The Pundits And The People

To my suggestion that Barack Obama may leave many people more cynical about politics than he found them, Matt responds:

That sounds to me like the kind of thing a liberal would have said before getting pummeled by Ronald Reagan. Realistically, the number of people who have any awareness of "actual policymaking" is pretty tiny and I think most people mostly want to stay in the dark. People want to put in office people who they feel understand them and then forget about it. That's why you see so much identity-driven voting, and that's why an ability to make a large circle of people believe that you understand them is such a vital political skill.

This seems largely persuasive to me, and I should have qualified my earlier remarks - the "people" I had in mind were the pundit-and-activist class, the folks who argue and fundraise and mobilize and are involved deeply enough in politics to care about "actual policymaking" in a way that the average American just doesn't. (See also Peter Suderman on this count.) Though I would add that if you end up alienating/disappointing a large enough chunk of this pundit-and-activist class, there's a trickle-down effect to the larger public, since the political class shapes how elected officials are perceived. (I think Bill Clinton's first two years in office followed this trajectory, for instance: First he lost the people who follow politics for a living, and then he lost the country.) But Matt's point makes sense a general rule: Politicians' favorable ratings tend to track with their personalities on the one hand and with large-scale trends (the economy, crime rates, etc.) and major debacles (Iraq, Katrina) on the other, more than with the day-to-day sausage-making of policy work. And Barack Obama's "I have understood you" approach to politics will continue to be an asset with many swing voters long after it ceases to be an asset with at least some of the political junkies who are rallying around him at the moment.

Comments

All of this "I understand you" business just shows you how much Obama's Oprah-esque therapy speak has leeched into politics.

I don't think blue collar Pennsylvania men, or most other people, want to be understood. They want someone who has personal characteristics they respect and who shares the same world view and values; someone who looks like a leader and looks like they'll lead things in a good direction. Understanding smacks of the sort of condescension that got Obama in trouble with bitter-gate in the first place.

The people for whom understanding is important is the chattering of class of lefty whites. The Obama phenomenon is for them all about the thrill of listening and understanding, without regard to what is being listening to or the consequences. This is the hug-it-out-with-Hamas crowd. Obama is Oprah for yuppies.

Posted by maxmason | April 25, 2008 6:56 PM

(I think Bill Clinton's first two years in office followed this trajectory, for instance: First he lost the people who follow politics for a living, and then he lost the country.)

So much so, that he won the 96 election in a blow out and that he left office with a 60% plus approval rating despite the republican witch hunt!

Posted by Don Quijote | April 25, 2008 6:57 PM

I just don't know about Obama. Overpromising what you can deliver is a way to alienate your own supporters really fast. When I read Andrew Sullivan's blog, I always wonder how long will it be before Sullivan thinks of Obama in the same way he thinks of the Clintons.

Obama has existed in a vacuum for probably 99% of people. Most people have never seen him "in action." When the cold hard reality of being in the White House governing sets in, you won't be hearing about "hope" and "change" but words like "pragmatic" and "compromise" and "don't have enough votes for that program."

Millions of Obama supporters will feel the cold splash of reality hitting their faces starting around February 2009.

Posted by Thomas | April 25, 2008 7:03 PM

All of the conservative jackals bitching about "I understand you" were trying to out-suckle each other when it came to Dumbya 4 and 8 years ago with all of their nonsense about how he was the candidate "people want to have a beer with." They reported his crap about "being a uniter" as though it were true.

The truth is they're just pissed that they're likely to lose in November and they think Obama has a winning line.

I can understand their pain. I laugh at it, and I hope it's intense and debilitating, but I understand it.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | April 25, 2008 7:20 PM

Thank you, MoeLarryAndJesus!!

Posted by Miande | April 25, 2008 9:02 PM

Thomas,

Great commentary and I agree with much of what you say. There is a real tension that exists here: Obama has drawn his supporters and much of his momentum from being an inspirational candidate during a time of significant-to-reasonable drought. I like this about Obama. I like his bold vision and I like that he doesn't water that vision down.

