Obamania
There is an important parallel between those who believe all criticism of Obama to be illegitimate and those on the Right who despise him without pause. The latter is every bit as personality-driven as the former: they despise Obama not for any specific policy decisions (often, those are aligned with their ostensible views), but because of personality caricatures they’ve adopted: he’s a narcissistic, vacant, Socialist Muslim and therefore nothing he does is right. That is simply the opposite side of the same coin as those who revere his personality and thus believe that nothing he does merits real criticism.
That’s unsurprising, given that many of the most vehement Obama-haters were the same ones who most loved Bush and now love Palin: this is all about cultural identification and personality admiration and has nothing to do with the factors that ought to be used to judge political leaders.
I supported Barack Obama. I still do. If I had to vote tomorrow between Obama and Tim Pawlenty, or Sarah Palin, it wouldn’t be a choice that required a whole lot of thought. He’s done some good things. He’s restored some confidence in the United States among foreign leaders. We had something of a revolutionary regime for eight years under George Bush, and Obama has put the United States back into the club of rule-abiding nations, at least to some degree.
But I’m a little mystified by the letters I’m getting from people who suggest that being a supporter of a politician means that you should “give him a break” on this or that shortcoming, and behave more like a fan than a citizen. The above post by the always-intelligent Glenn Greenwald perfectly describes this mindset — he talks about this bizarre phenomenon of Obama fans threatening to “leave the left” because of criticism of Obama trickling up from those ranks. I was particularly struck by his analysis of the now-infamous video of Sarah Palin book-buyers explaining to a snarky interviewer how they support her despite the fact that they can’t really identify any of her positions. Greenwald notes the obvious parallel:
The similarity between that mentality and the one driving the Obama [supporters] is too self-evident to require any elaboration. Those who venerated Bush because he was a morally upright and strong evangelical-warrior-family man and revere Palin as a common-sense Christian hockey mom are similar in kind to those whose reaction to Obama is dominated by their view of him as an inspiring, kind, sophisticated, soothing and mature intellectual. These are personality types bolstered with sophisticated marketing techniques, not policies, governing approaches or ideologies.
I completely agree with Greenwald and I know that what he’s saying is true because I did exactly the same experiment the Palin interviewer tried — at Obama’s inauguration. I interviewed dozens of people and almost without exception the answers to the question “What specific policies do you expect the new president to enact?” were of the following character:
“I think he’s going to bring people together.”
“He really cares about us.”
“I believe that he’s going to help people.”
There isn’t necessarily anything wrong with this — it’s not against the law to vote for a guy just because you like him, or connect with his demeanor on some unconscious level. But where it gets weird for everybody is when that mindset becomes blinding. And we’re seeing that a little with Obama’s supporters now, I think.
I’ve gotten some letters lately from people complaining about this whole concept of “purity,” i.e. critics of Obama (like me) slapping him with some unrealistic “purity test.” According to these letter-writers, such demands are unfair and journalists and politicians who are critical of Obama should recognize that a president sometimes has to make tough political decisions and is often forced to “work with” unsavory characters in order to “get things done.”
First of all, we should get one thing out of the way — it’s not any citizen’s job to give a politician credit for his political calculations. In fact, that should rightly be part of the calculus of any political calculation; a politician should have to weigh the benefits of making, say, an unsavory insider alliance against the negative of public criticism for that move. If a leader doesn’t have to earn the admiration you give him, then a) that admiration doesn’t mean anything, and b) he will surely spend all his political capital on the people who do make him earn it.
Anyone who wonders why the Obama administration seems to be bending over so far backwards to appease conservatives and industry leaders in the health care debate and Wall Street in the financial regulatory reform debate can find their answer there: those groups make Obama pay for their financial/political support with real actions and policy concessions, while Obama’s “base” will continue their feverish support in exchange for mere gestures and marketing hocus-pocus, for news about the new family puppy or an appearance on Jay Leno.
Anyway, just a few thoughts on a Sunday morning. I encourage everyone to read the Greenwald post…
Post Your Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment
T/S Members
Log in with your True/Slant account.
Mr. Taibbi,
Imagine if Franklin Roosevelt had taken office in March of 1930 instead of 1933. Would he have taken the radical measures to rescue the millions of Americans who were homeless and hungry that he did or would he, like Mr. Obama, taken the small measured steps steps to save the wealthy and powerful figuring that they would rescue the rest of the country? More likely than not, Mr. Roosevelt would have take an approach very similar to Mr. Obama’s. At that time the problem seemed a “technical one”, like getting the car fixed. It was seen as just a matter of getting the right adjustments to the financial markets and interest rates lowered and so forth. Three years later is was very clear that the problems were far more serious and fundamental. Social disorder and unrest were intensifying and the problem of maintaining political power and social peace was clearly paramount. FDR took the radical steps that the did because I could not afford not to politically. If he did not address the suffering of the American people, some other political party would, and not the Republicans. He was just as radical as he needed to be for the country to survive and not a bit more. This is exactly where Mr. Obama is, he has taken just as many steps as he feels he needs to and not one more. It is only until events outside of Washington change that he will be forced to take more radical measures, and find more radical advisers.
