Two interesting pieces about Obama over the weekend, one of them much-read and discussed, the other slightly less so but for my money more acute. I'll post on the latter later - in this one I'll discuss the first. It's by Drew Westen, for the New York Times.
Westen is a psychology professor who wrote a best-selling book about neuroscience of politics and political language that was quite influential on the left in the US and to a certain extent over here too. He argued that historically the Republicans have been better than the Democrats at using emotive language to frame the issues. Democrats tend to assume people think rationally about politics, when in fact people's views and votes are often the slave of emotional instincts.
Westen's critique of Obama is that he has failed to deliver a big emotional narrative of America's plight, with a hero and a villain - the villain being the GOP, of course. Westen's suggested narrative looks very much like the standard populist liberalism, and in fact his article is really a series of conventional liberal pieties expressed with considerable force and anger and wrapped up in some vaguely scientific-sounding jargon.
Westen's central point is right, though. Obama hasn't told a compelling story about America's situation - where it's come from, how it got here, where it can get to and and how to get there. But then, contrary to common misconception, Obama has never been good at storytelling, at least not in this sense of grand, framing narratives. He can tell a terrific anecdote. But as president, none of his speeches, on any of the big issues, have structured themselves around a powerful story.
Unlike Westen, I don't think Obama's problem is that he doesn't portray an enemy against which the nation must fight. Us vs Them populism rarely works well for presidents or presidential candidates (ask Al Gore). I do, however, agree that Obama is too comfortable in the passive voice. He narrates, without placing himself at the centre of the action, as if a spectator at his own presidency. This worked for the campaign because it created a sense of inevitability, as if Obama was merely riding an historic wave. But it doesn't work so well in office, when choices must be made and opposing forces seen off.
That Obama's favourite quotation is Martin Luther King's "the arc of history is long, but bends towards justice" exemplifies the problem. It's a beautiful phrase, but it's dangerously misleading. If there's one thing that MLK knew, and that Obama hasn't sufficiently grasped, it's this: the arc of history doesn't automatically bend towards justice. Somebody has to step up and bend it.
"He narrates, without placing himself at the centre of the action, as if a spectator at his own presidency."
An interesting remark as the one time he did place himself at the centre of the action in a speech - following the killing of Bin Laden - he was widely criticised for making the speech all about what he did. You blogged on this at the time I recall.
Posted by: Account Deleted | August 08, 2011 at 11:15 AM
Oh, God. That photo. It's an epitaph, isn't it?
Posted by: dirk | August 08, 2011 at 06:29 PM