But the reality of how soon and how much of that vision will be realized should the challenges of actual governance present themselves has to be the qualifier in the minds of all of Obama's supporters. And I don't see ample evidence of that qualifier playing into many supporters' analysis.

The question, in my mind, is how does a candidate walk the tightrope of that tension. There is merit in inspiring a sizable chunk of the voting populace; I think that is good for the country. But how does one do so and still grapple, and, perhaps more importantly, encourage one's supporters to grapple, with the difficulties in realizing the vision catalyzing that inspiration without instituting a watering down.

Matt and Ross have touched on the country's general disinterest in genuine policy-making, so it's possible this all a lot of hand wringing. But I'm still wringing my hands.

What would be ideal is a degree of maturation, writ large, in the country's political analysis (i.e. a recognition and appreciation for the nuance of governance), but that is a conversation unto itself.

My own qualification: I'm a Canadian commenting on American politics, so take those comments for what they're worth. Given our proximity, there is some vested interest in how things roll out owned by your northern neighbours.

Thanks for the intelligent and thoughtful words!

Posted by Scott Payne | April 25, 2008 9:23 PM

Thomas writes: "Millions of Obama supporters will feel the cold splash of reality hitting their faces starting around February 2009."

That's pretty disingenuous and arrogant coming from a Republican - especially since two thirds of Republicans still think Dumbya has been a good president.

When exactly are those folks going to be within pissing distance of reality? Or do they just prefer their fantasies?

But go ahead - vote for the senile warmonger who dry humps Dumbya in public. Justify it beause you're queasy over the fact that Obama actually seems to have supporters who actually like him. It may be the single most bogus argument ever made against a candidate, and given the general tenor of conservative arguments that's saying something.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | April 25, 2008 9:49 PM

The "I have understood you" shtick works to the extent that you _don't_ understand me. It worked for De Gaulle in Algiers in 1958 because he had been out of politics, living in near seclusion for 12 years. It didn't work for De Gaulle in May 1968 because by then everybody knew exactly who he was, so he fled in panic to West Germany. Popmidou had to go drag him back to Paris and then work out a bread-and-butter political deal to split the Communist workers from the Marxist students with inflationary wage hikes.

"I have understood you" has worked for Obama so far because people have enjoyed making up fantasies about who he really is based on a few carefully chosen facts he dispenses.

As Americans slowly come to understand more about who Obama really is, that he's not Tiger Woods or Oprah Winfrey or Morgan Freeman, the less effective his knack becomes. It's still a neat trick to be able to play on people, but as you become the most famous person in America, it runs into diminishing marginal returns.

Posted by Steve Sailer | April 25, 2008 10:46 PM

Steve "Macaca" Sailer writes: "As Americans slowly come to understand more about who Obama really is, that he's not Tiger Woods or Oprah Winfrey or Morgan Freeman, the less effective his knack becomes."

In other words Steve Sailer will continue his Krazy Kretinous Krusade to convince GOP sheep that Obama is the second coming of Eldridge Cleaver.

If this sort of insane bullshit carries the election then stick a fork in America. It's done, and lying fools like Steve Sailer will be the maggots that feast on the remains.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | April 25, 2008 11:07 PM

Ross

In my roughly 8 years of regular blog-reading, this is the most gracious and thoughtful qualification of an earlier, overbroad post I've ever read. Kudos for consistently reasoned discourse, hard to find even among writers I otherwise admire. For what it's worth, you've got a(nother) fan (although I had the same gripe as Don Quijote).

dan

Posted by dan | April 26, 2008 12:19 AM

People want their politicians to be "like" them in some way for one reason: if it were truly possible (which it is not), it'd be the closest they can figure out to them running the country, which they only care about because THAT for them is the next best thing to actually controlling their own life.

Detachment from the plebes is inevitable for anyone with any chance in hell of power. Many think they can narrow that. I don't.

Posted by b-psycho | April 26, 2008 1:33 AM

So in other words, Ross: you campaign in poetry but govern in prose?

Wow. Dude. Deep.

No politician's campaigning mythos survives the media crucible of the presidency. And there's no doubt that Obama will disappoint even his staunchest supporters by the end (Republicans, of course, are pre-emptively disappointed).

