Domestic Intervention

14/11/2013

Baloney, Ballyhoo and Barack !

Last week I attended a conference on the importance of political rhetoric, during this fairly interesting 'get together' I heard one presenter suggest that Obama was comparable to FDR. I nearly fell off my chair, now Obama is seen by many as an iconic figure for very obvious reasons but FDR - do me a favour. But what this unthinking comment did was prompt me to consider who would I compare Obama with. During this same conference I gave a paper that was highly critical of the current President's political performance - the Americans in the audience were not happy. Interestly, Roberto Unger, political philosopher, Harvard and a old lecturer of the President, has just observed during a television interview that Obama has been a political 'disaster' - I'm glad someone is listening to me. Anyway, what I did say was that although the President's significance is not to be found in what he has achieved, it can be seen in what he stands for. In other words, the importance of Barack sits within the office of the Presidency as opposed to his operational and governmental position as the President. For he is a constant visual and rhetorical reminder that American society is not only in transition but is changing socially, culturally and politically in a way that is not reversible. Moreover, these changes require the US to reflect more carefully on what they mean and for outside observers to consider the US in new ways.

Back to the question, who would you compare Obama too ? As we draw closer to the deadly anniversary of Dallas and Jack Kennedy's demise there are some curious connections. Firstly, placing aside the complex, confused and often misunderstood Cuban Missile Crisis, Kennedy was not as sure footed and productive as many think or suggest - The Bay of Pigs, his handling of Khrushchev and the Vietnam War are just three examples of his lack of managerial skill, Afghanistan, Health Care, and the Financial Crisis are Obama's. However, like the contemporary President JFK's heart was often well placed especially in the area of civil rights, but it took a political fixer like LBJ to tackle this issue in a practical and effective way. I get the feeling that a certain Hilary Clinton in 2016 will return and turn 'Obama Care' into something far more meaningful. The Berlin speech (1963) comes directly to mind when we talk about JFK, and for Obama his 'A More Perfect Union' in Philadelphia (2008) was 'on the money'. Both utilised their rhetorical skills to resonate with people that were and are feeling insecure.

A 'great' US President does not come along very often simply because of the inculcation required: the requisite managerial skills; the political space; and the good fortune to perform. FDR had all three, while JFK and Obama lacked them all. This triumvirate are all iconic because they represent or represented transition, FDR - New Deal and US pre-eminence, JFK - A new frontier, a new generation and a new societal way of thinking, Obama - ethnic, economic and societal change. But, only one seized the opportunity, managed the moment and actually made a difference - FDR was the 'real deal', Barack remains a rhetorical question mark.

KK

6 Comments

Galine

19/11/2013 09:37:44 pm

I agree on the Kennedy comparison but I do think Obama is a little worse. The big promises he made, stayed to be promises. He fails to see that “his people”-African Americans-have the highest unemployment rates, that America will not be able to afford ‘Obamacare’, etc. His cerebral approach to problem solving and his lack of good rhetoric doesn’t improve things either. The thing is with Kennedy, that most of his lack of managerial skill were “just” a reaction on the then current situations. With Obamacare, it was Obama’s own initiative and idea, which makes the situation even more sad. Both are so called ‘people persons’, which means that they look like they take account of the opinion of the majority, but in reality they don’t. They go on talkshows, hang out with Hollywood A-listers, visit schools etc, just for public image. Though Obama is a well educated man, he lacks experience and he is not a good leader. He’s waiting to be lead, let’s hope by Hilary.

Dimitri

20/11/2013 05:07:15 pm

I think I have to disagree with you, Galine. I don't think Obama lacks good rhetoric - he is rightly judged to be one of the greater orators of our time - neither does he lack experience, I think. I do think he is, by his very nature, too cerebral, as you say. Politics is a branch of business, not of academia. (Whether that's a good thing, deserves a good discussion.)

Having said that, I would rather place the blame of the failure (rather, the non-success) of the Obama administration with the political system and the political climate (of which Obama and his crew are, inevitably, part and parcel.) A thorough, fully successful health care plan could never have succeeded. Not if it was brought about by a reincarnation of Bill Clinton, not by JFK, FDR, TR, Lincoln, or Thomas Jefferson for that matter. At this stage, no popular or political majority could be found for universal health care. That's why Obama went for a version of Romney's plan for Massachusetts in the first place - a capitalist, market approach to health care. The Republicans then did what the N-VA has done in Belgium with relation to the latest federal reform: what they first approved of, become 'not good enough' when proposed by their opponents.
Even an Obama who had had these illustrious managerial skills - the ability to coax friends and foes alike and to forge *working* compromises - it would have been lost on the polarization.

I think this context helps 'relativize' why Obama hasn't been the great president we all, including myself, hoped he would be. (The 2008 and 2012 elections were high points in my life ;).) Of course, in retrospect, we should have known: no-one, not even a very intelligent, eloquent, good-looking African American with a wonderful story to tell, could have singlehandedly overcome the difficulties facing America in one or two terms, in a political climate as hostile as it is today and has been for a while now.

