Media Honeymoon with Obama Honeymoon coming to an end
Wed Jun 24, 2009 at 12:27:42 PM PST
I like Google News. As I cannot afford to use lexisnexis, and find myself frequently looking for older media reports on a variety of subjects while doing research for my podcast, The Benjamin Phillips Show, I sometimes just play with it. Like, for example, seeing what such search terms as "Dick Cheney" + "Douchebag" might bring up (2 hits today, by the way).
Anyway, while looking around on the news sites this morning I noticed an article over at Politico heralding the end of Obama's Honeymoon, a thought occurred to me: What is the deal with this honeymoon thing? I got curious, and played my little Google News game.
After prowling through the hundreds of articles on the subject, and months of archives, I came to a discovery. About every week since the DAY BEFORE HE WAS ELECTED PRESIDENT, some news outlet somewhere has declared the end to America's Honeymoon with Barack Obama.
First off, I'm not entirely sure we're all on the same page regarding the meaning of "honeymoon" in this context. I assume that the media does not intend to imply that Obama left the inaugural stage to whisk the country off to Jamaica for a two week sex filled booze cruise, or a long weekend in Paris with the members of the Electoral College. This gibberish means something. Let's try to find out what.
Possible Definition #1:
The media is referring to the duration of time that the "other" members of the media spend worshiping the ground Obama walks on. This implies that they are somehow the only honest, non biased outlet on the planet, even though every other organization makes identical claims. This also implies that there is unwarranted Obama worship going on. Conservatives used to attack Obama with this line back during the election, when there wasn't anything better to throw at him. The idea is that somehow Obama thought he was "Jesus" because the media had the unmitigated gall to talk about how badly run the McCain campaign was, all while refusing to "balance" the coverage with talk of similar Obama screw-ups, even if there weren't any. The fact that I had to watch that stupid Reverend Wright clip a thousand times, or listen to endless debate over that absurd William Ayes nonsense, apparently didn't figure into the this equation anywhere.
Anyway, I was never 100% clear why it was supposed to be a bad thing for a presidential candidate to be popular during an actual presidential race, but I guess when Republicans are running Old Man McFuddyDuddy, they have to try to make it hip to be square. In any case, all I ever heard Obama say was that the election was, "about you", and "not about me". Wow. That DOES sound conceited.
So I guess Honeymoon Mark 1, as I I'll call it, sort of never existed. It therefore cannot end. If Obama isn't making mistakes enough for the media to pounce on at the moment, that doesn't mean that they won't just make crap up when the moment strikes them, and regardless, it's not really the job of the media to do the Obama smearing for the Republican Party. He's the president, and he going to be on TV a lot, and I really don't see what the big deal is. Was Bush still in his honeymoon when he was the media's darling in those bleak post 9-11 days? Hard to tell, I guess. This one seems murky.
Possible Definition #2:
This story line involves his popularity among the people, and how long they will, presumably, let him get away with anything he wants to do. If you have been paying any attention to the news, then you undoubtedly know that idea is insane. No president, ever, just gets to do whatever they want, with the oblivious support of the people. Leaders, even from day one, have to lead. They have to convince. They have to make their case, and then see the execution of that case through to the end. It's the nature of the job. No one ever has a mandate. If you ran on, say, health care reform, and get elected by wide margins, and then try to actually enact health care, you will always, ALWAYS, meet resistance. The American People love the theoretical, but start to get very sketchy when it comes time to implement. They always have. That's why we need leaders in the first place.
I have always considered this "mandate" idea as bogus as the old concept of "Political Capital". The notion that somehow merely by being elected you get some sort of automatic omnibus "get out of jail free card" from the American people, as well as a pile of valuable chips to be redeemed at a later date, is a little nieve. This version of the honeymoon concept sets up Obama as something like Super Mario, and that when he starts the presidency he gets to be invincible for a few seconds, blinking on and off, while little hostile anthropomorphic mushrooms just pass right thorough him. The media apparently charts the length this bizarre invincibility lasts on the strength of his poll numbers, which really, are largely unchanged since the day he took office. Thus the confusion I guess.
I think really what the media is trying to ask, though it apparently has decided work this metaphor of "Obama's Honeymoon With The People" to death doing it, is actually pretty simple. Do the people still trust Barack Obama? Do they still think he is cool? Or, even more simply:
Are the people disillusioned yet?
The news media wants to talk about disappointment. They sight discontent in various interest groups, and among previously loyal congressmen. They look at poll numbers, and when those seem stable, move to poll breakdowns. "Obama slipped 5 points among Bi-Curious pig farmers on the subject of National Security. AMERICA IS STARTING TO HATE HIM! And look! Poor people are still poor, and are still mad about it. FURTHER PROOF OF AN OBAMA COLLAPSE!" They will jump on every group with a peeve, and every Republican with something nasty to say about him, however absurd their statement might be. Regardless of whether the beef is valid or not, the media will always run with it.
This is the ironic part of the media line on the Obama Presidency so far. For all the talk about how much the media LOVES Barack Obama, it never has been real. They don't love Barack Obama. They love his story. And anyone who knows anything about love can tell you, loving someone, and loving someone's story, are in no way the same. The media assumes that at some point Obama will fail. They need him to. They are perhaps even more eager than Rush Limbaugh to see that happen. Not for political reasons of course, but because it makes for a nice story arc. It would be INTRESTING. They would like him to have some sort of breakdown, some huge setback right around midterms, so that he could have a compelling comeback leading up to reelection time. Then they want a pretty solid second term, because by then, they will be on to whoever is running for 2016. With George W Bush, the story was one of Shakespearian tragedy. The father of a powerful man, seeking even greater power, brought down by his own shortcomings and ambition and short sightedness.
With Obama, I think they are looking for something more like Rocky. Scrappy kid from the streets, who despite setbacks and against all odds, comes back from behind and goes the distance. And then beats up Mr T. Or something. I think I'm getting off track here.
I, personally, am hoping for a nice, boring, competent leader, who gets things done and actually solves problems. Narrative weirdness aside. If I want "Drama" I'll watch reality TV.
So please. Stop with the honeymoon already. We didn't marry Obama. We just elected him president of the united states. We don't have to like him in sickness and in health. Our esteem for him is entirely dependent on his behavior. So let's act like adults about it.
Permalink | 38 comments