RSS Feed MenuA friend of mine worked on the British Conservatives’ 1997 election campaign, the party’s worst defeat since the reign of Queen Victoria. Later, he reflected on what had gone wrong.
“We had two messages,” he said. “One was: ‘This is the same old Labour Party and it cannot be trusted.’ The other was: ‘This man Blair has stolen all our ideas!’”
A political party needs a story about itself and a story about its opponents. If those stories are contradictory, or if they do not accord with well-known facts, the story goes unheard or unbelieved.
Like the British Conservatives of 1997, today’s GOP has two stories about President Obama.
The first is that he’s a dangerous leftist who threatens American freedoms. This story is told not only by the angry voices on talk radio, but by senior Republican leaders like Newt Gingrich. “The modern left is essentially proto-totalitarian,” Gingrich told the editors of National Review on Oct. 7. And President Obama “is a person of the left. The minute you accept that, you understand almost everything.”
The second story is the one we heard after the award of the Nobel Peace Prize. In this version, the president is a man without accomplishments—all talk, no action.
Obviously, these stories cannot both be true. Republicans will have to choose. Which fits the facts better?
With each passing month, the case grows stronger for the latter story: the weak Obama, not the strong.
Consider:
- The president made a series of controversial commitments to his base voters: to close the prison at Guantanamo Bay, to end “Don’t ask, Don’t tell,” to support card-check legislation for unions. His record? No, no, and no. More tellingly, except for Guantanamo Bay, this 53-percent president has not even tried to act on his commitments—unlike George W. Bush, who won election with 48 percent, or Bill Clinton, who won with only 42 percent.
- The president has allowed Congress to write the two most important bills of his first year: health care and cap-and-trade. In both cases, Congress has shrugged off crucial presidential demands. Obama wanted healthcare to include a “public option.” A 60-seat Democratic majority in the Senate has blown him off. He wanted cap-and-trade to auction off emissions rights, raising tens of billions of dollars to close the deficit. Democrats in the House and Senate have decided to give those rights away for free to utility companies.
- The president scrapped missile defense in Eastern Europe and declined to meet the Dalai Lama in an effort to win Russian and Chinese support for stiffer sanctions against Iran. Russia and China pocketed his concessions—and have delivered nothing in return.
- The president was deeply embarrassed by the Pentagon leak of a report calling for more troops for Afghanistan. Question: what happened to the leakers? Reassigned to the Greenland radar station? Nope. Nothing.
For an aspiring dictator—an appellation Fox’s Glenn Beck once again applied to the president this week—Obama has compiled a shamefully thin record. But the record does nicely confirm Fred Armisen’s “Saturday Night Live” impression of a haplessly feckless president unable to impose his will on anyone. “If I see any more of this hateful rhetoric, I’m going to have to take drastic action. Nah—not really.”
The power of caricature is always derived from its basis in reality. As the GOP makes its case against this president, it would do well to follow the proven experts at Saturday Night Live—not the alternate reality of paranoid fantasy.
Originally published October 15, 2009 in The Week.
sinz54 // Oct 15, 2009 at 12:55 pm
I certainly don’t believe Obama is a dictator.
But the intolerance of parts of the Left for opposing points of view has a long history.
Obama’s recent categorizing of Fox News as part of the opposition–and to be treated as such–didn’t go over well even with John Nichols of The Nation. It makes Obama look petty to refuse to be interviewed on Fox News Sunday while appearing on all competing news interview shows. Even if Fox is part of the opposition, if Obama can’t debate the opposition and win, how is he going to debate the leaders of Iran and North Korea and win? A President should never be afraid to take on opposing points of view.
Conservatives were always forced to face an openly hostile and suspicious press. The Left is now so thin-skinned that they don’t know what to do when confronted with an adversarial press. They seem to think that a sympathetic media is their right.