Considering the turd sandwich Obama is about to make people eat with his leadership-free health care bill (and then laud the accomplishments of it… apparently signing it after it’s been stripped of practically everything useful will take his Presidency from a B+ to an A in his words), unthinking support for the guy is nothing short of idiotic.
It went from nixing single-payer at the start, to a strong public option available to everyone, to a weak public option available to a limited population based on Medicare rates, to a weak public option based on negotiated rates, to a public option opt-out, to no public option but a Medicare buy-in for an extremely limited number of people 55-64, to nothing at all. Oh, except for mandates to buy private insurance… he didn’t campaign on that, but it’ll be in there.
This guy is in for a rude awakening in 2010, when he finds out that the general public didn’t view his “A” health care bill as an “A” unless that stands for “Atrocious”, and only the teabaggers bother to vote.
Where the hell do Democrats go to negotiating school, DeVry?
Well Matt by saying that you still support Obama you’re saying that you support the favorable treatment that the Obama administration has given to the big banks. You’re saying that you believe that the Glass-Steagal Act shouldn’t be ressurected. You’re saying that the TBTF banks should not be broken up. You’re saying that Lloyd Blankfein deserves 67 million in compensation this year. You’re saying that Tim Geithner (protege of Bob Rubin) is the best man for the job.
If there is a bigger issue today than financial reform, let me know, I’m all ears. Without financial stability and sound economic principles, we have nothing in this country. IMO it trumps all other issues. So when you say you still support BHO because of his efforts in this area or that I think you’re delusional.
I’m a swing voter in a swing state. I voted for Obama primarily because Bush was a disaster. Obama has only continued the carnage that Bush started. It is obvious that BHO is owned by Wall St. and Wall St. is dominated by a Giant Squid that is housed at 85 Broad St. So I guess in the end that makes you a Squid fan.
Thanks for all of the insight this year Matt. Your stuff has been great. I’ve recommended it to all of my family and friends. You’ve lost me on this one however. Let me know when you finally realize the reality of our current situation. BOTH MAJOR PARTIES ARE OWNED BY THE SAME PEOPLE. You know this Matt. You’re not stupid by any means. Stop dreaming and wake up. The proof is in the pudding.
[...] I don’t know what it will take to convince the Obamaniacs. [...]
[...] wrote recently about “Obamania” and made some good points, referencing another great post by [...]
[...] the sort of agenda die-hard progressives projected on to their candidate. Thus we have post after post from Matt Taibbi leveling one silly charge after another, as though Barack Obama was elected just [...]
“I supported Barack Obama. I still do. If I had to vote tomorrow between Obama and Tim Pawlenty, or Sarah Palin, it wouldn’t be a choice that required a whole lot of thought.”
I’m a big fan of your writing. I won’t go so far as to say you’re doing God’s work but let’s just say he doesn’t disapprove. That said, you seem to be suffering the same kind of ‘group think’ you rightly point out in others. If the Democrats and Republicans are both bought and paid for by big business why should we vote for any of them. Sure there may be a few politicians left from each of these dominant political parties that still ‘tries’ to represent the common man but wouldn’t even these remnants of representative government benefit from a multiple party political system. If politicians didn’t need to worry about running against someone with the support of big business they (theoretically) wouldn’t need to sell their soul to big business themselves.
I’m not entirely sure how we get there but finding a way to rid ourselves of this corrupt two party system should be the goal of every American who gives a damn about this country and its supposed democratic principles.
[...] See also: Taibbi on “Obamamania” [Gotta Swine vaccine for that pan-sham-demic?] at http://trueslant.com/matttaibbi/2009/12/13/obamania/ [...]
@gypsysister: A shift over the past 10-15 years where you had to blindly support the President?
Believe me it was a lot worse in the past when there was zero access to information and you voted how you were told to vote – there really wasn’t much of a choice. Be thankful you have the ability to form your own opinions and express them without the fear of being marginalized or getting the sh** kicked out of you.
And what is the pot of gold at the end of this rainbow? Well, you get to realize that Republican or Democrat, the President is basically a tool of big business whose only job is to get reelected and funnel money to the right people. And there really isn’t much you can do about it except bitch on the Internet.
Smoke a doob and put on some Steely Dan, you’ll soon feel a lot better about the world.
OBAMAMANIA.
Hmmm…
Wonder if they’ve gotta vaccine for THAT mass St. Neoliberal-Swine Vitus Dance of the Mindless?
“I supported Barack Obama. I still do. If I had to vote tomorrow between Obama and Tim Pawlenty, or Sarah Palin, it wouldn’t be a choice that required a whole lot of thought.”
Yeah, but would you support him in a primary? An upcoming primary? I won’t now.
Fox News develops case of the yips;
Obama successes tip network into full screech;
Health care, climate advances give attack-net sinking, disoriented feeling;
Glen Beck to swing chicken over head “ALL WEEK!”
[...] to what his readers are saying in comments. Look at Rolling Stones’ Matt Taibbi having conversations with his readers in the space beneath his articles — you know, those silly “forum”-like things. [...]
[...] time I’ve referenced Matt Taibbi’s seminal article from December, 2009, entitled “Obamania.” Taibbi wrote it during culmination of the frenzied battle over the PPACA [...]