Why Obama Acts As He Does – My Reply to Frank Rich

You’re really hard on yourself, my friend. Writing by definition is imperfect; word meaning always has fuzzy edges, and clarity is sometimes impossible to achieve, especially with the abstractions presented in politics and human behavior.

When I read a vanity post here, I assume that I’m reading a first draft. It is always true that we can use a good editor, a proofreader, and time for reflection. Still, buddy, you’re good.

And keep your job in IT. My career as a writer allowed me to hover inches above the poverty line for two decades, which wasn’t such a burden as a young man. Now that I’m in middle age, though, the idea of struggling a little apartment chasing the scoop seems just plain tiring.

The sun’s about to come up (I’m in Alaska near the Arctic Circle), so I’m going to sit by the window and enjoy it. Again, be well and God bless.

Frank Rich wrote:

The cliché criticisms of Obama are (from the left) that he is a naïve centrist, not the audacious liberal that Democrats thought they were getting, and (from the right) that he is a socialist out to impose government on every corner of American life. But the real problem is that he’s so indistinct no one across the entire political spectrum knows who he is. A chief executive who repeatedly presents himself as a conciliator, forever searching for the “good side” of all adversaries and convening summits, in the end comes across as weightless, if not AWOL. A Rorschach test may make for a fine presidential candidate — when everyone projects their hopes on the guy. But it doesn’t work in the Oval Office: These days everyone is projecting their fears on Obama instead.

So he's basically endorsing the left's view of Obama as a naive centrist. But he doesn't really get into why Obama thinks that all the summits and speeches will work.

Moreover, Obama wasn't much of a "conciliator" when he had a hungry Democrat majority in Congress. He didn't go as far as the left wanted, but his attitude was "We won the election, get used to it" not "Let's compromise."

You wrote:

So his whole career consisted of reading and speaking with basically like-minded people. He presented liberal, progressive cliches to captive audiences, or sat in the Illinois legislature and voted the Democrat line. His real life, in the upper-middle class world, was curiously detached from the ideas he dealt in. The house he owned, the arugula he bought at the farmer’s market, the schools he sent his girls to, were in essence paid for by someone else’s labor. While he learned to milk the system, and get colleges and taxpayers to support him, they were not exactly giving him this money because they agreed with him or liked his views, although some undoubtedly did.

A career like this will undoubtedly give a man a very distorted idea of what constitutes success, and what kind of effort is needed to accomplish a goal. It tends to reinforce the notion that the job of a leader is to give a good speech, and accept the accolades of the masses—as well as the good life that comes with being a leader. Thus Obama’s soaring speeches and his career on the golf course can be seen as two sides of the same story. If all of life consists of voicing noble sentiments and enjoying great luxury in return, that is exactly what he should be doing.

Good argument. I think you get it right. All the meetings and "teaching moments" reflect a very academic style of politics as instruction. To many on the right it looks like the imposition of a socialist ideology on the country. To many on the left it looks like a compromise or sell-out.

But it looks a lot like how his counterparts at U Chicago would try to run the country if they had a chance: seminars and lectures that are intended to bring people around to one's own way of thinking. It's not the confrontational, aggressive politics that partisans would prefer, but it has a de haut en bas condescension that drives the other side crazy.

The upper classes have long been able to "park" their kids in universities or non-profits or foundations or government positions, until they're ready to take on governing responsibilities. The same goes for retiring politicians who become foundation heads or university presidents -- Bob Kerry, John Brademas, etc.

What happens now is that promising members of minority groups are taken up by establishment groups and placed and nurtured in jobs until they can take on political offices in minority areas. African-American Rhodes scholars like Kurt Schmoke and Corey Booker likewise get co-opted and placed in positions until they're ready to run for office (I hope they had more "street cred" than Obama, but I doubt it matters).

Obama was more or less a part of that network (as is Deval Patrick, though he has no "street cred" at all). Obama's job at U Chicago, like his wife's, was just to give him something to do until he found an opening politically. I suspect, he was very much on the margin there, almost a part-time employee or independent contractor, but he picked up the habits of the place and the arrogance that went with academic life.

proxy_user wrote:

“If we look at real communists like Lenin and Trotsky, we will see men who are engaged in the real world and who do realize what they are up against...This hardening eventually paid off, and when the time came, they were ready...Obama is, in many ways, the direct opposite of such men”

happyathome replied:
“Lenin’s and Trotsky’s engagement in the real world consisted of attempts to bend and force reality into their theory. Obama’s trying to do the same thing - ineptly, and with a lot less force (so far). But he’s trying to shape the truth rather than adapting to it.”

I believe proxy_user is characterizing the inner strength of real street or labor union revolutionaries with the soft-handedness of the rhetorical revolutionary. Both, obviously, try to force reality to the theory. But one type really is fighting a military engagement in the pursuit of power while the other is only play-acting the warrior role. No one ever beat the crap out of zerO. He has never been at the mercy of the system. None of that has any gut meaning for him.

zerO has not suffered. He lost a primary, but it didn't really affect his lifestyle or circumstances. As stated: he has no street cred. He has always had cadres to run his interference. In street terms, he is a punk.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.