But you know who has an even tougher myth to live up to? John McCain. If Obama says "I have understood you," McCain's line is "I totally agree with you, despite what I've said in the past!"

- To conservatives, John McCain's blatant pandering to the Broderian elements of the press and the public is an insincere effort to win over a hostile media (and fickle swing voters) who otherwise wouldn't elect a true conservative like John McCain.

- To Broderian swing-voterish types, John McCain's blatant pandering to conservative groups is an insincere effort to shore up a hostile base (and their conservative media agitators) who otherwise wouldn't elect a straight-shooting, ball-breaking, (but socially liberal) pragmatist like John McCain.

What neither group sees is that John McCain has been insincere to both. John McCain's twin loves, throughout his career, are the organs of the state and the personal welfare of John McCain. I'm betting he won't be elected president. But mark my words, a John McCain presidency will be experienced by conservatives and centrists as a shrieking horror.

Posted by southpaw | April 26, 2008 1:37 AM

Ditto Don Quijote--here's hoping it works out as well for Obama as it did for Clinton, minus the Inquisition.

What makes Obama's "I have understood you" approach work is that when he's discussing an issue, he tends to accurately identify the important, valid points in his opponents' arguments, leaving them feeling not just understood, but hopeful for some kind of effective compromise solution. This stands in sharp contrast to the currently popular style of argumentation among some Democrats which requires demonization of opponents with over-the-top rhetoric. The latter tends to alienate the reasonable moderates who comprise the vast majority of the electorate, while Obama's approach reassures them. Big payoff in the general election.

Posted by Robert Powell | April 26, 2008 3:41 AM

Re: I think Bill Clinton's first two years in office followed this trajectory, for instance: First he lost the people who follow politics for a living, and then he lost the country.)

How did Bill Clinton lose the country? He was reelected in 1996 and left office quite popular despite his personal scandals. The Democratic debacle in 1994 is often blamed on Clinton, but as I remember it, that election was far more about the follies and foibles (and outright corruption) of individual Democratic congressmen and senators, and Clinton's deeds and misdeeds played only a small role in it. Clinton of course did energize the Right, but that was inevitable. Mother Teresa would have energized the Right had she taken office as a Democrat-- the Right had convinced itself that it had a lock on the presidency in perpetuity and was outraged when their ascendancy in the Reagan 80s turned out to be ephemeral.

Posted by JonF | April 26, 2008 9:52 AM

Supporters of Obama show a marked reluctance to discuss his lack of experience by stressing his optimism/hope stuff. I recall this same guff when the great uniter was peddled as a man who would lead us into the 21st Century.

What is about our message managers that they serve up this swill and so many eagerly consume it. The election campaign is a long drawn out commercial: nothing else.

None of the candidates have ever made a speech which says: it's going to be tough, we are in debt, we will have to work hard, do without, pay our bills and maybe, just maybe, we will find things easing up.

Who's to blame? By and large it is the voters who make loud noises when politicians make promises and fail to deliver, but who rarely ask the question: How much will his/her promises cost me?

Posted by Alan | April 26, 2008 10:04 AM

Republican Strategy: (1) help Hillary Clinton secure the Democratic Nominee; (2) McCain to actively try to win over African Americans that the Clintons have alienated, so that they will vote for McCain in November! So that is why you see McCain actively seeking out the support of African-Americans now, hoping to woo them back into the fold of the Republican party while, they smile in glee as the Clintons alienate them by their kitchen sink strategy. The Republicans in their plan to help Hillary make Barack look unelectable through their surrogates, Joe Scarborough, Pat Buchanan and others, continually ask their watching public to sow doubts, "do we really know who this guy is?" (ever after Barack wrote two very personal autobiographical books); they ask: "why can't this guy seal the deal?", then they continually bring up Rev. Wright, as if Rev. Wright's statements were Barack's. Do they ask of Clinton, "Was it not Rev. Wright you called on for prayer and support after the Monica Lewinsky scandal and invited him to the White House?" No, they rather ask with indignance, "why did he Barack) sit there for 20 years" though Rev. Wright's 9-11 comments were not 20 years ago but five.