Professor Dick in the religion course yesterday expressed his opinion that we would come to a point where fundamentalism would fade as a new, more benign popular consensus comes into being. I have my doubts about that. I don't think the un-social, polarizing situation in America will go away in the next fifty years. Obama or no Obama.

Galine

24/11/2013 02:42:21 am

I should have been a little more specific here, I think he lacks confidence in his rhetoric. This is for the Obama now, I'm not speaking for the beginning of his career. But clearly we disagree.

I can understand your relativisation of his failure, but this is America, this polarization marks America. He could have foresee it. His plans were too idealistic, and his 180° turn, for his supporters (like I used to be, I also cheered in 2008) is an absolute dissapointment.
It's not only healthcare, his lack of managerial skill can also be notified in the IRS scandal, the justice department doing things they shouldn't do, appointing Susan Rice as national security advisor.....etc

I also have my doubts about the opinion of Prof. Dick. I'm wondering if a different president will be able to break the strong polarization. The polarization is a reflection of a strong, embedded stamp American history and especially religion has left on its people and I wonder how a president will ever be able change it or slow it down.

Dimitri

24/11/2013 08:40:32 pm

Without being naive (I hope), I do believe Obama's "hope" campaign had the capacity to actually change something in America. You can't fight cynicism with cynicism, I guess. Had he been the down-to-the-ground kind of Realist back in 2008, he wouldn't have been elected anyway.

Now, I do agree that it's saddening to see how he failed to implement some of the things we were all hoping to see. Taking on climate change? Inequality? Immigration?

Still, I stick by my prior judgment: with a different Congress -- which could only come about in a different social and intellectual climate, not the one that we have seen since at least 2001 -- a fine president could have done much more and much more effectively. Would Obama have been the man to do it, under those circumstances? I have my doubts. The reality is: the circumstances were entirely different. Political polarization, growing inequality, economic and social turmoil. "Hope" was what the US needed (and they still do, in some form or another) -- but it apparently couldn't do the trick.
I'm afraid nothing will do the trick, not in 2016 (sorry Hillary), not in 2020, 2024... Only something more drastic -- a huge geopolitical paradigm shift or an ecological-economic catastrophe? -- will make that happen. (And we can only speculate about the consequences of that, good or bad.)

Jonathan

25/11/2013 11:16:44 pm

I disagree Dimitri. I really think a good leader can make a change. And that is something that Obama is not: a good leader. He is a great speaker and I bet he is a loving husband and a great father for his kids, but he (and he alone) failed as a president of the US.

At first I also thought it was the Congress to blame. If they supported Obama, He could bring change into the US. But after thinking it through, I think Obama is really the only one to blame. After all, he is the president of the US. I don't care how he gets things done, the point is that he must take care of bussiness. And there is no formula to do this, this is called leadership. Coming up with great ideas and decisions, like FDR his 100 days. Something Obama did not do, he only talked. It is like a soccer game (or cricket if you want), If they lose they can find hundreds of excuses (poor motivation, the referee, the crowd, the other team was too good,...), but in the end it is the coach his fault, because he made the wrong tactical choices.

I am not saying that Hillary will change the world in 2016, but I think she will get things done. And, as Galine said, Obama will be a very good team player for her, but he is just not good enough for leading the way.

On a minor point, I disagree with Galine. It's not more sad that Obamacare "failed" because it is his own idea. Every new plan has errors in it, so maybe we should give it some credit (easy said for a Belgian citizen with full insurance, I know). I just hope for Obama he can fix it before the end of his term. Because in the end, he still has "3 more years".

Dimitri

26/11/2013 11:58:05 pm

I didn't say Congress was to blame: I placed the blame "with the political system and the political climate," of which both the Obama Administration and Congress are part. I don't think you can simply blame Obama. He doesn't lack great ideas. And he doesn't lack the conviction to implement some version of it.
What leadership skills would it not take for a president to overcome a split Congress, with a Republican majority in the house, of whom, in turn, a large part is a loyal Tea Party associate? And then to devise and implement a successful universal health care plan, while the Republicans already tried to block a stripped-down market-based version that they themselves proposed earlier?

Again, I'm not saying he's Lincoln Reincarnated. He's obviously flawed, but so were TR or JFK. And, as professor Kennard has repeatedly argued, Obama is not a born leader. He's an academic. He's "the adult in the room". Not a dealmaker.
There were just very little deals to be made here.

Counterexample: California is on the rebound after years of deficits and debt. Finally, Democratic Governor Jerry Brown got his state's finances in order. California is booming again. Why is he so successful? He was elected in 2010 by a 13-point lead. The state is governed by qualified Democratic majorities in both chambers. This is a state where, as we say in Dutch, 'all the noses are the same direction', or at least, a large enough majority of them.

Domestic Intervention

Baloney, Ballyhoo and Barack !

Leave a Reply.

Author

Archives

Categories