Don't worry, Obama is cool.
In America, those who exude a certain type of attraction or charisma are often christened with the sobriquet of "rock star." For those of us who've outgrown the allures of the brain-shattering, soul-stealing muck that has masqueraded as music for the last few decades, this term is not exactly a desirable one for those engaged in anything but narcissistic and immature pursuits.
Yet for many in this country, comparison to a rock star is the ultimate compliment and a cherished goal. Into this sad state of our country comes President Barack Obama, whom many have labeled our first post-Baby Boomer president and naturally, a rock star who can dance too!
Bill Clinton was the first Baby-Boomer president and he was followed by another, George W. Bush. Yet Clinton, who was also accorded presidential rock star status, was, by the time he reached the White House, an accomplished politician, having spent 15 years as Attorney General and Governor of Arkansas. Similarly, Bush was the twice-elected Governor of Texas.
But despite their differences in posture and policy, both were products of basically the same electorate; one still largely made up of those who recalled the tumult of the 20th Century and made the handling of serious issues a priority in choosing their leader. Obama, on the other hand, is the product of another constituency; one who has no memory of the sacrifices and hardships endured by the Greatest Generation; one for whom a rock star in office is worthy of the supreme adjective: cool.
Baby Boomers were the first generation to be reared on television, but not to the extent of their children and grandchildren. The advent of cable and satellite technology brought 24/7 news, MTV and other so-called entertainment in such a way that television and those who make it, became the omnipresent arbiters of social mores. If TV was the babysitter of the Boomers, it became mother, father, teacher and preacher to all who came after.
So it's not surprising that two-thirds of the biggest turnout of the vaunted "youth vote" in years turned out to elect a man of scanty credentials and no executive experience at all. Since the 1960's, maturity is not considered cool, and most kids since that awful decade have grown up thinking that their goal in life is to clean up the messes made by their parents; the reasons behind them be damned. And Mr. Obama is the essence of that modern mantra: coolness counts most, and consequences be damned.
This is not to say that voters in this country have never favored style over substance before, but in the confluence of Obama's packaged persona and the adoration heaped on him by a fawning press, we have reached a truly frightening stage in our history. We have heard zombie-like children singing psalms to him and witnessed eerie loyalty oaths sworn to him; the testimonies of those who have promised to be better people simply because of his election.
However talented the man might be, Barack Obama as silver-tongued savior, is in reality a creation of the mainstream media. When George W. Bush was inarticulate at times, he was the butt of jokes and worse; a buffoon who got through life on the coattails of his father. Yet, when Obama stutters through rehearsed speeches or maniacally laughs while discussing our ailing economy on 60 Minutes, these gaffes are either ignored or oddly offered as further proof of his oratory genius.
But why? Because those who control most major newspapers and TV are immature dreamers still stuck on their vision of a socialist utopia; the stuff of teenaged vows to "change the world." And their hero epitomizes all they hold dear; a hip, youthful knight who champions activism — whatever that means — and looks good doing it.
And so we have managed to elect a man whose brief time in office has reeked of political immaturity It's as if like a child, he is constantly trying on his father's shoes by purporting to accept responsibility, while seconds later claiming, "It wasn't me . . . I didn't do it!" Try this from a recent town hall meeting in California:
Listen, I'll take responsibility. I'm the president. We've got a big mess that we're cleaning up. Nobody here drafted those contracts. Nobody here was responsible for supervising AIG and allowing themselves to put the economy at risk by some of the outrageous behavior that they were engaged in. We've got a lot on our plate — but it is appropriate when you're in charge to make sure that stuff doesn't happen like this.
Can you conceive of your own father, much less the President of the United States, alibiing his way out of responsibility in this manner? Can you imagine a real statesman using the word "stuff" when speaking of issues of vital, national importance? Such is not the stuff of a great, oratorical leader. The fact that he feels it necessary to demean the office of the presidency by going on late-night talk shows and making childish jokes about the Special Olympics only adds to the immaturity factor.
This country used to favor electing presidents that it could look up to, that possessed the kind of maturity needed in tough times. Like George W. Bush or hate him, there were very few accusations of frivolity surrounding his presidency. And despite what went on behind closed doors, Bill Clinton at least made an outward show of gravity; he made sure to tell us that he felt our pain, he didn't laugh at it.
So here we are. Either we have three or more years of being regaled by the cool and the hip — watching our President dance and laugh while America burns — or we can encourage Americans to hold Obama's feet to the fire. Because style will only go so far; even among kids, who will hopefully one day grow up into responsible citizens who'll have to pay the piper for this economic farce. And when that time comes, they'll only have themselves to blame.
