March 2, 2008
Obama - a response to my critic
I’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.
I have replied in a similar vein on Mr Crook’s blog:
http://blogs.ft.com/crookblog/2008/03/on-obamas-lousy-empty-speeches/#comment-328
RCS
Posted by: Ron Cohen-Seban | March 2nd, 2008 at 7:05 pm | Report this commentMight add to my previous post:
in a similar vain vein…
Posted by: RCS | March 2nd, 2008 at 8:25 pm | Report this comment[…] Rachman has posted a response to my post on his column about Obama’s speeches. I’ll offer a last brief word, and then […]
Posted by: FT.com | Clive Crook’s blog | On Obama’s speeches, cont’d | March 2nd, 2008 at 10:34 pm | Report this commentGideon, I was one who agreed with you on Obama’s rhetoric, and I have been amongst those who have looked for more substance from him on issues, particularly in foreign policy. On the otherhand, I had to find a seat when passing a television broadcasting the Kennedy-Obama event at American University.
I have questioned why you and others have not appeared to take the Obama candidacy seriously. Dismissive slaps at Obama have seemed to comply with the Clinton’s media strategy. From the getgo, Obama has attracted considerable depth in both economic and foreign policy to his team–and more impressive names than Hillary. Yet most pundits assumed it would be Hillary and treated Obama, as i once wrote, as the warm up act to make Democrats cool and embracing.
Clive Crook’s piece today moves on, I hope not too prematurely, to a post mortem of Hillary’s campaign. Her rhetoric certainly failed to hit the mark very often, and she is the most evasive of the two on policy issues.
While I’ve not sourced the article yet, I am told that London’s Times today cites reports that Richard Lugar and Charles Hagel, both Republicans with Reagan-era credentials, are lined up as possible members of an Obama cabinet. It would be interesting to know what would be behind such a development.
I would suggest then that the Neocons would have achieved something quite profound and constructive: a rethink of the US’ two-party system. Obama may not, indeed, be a Democrat. He is certainly not a Neocon. Is he Pomo?
If there is truth in the Times’ rumour, I think it would be best for Obama to hold it until he has secured the nomination–and eliminated a super-delegate threat. The Democratic centre will not be ready to ponder Reagan guys in an Obama government. Nonetheless, it shows 1) how badly wrong the Neocons (lined up now behind Clinton and McCain-Lieberman) got it; and 2) that there will be a rethink in US foreign policy.
Not one of the three US candidates can sleep well on foreign policy. This weekend–Venezuela, Palestine/Gaza, Warren Buffett’s letter, and the FT report on population–is yet another that will remind the candidates why vacuous rhetoric works. So, we need more cutting insights from journalists on the underlying power shifts that concurrent policy and economic failures are driving.
If Hillary fails on Tuesday, I will celebrate the defeat of an agenda founded on manipulation and lies. Her feminist supporters should not be allowed one tear; she did not fail because she was a woman, but because she is a deeply flawed and insecure human being. If she is out, what will Bill do? I suspect his political capital will now be marked to market, and that he may soon be free to buy a bachelor’s retirement villa on Hainan.
Thus, it will be helpful to ensure that both Obama and McCain are put to account on things that matter. Tough questions and disregard for agendas.
Posted by: WCM | March 2nd, 2008 at 11:23 pm | Report this commentI would also like to add my congratulations to Mr. Rachman for his stunning breakthrough in being able to stand up to his former superior. Definitely, this is an example for many of us to follow (or wish we had followed).
Barack Obama, however, is also standing up to two people who, while they may not possess very much of the logic that Mr. Rachman attributes to Mr. Crook, can both certainly qualify as remorseless masters, if not of invective, at least of fierce “enhanced interrogation techniques”. I refer, of course, to President Bush and Vice-President Cheney. But to catch on to this or any other of Barack Obama’s ideas, one would actually have to pay attention to the content of his speeches, something that neither Mr. Tweedledum Rachman nor Mr. Tweedledee Crook show much evidence of doing.
Posted by: Roger Algase | March 2nd, 2008 at 11:36 pm | Report this commentGiddy, I am with you. I’ve had enough of politicians in general and I feel my own personal decoupling from things political. They don’t represent me any more. Anyone who expects a politician, particularly one of empty rhetoric, to deliver for them will be sorely disappointed and they will have wasted their own ambition in one more term of hope, faith or whatever.
