The Limits of Charisma

[Perchoutofwater]

Howard Fineman

The Limits of Charisma

 

Mr. President, please stay off TV.

Published Sep 26, 2009

From the magazine issue dated Oct 5, 2009

 

If ubiquity were the measure of a presidency, Barack Obama would already be grinning at us from Mount Rushmore. But of course it is not. Despite his many words and television appearances, our elegant and eloquent president remains more an emblem of change than an agent of it. He's a man with an endless, worthy to-do list—health care, climate change, bank reform, global capital regulation, AfPak, the Middle East, you name it—but, as yet, no boxes checked "done." This is a problem that style will not fix. Unless Obama learns to rely less on charm, rhetoric, and good intentions and more on picking his spots and winning in political combat, he's not going to be reelected, let alone enshrined in South Dakota.

 

The president's problem isn't that he is too visible; it's the lack of content in what he says when he keeps showing up on the tube. Obama can seem a mite too impressed with his own aura, as if his presence on the stage is the Answer. There is, at times, a self-referential (even self-reverential) tone in his big speeches. They are heavily salted with the words "I" and "my." (He used the former 11 times in the first few paragraphs of his address to the U.N. last week.) Obama is a historic figure, but that is the beginning, not the end, of the story.

 

There is only so much political mileage that can still be had by his reminding the world that he is not George W. Bush. It was the winning theme of the 2008 campaign, but that race ended nearly a year ago. The ex-president is now more ex than ever, yet the current president, who vowed to look forward, is still reaching back to Bush as bogeyman.

 

He did it again in that U.N. speech. The delegates wanted to know what the president was going to do about Israel and the Palestinian territories. He answered by telling them what his predecessor had failed to do. This was effective for his first month or two. Now it is starting to sound more like an excuse than an explanation.

 

Members of Obama's own party know who Obama is not; they still sometimes wonder who he really is. In Washington, the appearance of uncertainty is taken as weakness—especially on Capitol Hill, where a president is only as revered as he is feared. Being the cool, convivial late-night-guest in chief won't cut it with Congress, an institution impervious to charm (especially the charm of a president with wavering poll numbers). Members of both parties are taking Obama's measure with their defiant and sometimes hostile response to his desires on health care. Never much of a legislator (and not long a -senator), Obama underestimated the complexity of enacting a major "reform" bill. Letting Congress try to write it on its own was an awful idea. As a balkanized land of microfiefdoms, each loyal to its own lobbyists and consultants, Congress is incapable of being led by its "leadership." It's not like Chicago, where you call a guy who calls a guy who calls Daley, who makes the call. The president himself must make his wishes clear—along with the consequences for those who fail to grant them.

 

The model is a man whose political effectiveness Obama repeatedly says he admires: Ronald Reagan. There was never doubt about what he wanted. The Gipper made his simple, dramatic tax cuts the centerpiece not only of his campaign but also of the entire first year of his presidency.

 

Obama seems to think he'll get credit for the breathtaking scope of his ambition. But unless he sees results, it will have the opposite effect—diluting his clout, exhausting his allies, and emboldening his enemies.

 

That may be starting to happen. Health-care legislation is still weeks, if not months, from passage, and the bill as it stands could well be a windfall for the very insurance and drug companies it was supposed to rein in. Climate-change legislation (a.k.a. cap-and-trade) is almost certainly dead for this year, which means that American negotiators will go empty-handed to the Copenhagen summit in December —pushing the goal of limiting carbon emissions even farther into the distance. In the spring Obama privately told the big banks that he was going to change the way they do business. It was going to be his way or the highway. But the complex legislation he wants to submit to Congress has little chance of passage this year. Doing Letterman again won't help. It may boost the host's ratings, Mr. President, but probably not your own.

 

News Week

 

I've often thought that if Obama hadn't tried to bite of so much at once he would be able to get more of his agenda passed.

[Duchess Jack]

that and if the GOP wasn't looking to obstruct at every chance they could - if they weren't looking to shoot down and mischaracterize all his ideas - if people didn't spend so much time forwarding fictional, slanderous emails to keep people confused and angry - if they weren't crying foul damn near every moment of every day and weren't being such hypoctates he'd get more done.

 

but some people believe that it is best he fail no matter what and want to see him fail first and want America to be strong and successful and united some as a second or later priority

[Perchoutofwater]

I'm sure there are some that want to see him fail because he isn't of their party. There are probably some misguided folks that would like to see him fail because of the color of his skin. Most of the people I know that do not support his policies don't support them because they drastically increase the size and scope of government, and increase spending to unsustainable levels. I would support him in his decision if he were to take McChrystal's advice and send more troops into Afghanistan. I'd even support him if he decided to withdraw from Afghanistan, though I'd prefer the former. I just wish he'd make a decision. I find it disconcerting that he has spent more time with David Letterman than he has with McChrystal.