Finally, note that the Fairness Doctrine, which liberals are constantly pushing for, would have the effect of diluting any media with a point of view. That would include MSNBC as well as Fox News. We had a Fairness Doctrine in the 1960s. And TV news was dominated by just CBS, NBC, and ABC, where commentators like Severeid delivered liberal slanted commentary into our living rooms, weeknight after weeknight. True, the Fairness Doctrine required those networks to give time to opposing points of view. These were relegated to one-minute time slots late at night, typically around the time of the 11 o’clock local news, when most folks are already preparing for bed. I oppose returning to that situation. No one forces anybody to watch Fox News (or MSNBC for that matter). If you don’t like it, don’t watch it, criticize it–but don’t use legal action against it to force it to change its policy.
jjv // Oct 15, 2009 at 1:06 pm
Great post. However, weak men often make willing tyrants and strong men refuse tyranny. (Cf. G.Washington and Commodius)
SpartacusIsNotDead // Oct 15, 2009 at 1:33 pm
Sinz wrote: “Conservatives were always forced to face an openly hostile and suspicious press. The Left is now so thin-skinned that they don’t know what to do when confronted with an adversarial press. ”
How many times did George W. Bush appear on Meet the Press or the Chris Matthews Show during his 8-year presidency? How would that compare to the number of times Obama has appeared on Fox during his 9-month presidency?
SpartacusIsNotDead // Oct 15, 2009 at 1:53 pm
Frum wrote: “The president made a series of controversial commitments to his base voters: to close the prison at Guantanamo Bay, to end “Don’t ask, Don’t tell,” to support card-check legislation for unions. His record? No, no, and no. More tellingly, except for Guantanamo Bay, this 53-percent president has not even tried to act on his commitments—unlike George W. Bush, who won election with 48 percent, or Bill Clinton, who won with only 42 percent.”
These are very good points and I suspect they explain, in part, why Obama’s approval ratings have come down.
I don’t think Obama is weak, but I do think he’s slow to perceive risks. He seems not to fully appreciate how quickly his agenda can be undermined by things that are ridiculous or petty. Frank Rich at the Times wrote a very compelling piece on this about a month ago:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/13/opinion/13rich.html?_r=1
Jewels // Oct 15, 2009 at 2:14 pm
Hmm. Interesting. How about this:
The President is enjoying life as “Mr. iWon” too much to be too concerned about what would result from his actions or inactions. It is also true that he is an extreme leftist who is too naive to see how harmful his policies are. It is clear that he is not used to thinking things through to the consequences.
Fortunately, however, he is still basking in the glow of the election and is comfortable with his party’s majorities in congress. He’s trusting his party to get things done while he enjoys the celebrity.
I think the real danger lies the moment he becomes desperate to keep his job and reputation as “his Awesomeness”. Unless Republicans can find a way to stop him, the country will be in trouble the day he gets his first reality check.
ottovbvs // Oct 15, 2009 at 3:46 pm
….The reality of course is that neither is true…….He’s a pragmatic and very competent, slightly left of center Democrat whose presidency currently looks in many ways, certainly in the international field, very like that of George Herbert Walker Bush…….meanwhile the right run around accusing him of being everyone from Stalin planning gulags to Neville Chamberlain planning retreats. They need to look in a mirror because the people that look irrational and off the wall are them, not Obama……you only need to read Frum who betrays signs of extreme schizophrenia on Obama and indeed the entire Republican predicament lurching from reality one moment to the latest anti Obama spin the next, or to the partisan posters here of which;
Jewels // Oct 15, 2009 at 2:14 pm
…..is a fairly typical example who sit around navel gazing and inventing all kinds of pseudo psychological fantasies to reinforce what his dislike for the president who basically continues to carry all before him. They need to do some navel gazing about the state of the Republican party because on a scale of 1-10 (with 10 worst) their political problems are at 9 by comparison with the the president’s 3 or 4.
balconesfault // Oct 15, 2009 at 3:50 pm
Sinz: Even if Fox is part of the opposition, if Obama can’t debate the opposition and win, how is he going to debate the leaders of Iran and North Korea and win?
It is not possible or useful to debate someone face to face when they have made it clear that they will repeat disproved allegations as fact. It becomes impossible to prepare for every false fact you will have to refute, and one ends up either accepting their premise so that you can speak on a broader scale – or spending your entire time swatting away inconsistencies and lies. In neither case would it be possible to be Presidential.
