One Year Ago – Today: The Triumph of Obamaphobia

Yesterday, wondering what I was thinking during the dog days of Summer last year, I found a post I had written on August 25, 2009:  Re: Contention of the Summer – Obamaism vs. Americanism.” The title referred to an essay by Fouad Ajami – the same essay that I happened to refer to a few days ago – on the dawning sense that Rush Limbaugh’s famous curse, uttered within two days of Obama’s Inaugural – “I hope he fails” – was being fulfilled, and well ahead of most people’s schedules.

At the time, even more than now, I considered it one of the purposes of this blog to keep track of our former commenting-home (more accurately, the former commenting-home of numerous former commenters and authors at this blog).  This follow-up to earlier discussion had taken Jennifer Rubin’s reaction to Ajami as corroboration and amplification.  Here’s the passage I found interesting enough to quote in full:

Forget effective—is Obama even likable any more? When he’s not condescending to us on race or chastising activists or making up tales of tonsil-stealing docs, he’s apologizing for America and hanging out with cultural elites who harbor a similarly dim view of their fellow citizens. Maybe the real question is: does he like us? Certainly not the segment of us that shows up at town-hall meetings or that likes America pretty much the way it is. Certainly not that segment of Americans that defended the rest of us during the darkest days after 9/11.

No wonder Obama seems so grumpy lately—we just aren’t living up to his expectations.

A year ago, I mused about how certain Contentions commenters, back when there were Contentions commenters, would have been railing at Rubin and crying “hack, hack!” Now I read the same words, and I find myself on the side of the phantom trolls.  In the above excerpt Rubin strikes me as the same blogger who comes across to me today as rather unreadably shrill and hyperbolic, good for two or three political tantrums a day, and always ready to imply that there’s something downright anti-American, in the worst sense, about Barack Obama:  Notice how easily she puts him on the wrong side of 9/11 – without even a speech to Muslims in the middle of a mosque controversy to pump her up.

Then as now, she was doing the same vox populi-vox dei-dat’s-me bit – railing at the President on behalf of “the segment of us that shows up at town-hall meetings or that likes America pretty much the way it is.”  In part of the Rubin post that I didn’t quote last year, she accuses Obama of exhibiting an “abject intolerance for dissent that is hypocritical in the extreme and unnerving to a free society.”  In other words, then as now, Rubin liked America “pretty much the way it is” except for those “cultural elites,” those enemies within who demonstrate an abjectly intolerable lack of tolerance, those extreme hypocrites!  And what made these exclusionists even more deserving of exclusion, for Rubin, was that they – Obama most of all – amazingly, confoundingly, grumpily, didn’t seem to like… people like Jennifer Rubin.

Why ever not?  Why wouldn’t he have felt affection for such kind and generous souls?

I think I knew then, or must have known, that Rubin’s language was exaggerated, even crude, but why didn’t it bother me more?  I didn’t even make a note of it.  I in effect applauded it.  Jennifer Rubin was one of my favorite bloggers!  What the Hell was wrong with me? Was I such a partisan ideologue that I was willing to support almost any insult aimed at Obama that didn’t obviously step over “the line”?  Or was it just that I was lonely, and wanted certain Obama-haters to accept me as their imaginary internet friend?

Rubin aside, my big thought at the time was to agree only in part with Ajami’s idea that turning away from Obamaism meant that we were ready for a more typically American politics of “trust[-ing] the society rather than the state.”   Here’s what I wrote:

Our structurally conservative system, our diverse and resistant political culture, and our whole history from colonial settlements to global neo-empire, virtually require a response to our problems that’s non-Obamaist in this sense – the kind of “American solution to American problems” that the President frequently references, but seems not to understand in the slightest, perhaps in part because it can afford only a subordinate role for any One in particular.

I’m not proud of that snide wrap-up.  I was going along with the crowd again:  In conservative circles we were almost all speaking of Obama as some kind of monster, but the discourse comes across as itself grotesque.  I read it now and see us as having been at least as stupefied by our Obamaphobia as our adversaries had earlier been by Obamalatry.