 

This is really no different that those on the left not supporting Bush during the war effort, except this is domestic policy where it doesn't aid our enemy by having a divided front. Did you have the same view of those that opposed the war as you do of those that oppose spending our way to oblivion? Most on the left didn't like the Patriot Act yet sit quietly by as Obama extends those policies. At least most of us on the right were howling about Bush's spending.

 

Unfortunately there are hypocrites both supporting his policies and opposing them. Their are lies being spread by both sides in the debate over health care as well as the debate on environmental policy. The President himself spread lies during his speech to the joint session of congress regarding the guy who supposedly lost his life due to not reporting pre-existing gall stones. We also know that he house bill did not address illegals (specifically not servicing them), and that now a number of Dems want to include illegals (granted this contrary to Obama's publicly proclaimed desires).

[WaterMan]

After 8 years of someone who could barely read, anyone after the fact would look too charismatic.

[I Like Soup]

This is really no different that those on the left not supporting Bush during the war effort, except this is domestic policy where it doesn't aid our enemy by having a divided front. Did you have the same view of those that opposed the war as you do of those that oppose spending our way to oblivion? Most on the left didn't like the Patriot Act yet sit quietly by as Obama extends those policies. At least most of us on the right were howling about Bush's spending.

 

Let's leave Bush out of a discussion about Obama, shall we?

 

After 8 years of someone who could barely read, anyone after the fact would look too charismatic.

 

Well, and like the article said, that will only get you so far.

 

Look, I want change in things like health care, alternative energy, more transparent government, etc. I think Obama is trying to do too much too fast and it is costing him because it is being half-assed. Do I want Obama to be successful as a President?...yes. But only if the reforms he is pushing for make sense to me. Don't count me in on bad legislation is better than no legislation.

 

If the health care bill was so great, it would have already passed Congress. I've said this before, let's chip away at the health care issue instead of one broad sweeping bill that is not easily understood (even by our own law makers). Chances are we'll hit some middle ground where health care costs are reined in.

[Ursa Majoris]

Well, and like the article said, that will only get you so far.

 

Look, I want change in things like health care, alternative energy, more transparent government, etc. I think Obama is trying to do too much too fast and it is costing him because it is being half-assed. Do I want Obama to be successful as a President?...yes. But only if the reforms he is pushing for make sense to me. Don't count me in on bad legislation is better than no legislation.

 

If the health care bill was so great, it would have already passed Congress. I've said this before, let's chip away at the health care issue instead of one broad sweeping bill that is not easily understood (even by our own law makers). Chances are we'll hit some middle ground where health care costs are reined in.

I tend to agree with much of this except the bolded bit. It doesn't matter what plan was pushed, Congress is so chock full of people working directly for vested interests in the status quo, whatever comes out will be an abortion.

 

On the main point, all this carping about Obama being on TV is a direct result of the right being scared people will actually listen to him instead of their own screaming demagogues.

 

And it is unavoidable that the contrast between this president communicating with the people through whatever means stands in stark contrast to the complete failure of the previous administration to communicate with anyone.

Edited October 1, 2009 by Ursa Majoris

[Perchoutofwater]

And it is unavoidable that the contrast between this president communicating with the people through whatever means stands in stark contrast to the complete failure of the previous administration to communicate with anyone.

 

That is hardly fair. At this stage of his presidency Bush communicated with American public the same amount as Clinton did, and the two combined are nowhere as much as Obama.

 

BTW you complain about lobbyist, but wouldn't there be considerably fewer if the government wasn't spending money, and deciding who the winners and losers are?

[I Like Soup]

I tend to agree with much of this except the bolded bit. It doesn't matter what plan was pushed, Congress is so chock full of people working directly for vested interests in the status quo, whatever comes out will be an abortion.

 

On the main point, all this carping about Obama being on TV is a direct result of the right being scared people will actually listen to him instead of their own screaming demagogues.

 

And it is unavoidable that the contrast between this president communicating with the people through whatever means stands in stark contrast to the complete failure of the previous administration to communicate with anyone.

 

I also think the carping about Obamamessiah being on tv has alot to do with what people are starting to bring up...what does Obama bring to the table besides charismatic rhetoric? I'm in Sales and there is no way I'm in the league of a politician. But even I am wary of using I/me when discussing issues with customers. It is always "we can help you", "how do you and your team feel about this", etc. It may seem like a small distinction, but the power of words is not lost on people, especially at Obamamessiah's level. With his overexposure (according to some), he is lobbying the American people, and while most people would probably say the more you hear something, the more you'll believe it, I feel the opposite. You keep harping on something, and I'm going to be more wary since I think you are trying to "sell" me something. You know, like being on the defensive at a car dealership!