This would not have been akin to Bush coming on Meet the Press, or even Chris Matthews – but rather akin to Bush coming on Air America Radio, or Countdown with Keith Olbermann. Fox’s News Division – not simply their pundits, but their news – is propogandistic on par with those actors (and actually more partisan, since Air America and Olbermann regularly criticize Obama with an intensity we never saw on Fox until perhaps late into Bush’s second term).
Could George Bush have submitted to an interview with someone like Air America’s Marc Maron and looked Presidential by doing anything but standing up mid-interview and walking out? Likely not. And Obama would likely have the same issue granting an interview with any of Fox’s faces save perhaps Shep Smith.
balconesfault // Oct 15, 2009 at 3:53 pm
Followup.
I do not expect Obama to conduct a public debate with Iran or North Korea … this would be counterproductive and beneath a President of the United States.
anniemargret // Oct 15, 2009 at 5:53 pm
President Obama is the antithesis of George Bush and Dick Cheney. And the country is enjoying the scenery after the last eight years of thuggishiness. Of course Republicans have come so far right now that they cannot discern diplomatic and gentile talk with surrender. I think Obama knows exactly what he is doing – not playing the fool, nor playing the Neanderthal. The Republicans are falling all over themselves in every effort to bring him down, in every which way they can, which has been exactly their modus operandi for their party. That way, they can offer little in constructive ideas to help their country, but ‘win’ by destroying. That’s is all they are now known for.
And dont’ forget…their three most popular and emblematic candidates right now remain Palin, Huckabee, and Romney. None of whom have any national appeal – or even within their own party.
As far as Fox “News” – they have consistant ‘trouble’ identifying congressmen and senators – whenever one of their own steps in it, they put ‘Democrat’ over their photo. And polls showed years after 9/11, Fox watchers were still believing Saddam Hussein was responsible for it. If they cannot even play fair in journalism, is it any wonder why no one outside of Fox supporters would even bother to watch this theater of the absurd? Why would Obama subject himself to a second rate ‘news’ source?
sinz54 // Oct 16, 2009 at 10:11 am
balconesfault: And Obama would likely have the same issue granting an interview with any of Fox’s faces save perhaps Shep Smith.
The issue was Obama’s deliberate snub of “Fox News Sunday.”
Fox News Sunday doesn’t include ANY of the conservative commentators you worry about: Hannity, O’Reilly, etc. The interviewers are responsible journalists like Major Garrett, whom even the Obama Administration admits is a responsible journalist who asks fair questions.
The snub of Fox News Sunday was simply an attempt to isolate Fox News from the Obama Administration altogether.
BTW, Obama had been interviewed by Bill O’Reilly during the 2008 campaign. At that time, Obama had no complaints.
balconesfault // Oct 16, 2009 at 10:43 am
BTW, Obama had been interviewed by Bill O’Reilly during the 2008 campaign. At that time, Obama had no complaints.
At that time, Fox was not a major organizer for political rallies opposing Obama’s policies. With their central role in creating the tea party movement, Fox clearly transitioned from being a news reporter … to being a news creator. There is not even a veneer of impartiality left.
erizo // Oct 16, 2009 at 10:53 am
I’m open to a different possibility.
There are cultures–and people with traits similar to those cultures–that show at least two faces.
The first is upwards, to those with greater prestige and authority: They are submissive. Only if there is something they really, really want do they risk “face” and honor to challenge the powers that be. Otherwise they’re essentially fawning, at least in public where it matters (and the only thing that really matters is what’s in public).
The second is downwards, to those with lesser prestige and authority. To those that are properly submissive and fawning, they’re benevolent, kind, magnanimous. They are lessers, and the duty of the greater person is to nurture and tend their lessers; this garners them more face, more honor. If their inferiors do not show proper submission, then they’re essentially bullies and demand respect.
Equals are treated variously. You treat them kindly if you want something and it’s worth the minimal trade-off in face, the currency of public honor. You treat them harshly if you can garner more face that way.
You defend your friends the same way. It’s all a kind of calculation: If you win by defending them, you defend them. If you win by turning on them, you turn on them. It’s not personal.
Life is trying to maximize your standing, and making sure that far more are submissive to you than you are submissive to.
