December 2, 2008--Obama's Head Fake
I’ve been fascinated by some of the reactions to Barack Obama’s appointments that I’ve been picking up while listening to right-wing talk radio.
In the middle of the night, when I’m restless, I listen to the radio as a way of boring myself to sleep. Basically there are four generic choices—music, which is too engaging for me; sports talk, which gets me aggravated; shows about flying saucers, which I find too stimulating; and programs that feature people like Laura Ingraham and Billy Cunningham who rant through the night about how Nancy Pelosi is a socialist.
Listening to Cunningham two nights ago, as Obama was about to announce his national security team, I was struck by how flummoxed Billy seemed. He had been expecting that Obama, “the most liberal member of the Senate,” would be appointing people like Ron Paul to be Secretary of State and Ralph Nader Treasury Secretary. But here he was about to ask George Bush’s Pentagon chief, Robert Gates, to remain in office and he had picked “the architect of Reganomics,” 82 year-old Paul Volker, to be one of his chief economic advisors.
Cunningham was all mixed up but was taking clear pleasure in the assumption that Obama’s supporters on the left would be even more shook up than he. “It’s bait and switch,” he kept shouting; but in spite of taking satisfaction in that he had his shorts all in a bunch because Obama was being so unpredictable. Who knows, he just about said, maybe Obama will be successful; and where would that leave us? Among other things, out of office for perhaps decades.
Still thinking about this as the sun rose, I wondered privately if maybe Cunningham was right—that Obama road into office by getting his liberal base to work hard for him and now that he has been elected he is planning to govern from the right. Even knowing that some of these left-right distinctions are obsolete, still I wondered if there had been some baiting-and-switching.
Later in the day, ruminating publicly about the same set of questions, Chris Matthews, on Hardball, posed an interesting proposition: Obama is if nothing political, which is a good if you want to get things done, and as such maybe he was appointing all these people who are the right of him to provide cover as he moves to govern from the left.
His guests disagreed, but I think Matthews was making a good point. Obama for the past two weeks when questioned about the nature of his key appointments, has repeatedly said—“I am responsible to assure that there will be change. I will supply the vision. That’s my job.” He still seems committed to making bold and progressive moves to stimulate the economy and to use diplomacy more than military force to guide his foreign policy. Perhaps then, he is nodding to the right to enlarge his base so as to be able to mobilize the kind of broad support required if he is to attempt to lead from the left.
Though confessing that sports talk makes me crazy, let me try a little here. Not about what happened to the Jets on Sunday, but rather what one might learn from a president’s sports interests.
Nixon, for example, was a pro football fan. He even went so far as to advise the coach of the Washington Redskins about what specific plays he might use to defeat his rivals. Nixon, I suspect, liked football because it metaphorically reminded him of the kinds of hierarchically structured organizations he most admired. Corporations, governments, the military. As the nation’s CEO he saw himself as our quarterback, calling out the plays for others in his control to carry out. (I also suspect that as an angry man he liked violence.)
Bill Clinton, as another example, was not attracted to team sports. Golf was his game. One of the few sporting activities that one plays on one’s own and doesn’t in truth even require an opponent to enjoy. A perfect pastime for a president who is a self-centered diva.
Then there is Barack Obama, our first basketball-obsessed president. I suspect he sees himself as the nation’s point guard—the player who puts the ball in play, brings it up court, and then gets as much satisfaction from making assists, helping others to score, as he does when scoring himself. Also, let’s hope, as with the best basketball players, his very presence and the kind of unselfish game he values, helps raise his teammates level of play. Fellow Chicagoan Michael Jordon became legendary for doing just this.
And then there is the power of trash talk and faking—both essential to a successful basketball player. The trash talk is not taken as a serious verbal assault on one’s opponent but rather as a way to gain a slight psychological edge—to distract the person playing against you just enough to give you that vital half-step advantage.
Faking also is an essential tool on the court. By leaning or juking one’s head to the right, thereby throwing the defender off balance, a player skilled at this can then cut to the left and thereby have a clear path to the basket.