I’m not sure that my big thought was any better than my “One” joke, but at least it had the form of a thought.  I was a lot readier at the time merely to assume that an adequate “response to our problems” would be available, if only we had the wit to get out of our own way, but that’s a vague and simplistic notion – at best a mere statement of faith. Obviously, talking about what really could work in America in our time is more difficult than venting spleen or indulging in paranoia.

I’m left wondering what sign we’ve given that we could handle such a discussion well enough to accept, unite around, and implement its conclusions.  What evidence is there that anyone other than the imperious sociopath we dreamt up and called the One could get anywhere with people like we’ve shown ourselves to be? Deformed in word and thought, hostile and unforgiving, obsessed with our petty resentments, divisive to our broken core… What if Ajami’s “trust [in] society rather than the state” represents a parochial and decisively incomplete view of American history, a dubious and highly criticizeable dichotomy?  What if an exaggerated trust in this nebulous “society” –  governed by emotional reflexes, a thousand points of traditional prejudice, and most of all by money, but otherwise insistently ungovernable – has often been as practically and morally destructive as beneficial for us, as often collectively self-disfiguring as collectively self-ennobling?

I wish I could believe that Rubin, and Limbaugh, and the rest of us weren’t and aren’t really typical of the forces we thought we represented, whose rise we applauded, and which appear on the verge of a triumph sufficient at least (this may be the optimistic view) to bring this country to a political standstill.


WordPresser
Home Page  Public Email  Twitter  Facebook  YouTube  Github   

Writing since ancient times, blogging, e-commercing, and site installing-designing-maintaining since 2001; WordPress theme and plugin configuring and developing since 2004 or so; a lifelong freelancer, not associated nor to be associated with any company, publication, party, university, church, or other institution.

7 comments on “One Year Ago – Today: The Triumph of Obamaphobia

Commenting at CK MacLeod's

We are determined to encourage thoughtful discussion, so please be respectful to others. We also provide a set of Commenting Options - comment/commenter highlighting and ignoring, and commenter archives that you can access by clicking the commenter options button (). Go to our Commenting Guidelines page for more details, including how to report offensive and spam commenting.

  1. I’ve always loved and admired Jennifer Rubin and if it weren’t for her efforts Sonia Sotomayor would have been appointed to the Supreme Court of the United States and English would now no longer be our official language.

  2. It would be too easy for me to say you were just all hopped up on dopamine.

    The more interesting question (to me) is, What changed your perspective?

    We didn’t have a TV until sometime in the 80’s. So we listened to the 1980 Presidential campaign on the radio. We found “the Great Communicator” all but incomprehensible. We were completely mystified why epople thought he was such an effective speaker.

    My father in law just brought a TV over one day. Our TV-less lifestyle bugged him to no end. So it was there. We watched it. And then it all made sense.

    Reagan was the Great Communicator – on TV.

    It was thenthat I had an even more important realization. For good or ill, we always got the President we deserved.

  3. bob wrote:

    The more interesting question (to me) is, What changed your perspective?

    The more interesting issue, or objective, for me is to discover what stayed the same. This is a personal psychological-emotional health issue as well as a political philosophical issue for me, and I could go on and on about “what happened to CK,” but I don’t want to get lost in vanity and navel-gazing. In short, I have a sense that there were always reservations that I chose to suppress, but that once I stopped suppressing them, they began to take on a life of their own – with a lot of encouragement especially from 1) disillusionment about people I once admired or sought to admire, and 2) certain styles of direct resistance to my arguments. But that would be to put too much emphasis on self-interest and personal needs and experiences. Obviously, those play a major role, but they’re politically-philosophically interesting only to the extent they connect to events and ideas that have nothing directly to do with me at all.

  4. You have chosen the easy path, dictated by the LA Times, CNN, the New York Times, which makes excuses for Hamas, whose leadership cadre poisons the minds of children with thoughts of martyrdom, yet finds Israel a terrible inconvenience.