Well said! J.C
We can either lament the zeitgeist, or adapt. This past election, the Republican party didn't offer anyone who was even remotely cool. Even worse were the attempts to seem cool, like SNL appearances (I've repressed the memories, but I have a vague recollection of McCain and Guiliani pretending to be hip and funny). My first thought was that the RNC should actually suppress the gag-response and select a front-runner who is actually cool. The problem is that cool isn't formulaic. And the Republicans would only screw it up. Cool just happens. Besides, there are many different kinds of cool. Even nerds can be cool, if they are real and passionate. Maybe, despite seeming extremely nerdy, Bobby Gindal actually has a chance–if the RNC stops trying to package him and dumbing-down his message.
By the way, MTV plays very little music nowadays and nobody watches.
I have never heard anything remotely like this before. Well done.
I feel the same way about the "rock star" thing. It wouldn't be my favorite compliment, if it were to be said about me. Debauchery and self-dramatization elevated to the stature of art is the story there.
I think Obama is deeper than you give him credit for being. He's dealing with the adulation that comes his way in a less-than-optimal manner. He's a ham who's healthily endowed with narcissism. But the reality is if you want to involve young people in the political process, you've got to talk in a language they understand. In the election he was up against a well equipped pseudo-conservative coalition of hate-mongers.
If you think he's incapable of sober evaluation of the facts in an environment of mass hysteria, recall that he opposed the Iraq occupation, at the time it was being proposed, for the very reasons that most Americans have come to agree with.
In addition, he's under pressure today that is equivalent of what Bush experienced right after 9-11.
As for his casual way with words, it's not all his fault. Just a sign of the times.
If he seems giddy and callow, the situation will correct itself in time because after he's in office awhile he will not have the luxury of blaiming others for the way things are.
if Sarah Palin had won, critics would be able (with some validity) to claim that she got votes by being a "hot babe." What would that mean about our culture?
An economic recession not at all unlike those we've seen as recently as the 70's and 80's, and a multi-target terrorist attack on American soil for the first time in history, killing thousands of people… Yeah, you're right, it's pretty much the same. Ah, but he did handle that 72 year old pseudo-conservative hate-monger whom he out-fundraised 5 to 1 and who wouldn't so much as mention his raving, Marxist, racial separatist spiritual leader to whom he dedicated a book, with such aplomb. Maybe Phil Donahue is right, his smile may save us all!
If being a vacuous facade with no original ideas (or speeches for that matter) who can recycle 1930's socialist tripe and read it off of a teleprompter real purdy is what it takes to talk to young people in a language they can understand, maybe young people shouldn't be involved in the political process until they've developed cognitive skills beyond that of a 5 year old (and I say this as a 22 year old college student).
Hello there Mulligan,
Just as I was glad to see young people voting in record numbers I'm glad to see a 22 year old adding his thoughts to this site.
Let me be a little more precise: I'm 52 years old. I was around in the 70's and the 80's. You were not. This is much worse. People were not losing their pensions at that time. We did not have this degree of federal deficit/debt. We still had manufacturing jobs. We were not in two wars. Don't forget, although 9/11 happened to Bush, Obama still has to deal with the threat of terrorism. So, an extraordinary amount of pressure in the first 100 days? I believe so.
"Pseudo-conservative hate-mongers?" I'm not talking about McCain, but rather Limbaugh, Coulter and Mike Savage.
I don't know whether Obama's ideas are "original" or not, but people seem to think they might be what we need now. We"l find out.
ruminator, I was around in the 60s 80s and before them. You have rather obviously glossed over the Carter years. This recession, while somewhat different from earlier ones, has much more in common with them. Some of the large differences Carter's 17.5% mortgage rates to credit worthy buyers versus the current rates of 4.9% to anyone breathing with special deals for our most favored the illegal aliens.
Can't stand the people that lay out facts just call them Pseudo-conservative hate-mongers. Maybe you can cite in full context some of the unfounded hate? Maybe not that would require facts instead of feelings.
Regarding your comments about depth in the Omessiah please show me some evidence. So far extraordinarily poor choices of advisors and apointees, serious malprops such as making vets pay for service connected health issues, bowling, etal. No signs of depth yet although the narcissm and wish to be in the spotlight does clearly show through.
Patrick, good comments. Please keep reading, commenting, and more important to the future voting and taking action to remove those attempting to convert our economy to failed socialist models.
