What is Obamaism?
By Nick Ragone | Related entries in News
Michael Scherer of Time Magazine has an interesting piece titled “The Permanent Campaign” which describes the millions of Obama backers who are staying involved (and connected) through Facebook, Meetup, and other online tools.
There’s no doubt that Obama has tapped into social networking in a way that has changed American politics. Note to Republicans: ignore it at your own peril. But what struck me as odd was Scherer’s assertion that “for the first time in decades, a President will enter office at the spearhead of a social movement he created.”
He’s definitely at the spearhead of a mood for change — no doubt about that. And he certainly rallied the American people to his candidacy. But I’m not understanding what this “social movement he created” is all about.
You could summarize Ronald Reagan’s mandate — and his governing philosophy — on an index card: restore America’s military might and win the cold war; unshackle the economy by cutting taxes and regulation; and recommit the United States as the torchbearer for freedom around the globe. That was Reaganism, and the amazing thing: he pretty much accomplished all three.
I couldn’t begin to summarize Obama’s governing philosophy in a book, let alone an index card. Does change count as a governing principle? Is hope a mandate? Is “reaching across the aisle” code for some type of policy or initiative? I have no clue. I’m curious to see if there’s actually an Obamaism, and what that might be. Maybe Scherer should report on that story.
www.nickragone.com
This entry was posted on Monday, January 19th, 2009 and is filed under News. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
January 19th, 2009 at 12:36 pm
“Does change count as a governing principle?”
The word “change” by itself is meaningless without a reference point. Personally I believe that “change” is an abbreviation of “change in the way things have been recently done”. It’s cannot be a governing principal as it needs to be temporary. When you reach your change objective, you move from “change” to “maintain”. I take “change” to be more of a promise.
“Is hope a mandate?”
No, “hope” is a not a mandate. Hope is inspirational rhetoric. Given where we our country is at this point in time it’s appropriate (it’s definitely not Morning Again in American).
“Is “reaching across the aisle†code for some type of policy or initiative?”
No, I would think this is more of a guiding principle in how the administration operates with both parties.
My personal belief is the social movement that some claim he created was not created by him. It was used, and potentially may continue to be used, very effectively by his team.
January 19th, 2009 at 3:53 pm
From your token “forriner” – how about restoring America’s place as the world’s beacon?
January 19th, 2009 at 4:13 pm
One of the amusements of the Obama years will be watching the counterculture transition from inveighing against The Man to trying to get The Man reelected.
-Allahpundit
January 19th, 2009 at 4:18 pm
Adam,
Doesn’t sound very promising so far…..the same folks who supported Obama (Chavez, Al Qaeda, Europeans, etc) and shitting on Bush have turned to talking bad about Obama, too.
In fact, I’ve got a serious bit of news for you, Adam. The media has done very well at spreading the perception that “the whole world hates the US” since GWB has been president. The reality is that there have been a lot of people in the world that resent the freedom, success and power of the US for a lot longer than the last 8 years. It’s nothing really new…just that it has recently been used by the left to further a political means.
In other words, if we self-impose our “beacon” status, the same resentments will still be there – we’ll just have turned a blind eye to it again. All praise be to Obama for pulling the blindfold back over our eyes again. We’ll all be trying to fool ourselves again, and the media will help Obama do it, just as they did prior to 11/4/08.
Until the next bomb explodes….
January 19th, 2009 at 4:50 pm
Hey Rich,
I’m from Australia which I hope we can agree has been a pretty steadfast ally and I’m also fortunate enough to be married to an American and want to become a citizen one day, so I’m definately not a “hater”. From my circle of friends, family and co-workers the perception is that at best GW has been incompetent, at worst actively malevolent. Not one positive!
Remember after 9/11 – even the French were saying that “We are all Americans now”! The evaporation of goodwill came about because of specific US actions (an excellent example being the utter insanity of the Iraq invasion, have you got your ~$10,000 worth that it will end up costing each American?), not because of “freedom, success and power”.
Anyhow, I should be a little more cynical about politicians….wait a few months until the novelty of a black president fades.
