Book of the Month

Doctor Cleveland's picture

Mister Hope Is Secretly Mister Reliable

The day before President Obama announced his Afghanistan strategy, Politico published John F. Harris's very important and newsy thumbsucker about the peril that "anti-Obama storylines" pose to Obama's Presidency. The first sentence of the article is, no kidding, "Presidential politics is about storytelling."

Storytelling. Huh. And here I thought it was about the economy and the two wars.

The Obama Presidency could easily founder. But failure is more likely to come from the Afghan highlands or the malarial swamps of Wall Street than from catchy Beltway meta-narratives. I know the media is always telling us how appearance is reality. But actually it only looks like it.

Narratives aren't primarily ways to understand a politician or a campaign. They are ways to misunderstand it. Indeed, that is what Harris is pushing: seven largely inaccurate perceptions that could lead to Obama failing even if he does the right things for the country. It's a strange thing to find such a topic cool or interesting, but Harris's admiring connoisseurship shines through the piece. He feels a bit like those kids who spend their free time crafting the nastiest computer viruses they can: all the pleasure lies in the craftmanship and destructive power of the meme.

For what it's worth, one of the narratives into which the press will inevitably conscript Obama is Icarus Falls to Earth, in which the shining idealist Obama is grounded by hard reality. In fact, they started writing this story the night he won the Iowa primaries. But it won't be true, because that pleasingly formed but misleading narrative is grounded upon the pleasingly formed but misleading narratives fostered by Obama's own campaign: the notion that he was Mr. Hope and Captain Change, the candidate of revolutionary optimism.

Barack Obama is, whatever else you make of him, an incredibly unlikely youth leader. And while he was clearly popular with the young and had a fabulous ground organization, he wasn't the leader of anything like a youth movement per se. He is not, like most youth movement leaders, a firebrand. He's more like your studious buddy that your parents liked, because he was a safe driver and might be a good influence on you. He's the motorcycle-less boyfriend your parents hoped you would marry: Mr. Reliable. Least of all is Obama anything approaching a revolutionary. And that was extremely evident during the election. He did campaign on Hope and Change, as campaign themes, but his promises were about sane, pragmatic policy adjustments, optimistic but very much grounded in reality. The real Barack Obama isn't going to fall to earth because he's always been standing on it. If he fails, it will be from an excess of caution.

Will this shock the voters? Not really. I suspect that the truth we haven't told, the story hiding behind the story of Mister Hope, is that Obama won in large part because he is so satisfyingly boring and calm, so capably reassuring. Even his soaring rhetoric isn't flashy or "exciting." It's resolutely reasonable and calm: a triumph of oratorical serenity. Voters know this, and feel this. The election was conducted at a time of national emergency, and Barack Obama is essentially the guy you trust to make medical decisions for your parents. He never seems rattled; he's able to take in complicated information under pressure, and then ask the necessary questions and make the necessary decisions. John McCain, who works very hard to project a youthful, devil-may-care attitude, is a great candidate for a bored and jaded electorate, but a bad match for an anxious one. Obama, on the other hand, can be downright soothing.

If the Republicans want to beat him, this is what they have to remember. They have to do more than beat Obama up. They have to provide an alternative, and that alternative has to feel safe. If the Obama Presidency fails, it almost certainly means that the country will sink deeper into crisis. And while voters would want to punish Obama for that, what they would want most of all is someone to fix things. That person needs to feel reliable, capable, and calm, to be someone voters trust instinctively. The Republicans will need their own Obama, but first they need to figure out who Obama is.

Good piece, as usual. Harris's treatment is certainly facile, but I don't think the idea that "storytelling" plays an important political role contradicts your contention that fictional stories about Obama will fail to persuade voters. The most effective political narratives are those that fit the facts. Indeed, Harris notes that the pro-Obama narrative in 2008, featuring "an almost mystically talented young idealist who stood for change in a disciplined and thoughtful way" was more effective than the anti-Obama narrative, "featuring an opportunistic Chicago pol with dubious relationships who was more liberal than he was letting on." Though Harris doesn't say why, I read him as implying that the latter simply didn't ring true.

