Neither wonkery nor cynicism

[barking_iguana]

Sometimes otherwise intelligent people think you can get policy enacted just by figuring out what the best policy is and announcing it. When I was younger, I fell into that trap myself, sometimes. bigscary is younger than his knowledge would lead me to believe, so I shouldn't be surprised when I see that mistake coming from him.

But effective politics requires showing people why the right policy is best. And that involves getting them to trust you enough, perhaps to identify with you enough, so that they can hear what you have to say.

Bill Clinton was a great wonk. He isn't an original thinker, but he has a tremendous ability to mentally store, categorize, and retrieve facts, and to determine those facts' applicability to the current situation. But if that's all Clinton had going for him, he never would have been elected Governor, let alone President. Bill Clinton had a rare ability to show people that he understood what was going on for them, so they felt comfortable enough to listen to what he had to say. Or, and bigscary probably hates this, to trust him without taking the time to listen to his plans at all. And that's what made him an effective candidate and a moderately effective President.

Neither Obama nor Hillary Clinton duplicate Bill's skill set. But what Obama has instead is the ability to convey he shares most of our understanding of, and frustration with, how (not just that) Washington doesn't work. And while he acknowledges that a real fix can only come from below, he proclaims that he will stick a flag in the sand. And he will be strong and stubborn enough so that those who have previously been too discouraged will find that flag still standing long enough for us to rally around. For an example, look at http://barking-iguana.livejournal.com/133922.html?nc=1 . You can start at 17:10 or even 20:00, if you don't have half an hour. At the very least, watch from 23:50 to 27:00.

Of course that's playing with people's emotions. And of course it won't work out perfectly. So some (chemoelectric?, who, like me, supports Obama in the absence of Edwards) see it as cynical. But even though Obama knows perfectly well it can't work out perfectly, it can work out quite well compared to anything we've seen in many decades. And to whatever extent Obama could make it work out just as he says, he would. To me, that's not cynicism, it's engaging in the art of the possible.

Now, maybe I'm missing something, but I see no comparable skill in Hillary Clinton. She does have many other skills, but none that can broaden the appeal of the policies she champions. If not for the Clinton family brand (which, granted, she helped to create), she would make a fine governor of a small, northern state like Vermont. And if she happened to luck into a Senate seat, she'd be, as she is, reliably better than a Republican but not really what you'd want from a Democrat with a good constituency. Her policies are good enough so that if she gets the nomination, I (unlike other good Democrats I know) would support her. But on what basis can she be considered a good candidate?

Comments

[chemoelectric.livejournal.com]

I was Edwards (essencially since 2004 or 2005) then Dodd (immediately upon Edwards’ weaseling on Iraq) then Edwards then Obama (the last two changes due to fallouts).

I have said what I thought and it was not cynicism; Obama’s cynicism seems unremarkable for a politician. Armando has addressed this issue adequately and it isn’t the most interesting thing to me (though I do want to know Obama’s motivations for becoming ostentatiously Christian). Even Dennis Kucinich is ‘cynical’, just a little less so than a typical halfway decent Washington pol.

I have a problem with how Obama uses language. More precisely, I have a problem with how many people react, physiologically, with a flood of hormones, to that style of rhetoric. They should feel ‘nothing’. If Obama himself feels ‘something’ then, sure, he may be perfectly sincere; and if he is sincere about the stuff he says then he is sincerely ‘good’; but I don’t think he can effect a lasting transformation of American civic life by controlling people’s hormonal reactions that way. It is not good for them, medically, psychiatrically, and also leaves them susceptible to ‘evil’ demagogues.

As for Hillary Clinton, just look how she is portrayed in This Modern World, with perpetual terror in her eyes: http://action.credomobile.com/comics/2008/01/year_in_review_part_two.html

Backed up by the words of her person McAuliffe: http://syndicated.livejournal.com/greenwaldsalon/123913.html

That’s not even getting into a comparison of Obama and Clinton foreign policy advisors, a pool from which appointments tend to come. (Giuliani’s were worse than Clinton’s, of course, but that’s saying very little.)

[chemoelectric.livejournal.com]

Come to think of it, if it were Obama ‘cynicism’ I was focusing on these days, why would it bother me that his speechwriters are idealistic 20-somethings? :)

I have had a bit of a problem with perhaps ‘cynical’ use of religion, but this issue is minor compared to my current topic. The religion issue is mostly about my own unhealthy hormonal reactions, actually. :) (In other words, I was touchy.)

[barking-iguana.livejournal.com]

:)

You weren't the only one. I think there are many atheists who would rather politicians pretend we don't exist than acknowledge the unfair way we are viewed, even if the acknowledgment is to dispute the perception. It reminds me of the way some old queens fought against the visibility of the queer movement in the 1980s.

[chemoelectric.livejournal.com]

Being ostentatiously atheistic, I don’t think that’s a fit description. I am way out of that closet. Maybe closer would be the deaf people who supposedly object to deafness being considered a ‘handicap’; they must be reacting viscerally to a word that is perfectly appropriate in its context.

[bigscary.livejournal.com]

Of course I don't believe it. But I believe that ideas are primary -- the conservative "framing" offensive was idea-based, and their rhetoric was designed around and tuned by the ideas and concepts born in the right-wing think tanks.

Certainly, we can use a speaker like Obama, and his style of rhetoric is very effective, but it is an article of political faith that rhetoric MUST be in the SERVICE of policy.