But I can see why he's chosen to engage in them. I believe he feels it's necessary for him to win. I also believe he judges that solely talking about progressive policy (which in isolation is overwhelmingly popular) in opposition to conservative policy is not always the way to win.
In this atmosphere, he has a point--note the electoral fate of every candidate who has talked seriously about progressive policy in recent times. Media coverage is essentially based these days on illusory "character" issues and image marketing. Whether or not there's any substance to the script doesn't matter, if the media fall in love with it and the marketing is successful. It's how an ex-alcoholic Yalie who hates horses became the plainspoken cowboy everyone wants to have a beer with. I hate this phenomenon, I hate that issues aren't covered as much as these superficial trifles--and that one can exist in total contradiction of the other--but I can't deny that it's been happening for a long time.
Now before you think this is a wholly negative thread, let me remind you that pandering is a skill. It's a talent. It can win elections. To do it and be believed is difficult, because the essence of pandering is being vague. If you aren't vague enough when you pander, your shameful prostration before one voter bloc will inexorably piss off another. It takes skill to balance one's pandering, and Obama's got skills. The idea is to throw up a screen of platitudes and glittering generalities for the media and your policy opponents to focus on, and keep your policy very moderate or at least keep its less moderate elements under the radar. Obama's platform is moderate overall, but it does contain progressive elements. His pandering invariably plays to groups that would oppose those progressive elements, and seeks to placate those opponents with rhetoric. At the same time, he seeks to avoid pissing off the base with his pandering.
Examples? Getting most progressive parts of his platform passed will require massive confrontation of the GOP, who will fight tooth and nail to defeat him and will never give him any quarter whatsoever. If Obama focused on the reality of this division and upcoming battle, no conservative voter or pundit would be inclined to like him. So instead he throws up a smokescreen of media-beloved platitudes. He claims to represent "bipartisanship," "hope" and "change," even though the three plainly do not go together if you want to enact a progressive platform. The fact remains that passing many elements of his platform will require a wholesale confrontation of some dearly-held GOP beliefs, and having that fight in the campaign is something he's decided not to do. The idea that "bipartisanship" is possible in passing his platform is patently false. Yet the media and some of the public -love- the idea of "bipartisanship." I wouldn't be surprised if they portrayed the Habeas Corpus fight as "partisan bickering" simply because it divided the two parties.
Obama also makes extremely general but vaguely positive comments about dearly-held GOP myths, such as Reagan's great abilities or the GOP being the "party of ideas." He is very careful, however, not to make comments that are too complimentary--many aren't even directly complimentary. The GOP -was- "seen" as the party of ideas (by some), and Reagan -did- represent a transforming change. His vague comments on GOP mythology are thus like a Rorschach blot--progressives are free to see them as objective observations, and conservatives are free to see them as indirect praise for their party. Determining what Obama actually believes from these comments is impossible.
Does it work? Does it make conservatives opposed to his actual -policies- cut him a break because they've bought into the -script-? Well, see for yourself:
TUCKER CARLSON: What percentage, would you say, of liberal—I hate to use the term, but “opinion makers,” columnists, reporters, people who, you know, throw their opinions out there and try to convince others—are for Obama and mad at the Clintons?
MARGARET CARLSON: Well, I’ve never seen tough, hard, mean press people be so taken at an event as they are at an Obama event when he gives one of his really good speeches. I mean, you can`t help but be—have you been at them?
TUCKER CARLSON: Yes, I have. Yes.
MARGARET CARLSON: And how do you feel?
TUCKER CARLSON: I feel like, as someone who’s not going to vote for him because I don’t agree with him on the issues, I feel impressed by his inclusive tone. I don’t think he hates me for my ideas and I appreciate that.
MARGARET CARLSON: Yes. And he didn’t hate Reagan.
TUCKER CARLSON: Right.
MARGARET CARLSON: By the way, the Clintons hate him for not hating Reagan.
TUCKER CARLSON: No. No. No. Margaret Carlson of Bloomberg, thank you for coming on. I appreciate it.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