Get it?
In the middle of the night, when I’m restless, I listen to the radio as a way of boring myself to sleep. Basically there are four generic choices—music, which is too engaging for me; sports talk, which gets me aggravated; shows about flying saucers, which I find too stimulating; and programs that feature people like Laura Ingraham and Billy Cunningham who rant through the night about how Nancy Pelosi is a socialist.
Listening to Cunningham two nights ago, as Obama was about to announce his national security team, I was struck by how flummoxed Billy seemed. He had been expecting that Obama, “the most liberal member of the Senate,” would be appointing people like Ron Paul to be Secretary of State and Ralph Nader Treasury Secretary. But here he was about to ask George Bush’s Pentagon chief, Robert Gates, to remain in office and he had picked “the architect of Reganomics,” 82 year-old Paul Volker, to be one of his chief economic advisors.
Cunningham was all mixed up but was taking clear pleasure in the assumption that Obama’s supporters on the left would be even more shook up than he. “It’s bait and switch,” he kept shouting; but in spite of taking satisfaction in that he had his shorts all in a bunch because Obama was being so unpredictable. Who knows, he just about said, maybe Obama will be successful; and where would that leave us? Among other things, out of office for perhaps decades.
Still thinking about this as the sun rose, I wondered privately if maybe Cunningham was right—that Obama road into office by getting his liberal base to work hard for him and now that he has been elected he is planning to govern from the right. Even knowing that some of these left-right distinctions are obsolete, still I wondered if there had been some baiting-and-switching.
Later in the day, ruminating publicly about the same set of questions, Chris Matthews, on Hardball, posed an interesting proposition: Obama is if nothing political, which is a good if you want to get things done, and as such maybe he was appointing all these people who are the right of him to provide cover as he moves to govern from the left.
His guests disagreed, but I think Matthews was making a good point. Obama for the past two weeks when questioned about the nature of his key appointments, has repeatedly said—“I am responsible to assure that there will be change. I will supply the vision. That’s my job.” He still seems committed to making bold and progressive moves to stimulate the economy and to use diplomacy more than military force to guide his foreign policy. Perhaps then, he is nodding to the right to enlarge his base so as to be able to mobilize the kind of broad support required if he is to attempt to lead from the left.
Though confessing that sports talk makes me crazy, let me try a little here. Not about what happened to the Jets on Sunday, but rather what one might learn from a president’s sports interests.
Nixon, for example, was a pro football fan. He even went so far as to advise the coach of the Washington Redskins about what specific plays he might use to defeat his rivals. Nixon, I suspect, liked football because it metaphorically reminded him of the kinds of hierarchically structured organizations he most admired. Corporations, governments, the military. As the nation’s CEO he saw himself as our quarterback, calling out the plays for others in his control to carry out. (I also suspect that as an angry man he liked violence.)
Bill Clinton, as another example, was not attracted to team sports. Golf was his game. One of the few sporting activities that one plays on one’s own and doesn’t in truth even require an opponent to enjoy. A perfect pastime for a president who is a self-centered diva.
Then there is Barack Obama, our first basketball-obsessed president. I suspect he sees himself as the nation’s point guard—the player who puts the ball in play, brings it up court, and then gets as much satisfaction from making assists, helping others to score, as he does when scoring himself. Also, let’s hope, as with the best basketball players, his very presence and the kind of unselfish game he values, helps raise his teammates level of play. Fellow Chicagoan Michael Jordon became legendary for doing just this.
And then there is the power of trash talk and faking—both essential to a successful basketball player. The trash talk is not taken as a serious verbal assault on one’s opponent but rather as a way to gain a slight psychological edge—to distract the person playing against you just enough to give you that vital half-step advantage.
Faking also is an essential tool on the court. By leaning or juking one’s head to the right, thereby throwing the defender off balance, a player skilled at this can then cut to the left and thereby have a clear path to the basket.
Get it?
posted by Steven Zwerling at
10:44 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home