    For a Sufi, you would agree the good imam says a lot of non pacifist
    things, maybe he’s Nasquabandi, they are the hardier sort present in Chechnya, and other places. To argue that terrorism is no big deal, after all everyone practices it at one time or another. Is no way to build up good will. Sarah in her HK address almost a year
    ago, tried to make a bright line distinction between Moslems of good faith, and those extremists which threaten the lives of many in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, but that line will not be allowed aparently, while the President, prepared to give Ahmadinejad and Chavez and Quaddafi free rain to spread their poison. and to move
    further on their nuclear ambitions, to the dissapointment of Brown
    and Sarkozy,

  5. I’m worried that he’s stolen someone’s Hamas sleeper agent decoder ring. I was sure that my messages about Israel, Imam Feisal, and Islamism would be picked up only by my fellow operatives.

    Wounds my heart with monotonous languor. The yacht sleeps three under the bridge. Orangutan.

    Wounds my heart with monotonous languor. The yacht sleeps three under the bridge. Orangutan. Orangutan. Orangutan.

Commenter Ignore Button by CK's Plug-Ins

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

Related

Noted & Quoted

TV pundits and op-ed writers of every major newspaper epitomize how the Democratic establishment has already reached a consensus: the 2020 nominee must be a centrist, a Joe Biden, Cory Booker or Kamala Harris–type, preferably. They say that Joe Biden should "run because [his] populist image fits the Democrats’ most successful political strategy of the past generation" (David Leonhardt, New York Times), and though Biden "would be far from an ideal president," he "looks most like the person who could beat Trump" (David Ignatius, Washington Post). Likewise, the same elite pundit class is working overtime to torpedo left-Democratic candidates like Sanders.

For someone who was not acquainted with Piketty's paper, the argument for a centrist Democrat might sound compelling. If the country has tilted to the right, should we elect a candidate closer to the middle than the fringe? If the electorate resembles a left-to-right line, and each voter has a bracketed range of acceptability in which they vote, this would make perfect sense. The only problem is that it doesn't work like that, as Piketty shows.

The reason is that nominating centrist Democrats who don't speak to class issues will result in a great swathe of voters simply not voting. Conversely, right-wing candidates who speak to class issues, but who do so by harnessing a false consciousness — i.e. blaming immigrants and minorities for capitalism's ills, rather than capitalists — will win those same voters who would have voted for a more class-conscious left candidate. Piketty calls this a "bifurcated" voting situation, meaning many voters will connect either with far-right xenophobic nationalists or left-egalitarian internationalists, but perhaps nothing in-between.

Comment →

Understanding Trump’s charisma offers important clues to understanding the problems that the Democrats need to address. Most important, the Democratic candidate must convey a sense that he or she will fulfil the promise of 2008: not piecemeal reform but a genuine, full-scale change in America’s way of thinking. It’s also crucial to recognise that, like Britain, America is at a turning point and must go in one direction or another. Finally, the candidate must speak to Americans’ sense of self-respect linked to social justice and inclusion. While Weber’s analysis of charisma arose from the German situation, it has special relevance to the United States of America, the first mass democracy, whose Constitution invented the institution of the presidency as a recognition of the indispensable role that unique individuals play in history.

Comment →

[E]ven Fox didn’t tout Bartiromo’s big scoops on Trump’s legislative agenda, because 10 months into the Trump presidency, nobody is so foolish as to believe that him saying, “We’re doing a big infrastructure bill,” means that the Trump administration is, in fact, doing a big infrastructure bill. The president just mouths off at turns ignorantly and dishonestly, and nobody pays much attention to it unless he says something unusually inflammatory.On some level, it’s a little bit funny. On another level, Puerto Rico is still languishing in the dark without power (and in many cases without safe drinking water) with no end in sight. Trump is less popular at this point in his administration than any previous president despite a generally benign economic climate, and shows no sign of changing course. Perhaps it will all work out for the best, and someday we’ll look back and chuckle about the time when we had a president who didn’t know anything about anything that was happening and could never be counted on to make coherent, factual statements on any subject. But traditionally, we haven’t elected presidents like that — for what have always seemed like pretty good reasons — and the risks of compounding disaster are still very much out there.

Comment →
CK's WP Plugins

Categories

Extraordinary Comments

CK's WP Plugins