On Thu, 24 Jan 2008, Doug Henwood wrote:
> I realize it's like parsing the levels of hell but BHO seems worse than
> HRC.
Certainly based on his recent pronouncements, he seems a small but significant bit to the right of HRC on virtually everything -- economic policy, social policy and foreign policy.
But now that lbo-talk has done a very good job of nailing the guy, let me make a devil's advocate case for him just for the fun of it. It'll be a bit outlandish of a case, but what do you expect? The facts are against me -- that's what makes it intellectually challenging :o)
And that alternative case can be summed up in one word: charisma.
Charisma is something that leftists generally hate to talk about it because it's squishy. But as Weber showed at great length, it can be an important independent factor, causing things that wouldn't have happened otherwise, and later being "routinized" into a set path.
And I think you can make the case that this is essentially what Reagan did for the Republicans. Democrats often bemoan how the Republicans welded together factions that should, in nature, hate each other, but for some reason in their case, the antagonistic factions never get welded. And compressing a whole line of argument, I think you can make a case that Reagan is the man who did this and charisma is how he did it. That his one real genius was his speaking voice and facial expressions, and that that alone is why people from all the various Republican factions cathected to him and have stayed cathected. Even now, when that coalition is clearly fraying, the only thing the Repugs can think of is to use his name as an incantation. And to some extent it even still works, since if you can convince Republicans you are Reagan's legatee, they're disposed to like you, no matter which faction they come from. Because you're evoking something that is still a part of their identity.
Another aspect of his charisma was his teflon quality which drove leftists (like me) to the point of distraction. No matter what he did or said, nothing seemed to tarnish him.
And this brings us the third aspect, which is that large numbers of people voted for him even though they completely disagreed with him on the issues. They assumed he must represent their wishes because they projected their hopes onto him. That's the power of charisma.
You can probably see where I'm going with this. Obama's charisma has different sources, but my impression from the campaign trail is that it is as great as anything we've ever seen. It has the same maddening quality as all charisma: it clouds men's minds. It makes them think he's for what they're for even if he's against it. And it allows him slide teflon like away from criticism.
And if this is the charisma he has on the campaign trail, I shudder to think what it will be like once he's wrapped in the magic of an office that has made monkeys seem wrapped in reverence the moment they step into it. FOBW, Obama seems to already have more charisma than most presidents have after their elected.
So the argument for him would be this: if you accept that the differences between him and Clinton are tiny and based on the most evanescent evidence (on campaign statements that no one expects anyone to keep and which everyone knows are spin jobs in the first place); and that if past practice is any guide, their policy will probably diverge drastically from what they campaign on; and that the policy arc they end up will probably in the end be pretty much the same, since they've got the same think tanks, the same pressure groups and the same balance of forces; then the only real difference between the candidates will be how well they sell it.
And in addition to this, Obama holds out the hope of doing for the Democrats what Reagan did for the Republicans: welding the factions that hate each other into an enduring whole; and adding a fatty layer of people in the middle (Obama democrats, they'll be called); all by the force of his charisma.
On this argument, the Republicans didn't have any more ideas in 1980 than the Democrats have now, and they weren't any less sectarian or wonky. But what made their ideas into enduring national common sense was Reagan's ability to simplify them while speaking them in that trust-inspiring voice and resonating with the vocabulary of the past. And then winning on it.
Now, of course, if you hate both parties, the idea of the Democrats becoming a more coherent party wouldn't make you any happier -- and even less if they pulled off this feat a few steps to the right of where they are now.
And doubly of course, this is *very* speculative off the wall line of argument.
But it's the best I could come up with! :o)
Michael