Note that such cultures tend to have ways of remedying public interpersonal conflict. Sitting down quietly and resolving the problem isn’t it, because the resolution has to be public and both sides are interested in maintaining face. Usually some token humliation is sufficient by the lesser person, because people aren’t stupid: They know that the humliation is ritual, that the reconciliation isn’t heart-felt, and that it’s all a matter of public games. It’s like an 18th century duke whose wife is cheating on him–as long as nobody knows, it can be ignored by him; however, as soon as it’s publicly stated, he has to require satisfaction. It doesn’t really matter if she is unfaithful. Truth is not subservient to honor.
In societies where there are no good conflict resolution strategies–Iraq comes to mind, because all the strategies are low-level between locally accessible and familiar clans while the main issues are between much larger units over greater distances–then the society is violent. You don’t dare accept being disrespected, even if what you’ve done is shameful, because the mere fact of being disrespected is shameful. You don’t dare to allow others to not show you the respect your status requires be given you because that’s disrespectful and strips you of your status. If you’re disrespected, you have to avenge the dishonor. (This is entirely asymmetrical, as such societies often are: *Your* status is what’s important, so if you want to be a social climber you go about dishing out disrespect, because that’s not only fine, but commendable . . . from your point of view. You’re only owed respect; respect you show is what you need to show, either to save your skin or to get something.)
A lot of this is just politics. Politicians in such societies frequently play these games–not thinking of them as games, of course–to maximize their own prestige, but also the prestige of their group. If their group is low in prestige, the first order of business is to make sure nothing disrespectful can ever be said about them. The second order of business is accruing importance and “face” to them. All politics is tribal; more so now, I think, than at other times. We call it “partisanship”, but it’s still a kind of tribe-based thinking. You find justification and excuses for those in your tribe, while assuming the other tribe is as bad as possibly (I’d say “humanly” possible, but dehumanizing the other tribe is standard “best practice”).
Obama shows, I think, more of this than most politicians. If true, then your question can’t be answered as phrased and is in need of revision. Obama’s neither essentially a bully nor a push-over, because (most of) his framework is essentially cast in different terms. He’s both and neither. It’s a testable hypothesis, of course: Look at situations he’s likely to be involved in, and figure out whether submission or defiance will get him more. Consider whether or not he has reasons to believe (since it’s only his beliefs that matter in his calculus) his opponent is below him or above him. Moreover, since he’s been exposed to both cultures in spades, and has to know that many of his allies and friends also aren’t consistent in how they apply this. So don’t expect 100% compliance with this kind of thinking; if you get 80% accuracy, consider it a successful experiment.
spikeytx86 // Oct 16, 2009 at 5:28 pm
Obama is not a dictator, a communist, a radical, a socialist, or any other such nonsense.
I do believe him to be a Social Democrat, I do believe him to be weak, dithering, and way too naive.
I believe him to be a fairly honorable man, he has a great family, and from all appearances seems to be a decent interesting guy and a good Husband and Father.
He did associate himself with some very awful people however. I do not believe he shared their views however. These were the movers and shakers of Chicago Left Wing Politics. You had to be on these folks good graces to win elections as a Democrat.
However there is nothing Racist or “Below the Belt” about people bringing up who he associated with, especially since the President asked us to judge him by who he surrounded himself with. After all if Bush was associated with people like this we all know the Democrats would have had a field day with it.
Even though the Democrats were just as insane and off the wall, if not worse, during Bush’s Presidency that does not mean we should follow suit. We are supposed to be the grown ups after all. Instead we have acted like brats and sore losers as well as jilted lovers telling America “He will never love you like we did”. In the words of Berry Goldwater “Grow up Conservatives!”
As for fox news, I will grant you that their commentator’s are very much conservative and GOP sympathetic. However their straight news service, especially Fox News Sunday, is pretty impartial.
MSNBC is the same way, it’s commentator’s and some of their anchors are basically the media arm of the DNC and the Progressive Caucus, and yet I don’t see a WH boycott of them.
greg_barton // Oct 17, 2009 at 12:02 am
“Is Obama a Brute or a Pushover?”
False dichotomy much?
Frum, how many logical fallacies can you run through?
Obama’s Political Genius // Oct 19, 2009 at 7:03 pm
[...] anyway. What’s more intriguing are the persistent and opposing narratives of Obama as both brutal tyrant and weak-handed leader [...]