[Gunnair]

Quote:

Comments
National Post Aug 5, 2011 – 12:21 PM ET | Last Updated: Aug 5, 2011 2:08 PM ET

From Bloomberg, via Reason, is a column on why Barack Obama has proved so disappointing to his most enthusiastic supporters. According to Virginia Postrel, it’s not so much Obama that’s the problem, it’s the nature of the attraction that won him support in the first place.

Although the candidate was said to have the benefit of charisma,

There was only one problem. Obama wasn’t charismatic. He was glamorous — powerfully, persuasively, seductively so. His glamour worked as well on Bennis and Zelleke as it did on voters.

What’s the difference? Charisma moves the audience to share a leader’s vision. Glamour, on the other hand, inspires the audience to project its own desires onto the leader (or movie star or tropical resort or new car): to see in the glamorous object a symbol of escape and transformation that makes the ideal feel attainable. The meaning of glamour, in other words, lies entirely in the audience’s mind.

… If you think of Barack Obama as a charismatic president, it is hard to explain why his supporters are so angry. He should be able to win them over. But if you understand his appeal as glamour, then his problems aren’t surprising.

With glamour, any specific action that stands outside the fantasy breaks the spell, alienating supporters who disagree. Even trying to remain above the fray, as Obama often does, infuriates those who want a fighter.

A well-established sales tool, glamour is a tremendous asset if you’re running for office. But once you have to govern, it’s a problem. Although charisma can continue to inspire, glamour is guaranteed to disillusion. The only thing surprising about Obama’s predicament is how few people expected it.
.
National Post

[DanSC]

Very very insightful

[Gunnair]

I thought so as well.

[Thanos]

Not really. It's facile and cheap, and entirely typical of what appears in the National Post when it comes to discussions of US politics.

Name a single other President in recent memory who's faced the kind of antagonism, obstructionism, and outright hatred that Barack Obama's had to endure at the hands of the GOP, the TeaParty, and the batshit insane "conservative" media machine. And name any other Democratic President who's been so betrayed and backstabbed by the cowardly Blue Dog Democrats who end up siding with the GOP more often than they do with the rest of their own party. A real critical analysis of the last three years would highlite more of the accomplishments that have actually been made in the face of such unceasing and malicious scorn instead of resorting to nonsensical babble about "glamour" and "charisma" that the dope who wrote that article for the Post chose to concentrate on.

[Gunnair]

Thanos wrote:

Not really. It's facile and cheap, and entirely typical of what appears in the National Post when it comes to discussions of US politics.

Name a single other President in recent memory who's faced the kind of antagonism, obstructionism, and outright hatred that Barack Obama's had to endure at the hands of the GOP, the TeaParty, and the batshit insane "conservative" media machine. And name any other Democratic President who's been so betrayed and backstabbed by the cowardly Blue Dog Democrats who end up siding with the GOP more often than they do with the rest of their own party. A real critical analysis of the last three years would highlite more of the accomplishments that have actually been made in the face of such unceasing and malicious scorn instead of resorting to nonsensical babble about "glamour" and "charisma" that the dope who wrote that article for the Post chose to concentrate on.

Speaking of facile and cheap. Some very good points are made of Obama, and frankly, I was a great fan at the outset. I still am to a degree, but I also see he has not been able to produce and it's not entirely everyone elses fault as you would suggest. There is a good point made - charisma allows you to influence change, even in the face iof such political adversity. The fact that the honeymoon is over with both the GOP and the Democrates suggests that he may be lacking that charisma. He has not been able to sell his vision beyond the election and a handful of catch phrases which I think is a damned shame. Even today I was watching him trot out the whole "we'll get through this together" and thinking, wow, that's just tired.

[sandorski]

Thanos wrote:

Not really. It's facile and cheap, and entirely typical of what appears in the National Post when it comes to discussions of US politics.

Name a single other President in recent memory who's faced the kind of antagonism, obstructionism, and outright hatred that Barack Obama's had to endure at the hands of the GOP, the TeaParty, and the batshit insane "conservative" media machine. And name any other Democratic President who's been so betrayed and backstabbed by the cowardly Blue Dog Democrats who end up siding with the GOP more often than they do with the rest of their own party. A real critical analysis of the last three years would highlite more of the accomplishments that have actually been made in the face of such unceasing and malicious scorn instead of resorting to nonsensical babble about "glamour" and "charisma" that the dope who wrote that article for the Post chose to concentrate on.

Pretty much this. If the Democrats were as strict adherents to the Party line as Republicans are, Obama may have been able to accomplish something of his Agenda. Unfortunately for him and Progressives in general, the Democrats are too disorganized to push any specific agenda successfully.

[rickc]

Thanos wrote:

Not really. It's facile and cheap, and entirely typical of what appears in the National Post when it comes to discussions of US politics.

