear Kate Marie,
Wow, you've jumped to conclusions so far removed from my point you are out of cell phone range. I never accused you of being a racist, I noted that you and those you linked to were pandering to the sexist and racist tendencies in our society. I know these tendencies offend you as much as they offend me. My advice...refrain from pandering to them.
Re to whom you might compare Obama, why compare him to anyone at all? You write as if there were simply no substantive elements of his political persona or campaign, but that is (as I hope you realize) not true. You could choose to critique Obama on the issues and engage him and his supporters on that level. If you insist on comparing him to Princess Di or caricaturing him as "Oprah's candidate" then you are engaging in politics just as brazen (and substanceless) as those of the Obama campaign. This is your prerogative, but to do so and pretend that you are not pandering or that you occupy some kind of moral high ground is silly.
From my end it looks like what is really upsetting you is that Obama's pandering is working, while yours doesn't really stand much of a chance. Compare him to Princess Di all you like, I'm fairly confident that the substance of his campaign will resist that kind of attempt to recast his public image.
Obama is behaving as virtually all politicians do, what sets him apart is the above-average success he is enjoying. You may have persuaded yourself that your umbrage arises from the "uniquely" debased quality of his campaign, but if so you are kidding yourself. You will vote against Obama (assuming he wins the nomination, which I still don't think likely) because you are a committed partisan, and no amount of high-minded, rhetoric-free campaigning on his part was ever going to change that. Tell yourself, if you like, that you are voting for the candidate who refrained from pandering- how you make yourself believe that I leave to you. For my part, I have cast my vote for Obama and will continue to give him my support because he is an intelligent, decent, humane, and erudite individual whose values I share and with whose policy proposals I agree. If pandering to emotionalism, the cult of celebrity yada yada yada helps him get into the White House then hurrah say I.
"Wow, you've jumped to conclusions so far removed from my point you are out of cell phone range. I never accused you of being a racist, I noted that you and those you linked to were pandering to the sexist and racist tendencies in our society. I know these tendencies offend you as much as they offend me. My advice...refrain from pandering to them."
-- No, Madman, to accuse me of pandering to racist tendencies is almost as bad as accusing me of being a racist myself, because it means that I am willing to tap into emotions and motivations that I find extremely offensive for political purposes. It's interesting to note, however, that, though Oprah Winfrey is an extremely engaging personality and one of the most influential people in America (albeit one who represents certain emotionalist therapeutic-culture tendencies that I find distasteful), for your rhetorical purposes she is just another black woman. Aside from the fact that Princess Diana is a woman and Oprah is black, what was it in the posts I linked to that specifically marked them as pandering to racism? Could you provide a few quotations?
"You could choose to critique Obama on the issues and engage him and his supporters on that level."
-- He doesn't seem to be running on the issues, and many of his supporters don't seem to care about them, or even to know what they are.
"If you insist on comparing him to Princess Di or caricaturing him as 'Oprah's candidate' then you are engaging in politics just as brazen (and substanceless) as those of the Obama campaign. This is your prerogative, but to do so and pretend that you are not pandering or that you occupy some kind of moral high ground is silly."
-- I haven't pretended to occupy the moral high ground, as I never -- in the original post nor in the comments -- disagreed with the idea that *all* politicians, to some extent, will choose to run on symbolism rather than substance, especially if the symbolism seems to be working for them. If he's running on symbolism, I'm going to attack the symbols. I guess I'm the first "committed partisan" in the history of humankind who wants my candidate to win.
I never, as far as I remember, used the term "Oprah's candidate" nor did I suggest the Obama campaign was "uniquely" degraded. The Obama campaign is simply no more elevated nor less degraded, than most other political campaigns.
"I'm fairly confident that the substance of his campaign will resist that kind of attempt to recast his public image."
-- Again, you are correct that Obama takes positions on issues just like any other candidate. The problem is that most of his supporters don't seem to know what his positions are. I'm not trying to recast his public image, Madman. I'm trying to point out the way it has been constructed. That seems to bother you, but that's politics. There's nothing high-minded about it, but there's nothing about it that I consider pandering either. You've offered no evidence, for instance, for your assertion that I'm willing to pander to racist and sexist elements in the electorate.
"Tell yourself, if you like, that you are voting for the candidate who refrained from pandering- how you make yourself believe that I leave to you."
-- Um, when exactly did I tell myself that?
For my part, I have cast my vote against Obama and will continue to do so because even though he seems like an intelligent, decent, humane, and erudite individual, I don't share his values or his political worldview, and I disagree with his policy proposals. If underscoring and critiquing his pandering to emotionalism, the cult of celebrity, yada yada yada, helps keep him from getting into the White House, then hurrah say I.
Dear Kate Marie,
Accusing you of pandering to racist tendencies is almost as bad as accusing you of being racist? To the contrary, noting the racist and sexist tendencies to which you are pandering operates completely independently of any assertions about your belief or intent. You say all's fair, you are going to engage Obama on this rhetorical level- fine. But to climb into the pit and claim that the mud doesn't stick to you is either naive or hypocritical. Take the example of Oprah- you claim that for "my purposes" she is just another black woman, but the effect of your rhetoric doesn't depend on what "my purposes" or "your purposes" might be, it rests in the dispositions of that part of the electorate that will be receptive to the symbols you employ. Believe that there isn't a significant constituency out there in America for whom Oprah isn't "just another black woman (and Obama 'just another black man')," and that your message won't register particularly well with them for just that reason, if you like- we each must follow his or her own conscience.
You say you are attacking Obama's symbols, but you are not- you (derivatively) are proposing equally rhetorical symbols to counter them. Like I said, that is your prerogative, but to do so deny that you are part of the problem you critique is either disingenuous or delusional.