Then they praise Hillary -- saying how smart she is, how tough; how she can attract blue-collar white workers and dismiss all of the white support Barack gets in every election. They even praise her for her ability to drink down shots and for her acting ability to turn herself into a working-class girl who can shoot ducks behind a cottage (possibly another Bosnian fabrication) -- in otherwords for her performances and lies. Chris Matthews calls it impressive! In otherwords, they do not reward truth and authenticity in our politicians but how well they can act which has nothing to do with the true governing of a society.

Their plan and plotting is to get Hillary elected Democratic nominee, then unleash the "arsenal of weapons" they have against her and Bill, for they have been Planning this for a long time; then defeat her in the Fall with the very help of African-Americans that the Clintons have alienated and that McCain is so eagerly trying to impress at this time; -- beautiful though Machiavellian!

Let's be clear, Barack is fighting a Two-headed Giant: the Clintons as a unity for they are one, the Republican Party: McCain, Cable Television: Joe Scarborough, Pat Buchanan, Wolf Blitzer Rush Limbaugh (we need to have Barack bloodied up) & Fox News -- a Mighty Giant indeed. Hillary actively seeks their support to help her beat Barack but they will turn against her like a mighty sword if she was to become the Democratic nominee come fall.

It is not easy to overcome this Mighty Giant of Special Interest Money & Corporate Greed, but what we can do, is to identify who they are and not give them anymore Power. Turn off TV shows which are disingenuous and have their own political agenda that is not in keeping with the welfare of the people, stop buying their books or newspapers, write more articles about the ways they try to divide us and fool us, write/call and email them and their producers our objections to the way they are reporting non-news, gossip, and trying to brainwash us for their own continued domination of the masses. Maybe we will have to write their sponsors and complain -- hit them in their pocket book. We all have to get involved in this effort. We can no longer let them distract us or divide us. We too have power!
This effort by the people, for the people, is the one kink in the armour of this Mighty Giant. We the people are finally waking up and seeing through their lies, distortion and domination, and we will nominate Barack Obama, the People's Champion. I say people because there are some disinfected Republicans and Independents who are finally waking up to the fact that under Republican rule this country has suffered, while big business and big money has prospered. And, in truth, we are all one, we all share the same Red blood. It is a sad fact, that we cannot recognize America anymore. They have hi-jacked our television with exploitation of sex and violence to our children, then they want to try them like adults, when they are only children and are trying to find their way. Dispicable! People are waking up to this and they are ready to get their power back, their jobs back, their very way of life back, which is the American way: peace, brotherhood, prosperity for all, not just a special few.

Then we have the Clintons , who were once the bedrock of the Democratic Party, or so we thought, who we have since learned that they will bed with anyone (Rush Limbaugh, Richard Mellon Scaife), say anything, do anything (fuel a racial and gender divide and push us back 50 years), put on any kind of Act to achieve their power again, it seems for powers sake! Does anyone really believe that Mark Penn is not vitally active in their Campaign though publically they say otherwise and does our corporate Media expose this myth? Sadly not! Unfortunately, the Clintons have lost their way, blinded by power and ambition. -- This is not the kind of Political Couple we want to lead America to a more holistic place, as we can no longer trust them to be truthful or authentic or have the best interest of the people at heart!

Posted by angellight | April 26, 2008 11:32 AM

It's true that any candidate faces a post-honeymoon let down upon election when he has to get down to the nitty gritty business of governing and ends up disappointing many people. But it's also true that Obama has raised expectations higher than most. There are many reasons for this, ranging from his statements about new a new kind of politics to his charisma and abilities as a speaker.

The success of an Obama administration, like that of Reagan, will turn in no small part on how he handles these sorts of problems. Reagan excited a lot of hopes as a candidate and disappointed a lot of followers who wanted him to go further or faster as president. He also had plenty of enemies coming after him. But to the consternation of his enemies, Reagan had a so-called telfon armor that in many cases prevented anything from sticking to him for too long. That was key to Reagan's being able to accomplish what he did.

Voters are curious about whether Obama has similar kinds of abilities and this is one of the reasons why bitter-gate, for example, lingered as an issue. People see Obama sweating and they want to see how he handles himself. If he's president, Obama'll have plenty of more non-dress rehearsal and serious situations -- situations where people's property, freedoms, and security may really be at stake -- that will cause him to perspire.