Name a single other President in recent memory who's faced the kind of antagonism, obstructionism, and outright hatred that Barack Obama's had to endure at the hands of the GOP, the TeaParty, and the batshit insane "conservative" media machine. And name any other Democratic President who's been so betrayed and backstabbed by the cowardly Blue Dog Democrats who end up siding with the GOP more often than they do with the rest of their own party. A real critical analysis of the last three years would highlite more of the accomplishments that have actually been made in the face of such unceasing and malicious scorn instead of resorting to nonsensical babble about "glamour" and "charisma" that the dope who wrote that article for the Post chose to concentrate on.

I would have to agree with Thanos. I would also add the far left of his party who had unrealistic expectations of what President Obama would acomplish in only two years in office. Its like everyone thought that President Obama was in possesion of a magic wand that he would mearly wave, and every progressive far left idea would magicly become law. No President has that kind of power. Only a dictator has that kind of power. President Obama is a man. He puts his pants on one leg at a time same as the rest of us. I did not vote for President Obama. I am not a member of his political party. I would have to say that President Obama is a VERY charismatic individual. One of the best public speakers ever in U.S. history. Sometimes when he speaks I feel motivated to run out and support his cause, and I am on the far right when it comes to economic policies. I do not recall any speeches from the last three previous Presidents that motivated me to do anything but change the channel on the t.v. I never heard of President Obama before he started running for President. I was not taken in by "glamour". Saying that President Obama lacks charisma is laughable at best. He has charisma in spades. Unfortunately for him he is just one man squeezed between unrealistic left wingers, and unrelenting right wingers. I think that he has handled the pressure extreamely well.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

Gunnair wrote:

Thanos wrote:

Not really. It's facile and cheap, and entirely typical of what appears in the National Post when it comes to discussions of US politics.

Name a single other President in recent memory who's faced the kind of antagonism, obstructionism, and outright hatred that Barack Obama's had to endure at the hands of the GOP, the TeaParty, and the batshit insane "conservative" media machine. And name any other Democratic President who's been so betrayed and backstabbed by the cowardly Blue Dog Democrats who end up siding with the GOP more often than they do with the rest of their own party. A real critical analysis of the last three years would highlite more of the accomplishments that have actually been made in the face of such unceasing and malicious scorn instead of resorting to nonsensical babble about "glamour" and "charisma" that the dope who wrote that article for the Post chose to concentrate on.

Speaking of facile and cheap. Some very good points are made of Obama, and frankly, I was a great fan at the outset. I still am to a degree, but I also see he has not been able to produce and it's not entirely everyone elses fault as you would suggest. There is a good point made - charisma allows you to influence change, even in the face iof such political adversity. The fact that the honeymoon is over with both the GOP and the Democrates suggests that he may be lacking that charisma. He has not been able to sell his vision beyond the election and a handful of catch phrases which I think is a damned shame. Even today I was watching him trot out the whole "we'll get through this together" and thinking, wow, that's just tired.

Wow, that is tired. How about a good ol, "Only through unity can we hope to persevere."

[DanSC]

rickc wrote:

I would also add the far left of his party who had unrealistic expectations of what President Obama would acomplish in only two years in office. Its like everyone thought that President Obama was in possesion of a magic wand that he would mearly wave, and every progressive far left idea would magicly become law.

That's exactly the point the article is making. In 2008, Sen. Obama, an exceptionally brilliant, promising leader in the Democratic Party, took to the national stage with the frankly brilliant slogan of "Yes we can." I'm not being at all facetious when I say that.

The problem was he didn't always clarify exactly what it was we could do; we were all free to add our own hopes and expectations to what we could do. There were two notable exceptions where Obama did clarify: health care reform and letting the temporary Bush tax cuts expire.

Pres. Obama did, after a huge fight and eventual compromise, did pass health care reform; perhaps the greatest achievement in liberal American politics since Social Security. The promising leader became the proven leader, and it seemed like all the hopes that we individually added to "Yes we can!" could be attained.

Now enter the present. After the 2010 election, but before the swearing-in of the Republican-controlled House of Representatives, President Obama signs an extension of the Bush tax cuts. Here, Obama failed to achieve something much less substantial than health care reform, and everyone knew he had failed miserably, even when his party controlled both houses of Congress. The Democrats began to doubt Obama, and the Republicans knew they had him in an extremely weak position entering the new Congressional session. This was the first time we failed to achieve something that Obama specifically told us we could do. Kind of puts a kibosh on the whole "Yes we can" thing.

Now, Obama can't even do something routine like pass the debt ceiling without it becoming a national crisis, and "Yes we can" hasn't applied for several months now. All the hopes that those on the left individually added to "Yes we can" have gone unfulfilled. It's not at all surprising that so many liberal Americans are disappointed.

I do agree that the President has substantial charisma, but the charisma just becomes glamour when it's as generic as "Yes we can."

[PostFactum]

Are they telling what do they can?

[martin14]

PostFactum wrote:

Are they telling what do they can?

Not anymore.....

[rickc]

DanSC wrote:

rickc wrote:

I would also add the far left of his party who had unrealistic expectations of what President Obama would acomplish in only two years in office. Its like everyone thought that President Obama was in possesion of a magic wand that he would mearly wave, and every progressive far left idea would magicly become law.