So let me get this straight. I may not intend to pander to racists, but to mention Oprah Winfrey anywhere in the vicinity of Barack Obama is -- "completely independently of any assertions about my belief or intent" -- to pander to racists, because, hey, there out there, let's not be naive about it. Since you have provided no actual analysis of either my words or the words of Kirchik and Siegel, I'm forced to assume that's what your position boils down to.
I just read through the Siegel article again, and it's actually a more substantive critique of Obama's policies and positions than Obama's stump speeches and debate performances are substantive representations of his policies. But of course -- wink, wink, nudge, nudge -- he said "Oprah's candidate." So there you have it.
And the problem with the Kirchik post is even more mysterious, but for that reason it's probably more insidious.
Like I said above, Kate Marie, each of us must follow his or her own conscience. If you feel good going about lampooning Obama as "Oprah's candidate" or "Princess Di" or linking your blog to those who do, that is your Constitutional right. As for analysis- analyse them yourself! You have a degree in lit crit, you can produce an excursis of why those symbols invoke gender and (yes) racial stereotypes. I'm tired and busy, I don't have the patience to spell out what to me is self-evident.
It seems to me that you are hoist by your own petard, KM. You want to be free to point to all of the unsavory implications of Obama's rhetoric but immune from the taint of your own. Sorry, it's like you said above- that's politics. If you want to fight rhetoric with rhetoric you come away just as dirty as (or dirtier than) your opponent.
"You have a degree in lit crit, you can produce an excursis of why those symbols invoke gender and (yes) racial stereotypes. "
-- Um, certainly I *could* do that, Madman, if I were writing some B.S. insincere paper pandering to the ideological, academic, and political biases of some of my dimmer professors.
"I'm tired and busy, I don't have the patience to spell out what to me is self-evident."
-- It seems you've expended quite a lot of time going back and forth about this, but when it comes to the crunch, the racism is simply self-evident. Alrighty, then!
"It seems to me that you are hoist by your own petard, KM. You want to be free to point to all of the unsavory implications of Obama's rhetoric but immune from the taint of your own."
-- But the thing is, you're too tired to write anything about the taint of my rhetoric beyond the fact that it's self-evident. I have linked (here and above) to several generally thoughtful posts and essays critiquing the rhetoric of the Obama campaign and the irrationalist/secular-religious tone of some of his followers. Not only have you failed to engage in any specific way with the posts I have linked to, you have also repeatedly preached to me about my self-evident pandering to racism/sexism because I linked to people who dared to mention -- gasp!-- Oprah Winfrey and Princess Diana in their critiques.
"Um, certainly I *could* do that, Madman, if I were writing some B.S. insincere paper pandering to the ideological, academic, and political biases of some of my dimmer professors."
So here you have it, KM. If I wrote out why the symbols you embrace invoke gender and racial stereotypes I would just be joining the ranks of your ideologically blinkered professors, so what's the point? If you were intellectually honest you would have to admit that there are "ideological, academic, and political biases" in all your readings of Obama's rhetoric- at the very least in your normative evaluation of it, if not its basic significance per se. That is my point that you keep resisting- all excursions into rhetoric enter the terrain of ideological bias. Your concern about the "emotionalist" and "secular-religious" tone of his campaign hinges on readings of Obama's rhetoric that are just as divorced from scrutiny of context and intent as my analysis of your rhetoric here.
For example, the quote that rests below the banner of "Is Obama the Messiah?" ("a beam of light will shine down on you"...yada yada yada) could have been uttered in any tone or any context. The quote is all over the web as an example of the "creepy messianic tone" of the Obama campaign. Where and when it was delivered exactly is never clear- my guess is that this is a joke that was part of a stump speech Obama delivered to college students at several different venues. Taken out of context it can have a quite menacing air. Is that fair game? Sure. Even if it is a joke, it is a wink (a pander, if you will) toward a tendency that Obama and his advisers can read in the wind. But all this effort to construct on the basis of this quote (and a pastiche of other images, posters, songs, etc.) a "self-delusionally messianic Messiah" from Obama or a cult from his followers is just that- a political construct, and a rather contrived one. The stuff the blogger on "Is Obama..." has put together is quite funny- I think he subverts his own intent somewhat, in that I come away just tickled rather than put off, but maybe that is my bias showing through. However I did catch a "menacing" frisson from poking around in the comments to those posts- the first one I clicked was laughing it up about how Obama was going to distribute "strawberry scented welfare checks." I bet that guy would get a big laugh from the description of Obama as "Oprah's candidate." If that is the crowd you want to run with, be my guest KM.
The fact is that all of the "emotionalism" and "secular-religious" rhetoric and "pandering to the cult of celebrity" that you point to has an almost exact analogue in recent political campaigns that transpired under similar historical circumstances- those that saw Ronald Reagan elected president twice in the early '80's. Despite never agreeing with or particularly liking RR, even I used to get choked up when he asked us to follow him to that "shining city on a hill" and spoke of our "best days being ahead of us." Much of this vitriole being vented at Obama throughout the blogosphere seems like a case of sour grapes to me. The tropes that Reagan deployed so skillfully are not really available to Republicans now after a long period of incumbency, and the national mood is right for a Democrat like Obama to come along and appropriate that idiom. Thems the breaks. A natural response is to come back at Obama and try to reshape his public image- repolarize him from "inspirational leader" to "cult demagogue." I guess you are on board with that agenda, KM. Like I keep saying, that is indisputably your prerogative, but I can't pretend to respect that choice.
You're right, Madman.
Post a Comment
<< Home