Posted by: Tom | March 3rd, 2008 at 12:18 am | Report this commentIt’s bizarre that you’re missing the point of the yes we can bit. The challenge is clear–Get off your ass, stop whining and get involved to make the world a better place. The target is obvious–the general disengagement, apathy and lack of belief in individual action to change anything in a system that seems stacked against common sense and collective, grassroots action.
It’s a challenge against mommy state liberalism and a challenge against the myopia of the republicans who ask people to only look out for their self-interest. It’s a challenge to liberal and conservative orthodoxy. That’s why it’s resonating with people who have felt disenfranchised and disappointed with American governance and politics for the past few decades.
Posted by: f san | March 3rd, 2008 at 2:25 am | Report this commentI don’t think I agree with Mr. Rachman here. The American left has been pessimistic for some time, and in the last eight years in particular. It’s been a good time for saying that the Republicans would over promise and under deliver. There is a great deal of feeling that the American imperial experiment is going to bring down more than just an administration or a political party.
In this sense, I think, Obama is making a challenge to his own political party. Optimism can be good. However, what leaves me, and many others, feeling flat about Barak Obama, is that there is nothing beneath the optimism. Having spent eight years listening to promises, and boundless optimism, simply repeating optimistic statements over and over again does not get very far.
There are limits to what the President of the United States can do in any event, especially one who has promised no pain, and offered no calls to sacrifice. It seems, to me, as if Americans want to be transported back to 2000, and vote for a third term for Bill Clinton. It’s an option I think many wished we had had, especially given what has transpired since then.
However today is not yesterday, and the last eight years have not been without cost.
What is missing for me, and for many others, is the way in which these changes are supposed to take place. I don’t think compromising with people who haven’t seen the need to compromise in their complete control of the government is the way to do this. I don’t think that simply not doing a few things wrong is enough. I’m not the first, nor will I be the last, to note that Obama has consistently been last and least in the plans he’s offered. Without having to run against other people, would he do anything at all?
The next President will need to believe, but he or she will also need to give us something to believe in. That, not challenge, is the leavening that is missing from Obama’s bread.
Posted by: Lillie Yiyuan | March 3rd, 2008 at 2:33 am | Report this commentBeware of a demagogue…..Hitler has been a fluent speaker who seems to be very convincing but what happened he had brought to mankind. being a speaker without any substance but telling you just making change and he has ” good judgment” so that he is fit to be the helmsman whilst he has not more than 3 years of service as a senator. Can you believe in it? it is a world of unprecedented change, not change be speech that can be resolved…If we are so naive to believe in a demagogue, this country is doomed and would be sunk into a nightmare. Beware guys!!!!!!
Posted by: Steven Soh | March 3rd, 2008 at 2:51 am | Report this commentWhy caring so much about how good a speaker is Obama? This is not the main issue. There is broad agreement that Obama opposed the war in Irak, and that Hillary did not. And that the war/invasion/ agression was a mistake. A big one. Does Mr Gideon agree on these two points? If he does, the quality of the speeches seems a pretty small point to argue about. If he does not, why doesn’t he write about this more substantial issue?
Posted by: Pierre | March 3rd, 2008 at 4:07 am | Report this commentWCM:
If the story about Lugar, Hagel and other republicans turns out to be true, it means that cohabitation a la France/Germany has crossed the Atlantic. I wonder who is going to be Kouchner (Lugar?).
Consider this usually reliable commentor’s report:
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/JC01Df02.html
The new game seems to be to corral India and China against Russia. It might be a pipe dream but Lugar has some really peculiar ideas about Russia which he expressed in a position paper of the CFR.
Mr Rachman: I do not want to be challenged by my
political representative. I want to be offered solutions to problems which i know bother me.
The problems of the US, at least at the popular level are pretty obvious.
Posted by: MP | March 3rd, 2008 at 6:17 am | Report this commentI had occassion to sit through a talk given by Barrack Obama at the University of Cape Town on “The type of foreign policy that US should Pursue”. This was during his Africa tour in 2006. It was a small enough forum that we also had access to ask him follow up questions.
In that forum he was direct and clear emphasizing where he thought US policy had gone wrong; assuming that military action alone would resolve any challenge to its legitimate long term strategic interests. He argued that local economic and institutional problems played as much a part in driving the type of instability that leads to hostility to the US. He emphasized that this should not be confused with a policy of avoiding military action when dealing with implaccable enemies. It should however be executed in a manner that appreciated the impact of “soft power”. He argued that current US policy has badly backfired and that the US needs to appreciate that the cold war was won as much by US soft power as the arms build up engineered by Ron Reagan.