If these issues really are trivial, Obama should have the skill to change the subject. If they're trivial and he can't change the subject, people are going to have some misgivings about his ability to handle the matters that are not trivial.

Posted by George | April 26, 2008 11:33 AM

Let's be honest here...

The so-called "blue-collar workers" who are being described as "real americans" are looking for someone who is just like them. Someone who kinda agrees with everything they think, even though in all likeliness, what they think if put into action would destroy this country. The blue-collar workers are the folks that are saying, "Mexicans are stealing our jobs and blacks are lazy and criminals." Don't you get it! They want someone who looks like them. Nevermind the fact that the reason they aren't as successful as they would like has nothing to do with the government but with their own decisions and choices. The blue-collar worker is the biggest hypocritical group out there and I'm pretty tired of the label that they're just regular folks.

Posted by April, LA | April 26, 2008 5:01 PM

The problem with Obama is simple: he's a closet Marxist, and once he's in office, he won't be able to hide it. He keeps lying to us about his "bipartisanship" (which he has never displayed in the U.S. Senate) and tries to work "hope" and "change" into every sentence. Note that he very rarely ever mentions anything close to a specific policy idea. He's scared to death of being "outed" for what he is - way left of the vast majority of the public.

Posted by Larry | April 27, 2008 12:30 AM

Larry swallows a big load of Limbaugh juice and posts: "Note that he very rarely ever mentions anything close to a specific policy idea. "

This is an utter falsehood, of course. Obama has offered more specific policy ideas than McPain ever has - and no, "100 years in Iraq" doesn't count.

Obama is already IN office, by the way, and his "Marxism" is not on display. And Larry is a fucking idiot who is unable to hide his own lack of intelligence.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | April 27, 2008 1:10 AM

Larry,

I love the "Obama is a Closet X" style of argument, where X can equal Atheist, Muslim, Marxist, etc. Doesn't matter if the options contradict each other, since logical consistency was thrown out the window by Bush's base long ago.

The other great thing about this kind of argument is that it requires zero supporting evidence. So you get to rely on smear and innuendo without ever having to back up your claims. I'm sure that some fellow dim bulbs out there will find you persuasive.

Larry, based upon no evidence at all, I've decided that you are a closet Hillary supporter. And a closet cross-dresser. And a closet racist. Whee! This is much more fun than having to support my arguments!

Posted by dug | April 27, 2008 12:19 PM

Doesn't matter if the options contradict each other, since logical consistency was thrown out the window by Bush's base long ago.

Except that don't see where Larry argued that Obama is an atheist or a Muslim. (Neither of which, standing alone, would preclude him from being a Marxist.) So I guess you accusation amounts to "Larry makes accusations against Obama that contradict with accusations made by other people. Therefore he is being logically inconsistent." Very odd dug.

Posted by Mark Adams | April 27, 2008 5:34 PM

Larry writes:

"The problem with Obama is simple: he's a closet Marxist, and once he's in office, he won't be able to hide it."

Larry is ignoring, of course, the fact that absolutely no one in mainstream American politics can reasonably be considered a Marxist, Communist, etc. Dennis Kucinich is a socialist, I suppose, but even Liberal Dem's like Feingold are well to the right of the bipartisan consensus of Canada, the UK, France, Germany, etc. It's absurd that canservatives throw this kind of outrageous slander around so routinely.

Hell, now that I think about it, maybe conservatives really have some previously undiscovered philosophical relationships to Communists, if I construe their beliefs in a wildly dishonest way! I should write a book about it; it would clearly be a serious, thoughtful argument that has never been made in such detail or with such care. That would teach those evil conservatives to call liberals Commies. I can haz royulteez?

Posted by Zeke | April 28, 2008 5:21 AM

Mark,

You're correct that it would be wrong of me to say that Larry was being self-contradictory. I was grouping him in a class of baseless accusers who nullify each other as a group since they can't keep their baseless accusations straight.

Posted by dug | April 29, 2008 9:45 AM