Krugman on the Democratic race
I agree. I will add, however, that I believe Bill Clinton’s remarks have, on occasion, undermined Hillary’s efforts. Not to the degree that some claim, as he has - per usual - been quoted out of context. But still.
As for Obama, his supporters will find the man doesn’t fart petunias. There’s nothing wrong with enthusiasm but when accompanied by rudeness and young adults saying they know it all, it’s very annoying to those of us who really do.
So if Obama gets elected and his plans get thwarted, I expect they’ll blame it all on everyone else and tell us what he would have done, if only…
If only they stopped viewing any presidential candidate as a messiah. That kind of ardor is what can get folks killed.
As Krugman pointed out, think of how many folks have died by being just as supportive of Bush.
February 11th, 2008 at 4:24 am
Shorter Kevin Hayden/Paul Krugman: “Obama doesn’t fart petunias.”
Yes. Well.
That’s the issue oriented debate we’re having now, in the Democratic party, in advance of the next round of primaries? And that’s Obama’s fault?
February 11th, 2008 at 4:38 am
On second thought, I think I was too dismissive of you Kevin. Let me tell you in greater detail why the “Obama is too inspirational” meme is counter productive to the anti-Obama crowd of Democrats:
Can a candidate — and his campaign — ever be too inspirational? Jake Tapper seems to think so, as does Suzanne Goldenberg of the Guardian and now Paul Krugman — and perhaps you, too, Kevin Hayden — although I’m new enough here not to be familiar with your work.
Closer to home, when discussing the relative merits of Obama over Clinton, certain people have even commented to me, “Gosh, you’re talking like one of them.”
What’s going on here?
Present company excluded, I suspect the accusation of “cultism” is being put out by people who are uncomfortable with their own emotions; and/or by people who feel that we (Democrats) must be dispassionate in order to win elections. Of course, that is wrong. Dispassion never wins; a quick look at recent history will tell you that.
That is not to say we have to abandon the reality-based community in order win success at the ballot box. On the contrary. But we, as Democrats, need to recognize that people and voters are moved to action by emotion. Study after study shows that people will rationalize all sorts of things contradictory things about their candidate if the emotion moves them.
Just look at John McCain: he’s already running on the emotions of fear (of jihadism) and pride (St. John suffered so that you might live). His voters (including a lot of Independents) will overlook the hypocrisy that has rotted his career because they like feeling the feelings he invokes in them. And that says nothing for the hatred-for-Hillary that will be unleashed if she gets the nomination.
How do we deal with that?
Well, the positive emotions of hope and optimism about the future are what moves our voters (and a whole lot of Republicans and Independents). Labelling that “cultism” is just silly.
People are moved to act by emotion, whether the candidate is Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama, Bill Clinton or Franklin Roosevelt, John Kennedy or Harry Truman.
The sooner we learn that lesson, the bigger our victory will be in the fall.
February 11th, 2008 at 7:18 am
I have a girlfriend who’s quite passionate about Obama. “He’s the first person to have inspired me in years!” she says, and she’s really fervent about it. Inspiration is an important political and even economic force and I think it’s a mistake to discount it as cultism.
However, I think it’s certainly possible for a candidate to be too inspirational. If you look at the 1984 debates, Reagan was obviously already ill, but he won in a landslide anyway. And I think such electoral success as GWB has enjoyed has owed a lot to people’s longing for the second coming of Reagan.
Personally, I tend to take a rather dim view of inspiration in politics, but its power is undeniable. Maybe what would be best for the country would be if Obama and Clinton had a Bush/Cheney (or, to be less malign, a JFK/LBJ) arrangement where he’d set the tone and she’d do the heavy lifting. But I don’t see that happening anytime soon.
February 11th, 2008 at 8:58 am
Oh, I have no problem with inspiration nor emotion. Both are fine motivators to show up at the polls, and to advance an agenda. I was too young at 7 to think much of JFK as other than a handsome man, but I recall, at 8, being stirred by his inaugural sppeech: “Ask not, etc.”