The talk was detailed and he was challenged by many political and policy experts and responded in a manner that showed me that this was someone what had spent a great deal of time thinking about these things. I think that John McCain is a decent well meaning person but that he has spent so much time with the US establishment that he is at this stage incapable of thinking outside the box that has got us into this quagmire. Hillary on the other hand does not have the courage of her convictions so one never really knows what she actually thinks. In a nutshell one might have come away with the impression that Barack was prepped by Gideon for that talk or maybe talking to Prof Nye!
Additionally many of the establishment thinkers assume that the fact that he approaches things very differently from the way they do on foreign policy reflects naivete. i.e. Who other than a naive untested candidate would say they would meet an axis of evil member without conditions…. I think it reflects a refershing willingness to challenge conventional thinking.
What struck me immediately was this was a likely Presidental contender who actually seemed to both understand the US concerns but also who was empathetic enough to appreciate how the rest of the world might see this. More importantly he had the courage of conviction to take the risk of saying so when others would feel the need to equivocate.
On his current lack of substance I suspect that he has taken the shrewd position that in the current environment presenting intellectual positions might satisfy the punters but would not get him elected which might say more about the state of our democracy than about him……
And as much as it is rubbished the fact that he understands how many non US people view our actions in a way that John McCain and Hillary never will is a strength in both in diplomacy as well as we have to fight; an old military adage says “Know Your Enemy”.
I actually think that its on the economy that his relative lack of substance is a potential issue. Promising to renegotiate NAFTA does not reflect the realities on the ground.
Posted by: Onchi Maiko | March 3rd, 2008 at 7:44 am | Report this comment>>MP Many thanks for this piece! Good Raj-style chat of the sort that we see too little of. Rice clearly is spread too thin and over her head, but at least she is trying to put that side of the house in some order before she leaves. Her world view that China is co-operating with Washington is, well, how she likes to see it. Her recently developed commanding style wins little more than amusement. She lacks gravitas on any front.
Taiwan has been one of the areas where her State Department is leaving a real problem. The current government is so bad that the Kuomintang Hokkien are nearly prepared to ask Beijing for help. An extraordinary brain drain is underway on the island, and yet the US appears to have helped re-arm fools and zealots there, as Strobe Talbott noted in the FT a few weeks ago. The deceased Jesse Helms–once the god of Taiwanese Nationalists–left instructions that Gates probably still has and follows. They are hardly relevant today.
Returning to the thread, I think Mr Rachman deserves to lose this point to Mr Crook, even though I share Gideoon’s distaste for platitudes and scepticism of the US political process when it produces candidates that appear to check the right boxes. With Obama, however, I think he has missed a story and dismissed the mounting evidence that something big is going on.
When my friend from London called yesterday afternoon and noted, as she was making the kids’ lunch, that she had just read that Lugar and Hagel were on board with Obama, I realised how much of the story I was missing–and I had been alert to the Obama phenomenon since last September when I was last in the US.
Obama is not leading a retreat; just the opposite. Rice may be out of key loops, but Gates likely plays squash regularly with Lugar and Hagel. This team wants to undo what Rumsfeld and McCain have done to the Defense Establishment and America, Inc.
Returning for a moment to your Asia Times analysis, I think China is far from folding under a US policy wing, but I have no doubt India is a long ways from having the confidence to break from under it.
Hopefully, in the days ahead Mssrs Rachman and Crook will together up the pressure on Young Mr Obama and get him to slip a tongue once or twice and spill some of the buzz he is now clearly a part of.
Posted by: WCM | March 3rd, 2008 at 8:39 am | Report this comment>>Onchi Maiko’s comments mirror the buzz I picked up from his Africa tour. Good comments. Too many pundits thought that the US voters would not be seriously interested in foreign policy. Like everyone else, they watch where their money goes. Well, sometimes.
>>TO THE FT: The code below certainly seems like an editorial comment for the religious and foreign policy columns: “Episcopal endurance”!
Posted by: WCM | March 3rd, 2008 at 8:46 am | Report this commentThank you Gideon for your fine blog… and thank you for sticking your neck out on Obama.