When you describe Obama as "your studious buddy that your parents liked, because he was a safe driver and might be a good influence on you," you are also telling a story. You make a character of him just as much as Harris does. But it's a good story because it rings true, and I think that you're right that most voters will feel the same.

But many will not. They will be persuaded by other stories that better fit their perceptions of his presidency, and I find Harris's attempt to present those alternatives to be a reasonable if cynical exercise.

Reasonable and cynical are synonyms, Genghis.

Ah, fair enough Genghis. You got me.

How about this: Harris, like most of the press, has had a hard time crafting an anti-Obama narrative that will stick, because they miss or misunderstand important elements of his apepal.

Much better. Obama is king of apepal.

Presidential campaigning is about storytelling too, and the story we were sold about Obama is not what we've gotten.

I suspect that the truth we haven't told, the story hiding behind the story of Mister Hope, is that Obama won in large part because he is so satisfyingly boring and calm, so capably reassuring. Even his soaring rhetoric isn't flashy or "exciting." It's resolutely reasonable and calm: a triumph of oratorical serenity. Voters know this, and feel this.

That is some impressive revisionist storytelling right there.  That may be who Obama actually is now, but that's not the candidate that ran last year and was able to generate such tremendous grassroots support.  That was this guy.

Behind the glitz and the oratory when you got down to his policies, he wasn't revolutionary.  But who read those policies?  Certainly not his supporters who spent the primary season arguing that Obama was more "progressive" than Hillary or there was daylight between them in the foreign policy department.  Who questioned him on policy?  Not the media (with the notable exception of Krugman).  Hillary got hammered for more and more detail on her policies, Obama got away with blathering generalities that allowed people to read whatever they wanted to into his positions.  The media was all caught up in the imagery and the storyline and the thrill that went up Chris Matthews leg when Obama was nigh that they didn't have time for substance.

But here's the thing - when you run on a platform of bringing change to Washington and turn into the same-old same-old, you lose the passion of the people energized during the campaign.  The Republicans don't have to script a narrative of Obama falling to Earth.  He's doing a pretty good job of that himself. And with rising unemployment, a poor economy, the Democrats bailing out Wall Street while leaving homeowners in foreclosure to fend for themselves, I don't think people are going to be looking for another fairytale in 2010 or 2012.


That was certainly the Obama story early in the primary, but it was replaced during the G.E. with something closer to Cleveland's version, the result of a deliberate effort by the Obama campaign (which says something about the way politicians manipulate these stories).

But dij, you sound a lot like a disillusioned supporter despite the fact that you never fell for the soaring oratory story during the primary.

I couldn't disagree more.  Even in the general election Obama was running on a platform of bringing real change to Washington, changing the way politics worked and being more concerned with Main Street than Wall Street.  That storyline has been severely challenged by his first year in office.  I don't consider making Tom D'ass-schill a major player on health care reform and inviting in PhRMA for backrrom negotiations consistent with his pledges on ridding Washington of lobbyist influence, and certainly not consistent with his pledges of transparency.  I don't think giving massive no-strings-attached bailouts to the banks while trying to "shame" banks into mortgage modifcations for homeowners in danger of foreclosure is consistent with his main street first pledge.

I was skeptical of Obama and his ability to put his words into action.  The disillusionment comes from the fact that he isn't even making a minimal effort to be true to the storyline his campaign so carefully crafted.  I honestly didn't think when I pulled the lever for Obama last December that he had no principles he was willing to stick to.  Of course I knew on domestic policy he'd be to the right of Bill Clinton, but who could have known he'd have sell out his campaign pledges on lobbyists and the rule of law and civil liberties?   I honestly can't think of a single principle he's stuck to other than compromise (if you generously describe compromise as turning over your agenda to our three headed President Snowe, Collins & Baucus).   Even I was not that cynical to think the whole storyline was a fraud.

Even in the general election Obama was running on a platform of bringing real change to Washington, changing the way politics worked and being more concerned with Main Street than Wall Street.

Yes, that's true. But he also deliberately conveyed sobriety and unflappability, the traits that Cleveland admires. They're not mutually exclusive.

Nonetheless, I agree with you that we haven't seen a whole lot of change in the way Washington works or even moves in that direction.

Latest Comments