I saw the young stir to join his Peace Corps, to Vista, to public service. I saw others stirred by MLK to join in marches and fight for Civil Rights. RFK tapped into that, motivating the marginalized to action instead of reaction. Sadly, I saw all of them die, as well.
I don’t mean those murders to be a disincentive to being inspired, as others inspired and lived full lives.
The difference I see in the Obama campaign is not about the man himself but some of his followers. Arrogance, presumptuousness and rudeness are not motivators. I saw a fair amount of it in the Deaniacs, and I was a Dean supporter. Promoting the idea that ‘we are the enlightened Internet generation, you gotta love Howie’ doesn’t always set well with rural Iowan farmers and blue collar workers. That can chafe, to have young volunteers from outside the state asserting their superior wisdom.
And I see it taking place with SOME of Obama’s supporters, as they suddenly show up on blogs to try and turn every political discussion into a platform for selling Obama, as if the regulars are indifferent and need to be sold. Some make wrong assumptions. Some charge in with all the grace of trolls. And more than a few longtime bloggers wrestle with how to deal with it, including longtime, thoughtful bloggers like Digby and Steve Benen.
That’s the behavior I associate with the concept of a cult of personality. “We can do it” is a great motivator if it gets folks active in their communities or a race to the moon. But if it means only “Elect him and watch what he’ll do” that strikes me as naive, as a passive kind of activism. Politics is not a video game where you win only to rack up more games. It can be ugly, dispiriting, can require hard work and years of persistence to move a positive agenda forward. And again, I fully expect that Obama knows this and my critique is not directed at him.
If more of his supporters were engaged in community service because he motivated them to do that, they could be more effective at promoting his agenda. Instead, too many take up rightwing cudgels against the Clintons or anyone who suggests that Hillary’s okay.
And note that I have sharp criticisms about policy and productivity when it comes to Clinton. But I don’t assume she’s all smoke and mirrors, an emotional robot, whose laughter or tears or campaign trail weariness is part of a script. Both candidates are scripted, to some degree; it goes with the turf of successful politicians or car dealers or food servers. And some critiques and digs from each campaign is to be expected.
But when it’s presented to me that everything Clinton does sucks and Obama can do no wrong, it makes my eyes roll because it runs counter to my entire life experience.
Yes, inspire me/us. But some of the congregation needs to learn to stop talking down to people as if we’re a buncha rubes, out-of-touch, trapped in the politics of the past. Many folks have carried hopes and worked for a better world, making sacrifices even, for years, and where alliances should be created, some of Senator Obama’s fans are eagerly building walls.
February 11th, 2008 at 9:55 am
Kevin, I agree with what you say about the on-line behavior of Obama supporters but I have to add that in my experience the Clinton supporters are not a whole lot better. All too often any criticism of Clinton becomes instant proof of covert Obama support or misogyny or both and sometimes the first because of the second.
February 11th, 2008 at 10:05 am
Well, politics ain’t beanbag.
And with that, this Obama supporter will shut up.
February 11th, 2008 at 10:30 am
Ara, my critique was not directed at you. I’ve found you to be a very astute political commenter, reasoned, erudite and a pleasant addition to any discussion.
LarryE: I agree, though a number of the complaints about misogyny have merit.
February 11th, 2008 at 11:54 am
Have you been taken over by Taylor Marsh or Talk Left.
There has never been a Obama supporter that considers him a messiah.
Just a helluva lot better then Clinton.
Or is this a parody.
February 11th, 2008 at 2:01 pm
Ara, my critique was not directed at you.
Understood (and appreciated). That said, I do have a tendency to want to get the last word in and given the topic of this post, I don’t want to overplay my hand.
February 13th, 2008 at 11:33 am
[…] From Tennessee Guerrilla Women, Kevin Hayden and Susie Madrak agreeing with Krugman to Hilzoy, State of the Day and Ron Chusid pretty much going WTF. […]