Friday, July 25, 2008
News / Chicagoland Godwin's Law goes mainstream
Posted by Whet Moser on 07.25.08 at 12:45 PM
Marcus Gilmer at Chicagoist asks:
Ben Stein on Obama's planned stadium speech at the convention: "Seventy-five-thousand people at an outdoor sports palace, well, that's something the Fuehrer would have done." Wait...what???
What, indeed--it's actually quite interesting. Stein's observation didn't come from nowhere. Ideas have histories; this one has two.
1) Attack your opponent where he's strongest.
This is a fairly old idea, but the Republican party, on the national level, has been particularly skilled at this recently--think of the swiftboating of military hero John Kerry. Right now, Obama's greatest strength is the enthusiasm and excitement about his campaign. As distinguished from actual political support--clearly he's polling well and has a healthy chance against McCain, but the buzz and hype over his candidacy, fairly or not, far exceeds that of McCain, who seems to be running for dogcatcher this week.
That's a hell of a dilemma. Obama has a lot of strengths that make logical sense to attack, like his youth, his education, his diverse background, and so forth. Attacking someone because he's popular, because people like him, is, um, tough. The McCain camp actually made a good attempt, with an ad purporting to show how the media is in the tank for Obama. And it's pretty funny and not unconvincing, for the medium. But watch it, and see if there's not at least some cognitive dissonance. After all, it's an ad about how you should not like Obama because lots of people like him. It's just a tough pitch: VOTE MCCAIN. AMERICA, IT'S TIME FOR YOUR CHECKUP.
Hence former Nixon speechwriter Ben Stein: "you know who else was popular? HITLER!" And Stein's not the only one making this pitch:
Erik Erickson (husband of famously incompetent former DOJ official Monica Goodling; emphasis, error his): "Barack Obama is using propaganda FILMED IN GERMANY MADE POSSIBLE BY THE NAZIS RELOCATING THE FREAKING STATUTE!!!!!!!"
David Plotz of Slate (who supports Obama!): "That's slightly fascistic.... That's a very, like, let's rally the nation [style of speaking]. I don't want to be rallied."
Patrick Ruffini: "This is pretty extraordinary. A candidate for the American Presidency is using flyers printed in German to turn people out for his campaign rally in Berlin on Thursday."
Tom Sullivan of Fox News Radio: "it harkens back to when I was younger and I used to watch those deals with Hitler, how he would excite the crowd and they'd come to their feet and scream and yell."
And so forth. It's much more of a thing on blogs than it is in media outlets, but increasingly that's where these ideas take hold. Does it make any sense? Of course not, but that's not really the point. The point is to figure out a way to negate his strengths, and when that strength is popularity, it takes something especially ingenious--a radical version of the "personality cult" meme that you've been hearing from people like John Kass since time immemorial.
2) Liberal Fascism
You may remember that Tribune Company Star Columnist Jonah Goldberg wrote a book arguing that the liberal wing of the modern Democratic party is fascist, based on the "purity test" principle--check off certain similarities to the Nazis, like environmentalism, organic food (seriously), animal rights (no, seriously), the New Deal, and so forth, and get a fascism score. This is of course total lunacy, but thanks to his prominence (thanks, LA Times!) the argument has enough pull to become an undercurrent in the exciting new Obama=Hitler meme. Hullabaloo and Jesse Taylor have much, much more on this.
Why belabor the point? Ideas have consequences; columnists have very big consequences. On an abstract level it's interesting--to me, at least--to see how these things evolve and mutate over the short and long term. On a practical level, it's helpful to not be caught off-guard by the crazy. Because it's not actually crazy--it's a strategy.
Comments (22)
Showing 1-22 of 22
While I certainly don't place myself in the company of Ben Stein et. al., I think you get some things wrong here. 1. The McCain ad doesn't show how many PEOPLE like Obama, it shows how many MEDIA PEOPLE like Obama. The polls are actually pretty close and you know what? By all honorable measures of counting, about half of Dem primary voters preferred Hillary Clinton. 2. A well-organized campaign can create rallies like this - just ask Michael Deaver. In Oregon, that 75K was helped along by a free multi-band concert. Consider the hype for the Super Bowl or, say, the Friends finale. 3. It IS a cult of personality,and not just because John Kass says so. DAVID AXELROD SAYS SO! Axelrod himself has said he chose as a strategy to make the campaign about Obama's personality - in many cases inventing aspects to his personality which don't really exist in reality. Just ask those who have known him the longest. And, oops, there's the Obama family - those kids again! - in a People magazine cover this week! 4. The artwork for the Obama campaign is nothing short of fascistic. Look at the poster of Obama's appearance in Berlin, as provided by Lynn Sweet on her blog, as well as the halo-effected artwork that's come prior. 5. Finally, look at his own rhetoric. In Berlin, Obama repeated that "it's our time." Our time to do what? Spy on fellow citizens, reject campaign finance reform, oppose gay marriage, blame poor blacks for their plight, wear flag pins, depend on the good faith of insurance companies to reform health care, and reward cronies like Daley & crew for their support? If only Obama represented change . . . he'd have a reform agenda. Instead, I still can't tell you what his top three priorities are besides fundraising and asking for more adulation for having accomplished virtually nothing in his relatively brief political career.
