Sweet Nothings
By Bogus Doug
In the wake (or afterglow, if you work for MSNBC) of Obama’s latest prime-time grabbing foofarah, I’m noticing a telling disconnect between those who examine what comes next in concrete terms from those who just want to bask in how awesomely terrific our dreamy president appeared. Let’s start by examining the latter, and what better example could there be than noted pant-crease fetishist David Brooks…
On Wednesday night, Barack Obama delivered the finest speech of his presidency. The exposition of his health care views was clear and lively. The invocation of Teddy Kennedy was moving and effective. The rumination at the end about the American character and the role of government was the clearest summary of Obama’s political philosophy that he has yet given us.
It’s not often you can summarize an ostensibly conservative columnist’s opening paragraph about a Democratic president’s call to socialize medicine as, “Squeeeee!!!” But this is hardly the first time Brooks has been enraptured by Obama. The telling part begins to show next, but Brooks doesn’t seem to register the significance even as he makes note of it.
Best of all for those of us who admire the political craft was the speech’s seductive nature and careful ambiguity. Obama threw out enough rhetorical chum to keep the liberals happy, yet he subtly staked out ground in the center on nearly every substantive issue in order to win over the moderates needed to get anything passed.
Umm… quite. The speech was indeed seductively ambiguous, but I’m not so sure that’s a good thing. In fact that may be it’s central, and perhaps fatal, flaw. There sure was a lot of meaty “rhetorical chum,” but is that the same as real substance? Is being all over the map, staking out possibly self-contradictory positions in a fit of rhetorical flourish, actually a good thing at this point? I don’t think so.
But don’t take my word for it. Ceci Connolly of the Washington Post tries to chase down the actual result of the speech upon Congress, and her findings don’t quite gel with Brooks’ superlative assessment…
One day after President Obama pitched his plan for comprehensive health-care reform to a joint session of Congress, administration officials struggled Thursday to detail how he would achieve his goal of extending coverage to tens of millions of uninsured Americans without increasing the deficit.
Wait, weren’t they struggling with the same thing before Obama’s “reseizing command” of this issue that the speech supposedly signaled? Wasn’t that the central problem hindering effective compromise even among Democrats before today? Surely the president was paying attention well enough to let that much inform his words on the matter.
Well, yes, but perhaps not quite so effectively…
Although virtually every Democrat found something to like in the president’s 47-minute address, the interpretations of what he meant varied widely, suggesting more difficult negotiations ahead.
This is the central problem of the Obama presidency – whether the issue is health care or anything else. Obama’s rhetorical “brilliance” amounts to making many contrary and mutually exclusive audiences believe they heard just what they wanted to hear. Brooks, for whatever reason, is especially susceptible to this particular charm and makes a perfectly illustrative example.
Brooks uses his column to walk down an impressive list of what he thinks he heard Obama promise in his speech. But as Connolly finds in talking to Congress – Brooks isn’t the only one who thinks he knows what he heard. And some of the others seem to think they heard exactly the opposite from Brooks on identical issues.
On the controversial question of whether to form a new public insurance option, many liberals characterized what was widely interpreted as Obama’s neutral stance to be unwavering support for the idea.
“We were pleased you explicitly expressed your support for a public option as a central piece of achieving true reform,” leaders of the House Progressive Caucus wrote in a letter to Obama.
Compare to Brooks’ version of what he heard the president say about this is…
[T]he president introduced the public option to its own exclusive Death Panel. As Max Baucus has said, the public option cannot pass the Senate. On Wednesday, the president praised it, then effectively buried it. White House officials no longer mask their exasperation with the liberal obsession on this issue.
What this whole thing amounts to looks a lot more like more of the same problem than any kind of breakthrough or solution. It’s becoming ever more clear that Obama’s soaring speeches just aren’t very good at actually getting anything done. At some point even Brooks will be forced to recognize that the airy kind of speechifying good for the campaign trail isn’t much use for the hard work of actual governance.
September 11th, 2009 at 11:05 am
I just read the speech (I am not enough of a masochist to listen to Obama in more than 30 second soundbites), and if he was trying to lay out specifics, he failed 100%.
The guy is makes Carter look competent, and Clinton look honest, in comparison. It’s pretty sad.
