OK, so my guy won and I'm thrilled. Let there be no mistake. The observations contained herein have nothing to do with the "buyer's remorse" that several of the pundits on Brit Hume's FOX show kept wishing on entrenched Obama supporters in the final days, when a McCain defeat began to look inevitable.
But now that the election is a done deal, I want to say a few things about what we seek in a candidate and leader. I'm mindful of this primarily because of all the chatter about Sarah Palin's natural ascension to the leadership of the GOP for 2012 (and I can't even believe people are already talking about that at
a time when that silly jingle from McCain's TV ads still rings in our ears). Thing is, I have to say it applies, at least somewhat, to Barack, too. We've talked around the edges of this before. I think we need to address it head-on.
What makes someone a good candidate? That he or she "connects with voters"? Has "charisma"? Is "attractive" and "telegenic"? I'm thinking that all of that should be irrelevant, or close to it. Yet evidence suggests that such attributes are increasingly important in determining candidate viability. In fact, that understates the case: They are so important that they dwarf characteristics like intelligence, knowledge, fairness, temperament, experience, etc., which happen to be the characteristics that should matter. (To be accurate, this has been true in varying degrees ever since the telegenic JFK made Richard Nixon look klutzy and vaguely sinister by comparison in those infamous televised debates of 1960. It's just truer than ever today.) Now, I do believe that Obama proved himself over the course of the past year. He showed that there was substance behind the flash; I'm not sure I've ever seen a more impressive public figure. That doesn't take away the question: On the list of reasons, the real reasons, why Barack Obama is our president-elect today, where does competency, or at least the presumption of same, fall? Or was this about him "giving great speech," and being suave and cool and young* and inspirational and black.
To return to Palin: By the end of it all I was sick of hearing apologists like the ubiquitous and virtually interchangeable Buchanan siblings, Pat and Bay, praise everything about Sarah Palin except what really makes someone a good candidate for the nation's second-highest office (and maybe its highest office, on an unscheduled basis, if you're backstopping 72-year-old John McCain). How many times did one of them gush, "The crowds love her!" Are we talking about a presidential candidate here...or Taylor Swift? Then there's the thing about how she has a special-needs child, which was also presented to America as a plus. No offense, but we're looking at personal marginalia like that in a member of a presidential ticket? (And I say that as someone who adores kids and chokes up at the mere sight of a handicapped child; I can't even handle the visuals on the solicitations I get from St. Jude's.) While I'm at it, let me ask: Should a presidential candidate be advocating on behalf of niche causes that touch directly on that candidate's own life? Isn't that what we call, in other settings, a conflict of interest? Or, dare I say, a special interest?
No matter. The Buchanans and a host of others regard** the flirty, effervescent, plain-spoken Palin as a frontrunner for 2012, even though disgruntled McCain aides told reporters the other day that she didn't realize Africa was its own continent. Those early, joking parallels between Palin and that geographically challenged beauty queen don't seem quite as jocular and unfair anymore, eh?
Personally, I've always thought Joe Lieberman was excellent presidential material, and I also applaud Dennis Kucinich for giving it the old college try time and again (although seriously, dude, if you're reading this, you need to stop talking about alien visitors, because it makes people think you are one). On the other side, I think Ron Paul has some great ideas, and often makes a whole lot more sense, if you actually pay attention, than many candidates who are considered electable. But Paul is a good case in point. He comes off as dweebish and way too jittery. He's got that high-pitched, cartoon-character voice, and too often when he stares into the camera, it occurs to me that a
ll we'd need to do is supply a set of antlers and he'd be the classic deer-in-the-headlights. Lieberman is another emigre from Dweebistan, and gets so whiny at times that he sounds like he's doing self-parody.
On the other hand we have the prototype of masculinity and bearing, Arnold Schwarzenegger. Here's a guy whose starring roles in Terminator and other high-profile action flicks gave him an instant following (or "base," in political terms) in California the moment he declared for governor. He even drew upon that in his campaign, famously vowing to "terminate" government waste. (Political observers to this day will refer to him as "the Governator.") Is there any doubt that Schwarzenegger would be a major player in a GOP weathering a serious leadership vacuum, had he simply had the foresight to avoid disqualifying himself from the presidency by being born in Austria? To be fair, most agree that Schwarzenegger has done a credible job as California's governor (though like all Republicans, he's been tainted by his ties to Bush as well as his state's recent financial travails). But I'm not sure that's the point. Or maybe, in a way, it's precisely the point in reverse: that there are lots of supremely qualified people who might do credible jobs—Kucinich? Lieberman? Paul?—who'll never get the chance because they lack the Pizazz Factor. They can excite us with their ideas, but nowadays that's not enough. They're not cute or hot enough. They don't swagger or swish. They haven't perfected their winking skills. Or, just perhaps, their MLK-inflected oratory?
Again, don't get me wrong. I think we got it right this time, for reasons I've enumerated since I first came out for Obama, and that I restated with emphasis in yesterday's post about "healing."
Except...are those the reasons why he actually won? I'm not sure. Not sure at all. And that makes me a little uneasy.
Maybe all of this falls into the bulging category my wife labels "just the way things are." Like a lot of the things we bemoan on this blog. Still....
* Youth is a tricky one. I think it's a valid consideration if it's being viewed through the proper lens: vigor, vitality, resiliency, mental alertness, etc. But if it's being viewed in the sense of the Culture of Youth with which America is obsessed—the hip, celebrity sense that McCain was referencing in those early Paris Hilton—then that gives me pause. And not just because I'm 58.
