March 4, 2008
Clive Crook - I surrender
In my earlier musings on the character of my fellow columnist, I left out one other abiding impression from our time at The Economist. It really is a big mistake to get into a prolonged argument with Clive. Once riled he is relentless. The conversation will only end when Clive has nailed your head to the floor (figuratively speaking, obviously).
So I’m going to accept his invitation. Let’s call it quits. History can judge whether Obama is an orator to be ranked alongside King, Kennedy at el. But I think we should take a broad view of what history means. Let’s wait at least 200 years before we form a definitive judgement.
While we’re waiting, can I offer some short-term predictions. Obama will win the nomination. Obama will win the presidency. Obama will then deliver an inaugural speech that is so brilliant and moving, that even I will be reduced to tears (without the assistance of an onion.) And within 18 months Clive Crook and many of Obama’s former fans will be bitterly disappointed - so it will be left to me to argue that he’s not so bad really.
Meanwhile, I was amused by this analysis of my relationship with my present and former colleague that appeared on the comments section of the Crook blog:
“We see here a true example of the psychological anguish caused by managers. Clearly Mr Rachman feels what he feels. He believes, and clearly has believed for many years, that Mr Crook lacks sentimentality. Mr Crook apprently never noticed - or preferred not to notice. He replies that “I was universally regarded as a complete softy”.. This shows that first Mr Crook refuses to believe Mr Rachman feels what he says he feels. Secondly, he is in effect saying that there is something ‘wrong’ about Mr Rachman thinking like this - as it is going against the views of everyone else (although we have to take Mr Crook’s word everyone else thinks he is a softy.) “
Wow. There is much more where that came from. But the thing is that I regard the word “unsentimental” as a compliment. I would be disappointed by any suggestion that Crook had gone soft. Fortunately - to judge by his reaction to my reaction to his reaction - I need have no fears on that’s score.
Update: link to the comment is fixed - thanks RCS.
Good for you in refusing to accept Crook’s putative ‘brief final word’. I see another of your old bosses, the Hitchenator, has a column on Slate today - that particular unsentimental pundit (i agree the adjective is a positive one) seems to agree with you on Obama’s vacuity.
May I make the important point that, as commentators, Crook, Hitch, you (and everyone else with a keyboard) needs to be engaging. At least yourself and Hitchens can be said to be that - whereas cold Crook’s oddly concocted stew doesn’t really seem aware that it should have a readership, let alone do anything like entertain or provoke thought. Let’s hope someone buys him a second book of Groucho Marx quotes in an effort to spice up his abilities further even than than dizzy heights of entertainment he’s been attempting this week.
Posted by: justin | March 4th, 2008 at 1:18 pm | Report this commentI disagree that it is self-referential and/or vain for columnists to debate. On the contrary, it is absolutely necessary to keep all of you accountable. What other checks and balances mechanism is there?
Posted by: RR | March 4th, 2008 at 2:03 pm | Report this commentNow that the great debate between Gideon Rachman and Clive Crook has been finally resolved, we can all go back to following the one between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.
Posted by: algasema | March 4th, 2008 at 3:44 pm | Report this commentDon’t surrender! Clive’s argument doesn’t stand up at all. All sorts of people - intelligent and stupid, young and old, black and white, etc etc - get swept up by collective emotions: the outpouring of grief at Diana’s death, the hysteria about the Spice Girls, the Nuremberg rally, etc etc. It does not follow that the object of the mania is someone of exceptional talent.
Posted by: Philippe Legrain | March 4th, 2008 at 4:12 pm | Report this commentDear Mr Rachman,
You meant this comment:
http://blogs.ft.com/crookblog/2008/03/on-obamas-speeches-contd/#comment-338
Posted by: RCS | March 4th, 2008 at 6:00 pm | Report this commentCOUNTERPREDICTION
Obama will not win the presidency.
Hillary might even surprise today in Texas and Ohio.
Posted by: RCS | March 4th, 2008 at 6:17 pm | Report this commentHi RCS,
Why do you post under your initials here but full name in Clive Crook’s blog? Do you feel unsafe with all those Iranians (real Middle-Easterners) hanging around Rachman’s blog?!!
P
Posted by: Pacifist | March 4th, 2008 at 6:27 pm | Report this commentDoes anyone really believe that Barack Obama lacks substance? If so, then consider this:
How does someone rise to be a front-running candidate for the US presidency by the age of 46 who was born,
without a silver spoon,
without the fame of being a movie or TV star, or a president?s son or wife,
without personal wealth to fund his campaign,
without a Northern or Western European name,
and without white skin?
Would that even be remotely possible if the person lacked serious intellect, drive, and judgment?
Do you really believe that a person who lacked superior intelligence could,
gain admission to Harvard and receive a doctorate in Law, magna cum laude,
become the president of the Harvard Law Review,
then rise from being a college instructor of constitutional law at the University of Chicago,
and an associate attorney representing community organizers and working on discrimination claims and voting rights cases,
to become Illinois State Senator,
US Senator,
and then front-runner for the Democratic nomination for president,
while writing two books along the way,
all in the space of 16 years from his graduation from Harvard?
Could he have done all these things if he was an empty suit capable of only superficial rhetoric? A vacuous daydreamer without real substance, depth of understanding, and insightful opinions on the issues and solutions to the problems we face?
Read his books and then come back and tell me he is only another average pandering politician, like those we have seen in recent decades who are beholden to special interests and motivated by ego driven ambition without real principles.
You may disagree with his political philosophy and positions, but it is a mistake to underestimate this man. He has the intellectual mettle and the vision to become one of America?s greatest presidents.
Posted by: KJ Foehr | March 4th, 2008 at 7:45 pm | Report this commentHi Pacifist,
For no real reason, except that the use of initials has become something of a tradition on this blog. This carries a quaint appeal — like the Eurospeak of Brussels diplomats.
Posted by: RCS | March 4th, 2008 at 8:20 pm | Report this commentSamantha Powers made two curious remarks to the British press. Everybody knows that Clinton can be a monster. So I am surprised that nobody has remarked about her comments on Obama’s plan for troop withdrawals. Is Obama planning to deny or confirm them? Gideon, you shouldn’t have surrendered so easily. The emperor’s clothes are falling apart.
Posted by: Daedalus | March 8th, 2008 at 10:10 pm | Report this commentI have to say that not only do I agree with Clive’s persective on Obama’s oratory, he also presents a much more robustly argued case than Gideon.
I greatly enjoy Gideon’s blog - it’s the only one I follow on an almost daily basis. But on this occasion he let himself down with an intellectually sloppy response with the Barbara Cartland analogy.
I don’t disagree that vagueness and rhetorical flushes abound in BO’s speeched which is frustrating for some observers. But these stump speeches are simply not the right channel for conveying detailed substantive info to satisfy the policy wonks. Those that look for this content miss the point of these speeches, which is (primarily) to engage, inspire and garner support. On those counts, Obama’s speeches have been rather successful…
Posted by: DKM | March 9th, 2008 at 9:30 pm | Report this comment