like
dislike
1) The polls are pretty close. I'm talking about enthusiasm and hype, which is different. 2) I know people like the Decemberists, but I kinda think Obama was the headliner and the cult orchestral indie pop band was the opener. 3) I don't disagree that Obama's personality is a major aspect of the campaign, just like Bush, Clinton, and Reagan before him. 4) http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/mccain-peaceposter-blog.jpg 5) I'm not sure what Obama being a somewhat underwhelming centrist with SOP political ties and a political career about as long as the last couple comparatively young two-term presidents has to do with him being a fascist.
1. Indeed. So let's separate the hype from popularity. Obama consistently outdrew Hillary Clinton in crowd size during the primaries - including in New Hampshire - but the votes were virtually even. 2. Have Obama speak at the end of a day at Pitchfork and your crowd will grow. 3. Obama's personality is far more a part of his campaign than Bush, Clinton and Reagan. C'mon! Don't be absurd. This comes closest to Reagan's 1984 re-election campaign - when Democrats whined that Reagan was all style, no substance. 4. I hardly find this artwork analagous to the Obama handiwork, including the German poster aforementioned and even the Obama seal. 5. I'm not saying Obama is a fascist but responding to your Liberal Fascist item. It is salient, though, that Obama uses the rhetoric of change - of a mystical revolution, even ("we are the ones we've been waiting for") - while standing exactly for the business-as-usual he pretends to oppose. You could at least call that sort of propaganda fascistic.
Let me add as well on the experience point: Being a governor is far different than being a state senator - especially one acting under orders from Emil Jones. Clinton was a five-term governor hailed as the nation's best; Dems complained (correctly) about George W.'s lack of experience as governor of Texas, but now suddenly it doesn't matter.
1) [clears throat]: "enthusiasm and excitement about his campaign. As distinguished from actual political support--clearly he's polling well and has a healthy chance against McCain, but the buzz and hype over his candidacy, fairly or not, far exceeds that of McCain" In re experience: his lack is a feature, not a bug. I'm not saying this to defend it or that it's a good thing, but I do think it helped him win the Democratic nomination, in that he wasn't in the Senate during the beginning of the Iraq War and doesn't have a tricky national senate record to defend (he does have a tricky local and state record--which I've been blogging about for a while--but only Rezko has traction because it's juicy). Obama opposes the war (not an especially controversial move, all things considered), she votes for the AUMF, and it really follows from there. If she'd opposed it--which would have been much harder for her to do--I think she takes the nomination easily. I think you have to put Obama in the context of the past eight years of considerable failure for the Democratic party. They tried to run two relatively sincere, experienced, not especially charismatic senators (I really liked Gore, was blah about Kerry) and got beat. Then 2008 comes along and you've got Hillary, who for all her qualities has a ton of baggage, going up against a charismatic, smart young orator, kind of a cipher, who can put together a hell of an organization. Obama as president? That's a risk (see: FISA, Pakistan). Obama as Democratic nominee and part of a long-term party-building strategy? I get it.
Which is to say: yes, there are plenty of people unrealistically in the tank for Obama, more so than usual perhaps because of the charisma. But there are a lot of people that aren't, who are taking a calculated gamble. A lot of the things you object to about Obama, which I understand completely and don't disagree with, arguably *help* him competitively in a general election. The point I'm trying to make isn't whether or not Obama is awesome. The point is that I get why partisan Democrats support him--there's a logic to it. And I can't emphasize this enough: he's put together a skilled operation and his GOTV experience is very appealing to some of the prime movers in the base.
At the risk of sounding like an idiotic fanboy, I just wanted to say that this bit of reasoned discourse between a couple of my favorite local people on the interwebs was very engaging (although I'm in Steve's camp on Obama, sorry). Perhaps a regular Onion-esque Beachwood/Chicagoland point/counterpoint is in order.
Oops, apparently you can't add a link here... Well, just google "bush+hitler" to get my now much less subtle point.