** At least they're saying they do, at the moment. We'll have to see if that's just a temporary, face-saving position.
But now that the election is a done deal, I want to say a few things about what we seek in a candidate and leader. I'm mindful of this primarily because of all the chatter about Sarah Palin's natural ascension to the leadership of the GOP for 2012 (and I can't even believe people are already talking about that at
a time when that silly jingle from McCain's TV ads still rings in our ears). Thing is, I have to say it applies, at least somewhat, to Barack, too. We've talked around the edges of this before. I think we need to address it head-on.What makes someone a good candidate? That he or she "connects with voters"? Has "charisma"? Is "attractive" and "telegenic"? I'm thinking that all of that should be irrelevant, or close to it. Yet evidence suggests that such attributes are increasingly important in determining candidate viability. In fact, that understates the case: They are so important that they dwarf characteristics like intelligence, knowledge, fairness, temperament, experience, etc., which happen to be the characteristics that should matter. (To be accurate, this has been true in varying degrees ever since the telegenic JFK made Richard Nixon look klutzy and vaguely sinister by comparison in those infamous televised debates of 1960. It's just truer than ever today.) Now, I do believe that Obama proved himself over the course of the past year. He showed that there was substance behind the flash; I'm not sure I've ever seen a more impressive public figure. That doesn't take away the question: On the list of reasons, the real reasons, why Barack Obama is our president-elect today, where does competency, or at least the presumption of same, fall? Or was this about him "giving great speech," and being suave and cool and young* and inspirational and black.
To return to Palin: By the end of it all I was sick of hearing apologists like the ubiquitous and virtually interchangeable Buchanan siblings, Pat and Bay, praise everything about Sarah Palin except what really makes someone a good candidate for the nation's second-highest office (and maybe its highest office, on an unscheduled basis, if you're backstopping 72-year-old John McCain). How many times did one of them gush, "The crowds love her!" Are we talking about a presidential candidate here...or Taylor Swift? Then there's the thing about how she has a special-needs child, which was also presented to America as a plus. No offense, but we're looking at personal marginalia like that in a member of a presidential ticket? (And I say that as someone who adores kids and chokes up at the mere sight of a handicapped child; I can't even handle the visuals on the solicitations I get from St. Jude's.) While I'm at it, let me ask: Should a presidential candidate be advocating on behalf of niche causes that touch directly on that candidate's own life? Isn't that what we call, in other settings, a conflict of interest? Or, dare I say, a special interest?
No matter. The Buchanans and a host of others regard** the flirty, effervescent, plain-spoken Palin as a frontrunner for 2012, even though disgruntled McCain aides told reporters the other day that she didn't realize Africa was its own continent. Those early, joking parallels between Palin and that geographically challenged beauty queen don't seem quite as jocular and unfair anymore, eh?
Personally, I've always thought Joe Lieberman was excellent presidential material, and I also applaud Dennis Kucinich for giving it the old college try time and again (although seriously, dude, if you're reading this, you need to stop talking about alien visitors, because it makes people think you are one). On the other side, I think Ron Paul has some great ideas, and often makes a whole lot more sense, if you actually pay attention, than many candidates who are considered electable. But Paul is a good case in point. He comes off as dweebish and way too jittery. He's got that high-pitched, cartoon-character voice, and too often when he stares into the camera, it occurs to me that a
ll we'd need to do is supply a set of antlers and he'd be the classic deer-in-the-headlights. Lieberman is another emigre from Dweebistan, and gets so whiny at times that he sounds like he's doing self-parody.On the other hand we have the prototype of masculinity and bearing, Arnold Schwarzenegger. Here's a guy whose starring roles in Terminator and other high-profile action flicks gave him an instant following (or "base," in political terms) in California the moment he declared for governor. He even drew upon that in his campaign, famously vowing to "terminate" government waste. (Political observers to this day will refer to him as "the Governator.") Is there any doubt that Schwarzenegger would be a major player in a GOP weathering a serious leadership vacuum, had he simply had the foresight to avoid disqualifying himself from the presidency by being born in Austria? To be fair, most agree that Schwarzenegger has done a credible job as California's governor (though like all Republicans, he's been tainted by his ties to Bush as well as his state's recent financial travails). But I'm not sure that's the point. Or maybe, in a way, it's precisely the point in reverse: that there are lots of supremely qualified people who might do credible jobs—Kucinich? Lieberman? Paul?—who'll never get the chance because they lack the Pizazz Factor. They can excite us with their ideas, but nowadays that's not enough. They're not cute or hot enough. They don't swagger or swish. They haven't perfected their winking skills. Or, just perhaps, their MLK-inflected oratory?
Again, don't get me wrong. I think we got it right this time, for reasons I've enumerated since I first came out for Obama, and that I restated with emphasis in yesterday's post about "healing."
Except...are those the reasons why he actually won? I'm not sure. Not sure at all. And that makes me a little uneasy.
Maybe all of this falls into the bulging category my wife labels "just the way things are." Like a lot of the things we bemoan on this blog. Still....
* Youth is a tricky one. I think it's a valid consideration if it's being viewed through the proper lens: vigor, vitality, resiliency, mental alertness, etc. But if it's being viewed in the sense of the Culture of Youth with which America is obsessed—the hip, celebrity sense that McCain was referencing in those early Paris Hilton—then that gives me pause. And not just because I'm 58.
** At least they're saying they do, at the moment. We'll have to see if that's just a temporary, face-saving position.