 

I don't necessarily hold your view about the legislation, Ursa. If it was so good, we wouldn't have Demonrats jumping ship either.

[Ursa Majoris]

I don't necessarily hold your view about the legislation, Ursa. If it was so good, we wouldn't have Demonrats jumping ship either.

I'm not saying it's good. What I'm saying is that Congress is so hideously corrupt and beholden, no health reform will EVER come out of there that benefits the whole of America more than it benefits the existing entrenched vested interests. The vested interests are not the ones that pay the politicians wages but they are the ones that fund re-election. Until that link is broken, you get what you pay for - and so do those vested interests.

[Perchoutofwater]

I'm not saying it's good. What I'm saying is that Congress is so hideously corrupt and beholden, no health reform will EVER come out of there that benefits the whole of America more than it benefits the existing entrenched vested interests. The vested interests are not the ones that pay the politicians wages but they are the ones that fund re-election. Until that link is broken, you get what you pay for - and so do those vested interests.

 

Wouldn't it be much harder to corrupt 50 individual governments than it is to corrupt one?

[tbimm]

Wouldn't it be much harder to corrupt 50 individual governments than it is to corrupt one?

In my 42 years on this planet I have only lived in 4 states. The funny thing is that the residents of each new state I move to claim to have a more corrupt govt than the previous. So my answer to your question, it appears, would have to be NO!

[Ursa Majoris]

Wouldn't it be much harder to corrupt 50 individual governments than it is to corrupt one?

No. It's the same, just multiplied 50 times and smaller.

[Perchoutofwater]

No. It's the same, just multiplied 50 times and smaller.

 

I think it would be harder if for no other reason than our representatives would be more accessible to their constituents, and thus easier to be held accountable for their actions. It is easy to lie to some one on camera or over the phone. It is a lot harder to do it in person. I can't help but think you would have governments more in tune with the wishes of their citizens.

[bpwallace49]

It is easy to lie to some one on camera or over the phone.

 

I dont think cameras or phones are included in the constitution. We should abolish them immediately, just like the founding father would have wished.

[Perchoutofwater]

I dont think cameras or phones are included in the constitution. We should abolish them immediately, just like the founding father would have wished.

 

No, that which isn't specifically enumerated falls back to the states and the people

[bpwallace49]

and the people

 

And most of the people dont have a problem with it . . . You are among a very small minority that wants the US to revert back to a very loose confederation of states. MOST of the PEOPLE have not shared your opinion . . . or it woulda happened already.

[The Holy Roller]

I'm not saying it's good. What I'm saying is that Congress is so hideously corrupt and beholden, no health reform will EVER come out of there that benefits the whole of America more than it benefits the existing entrenched vested interests. The vested interests are not the ones that pay the politicians wages but they are the ones that fund re-election. Until that link is broken, you get what you pay for - and so do those vested interests.

 

With this I agree. They're all in it for THEIR best interests, not the nation's.

[Ursa Majoris]

I think it would be harder if for no other reason than our representatives would be more accessible to their constituents, and thus easier to be held accountable for their actions. It is easy to lie to some one on camera or over the phone. It is a lot harder to do it in person. I can't help but think you would have governments more in tune with the wishes of their citizens.

It's not a question of people with their hand in the register (although there is some of that), it is a question of how people are re-elected and who pays for it. I see no reason why this would be different at a state level versus the federal level, other than the scale.

[I Like Soup]

I think it would be harder if for no other reason than our representatives would be more accessible to their constituents, and thus easier to be held accountable for their actions. It is easy to lie to some one on camera or over the phone. It is a lot harder to do it in person. I can't help but think you would have governments more in tune with the wishes of their citizens.

 

Well, that is exactly why State's rights are so important. It makes their constituents that much more able to have an effect on their immediate environment and puts more power in the hands of the people, not the government.

[Perchoutofwater]

And most of the people dont have a problem with it . . . You are among a very small minority that wants the US to revert back to a very loose confederation of states. MOST of the PEOPLE have not shared your opinion . . . or it woulda happened already.

 

Either that or they are blissfully ignorant of what was once their rights and liberty.

[WaterMan]

I think Obama charisma'd the terrorists to sleep. No terrorists attacks under his watch yet.

[I Like Soup]

I think Obama charisma'd the terrorists to sleep. No terrorists attacks under his watch yet.

 

There have been a lot of attacks on our forces...

[WaterMan]

 

There have been a lot of attacks on our forces...

 

That's war. No terrorist attacks on America soil since Obama took office.

[I Like Soup]

That's war. No terrorist attacks on America soil since Obama took office.

 

That is true. No wait, is it because of the everything Bush put in place or...?

[bpwallace49]

Either that or they are blissfully ignorant of what was once their rights and liberty.

 

When was that again? EXACTLY?

 

On second thought Perch forget it . . . it just isnt worth it.