Thanks, Prescott. I have to say I think Whet Moser is easily the best pure blogger (as opposed to, say, the fine work done by his colleagues Mick and Ben, which is terrific reportage but somehow less "bloggy" - a different purpose) in the city and really, one of the best in the country when you think about it. But . . . 1. I've never understood how inexperience is an asset in a president. Oh, I see how it can be marketed as an asset, but in reality, that's just bizarre. As I've written, we seem to demand more experience from an NFL quarterback these days than a president. 2. I've also never seen how the lack of a record (in this case, in the U.S. senate) is an asset. Oh, I see how it can be marketed as such, but how cynical is that - it's great that he doesn't have a record to run on because he might be forced to defend actual stands he would have had to take? 3. Gore won.
I don't find either campaign's artwork to be particularly fascistic, though I'd have to say that McCain's poster is much more pure fascistic imagery, with its militaristic imagery, than Obama's. I don't think one should penalize excellent design because it is Bauhaus inspired. Sloganeering also is a big part of campaigning and does not in itself constitute fascist speech; it must be coupled with ideology--particularly of domination. Again, I'd say McCain's speech is more fascistic in this regard. Whether you believe him or not, Obama's rhetoric has been about consensus. The only thing even a bit fascistic you can pin on Obama is the campaign's calculated emphasis on personality. Again, most voters will tell you they support the candidate they like, or the one who is good-looking. It's something that helped propel Kennedy to power, even though he was Catholic.
I enjoy Steve Rhodes' The Beachwood Reporter, but his need to squeeze whatever Obama dig he can into his writing is getting tiresome. I mean, "The artwork for the Obama campaign is nothing short of fascistic?" Come on... I'm a partisan Democrat, and I understand why people are reluctant to credit Obama as some sort of savior (he's frustrated me lately, particularly with his FISA vote.) But, the past seven years for our country have been absolutely miserable. Torture and government spying have been our official policy; our economy has melted down in an orgy of laxness of oversight; our federal government has been politicized to the point where large components are simply nonfunctional (Justice Department, USDA, FEMA, etc.). In light of how horrible the Bush administration has been, anyone who offers the promise of simple competence and respect for the Constitution (and not killing hundreds of thousands of people overseas for no reason) is going to be a pretty powerful draw, especially when the opponent is John "Bush Part Three" McCain. A lot of people have spent the past seven years in political desperation. They need a Democrat to win. And while Rhodes isn't eager to admit it, Hillary Clinton is not the nominee. The Presidential campaign this fall is a binary choice: Barack Obama or John McCain. That's not to say Rhodes should give Obama a pass; it's important to try to offer a corrective when he does dumb things (FISA, for instance). But when you dedicate your political web site to sniping at every move of one party's Presidential nominee, it feels overloaded, particularly given the context of the past seven years. All of that is to say nothing of the mistreatment Al Gore and John Kerry received from the press, something that makes Democrats even more sensitive to one-sided takedowns of Obama.
"...anyone who offers the promise of simple competence and respect for the Constitution" Unfortunately, we have little evidence of the former because of Mr. Obama's absentee governance and contraindications of the latter, from his FISA vote and the following (quoting from my own article): "Most chilling of all is an AP report on a visit Candidate Obama made to Reno, Nevada, at the end of May 2007. Pledging to restore the authority of the EPA, Candidate Obama said that the weakening of environmental regulations and demoralization of the EPA have been accomplished in recent years through the executive orders of President Bush. 'That means President Obama can reverse them by executive order,' Obama told a Reno crowd. To hear a candidate rail against the demoralizing effects of executive decrees on federal agencies (not to mention the health of democracy) say that he'd use such orders for what he thinks is right is hypocritical and downright scary."
Maybe I'm missing your point, but I don't find that chilling at all. I mean, the President does set operating parameters and guidelines for the departments under him. The problem with Bush is that he often acted illegally (or at the very least, unethically) in doing so, ignoring the regulatory framework enacted by Congress and the courts. (See today's news of the Justice Department hiring for an example.) Obama's FISA vote is very problematic; I won't defend that. But with regard to competence and respect for the Constitution, I will gladly take Obama over McCain. And that's the choice available.
Looking at my language above, I don't know if I'm comfortable with saying "the President does set operating parameters and guidelines for the departments under him." Obviously, those things are often legislated by Congress. What I mean is that it's commonly accepted for the President to prioritize certain operations with the Executive Branch operations over others (within the law, of course).
