So I open my Washington Post and glance at the op ed page. And there three, count em, three pieces attempting to explain aspects of what I call Obamania. Eugene Robinson writes in Personality Matters that since there is not that much policy difference between Clinton and Obama, but their personalities, as it was determinative in the Republican race. Former Bush speechwriter Michael Gerson reminds us that Words Aren't Cheap, they are an important component of advancing an agenda. And E.J. Dionne calls Obama The Last 'Yes, We Can' Candidate, describing remarkable parallels between current opposition to Obama by Clinton supporters to that offered by supporters of GHW Bush to Ronald Reagan in 1980.
I will offer some selections from all 3 columns, and per my usual practice, a few observations of my own. I invite you to keep reading.
Robinson begins his column by telling us
If you're among those who believe the news media have focused too much on the presidential horse race and the personalities of the candidates -- and not enough on vital issues of state -- let me submit that you're wrong.
He explores the lack of fundamental difference between Clinton and Obama on key issues, placing in the context of how much both differ from Republicans. On health care he notes
I'm not saying the difference between the two health-care plans is meaningless, just that it's not as important as the fundamental issue of whether to aim for universal health insurance (the Democrats' position) or not (the Republicans').
He writes similarly on Iraq policy, and then segues into an explanation why McCain succeeded over two men arguably as belligerent as he was, Giuliani and Romney, noting
But McCain, because of his history and his manner, was much more credible as the kind of warrior-president Republicans seem to think we need.
He then applies a similar lens to the Democrats, and then tells us why he think a focus on personality is an appropriate role for the press:
On the Democratic side, the question is who would be more likely to achieve the party's ambitious agenda. To make the choice, Democrats have to decide who is more likely to beat McCain. They also have to decide whose approach is more likely to succeed -- Clinton's ground-level diligence in Washington or Obama's attempt to forge popular consensus beyond the Beltway.
To determine any of this, voters need to know who the candidates are, where they came from, what they believe, how they react under pressure. They need to know, to the extent possible, what makes the candidates tick. Exposing as many facets as possible of the personalities of Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John McCain is about the most important thing the media could be doing.
Is is not surprising that a man who came to notice for his ability make the notably inarticulate Bush sound semi-coherent thinks that dismissing rhetorical ability is a major mistake. He examines how Clinton has attaked Obama on this, and warns that for McCain to similar dismiss what Obama offers as "only rhetoric" would be to make a serious mistake. He makes what I think may be an artificial distinction between the authenticity appreciated by dial groups and rhetorical excellence - I will explore this a bit more later. Gerson notes of the latter
From the Greek beginnings of political rhetoric, the wise have described a relationship between the discipline of writing and the discipline of thought. The construction of serious speeches forces candidates (or presidents) to grapple with their own beliefs, even when they don't write every word themselves. If those convictions cannot be marshaled in the orderly battalions of formal rhetoric, they are probably incoherent.
And in a few short sentences he reminds us that
a great speech finds some way to rephrase the American creed, describing an absolute human equality not always evident to the human eye.
Civil rights leaders possessed few weapons but eloquence -- and their words hardly came cheap. Every president eventually needs the tools of rhetoric, to stiffen national resolve in difficult times or to honor the dead unfairly taken.
It is not a failure for Obama to understand and exercise this element of leadership; it is an advantage.
Gerson considers the rhetorical expressions of the young Democrat relatively mild compared to some notable examples from our past, and cites specifically Bryan's "Cross of Gold" speech in 1896, MacArthur addressing a joint session of Congress in 1951. and Humphrey's remarks in 1948 that caused the Dixiecrats to walk out and split the Democratic party. Gerson tells us
Obama is the latest in this distinguished series. Should he become the Democratic nominee, his own convention is likely to see hills and valleys of shrieking men and women. And why not? His speech will be ambitious, well delivered and historic -- the Democratic Party did not even admit African American delegates until 1936.
and he warns McCain, given his own lack of eloquence, would make a mistake to attack Obama on his rhetoric, but instead should make the issue one of policy specifics, not of speechmaking:
Obama's political weakness is that he is too liberal, not that he is too eloquent.
Gerson also reminds us that Reagan came to national attention as the result of one political speech, the televised address he gave on behalf of Barry Goldwater in 1964. And the parallel with Reagan is the focus of what E. J. Dionne writes. He also makes use of the parallel of the two men being launched into national consciousness by one speech"
Like Reagan's enemies, Obama's opponents concede that he gives a great speech. Indeed, both Obama and Reagan came to wide attention because of a single oration that offered hope in the midst of a losing campaign -- Obama's 2004 keynote to the Democratic National Convention and Reagan's 1964 "A Time for Choosing" address delivered on behalf of Barry Goldwater. But surely speeches aren't enough, are they?