January 19th, 2009 at 7:43 pm
What did all this good will actually mean? It reminds me of how the support for Israel in the 6 day war was the pinnacle of progressive causes in the 1960’s. “We are all Israel now!” wouldn’t have been a perverse statement at all to make in 1967, as it is now. Why is that? Why do nearly all of the progressives today rally against Israel in every circumstance, even pushing to the point of believing zionism is racism, as the Arab fascists did in the 1970s and 80s.
Benjamin Netanyahoo hit the nail on the head when he said, on the Bill Maher show no less, “…because, back then, Jews were the perfect victim.”
All of this alleged “sypathy” for America was pledged by Europe because America was finally cut down to size. It was the tragedy of the event itself which elicited the good will; nobody on the left believed, or still believe that it was an act of war. It was like the Tsunami – a horrible tragedy that we mourn and get on with our lives.
As long as America remains a victim of terror, and doesn’t respond by utterly destroying those who would do harm to us, then we get this precious “good will” from the left. I’ll take security over good will from foppish European aristocrats anyday.
January 19th, 2009 at 9:26 pm
Adam, would love to hear more of your perpsective. From talking with a few of the French, there is a relatively silent group of people who are quietly chuckling about the Obama win. And in regards to the extra $10k saddled on my back from Iraq (rhymes!), it ain’t nothin’ compared to the additional debt saddled on my back from the recent “bailout” plans.
Have a great time tomorrow everyone! Still great to see a peaceful regime change in the world.
January 19th, 2009 at 10:22 pm
Jimmy: So you reckon the M-1’s in Iraq should head south and open up a can of whipass on the Saudi’s? They still haven’t paid the price for 9/11 and should be a clear candidate to be “utterly destroyed”. Or is the Bush crony relationship with the House of Saud too important?
Exiled: I’m probably a bit more excitable about USA affairs than most Australians given my family relationships. I also have a fairly detailed understanding of weapons/WMD from my time in the military (a few mates were actually on UN weapons inspection teams), so the Iraq debacle hits home.
Afghanistan was universally supported, but Iraq was a big negative in Australia: despite bigger public protests than seen in Vietnam the govt. of the day joined in, and the PM John Howard was seen as a bit of an “arselicker” to GW (similar to Tony Blair) and not standing up for Australia. There was also the hypocracy of Saddam being the USA’s best friend in the 80’s (it was ok for him to use gas then!) but now he’s the bad guy?
The Australian stereotype of Americans is that they’re a bit naive and ignorant of the rest of the world, but very friendly. So America’s “f… you” to the rest of the world under GW via various unilateral actions didn’t come across very well; an attitude of “we love America but don’t like your government” has been a common thread.
January 19th, 2009 at 11:07 pm
What a feeble, inadiquate job they did for 12 years. Talk about Bush being incompetent! Your friends must feel lucky they got out of Bagdad alive in 1998 during the massive bombing campaign authorized by that warmonger Bill Clinton. Or did you forget about that event which killed thousands? Just about everyone else on the left did.
Good point. This must explain your ardent opposition to the Afghan war…Wait, it was universally supported? Why is that? All of the terrorists on 9/11 were Saudis. So do you reckon Saudi Arabia should have been invaded?
I guess its better to continue to support genocide-inflicting dictators than to change your position and confront them, otherwise its “hipocrisy.” Don’t worry, there are plenty of megalo-maniacal fascist rulers around the world for Obama to support going forward. Surely, we can reclaim our reputation with them!
January 20th, 2009 at 2:38 pm
Actually Jimmy, the UN inspectors did a pretty good job. Remember how the Iraq war was sold through the threat of WMD, can’t risk the smoking gun being a mushroom cloud!! Where were the Iraq stockpiles? Believe it or not developing, storing and deploying nukes/chem/biological agents is a pretty challenging exercise when people who know what they are doing are inspecting.
No I don’t think Saudi should be invaded. The USA should wean itself off the Saudi oil teat and break them that way.
Problem with your perspective on confrinting manical fascist rulers is there’s quite a few of them, and unfortunately as Iraq has shown basic military principals (the Powell doctrine is an excellent summary) still apply. Has the cost of Iraq been worth it? I think not both from a $$ perspective as well as the non-financial issues such as substantial boost it has given to Iran’s power in the region.
We should probably find another thread to argue on!