On Wed, 6 Feb 2008, Doug Henwood wrote:
> People compare BHO with Reagan. But with Reagan, there was some actual
> political substance behind his slick exterior. You knew pretty much what he
> stood for, and what he was likely to do. It was a coherent ideology presented
> at a historically propitious moment.
Yes and no. Reagan's ideology was certainly clear -- it was the John Birch ideology he'd had since the John Birch society was born. But when he got into office, that wasn't what he did. He vastly increased the size of government and signed SALT treaties with the Soviet Union -- the two main things he was supposed to be against.
Mind you, he did lots and lots of lots of awful things. But they mostly weren't the things he campaigned on or the things that represented his principles. They were rather the things the people swarming around him put into action under his name. And were able to put those policies into action because once he said anything in his inimitable way, it was imbued with an aura of trustworthiness.
Reagan also used the mind-fogging powers of his charisma to completely unman people who would otherwise have opposed those policies, thereby solidifying his party. A good example is the nomination of Sandra Day O'Connor to the court. Jerry Falwell and the Moral Majority were at the noon of their power then and fully arrayed to swoop down and crush her. And Reagan called him up and said "I'm appointing a lady to the court. You don't know her because nobody knows her. But I want you to trust me on this." And Jerry just melted in a pool of schwarm.
And this use of Reagan's personna as a cover for policies hatched elsewhere became only more pronounced in his second term when he was about as distant from policy-making as a man with Alzheimer's can be.
So I wouldn't worry about the emptiness of Obama's message. That is inherent to charismatic rhetoric, and it's got lots of uses, not least of which is the power to mobilize support and frustrate critics to advance any policy you want.
I would worry more about the content. To the extent Obama's message is empty, it will be filled with the activists and think tanks of the Democrat party, and his charismatic contribution will simply be to make them more successful in dominating their Republican enemies. (Cet par of course -- it could be cancelled out or worse if his team is inept in the trenches of legislative detail and infighting.)
I worry more about when he does have content. Like having Samatha Power as an advisor. Or saying we should bomb Pakistan.
Michael