He reminds us that people tried to warn of Reagan's inexperience in international affairs as both Democratic supporters of Clinton and Republicans now do about Obama. And three paragraphs in the middle of his piece provide a stark reminder of how effectively Reagan used words to reach across partisan divides and build a strong coalition for the general election:
Yet Reagan didn't play to type. He reached out warmly to Democrats, notably in his 1980 convention speech that was his single most effective political sally.
"Everywhere we have met thousands of Democrats, independents and Republicans from all economic conditions and walks of life bound together in that community of shared values of family, work, neighborhood, peace and freedom," Reagan declared. "They are concerned, yes, but they are not frightened. They are disturbed but not dismayed. They are the kind of men and women Tom Paine had in mind when he wrote -- during the darkest days of the American Revolution -- 'We have it in our power to begin the world over again.' "
You can almost hear the Republican crowd shouting, "Yes, we can!" Reagan offered, well, change we could believe in.
Dionne thinks that once Clinton failed to knock Obama out of the race in Iowa she was in trouble. As those who have followed the race know, Obama's words both in Iowa where he won and even more so in NH where he lost have helped to fuel his rise. Dionne notes
During the past two months, Democrats in large numbers have reached the same conclusion that so many Republicans did in 1980: Now is the time to go for broke, to challenge not only the ruling party but also the governing ideas of the previous political era and the political coalition that allowed them to dominate public life.
Dionne also pointedly reminds us of the parallels between the first Bush and Clinton, people who had been around for a while, had long preparation for the position of president and felt frustrated by their inability to persuade the electorate of the dangers of choosing the inexperienced opponent over their own stellar sets of experiences and knowledge of how the system worked. But as Reagan triumphed, with his rhetoric helping to define a new framework of politics that propelled him to success, and who spoke openly of a "rednezvous with destiny," Dionne writes of Obama
Obama is being propelled by the same sense of historical opportunity, and that is why it will be hard to derail him.
I agree with Gene Robinson that personality can make a difference. It may not be so base as with which candidate one might want to have a beer, but in a sense there is a similar question: do I want this candidate coming into my living room for the next four years, representing me to the world and addressing me through my tv? Personality is part of that, a large part. People want to believe the person to whom they give their vote is authentic, andit is here that I part somewhat from Gerson's distinction that I find somewhat artificial, that authenticity is equivalent to spontaneity, at least as measured by dial groups. I think Obama's rhetoric is part of his appeal, a major reason he is viewed as authentic by many Americans. It is of a piece with his life story, expressed not only in the two books he has written, but in the experiences ranging from the Harvard Law Review to his organizing work in Chicago to his days in the Illinois Senate to now. When he talks his rhetorical gifts enable his listeners to connect with a sweep of vision that inspires them, but even more, invites them in to be part of the process. His rhetorical gifts are aspirational as well as inspirational: they allow the listeners to append their hopes to his vision, and thus feel empowered. Howard Dean attempted to do this with his "you have the power" to take this country back, but Howard was unable to make the connection between inspirational and aspirational, although his failed run reminded many Americans that we did want to be involved in making a difference in our nation.
The parallels with Reagan are striking on many grounds, not least of which was Obama's own recognition of Reagan's ability to connect with the American people. Obama was criticized by some for his references to Reagan in his remarks to the Reno paper, but those critics missed how effectively Reagan had himself used the vision of FDR - a true bete noir to many conservatives - in order to propel his own candidacy. In the process he created a movement of a group of voters who came to be known as "Reagan Democrats" whose defection from the Democratic coalition was a major reason for the struggles our party underwent for the better part of two decades. And it is interesting how many of these same voters are dwan back to the Democratic party now by the rhetoric and personality of Barack Obama.
I am an Obama supporter, but I have not offered this diary as a piece of advocacy on his behalf. Heck, my words can do little to increase the appeal his own words and person provide. I did find the conjunction of the three op ed pieces interesting, and thought that by writing about them, making you the reader aware of what they offer, I might help deepen our understanding of what has been happening. If that happens to assuage the fears of some who do not quite understand the Obama phenomenon, so be it.
I am interested in what you may offer in response, and will read your comments when I can.
In the meantime, may we all remember that our goal is to reclaim a positive vision for our entire nation.
Peace.