Olly: I hear complaints like yours quite frequently but it feels one-sided because it IS one-sided. Obama is a Chicago pol. I write about Obama. If he was from Montana, I wouldn't be writing about him. I can hardly devote the same amount of time to McCain - or in the primaries, Clinton. And far from sniping or looking for chances to dig, I've actually held back quite a bit of material about Obama that appears elsewhere but not here in Chicago. I have yet to have anything I've written be challenged factually. Instead, all I get is "they all do that!" But Obama's campaign is built entirely on the idea that he's not like the rest of them. Apparently I'm supposed to ignore Obama and the media's love affair with him, though none of my readers seem to mind my almost daily attacks on the mayor, the governor, the county board president. I am not a Democrat (nor a Republican). My job isn't to take sides. Obama is a Chicago pol likely to become our next president. If he's full of shit, it's my job to point it out if the rest of the media doesn't. Funny, the Obamaphiles don't tire of the constant love letters to Obama by other members of our press corps. If you despited the media for sucking up to Reagan, and going soft on Bush in the run-up to the war (and, in fact, during and after the 2000 election count), then you can't turn around and say it's okay when it's done for your guy. In other words, I'm for a new kind of politics far more than Obama is - a politics based on a higher discourse of, you know, honesty and transparency and not blind allegiances to ideologies or corrupt parties. Finally, it is the Obama campaign that has used the tactics that took down Gore on their opponents. I prefer to keep my eyes open and see clearly. That's not the same thing as supporting John McCain, which I do not, nor Hillary Clinton, which I wrote time and time again that I did not, based on her war vote alone. But not only has no one shown me to be wrong about Obama, but those who know him best as well as unfolding events (the cyncial lurch to the center) have validated my view. Sorry. I thought we'd all be a little more careful this time around, but I guess the country is still in a post 9/11 and post-Bush traumatic stress zone.
Thanks for the reply. I agree on the local angle (and I am definitely still in the "post-Bush traumatic stress zone"). But I would quibble with a couple assertions. First, while many Obama supporters may buy into the not-like-everyone else aspect of his campaign, I think there are many more out there who realize he's imperfect but want him to win anyway because they believe that's what would be best for our country. I'm in that camp. I think a McCain presidency would be disastrous. That doesn't mean you shouldn't point out Obama's flaws and missteps. But many people's capacity for outrage is outweighed by their terror of four more years of a Republican presidency. As to that last point, I think "outrage" isn't quite warranted with Obama, either. Everyone should be held to account, but I don't think his sins come close to measuring up to those of Daley, Blagojevich or Stoger (or even Rahm Emanuel, for that matter). Beyond that, most of the Chicago media outlets do a miserable job of covering the impact of Daley, Blago and Stroger on the city. Beachwood Reporter is a breath of fresh air in those matters. But there are plenty of outlets willing to trash Obama and any other Democrat, from Fox News all the way to Little Green Footballs. Because of this, when there's overlap between your messaging and the ideas they're presenting (a la the propaganda flap above), it can inspire a visceral, and defensive, response from Democrats who are sick of their politicians being smeared to death. In that vein, I would also disagree with the assertion of "constant love letters by other members of our press corps." As the LA Times posted today: The Center for Media and Public Affairs at George Mason University, where researchers have tracked network news content for two decades, found that ABC, NBC and CBS were tougher on Obama than on Republican John McCain during the first six weeks of the general-election campaign. You read it right: tougher on the Democrat. During the evening news, the majority of statements from reporters and anchors on all three networks are neutral, the center found. And when network news people ventured opinions in recent weeks, 28% of the statements were positive for Obama and 72% negative. Network reporting also tilted against McCain, but far less dramatically, with 43% of the statements positive and 57% negative, according to the Washington-based media center." http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-onthemedia27-2008jul27,0,2066363,full.story I think a recent Obsidian Wings post, "A Tale of Two Press Biases," engages this point thoughtfully as well. http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2008/07/a-tale-of-two-p.html
Just one last word: I found this hugely ironic, and I think you know why: "I don't think his sins come close to measuring up to those of Daley, Blagojevich or Stoger (or even Rahm Emanuel, for that matter)." As to that study, I think if you read closely you'll find the methodology hugely flawed, started with the fact that it only measured the three networks and ending with the way it tallied "positive" and "negative" comments. Now I have to get back to my People magazine cover story about how great Obama's family is, right after I read Eric Zorn's blog and Mary Mitchell's column while preparing for Keith Olbermann tonight. (Thanks for letting me rent your space, Whet!)
I think you're saying that the sins of Daley, Blagojevich, Stroger and Emanuel were allowed to develop as far as they have because of a lack of scrutiny. That would be a fair point. I still stand by my larger analysis of the issue. I'm not sure about the methodology of the survey I mentioned; it might be flawed. But for every positive portrayal Obama gets, there are plenty of news segments slobbering over the "Straight Talk Express" and John McCain's integrity (overlooking in the process his inconvenient flip flops or, even more strangely, using them as further evidence of his integrity.)
If I could add one more thing (not that anyone's reading this thread anymore anyway): while reading the Beachwood Reporter, I often get the feeling that Mr. Rhodes simply dislikes Obama. That's fine; there are many politicians I dislike. But as a reader, I get the impression that this personal distaste occasionally influences his commentary, prompting overly cynical responses to innocuous circumstances. Everything gets the negative spin. I'm not armed with any evidence to back that statement up. But, that is my opinion.