That's exactly the point the article is making. In 2008, Sen. Obama, an exceptionally brilliant, promising leader in the Democratic Party, took to the national stage with the frankly brilliant slogan of "Yes we can." I'm not being at all facetious when I say that.

The problem was he didn't always clarify exactly what it was we could do; we were all free to add our own hopes and expectations to what we could do. There were two notable exceptions where Obama did clarify: health care reform and letting the temporary Bush tax cuts expire.

Pres. Obama did, after a huge fight and eventual compromise, did pass health care reform; perhaps the greatest achievement in liberal American politics since Social Security. The promising leader became the proven leader, and it seemed like all the hopes that we individually added to "Yes we can!" could be attained.

Now enter the present. After the 2010 election, but before the swearing-in ofent Obama ordered the the Republican-controlled House of Representatives, President Obama signs an extension of the Bush tax cuts. Here, Obama failed to achieve something much less substantial than health care reform, and everyone knew he had failed miserably, even when his party controlled both houses of Congress. The Democrats began to doubt Obama, and the Republicans knew they had him in an extremely weak position entering the new Congressional session. This was the first time we failed to achieve something that Obama specifically told us we could do. Kind of puts a kibosh on the whole "Yes we can" thing.

Now, Obama can't even do something routine like pass the debt ceiling without it becoming a national crisis, and "Yes we can" hasn't applied for several months now. All the hopes that those on the left individually added to "Yes we can" have gone unfulfilled. It's not at all surprising that so many liberal Americans are disappointed.

I do agree that the President has substantial charisma, but the charisma just becomes glamour when it's as generic as "Yes we can."

First off, welcome back. I have not seen you on the forums for a few weeks. Hope you had a good vacation. I would say that President Obama winning any battles on healthcare reform would up there with storming the beaches of Normandy. When was the last significant reforms on healthcare made? Were you even alive? I was a baby during the Johnson adminisrtation. Correct me if I am wrong, but was that not the last time any meaningful laws were passed oncerning healthcare in America? The fact that President Obama could get any thing passed in that department,has to put him in the same league as Johnson in my book. The left might not of been a fan of President Johnson's veiws on Vietnam, but they would have to go back to FDR's administation to find a bigger fan of the rest of their platform.

President Obama has cleared the way for gays to openly serve in the military. President Clinton could not get this done. President Obama ordered the execution and arrest of pirates holding American citizens hostage. President Carter could not get this done. President Obama ordered the arrest or execution of Osama Bin Laden. President Bush could not get this done. The man has acclomplished more in two years than some Pesidents do in eight. The fact that his own supporters have turned on him for not doing 100% of what he said he would, shows what a bunch of dreamers some of our countrymen on the left have turned into. I do not see anyone giving him credit for the things he has acheived. I only see people whining about what he has not done. This is like seeing someone from a team I hate score six goals in a game against my team, and then have to listen to their fans whine about how it should be more. People of the left: get off the mans back already! Do you really think that any other politician in America can do a better job for you? Seriously?

[xerxes]

Personally, my disappointment with Obama is not much over glamour, but with ability. Yes, he has gotten a lot accomplished already in his term, but it's his lack of fight on big issues that's so infuriating. On health care reform, the Bush tax cuts, and now the debt ceiling, he's given up his ground under irrational Republican whining.

Yes, compromise and conciliation are generally positive traits, but once, just once, I'd like to see Obama take a stand and fight for what he knows is right.

What's even more maddening to me is that each time there's some big issue up for debate, he acts like the Republicans are actually going to negotiate in good faith when it's become patently clear they are out only to de-legitimize and disrupt his presidency.

[Gunnair]

xerxes wrote:

Personally, my disappointment with Obama is not much over glamour, but with ability. Yes, he has gotten a lot accomplished already in his term, but it's his lack of fight on big issues that's so infuriating. On health care reform, the Bush tax cuts, and now the debt ceiling, he's given up his ground under irrational Republican whining.

Yes, compromise and conciliation are generally positive traits, but once, just once, I'd like to see Obama take a stand and fight for what he knows is right.

What's even more maddening to me is that each time there's some big issue up for debate, he acts like the Republicans are actually going to negotiate in good faith when it's become patently clear they are out only to de-legitimize and disrupt his presidency.

Agreed. I guess that's also part of it - the failure of the charisma to influence change in his opponents, but also that lack of, "Shut the fuck up, we're doing it this way,"Yes he pushed through health care, but he failed to get buyoff and if anything has created such a polarized atmosphere with it and other issues that he can no longer move forward with things like deficit increases without them turning into political a series of crises.

[DanSC]

Thanks rickc. Recently changed careers and moved to a new city; busy time.

You make a good point in Obama finally scrapping Clinton's misguided Don't Ask Don't Tell policy, but there's one big catch in that. While Obama was lobbying for the repeal in Congress, he was actively fighting a case, brought by a gay-friendly conservative group called the Log Cabin Republicans, in federal court. I can see the definite advantages to passing a repeal in the legislature and not just having the court scrap it, but it seemed very disingenuous.