Populism, the presidency and the age of Oprah
Posted 45 weeks 22 hours ago byI think that Jonah Goldberg is wrong when he mocks the need of American voters to like and identify with their president:
"Authenticity" -- on which voters supposedly place such a premium -- is really just a label put on self-validation. Bill Clinton infamously promised he "felt our pain." Hillary Clinton similarly sold her 2000 bid for the Senate by arguing that she was "more concerned about the issues that concern New Yorkers" than her competitor. Question: Would you prefer a blase surgeon remove your appendix or a very concerned plumber?
In a sense, this is populism updated for the age of "Oprah" and "Dr. Phil." Principles and policy details take a back seat to the need to say "there, there -- I understand" to the voters.
But Goldberg is setting up a false choice. If I'm getting my appendix out, what I really want is a concerned surgeon, not a blase one.
Similarly, I don't think Americans aren't looking for a president they like for its own sake. George W. Bush won the "guy I'd like to have a beer with" primary two straight elections, and most people seem to realize that didn't work out so well. But most people aren't wonks, with time to sift through differing policy positions. So they look for candidates who appear sympathetic to their values, hoping that understanding will translate into wise and effective policies.
This is why Huckabee is doing so well, because he's been able to empathize -- and I'm paraphrasing here -- with the people who are getting laid off instead of the people doing the laying off. And this is why Obama appears to be on the verge of an amazing success. He even makes conservatives feel like he feels their pain. Empathy isn't the end-all, be-all in presidential qualifications, but it's not a bad place to start.
Thoughts
Did you read David Brooks this morning?
Submitted on January 8th, 2008 by JoelHe didn't sound like a guy who wanted to vote against Obama. I mean, yeah, he'll vote against Obama. But I don't think he really wants to.
In any case, concentrating on Brooks et al misses the point. Those people are professional conservatives; of course they're not going to throw in with him. But remember the "Reagan Democrats" of the 1980s? You're not just a little worried that we're looking at the "Obama Republicans" of the 2000s?
I don't know that it's possible to empathize with millions of people, but I think it is possible to recognize currents in the zeitgeist and to present yourself accordingly. Maybe that's posturing -- in fact, sure it's posturing -- but isn't that a little bit of what politics (as opposed to governance) is about?
If you're faced with "I'm worried about your health care" or "let them eat cake," which candidate are you more inclined to support?
Professional versus personal?
Submitted on January 8th, 2008 by BenJoel, I think by "blase" Jonah really means disinterested or professionally detached, as opposed to, uninterested and bored.
Jonah is arguing that the "concern" that candidates such as Clinton, Obama, Edwards and Huckabee demonstrate is, at bottom, posturing. Is it really possible to "empathize" with thousands or millions of people? Or is it the peculiar talent -- call it charisma, rather than empathy -- of the politician in the Oprah age?
You even note, citing Howard Kurtz's column, that Obama makes conservatives feel like he feels their pain. Sure, he's impressive. But you don't really think guys like Bennett, Limbaugh, Scarborough and Brooks are going to throw in with a liberal Democrat, do you?