Or is this a sort of inverted American exceptionalism? It seemed that Bromwich was claiming some peculiar virtue for those two awful presidents.
In his criticism, Bromwich covers Obama's lying with smooth names, by referring (accurately) to his "...copious reliance on cliché. He knows a cliché when he speaks it. He uses it to accommodate an imagined audience, with a condescension he thinks the audience does not detect."
But the consequence is a lie, an appearance only of (as Bromwich says) "an unanchored populism, a plea for unity among many constituencies without a footing in one. Obama’s gambit has been to carry himself as if, since he comes from everywhere, and every class and tradition flows through him, he can never be accused of being parochial, marginal or the tool of special interests" - which he manifestly is.
--CGE
On Jul 17, 2012, at 7:33 PM, Sayan Bhattacharyya wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 7:43 PM, Carl G. Estabrook
> <galliher at illinois.edu> wrote:
>> What nonsense. Wilson was a vicious imperialist, as shown by his actions in Haiti and in manipulating an anti-war populace into WWI. ("He kept us out of war!")
>>
>> It's true that his combination of mendacity and war-crimes resembles Obama's.
>
>
> Yes, but there is nothing that says that one cannot be a "vicious
> imperialist" and possess the quirk of "the
> national character, a blend of high resolve and extreme detachment,
> romantic idealism and an almost opaque unconcern with follow-through"
> at the same time.
>
> These things are not mutually exclusive.
>
>
>>
>>
>> On Jul 17, 2012, at 5:05 PM, Wojtek S wrote:
>>
>>> http://www.lrb.co.uk/v34/n13/david-bromwich/diary
>>>
>>> Another peace president who became a war president – but a larger
>>> affinity may be noticed. Wilson and Obama share an odd quirk of the
>>> national character, a blend of high resolve and extreme detachment,
>>> romantic idealism and an almost opaque unconcern with follow-through.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Wojtek
>>>
>>> "An anarchist is a neoliberal without money."
>>>