Back to Gideon RachmanI’ve always felt a bit queasy about columnists who debate with each other on the pages of their own papers. It can seem a bit vain and self-referential. On the other hand, the whole phenomeon of blogging is vain and self-referential. So here goes.
Clive Crook has given me a bit of a going over because of my critique of Obama’s speeches. Here is my response;
Clive’s first argument is that Obama can’t be a “lousy” speaker because his speeches have “moved and even inspired hundreds of thousands of listeners”. (Make that millions, if you like.)
He has a point. People’s reactions to speeches - or novels or works of art - are subjective. I might hate the novels of Barbara Cartland. But they have probably “moved and inspired” millions. They have certainly sold millions of copies. The market has spoken.
Still, literary critics battle on - occasionally criticising popular books. In the same spirit, I think it is fair enough to say that while Obama’s speeches - like Cartland’s novels - may bring tears to the eyes of some people, they don’t move me. And I don’t think my reaction is that of a lone emotionally-arid Brit. Amidst the deluge of abuse I got after my Obama column, there were quite a few people who agreed with me - even some who said they might still vote for Obama.
Now onto the emptiness question. My argument was that Obama’s most “inspiring” riffs are empty because they fail to challenge the audience or to present them with a genuine choice. Not so, says Clive - Obama is challenging his audience, albeit “gently”.
Well, let me quote again the famous “Yes we can” passage:
“Yes we can to justice and equality. Yes we can to opportunity and prosperity. Yes we can heal this nation. Yes we can repair this world.”
If there is a challenge there, it is so gentle that it all but imperceptible.
Can you imagine a rival candidate jumping up and saying, “I disagree. I stand for injustice, inequality, stagnation and poverty. I promise civil war. No, make that world war.” Even Hillary Clinton wouldn’t make that mistake.
Clive argues that appealing for “unity” in modern America is genuinely challenging, since the Democratic base is thirsting for revenge against the Republicans. I did half-concede this point in my own column.
Still, calling for a unity (in a nice, general sort of way) is a very safe sort of “challenge”. In countries that are not on the verge of civil strife, most politicians present themselves as the kind of person who can unite the nation. Most people do actually prefer to live in harmony with their neighbours, if possible. Even Mrs Thatcher entered Downing Street saying - “Where there is discord, let me bring harmony.”
Finally, on a personal note, let me say that finding the courage to talk back to Clive Crook represents a considerable psychological break-through for me. I was a junior member of staff at The Economist when Clive was an intellectually terrifying deputy editor. His trademarks were remorseless logic, fierce invective and a total lack of sentimentality. If Obama has succeeded in softening up Clive Crook (even a little), he really might represent change.
This blog covers a variety of topics from US foreign policy to European politics and the Middle East - and whatever else happens to be in the news or catch my attention. I joined the FT as chief foreign affairs commentator in 2006, after a 15-year career at The Economist which included stints as a correspondent in Brussels, Bangkok and Washington. I write a weekly column on foreign affairs, which appears in the paper on Tuesdays. Occasionally my FT colleagues contribute posts to this blog.
Geoff Dyer is the FT's China bureau chief. He has been a correspondent in Shanghai and in Brazil and has also covered the pharmaceuticals and biotechnology industries from London.
Roula Khalaf is the FT's Middle East editor. She has worked for the FT since 1995, first as North Africa correspondent, then Middle East correspondent and most recently as Middle East editor. Before joining the FT, she was a staff writer for Forbes magazine in New York. 
James Blitz is the FT's defence and diplomatic editor. He has been the FT's political editor, based in London, and Rome bureau chief. James is a former Moscow bureau chief for the Sunday Times.
Alan Beattie is the FT's world trade editor. He has previously been economics leader writer and spent two years in Washington DC as chief US economics correspondent. Before joining the FT, Alan was an economist at the Bank of England. 
Victor Mallet is the FT's Madrid correspondent. He is a former Asia editor of the FT, and, in more than 20 years at the organisation, has also worked in Africa, Europe and the Middle East. In 1990 he escaped from Kuwait after being one of the few foreign correspondents there when Iraq invaded. 
Stefan Wagstyl is the FT's eastern Europe editor, co-ordinating coverage of the region. He has also been the FT's bureau chief in Tokyo and New Delhi.