What irritates me most about the junior Senator from Illinois is his barefaced use of purposefully vague language that links emotion to spirit for personal gain. He uses words like “hope” and “change” and “we” too freely, he is using these words intentionally to manipulate the emotions of people, especially young people, he does it to further his own ambition. In the end his supporters will be left with the words, and if things continue as they have till now, Obama will be left with the power.
Washington is a place where a lot of money changes hands, where decisions are taken that get people killed, where anyone looking for a friend is advised to buy a dog. Washington is a huge brothel like the legendary houses of New Orleans’ Storyville. A word, like “hope” in this context is used in exactly the same way as prostitutes use the word “love”… The words are sweet, but the eyes are cold and hard.
This is not to say that these establishments do not serve noble purposes on occasion. One of America’s greatest contributors to universal culture, Louis Armstrong, after whom New Orleans International Airport is named, earned his bread and cheese as a homeless waif delivering coal to these ladies. By patronizing genius, the Medicis earned immortality in similar fashion, but “love”, “hope”?
Certainly it was not impossible to experience truth and beauty in the houses of such as “Countess” Willie Piazza. You could of course… if the piano player was good enough. But anyone entering the premise in search of “love”, would certainly wake up with empty pockets, and an aching head.
And let he that is without sin cast the first stone. An old Spanish Communist once told me, “David, if all the sons of prostitutes that there are on this planet had wings and could fly, they would so cover the heavens that the rays of the sun would never touch the earth again and all life would be extinguished.”
Let the poets pipe of love
Posted by: David Seaton | March 3rd, 2008 at 12:08 pm | Report this commentin their childish ways
I know every type of love
better far than they.
If you want the thrill of love
I have been through the mill of love
old love
new love
every love but true love
“Love for Sale” - Cole Porter
Rhetoric aside, what will Obama wins in both Texas and Ohio bring tomorrow?
Firstly, it will likely be the one and only time that he will be entitled to feel he truly has magic. The months ahead will be quite different, and his best lines have already been served.
Secondly, a sharp rise in sleeping-pill and anti-depressant (who cares if they are useless?)
intake by Neocons.
Thirdly, freedom for Bill Clinton.
Rather than focus on battlecries and popularity, it is now critical to see just how Obama is thinking and where he is not. As I dig into his more detailed comments, it is clear there is much for him to sort out. If he wins tomorrow, then any effort to reverse the train he has set in motion will be costly over the long term, unless the next several months are centred on substantive debate that moves both parties back onto some common ground.
A quick look at the Brookings Institute reveals a teling divide between Strobe Talbott and his many colleagues who stand behind Obama. Many CVs are being updated today.
Posted by: WCM | March 3rd, 2008 at 1:02 pm | Report this commentThe effect of Obama’s rhetoric can be interpreted as (and obviously is) distinct from his policy intentions. His (and Clinton’s) pandering talk of trade is proof of that. I’m not especially moved by the emotive content of his speeches, but I’m happy that content moves others, since I think his substance is sound. Compelling rhetorical flourishes are no more troubling than (regrettably necessary) fudging on trade (or any number of other primary issues).
Posted by: Andrew | March 3rd, 2008 at 4:16 pm | Report this commentThis debate on Obama’s style centres very much on how much he has become the candidate that so many have wanted.
If Obama wins tomorrow, it is time to be honest about who/what he is and is not. I think he can survive the reality check. Otherwise, there is a risk he will spin and be spun into an incoherent failure, leaving greater failures to take his place.
The Clintons are tainted goods who were left out of Al Gore’s race in 2000 for many good reasons, including some that are unique to Hillary. McCain represents a disturbing mix of ideas in a Viagra-fueled package.
Posted by: WCM | March 3rd, 2008 at 4:56 pm | Report this commentWhat rubbish, Steven Soh. They used to call Martin Luther King a demagogue too. Was he another Hitler? Or is it just that our society in general may feel less inhibited about using the “D-word” against black public figures than against everyone else.
Posted by: algasema | March 3rd, 2008 at 5:40 pm | Report this commentWILL THE REAL OBAMA PLEASE STEP UP: If you are watching the news today we are finding how much of a liar and deceiver Obama is. His top executives met with Canadian ececutives who was upset about what Obama was saying on NAFTA. Obama’s executives told Canadian executives in a memo that Canada should not listen to what he is saying on the campaign trail as it is just words… political positioning and that he doesn’t really mean or plan on doing what he is saying on the campaign trail.