September 11th, 2009 at 11:35 am
In the wake (or decimation, if you work for Faux) of Obama’s latest prime-time attempt at civility, I’m noticing a telling disconnect between those who examine what comes next in concrete terms from those who just want to continue to spew hatred and lies, such as, say Rep Wilson (R-SC), or other right-wing loonies who do not give a crap about having a factual discussion or face the impact of laizez faire economics where moving every good job offshore to save owners money but screw our ability to actually AFFORD healthcare or covered vastly underfunded mandates like Medicare, but instead would prefer to myopically focus on ‘death panels’ and immediate budgetary figures w/o any sort of long-term vision.
I am glad we agree – sure am glad you don’t use hyperbole in your attempt to ‘always be civil’.
Bubba – Bush makes Obama look like the most honest and competent President in history – he has not yet lied to the nation about the reason to invade a country not involved in an attack upon us – and he has not yet shredded our surplus into a deficit, and he has not yet presided over the worst economic decade since the great depression.
September 11th, 2009 at 12:05 pm
I thought I had heard of most of the possible kinds of fetishes; perhaps I am more naive than I had thought. I doubt it.
I’ve never heard of someone described as a pants-crease fetishist before. Since when is being well groomed, especially when appearing in the media, a fault? The man dresses well, but then I like the Brooks Brothers suits worn by Colbert, another individual who has good taste in clothes (or he has someone who has good taste in clothes for him, I suppose). I wonder if David Brooks wears Brooks Brothers….seems there should be a promotional opprotunity in there for him.
Since David Brooks, like Mitch, was a liberal before he describes himself as coming to his senses, I would have expected him to be more simpatico here.
At least you didn’t intentionally confuse this David Brooks with the late jazz musician David “Bubba” Brooks.
September 11th, 2009 at 12:25 pm
penigma said:
“to continue to spew hatred and lies”
The word “hate”, like “lie” and “neoconservative”, is a word that has a meaning. Your lack of perspective discredits your opinion. *shrug*
September 11th, 2009 at 12:30 pm
“perhaps I am more naive than I had thought. ”
Did you read the “pant crease” link?
It refers to a recollection of David Brook’s when he first met Obama.
““I remember distinctly an image of–we were sitting on his couches, and I was looking at his pant leg and his perfectly creased pant,” Brooks says, “and I’m thinking, a) he’s going to be president and b) he’ll be a very good president.”
“I doubt it.” — I don’t
September 11th, 2009 at 1:09 pm
Dognabbit just wrote 4 paragraphs based on 2 words he took completely out of context. A new record?
September 11th, 2009 at 1:19 pm
he has not yet lied to the nation about the reason to invade a country not involved in an attack upon us – Were Greek philosophers lying when they taught that heavens revolved around Earth?
and he has not yet shredded our surplus into a deficit, – Zero did much better then that already! Checked where our deficit is lately?
and he has not yet presided over the worst economic decade since the great depression. Actually, he is! And everything he has done so far is going to make things much worse – Zero hasn’t learned a thing from history. And this is before nationalizing healthcare.
Peeve, you really should get out more and get a reality check once in a while…
September 11th, 2009 at 1:29 pm
Penigma, I don’t know what color the sun is on your planet, but if you couldn’t figure out that Obama could hardly get through a sentence in that speech without lying, you have an amazing disconnect with reality.
Same thing with claiming he was “civil.” Horsefeathers. Just because he didn’t raise his voice when you’re slandering his opponents doesn’t mean he was “civil” in any meaningful sense of the word.
September 11th, 2009 at 1:56 pm
justplaincrabby,
I was reflecting on the over-use and abuse of the word fetish, as a reference to something magical (a pants crease, no) or sexual (again. just – NO) or an obsession (closer, but still no).
September 11th, 2009 at 3:03 pm
David Brooks is a smart guy, an astute observer of American society, and an accomplished scribbler. Yet when it comes to Obama, he only sees what he wants to see and ignores anything that might diminish his attraction to him. He needs to remove his Obama goggles and turn on the lights.
September 11th, 2009 at 3:45 pm
Dognabbit, why do you have to spin? Why can’t you just admit you did not get the context and move on? You are left, not right.
September 11th, 2009 at 5:32 pm
Penigma-After reading your post, a question comes to mind. Did your parents have any children that survived?
September 11th, 2009 at 5:41 pm
MON, the pant crease reference sounds like something Aaron Landry would notice about the local catnip merchant. Although Landry is usually more focused on whether a guy’s jeans or zipper or button-down.