Mickey, I also remember the high interest rates of that period but I feel that, taking all factors together, and bearing in mind that recession is only one of our current perils, today is more crisis-laden than the 70's and 80's. These discussions are a matter of interpretation and what one considers important. They can be argued but neither proven nor disproven, as contrasted with matters of science.
If you have listened to Ann Coulter even once and do not perceive ample evidence of contempt and hostility, perhaps we will not be able to agree on much, no matter how much we communicate.
I use the term "pseudo-conservative" in order to distinguish these folks from conservatives whom I like, such as Bob Dole, Pat Buchanan and Arnold Schwarzenegger. I don't always agree with these people, but they have constructive, healthy attitudes.
Obama's depth? To me he sounds like a guy with a solid grasp of complex things such as how our health care system works. I think he displays a well-above-average intellect. I wouldn't play "Jeopardy" with him, that's for sure.
One thing that seems different now is that it is acceptable to think of the Arab and Moslem world as many people who may be quite different from each other in attitudes and inclinations. By contrast, it finally dawned on George W. Bush that this may be the case, but by that time, he was fifteen years older than Obama is now.
I should have said ten years.
ruminator one out of 3 isn't bad for your conservative list. Only Buchanan fits the others are RINOs. Playing jeopardy with Obama, I suspect that I with only two undergrad and one MBA would blow him away…I suspect he scored well under my LSAT score as well.
He has shown no grasp of anything so far except for campaigning and breaking promises.
Regarding your comments on Coulter and feel that contempt and hostility is unwarranted then I suspect your personal grasp of the world view. Seems to me that Coulter is much more constrained that the Omessiah bowing horde of corresponents whose legs tingle were with Bush. Seems to me that the Omessiah has perfomed so poorly out of the gate that we should be concentrating on ways to remove him. He is clearly not up to the job.
Ruminator,
I may not have been alive, but I'm perfectly capable of interpreting the historical economic data. Perhaps not having been politically or emotionally involved with the particular period of time and relying just on the data gives a skewed perspective, but it's skewed toward historical objectivity, if anything. 75% taxation, 11% unemployment, 20% interest rates and 15% inflation were all quantifiably worse than today. Add the more "subjective" factors of an oil embargo, the Iranian hostage crisis, the Cold War, the Panama Canal, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, price controls, it sure doesn't seem like it was domestic bliss to me. Maybe you just had to be there.
If Bob Dole and Arnold Schwarzenegger represent "real" conservatives to you, this is indeed a hopeless discussion – though quite comical. You might do well for yourself to at least read the Wikipedia article on politcal "conservatism" in the US. If you actually want to get into conservative political philosophy, a good introduction would be this definition of classical liberalism.
The quote from the town hall meeting is VERY telling, and helps explain why Obama got the packaging and the media attention. His expressed view is that it's the fault of business that this happened, while government is blameless, only here to clean up the mess. All the while, the truth is hidden: it's the government's fault that there is such a mess. Obama doesn't have to be that bright – he just has to be willing to spew the sickening party line.
Great essay.
Mickey G, you asked about Obama's depth. Here's how shallow he is and why he doesn't truly identify with the essence of government: he doesn't realize that those contracts are almost completely written by government. Fill in the blank corporations, run by government virtually completely except individuals are permitted to keep some small portion of the wealth they help to create, while Government will usurp for its own uses upwards of 95% of our real incomes.
The truth is that Government is Unrestricted, permitted to initiate force against the citizens at any and every turn upon the whim of the moment. Individuals must unite and take back their rights and their lives. The purpose of government is to provide for self-defense against the initiation of force. It must not be permitted to initiate force against the citizens for ANY reason at all. There is no justification for it anymore. THERE IS ANOTHER WAY. It's called adopting a single Law, the way we understand E = MC squared. Or the velocity required to escape Earth's gravitational pull and go visit other planets and moons and travel in outer space is ____ whatever it is.
We need a Law for Human Interaction. A simple, easy-to-teach kids kind of law, the adoption of which will achieve peace and permit individuals to pursue and achieve their rational goals.
This Law does what government needs it to do – it provides a basic framework on which to prosecute actual crime, and for individuals to be accountable to those they truly affect: neighbors, loved ones, contractually bound parties of all kinds.
The law is this: no one has the right to initiate the use of force.
When government is also held to be subject to the Law of Human Interaction, it can no longer raise funds by coercive methods. It can no longer dictate to the citizens how to live their lives or conduct their businesses. That is not government's purpose. Its purpose is to provide the means of self-defense against those who initiate the use of force. This is why the means of having self-defense must be voluntarily funded by those who care about respecting the Law.