September 28, 2010--Feeling Pain
John Harwood, in the New York Times, may be right that presidents who show empathy are not necessarily helped during midterm elections. (Article linked below.)
Though Harwood joins the chorus of those finding fault with Barack Obama's "cool'" unemotional, professorial style, he claims that the reason Obama and the Democrats are in political trouble is because of the economy (stupid).
Bill Clinton wrote the book on feeling voters' pain--bitting his lower lip empathetically and welling up with tears in emotional situations. Feigned or not, it worked for him but not for fellow Democrats, especially during the 1994 midterms when Newt Gingrich promulgated his Contract With America and the GOP won 54 seats in the House, 8 in the Senate, and took control of both houses.
Then though Americans liked Ike, President Eisenhower's party got trounced in the 1958 midterms, losing 48 House seats. Even beloved Ronald Reagan, after passing his massive tax cuts in 1981 saw his Republican brethren loss 28 seats in the House of Representatives a year later.
Again, as in the other cases from recent history, these loses could be attributed more to a stalled economy than to the Presidents' popularity or public persona of likability and caring.
But when it comes to history prologue is not always destiny.
These times may be different than those Harwood cites. As then, the economy is troubled; but what may be different this time, and why Obama's coolness may be contributing to his and his party's troubles with the electorate, is that these are hyper-emotional days.
People are understandably frustrated and angry with their circumstances and the government's overall response to what they perceive to be a crisis--a crisis in significant part that is government caused--and this emotion is being shamelessly whipped into a frenzy and personally exploited by cynical politicians and irresponsible members of the media--from Sarah Palin to the erstwhile Newt Gingrich to Rush Limbaugh to Glenn Beck and an assortment of Tea Party candidates.
The emotion manifested by the Tea Party is greater than at any time since the anti-Vietnam War movement, and we know how socially calamitous that was. Lyndon Johnson felt the need to leave the presidency mainly because he was responsible for escalating that disastrous war but also because he appeared impervious to the pain and suffering that was among the war's consequences. Like Obama, he presided over the passage of historic social legislation during the mid 1960s, but that did not inure him from political defeat. This all before the Internet and the 24/7 news cycle that have rapacious appetites for breaking news, even if, to attract audiences, it has to be made up.
With this relentless news cycle that depends on a continuous stream of anything resembling news also requires that that "news" be dramatic and even entertaining. In a fierce competition for audiences, things are intentionally magnified and played for their tabloid appeal.
As much emotion as possible is shamelessly unleashed, including anger and rage, Vivid personalities--the good, the bad, and the ugly--are paraded before us in an attempt to get us to keep reading and watching. Tearing someone down is as newsworthy and intoxicating as building them up. Perhaps more so.
Enter Barack Obama.
Was any candidate for high office in recent memory so simultaneously adulated and excoriated? To his supporters he represented the elixir of change and, more emotionally powerful, hope. To those who hated him on sight (this is meant literally), he represented the fearful "other," the new American who to them is alien and subversive.
He knowingly rode both of those waves to an astonishing victory. But now that he is governing, ultimately responsible for our circumstances, as the mundane day-to-day overwhelms those images and metaphors he radiated and represented, the very patina of confident cool that contributed to propelling him forward is dragging him down.
Like it or not, and I know he hates it, he needs to let out and let us see not just what he is thinking but what he feels. Whatever that might be,
To most Americans that will be enough.
In these times it is not about the content but the affect. We need to feel. We need to be entertained. It is the age of Oprah, not just Glenn Beck where there is no line any more separating our politics from our amusements.
Though Harwood joins the chorus of those finding fault with Barack Obama's "cool'" unemotional, professorial style, he claims that the reason Obama and the Democrats are in political trouble is because of the economy (stupid).
Bill Clinton wrote the book on feeling voters' pain--bitting his lower lip empathetically and welling up with tears in emotional situations. Feigned or not, it worked for him but not for fellow Democrats, especially during the 1994 midterms when Newt Gingrich promulgated his Contract With America and the GOP won 54 seats in the House, 8 in the Senate, and took control of both houses.
Then though Americans liked Ike, President Eisenhower's party got trounced in the 1958 midterms, losing 48 House seats. Even beloved Ronald Reagan, after passing his massive tax cuts in 1981 saw his Republican brethren loss 28 seats in the House of Representatives a year later.
Again, as in the other cases from recent history, these loses could be attributed more to a stalled economy than to the Presidents' popularity or public persona of likability and caring.
But when it comes to history prologue is not always destiny.
These times may be different than those Harwood cites. As then, the economy is troubled; but what may be different this time, and why Obama's coolness may be contributing to his and his party's troubles with the electorate, is that these are hyper-emotional days.
People are understandably frustrated and angry with their circumstances and the government's overall response to what they perceive to be a crisis--a crisis in significant part that is government caused--and this emotion is being shamelessly whipped into a frenzy and personally exploited by cynical politicians and irresponsible members of the media--from Sarah Palin to the erstwhile Newt Gingrich to Rush Limbaugh to Glenn Beck and an assortment of Tea Party candidates.
The emotion manifested by the Tea Party is greater than at any time since the anti-Vietnam War movement, and we know how socially calamitous that was. Lyndon Johnson felt the need to leave the presidency mainly because he was responsible for escalating that disastrous war but also because he appeared impervious to the pain and suffering that was among the war's consequences. Like Obama, he presided over the passage of historic social legislation during the mid 1960s, but that did not inure him from political defeat. This all before the Internet and the 24/7 news cycle that have rapacious appetites for breaking news, even if, to attract audiences, it has to be made up.
With this relentless news cycle that depends on a continuous stream of anything resembling news also requires that that "news" be dramatic and even entertaining. In a fierce competition for audiences, things are intentionally magnified and played for their tabloid appeal.
As much emotion as possible is shamelessly unleashed, including anger and rage, Vivid personalities--the good, the bad, and the ugly--are paraded before us in an attempt to get us to keep reading and watching. Tearing someone down is as newsworthy and intoxicating as building them up. Perhaps more so.
Enter Barack Obama.
Was any candidate for high office in recent memory so simultaneously adulated and excoriated? To his supporters he represented the elixir of change and, more emotionally powerful, hope. To those who hated him on sight (this is meant literally), he represented the fearful "other," the new American who to them is alien and subversive.
He knowingly rode both of those waves to an astonishing victory. But now that he is governing, ultimately responsible for our circumstances, as the mundane day-to-day overwhelms those images and metaphors he radiated and represented, the very patina of confident cool that contributed to propelling him forward is dragging him down.
Like it or not, and I know he hates it, he needs to let out and let us see not just what he is thinking but what he feels. Whatever that might be,
To most Americans that will be enough.
In these times it is not about the content but the affect. We need to feel. We need to be entertained. It is the age of Oprah, not just Glenn Beck where there is no line any more separating our politics from our amusements.
posted by Steven Zwerling at
5:10 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home