Posted by: Janet | March 3rd, 2008 at 6:30 pm | Report this commentDear David Seaton,
A very fine and literary post.
Posted by: RCS | March 3rd, 2008 at 6:53 pm | Report this comment“Can you imagine a rival candidate jumping up and saying, ‘I disagree….I promise civil war. No, make that world war.’”
Yes. John McCain.
Posted by: Nate | March 3rd, 2008 at 7:12 pm | Report this commentI live in Chicago and have watched Obama speak. I was moved, as was the entire audience of mostly well-educated white people. He is a great speaker, because he knows his audiences–and can reach almost any person in them. He channels enough Southern preacher (a la MLK and Jesse Jackson) to appeal to blacks and get repressed white people (like me) to feel–but tempers it with just enough F.D.R.-restraint in his cadence to make us feel that we’re not being blind-sighted by emotion. This balance of soaring rhetoric with restrained, purposeful delivery is so effective because it’s a genuine reflection of who he is: the black Christian who attends a gospel church on the South Side of Chicago; and the man who served as President of Harvard Law Review. This is why Obama’s speeches have us in thrall. To use a phrase that Obama himself might like: he is the unification he is preaching!
Posted by: Lori H | March 3rd, 2008 at 7:24 pm | Report this commentA wonderful post, Lori H. I have also compared Barack Obama’s speeches with those of FDR, whom I heard speak as a young child, in a recent post on Clive Crook’s blog. But you said everything much more clearly and eloquently that I could possibly have done. Gideon and Clive, please take notice!
Posted by: algasema | March 3rd, 2008 at 8:11 pm | Report this commentYet another typo: I meant “than I could possibly have done”
Posted by: algasema | March 3rd, 2008 at 8:14 pm | Report this commentRhetoric has Always Been Important
Don’t want to accuse Gideon Rachman of sour grapes because I think a lot of folks like him missed what was happening in the Obama phenomenon. The combination of the most talented speaker in a few generations, an organization on the ground that easily bested the so-called mighty Clinton machine and—most important—the masterful use of internet social networking all joined together to leave the ‘unstoppable’ candidate, well, stopped.
Anyway, let’s go back to some election analysis—I think the incredibly clumsy phrase is psephology. The Dems have always had an advantage with young voters, figures that have been increasingly absent during the past 20 years. I wrote here many months ago that the Dems win when they lead with their heart. Machine politics will merely churn out machine pols; to get the young out in numbers to vote your presidential candidate to victory you need something more. A supremely talented speaker. A good catchphrase. Great rhetoric.
Why denigrate them–as GR does–as mere ‘rhetoric’ and compare beautiful phrases to Barbara Cartland? It’s a stupid comparison anyway since rhetoric involves giving speeches and persuading your audience. It’s nothing at all like writing a bestseller, although Obama can do that too.
Rhetoric is important in politics. Has always been—at least in democracies, right back to the ancients.
Posted by: MaryCunningham | March 4th, 2008 at 9:42 am | Report this commentI don’t know much about Clive, sir, but what I feel about Obama is a desperately disguised and pretended masculinity which should, forgive my dirtiness deep in my heart, only cater to the sex-hungering mid-age women and allegedly underprivileged losers.
Posted by: alan | March 6th, 2008 at 8:09 am | Report this commentDear Gideon
So pleased to see you are settling well into your new job. Guess I’m going to lose my bet that you’ll be back at the Economist in year.
Reading your latest posting about Clive, though, I must say that I never realised you were such a wuss!
As for saying you were a “junior” member of staff at the Economist, as Clive would say “Hum”. If you were so junior then that must have made me some kind of nematode worm, and I never found it a struggle to talk back to Clive and (on a rare occasion) tell him I thought he was wrong.
So maybe your fears says more about you than him?
Plus, actually, he is a bit of a softy. So be nice!
Anyway, best wishes from the Tower to both of you. As you might imagine we are all greatly enjoying your columns.
fondest, n
Posted by: Natasha Loder | March 7th, 2008 at 5:52 pm | Report this commentGodddd, can’t look back at what I have said. Why everything is so polarized at our time? - the candidates’attack towards each other, my comments on them. I must apologize to the people I may have unintentionally and boldly hurt. Human, you are so easily misguided by passion!
Posted by: alan | March 10th, 2008 at 1:51 am | Report this comment