Weighing in on the Obama Hype

I've decided to weigh in on the biggest US craze since subprime lending--Obamamania. The news reports are full of reports of fainting women and rock-star crowds at Obama's political rallies. Even the mighty Clintons appear to have been swept aside by the tide. The real question everyone has is what is driving this movement? Searching inquiries by smart people haven't really found a satisfactory answer. So, I thought I'd weigh in with my thoughts.

Newsweek put out an interesting article today about Obama's changes. After a searching analysis of the crumbs of policy that he's accidentally let drip from his mouth over the last few months, they have reached this conclusion: he has no new policies.

Ladies and gentlemen, Elvis, has left the building! Obama's not about change any more than Hillary Clinton is about change. The change Obama is promising is the change from a Republican to a Democratic administration. Obama's policies aren't about change or non-partisanship, they're normal liberal policies that Republicans are going to oppose. That's something that happens every few years, and usually, people don't get so excited about it that they faint. Maybe Obama will try and be really nice with the Republicans, but you can guess how long that will last. So, ultimately, Obama's campaign holds no hope of change in partisan politics or in policies. Substantive change can't be the reason for the hype, because there isn't any.

Perhaps everything is explained by the fact that Obama is a good speaker. Maybe people are so starved for decent oratory after 8 years of President Bush that they want to elect the best speaker possible. At least we would have no more bad State of the Union Addresses or embarrassing speeches abroad. On that score, I think that Obama is the clear winner. When Obama speaks he sounds just like a southern preacher able to stir up a crowd. In some ways, it reminds me of Burt Lancaster in Elmer Gantry. If this is really the case, isn't it ironic that many of my intellectual liberal friends fall under the spell of a political preacher just as easily as some of the ignorant, easily-deceived members of the religious right who listened to Jimmy Swaggart. Obama's speeches have no substance in them, but crowd members sway back and forth together chanting "yes we can" just like they were at a southern revival meeting.

The final possibility is that the mania exists because Obama is the first major African-America candidate. There may be something to this one, especially for African-Americans and other minorities. But, we also have the first major female candidate, and we none of the mania there. This certainly does not explain it all.

Here we come to the last possible explanation: maybe this is all about procedural change. Maybe it's simply the way Obama has chosen to run his campaign appeals to people so much they are willing to overlook everything else--especially when there is no real alternative except more of Clinton/Bush and a rather unexciting old white man with quite a temper. I think this may actually be the most likely explanation at all. Obama has run the type of campaign that people were hungry for, and they have put aside any concerns about his substance and policies because they are just not excited about any alternatives.

So, here's my tentative conclusion: Obamamania is a product of: (1) America's history of slavery; (2) 17 straight years of Clinton-Bush; and (3) an extremely weak candidate pool in 2008. Without the combination of these three at this time, there would be no Obamamania. I'm not saying that Obama wouldn't be elected under other circumstances, but he'd be forced to run a different campaign--one on substance--and there would be no fainting women or rock concert rallies. But, times are what they are, and it makes Obama seem destined for the Presidency. I think he'll probably get it (although there is a long time to go). I feel sorry for the person elected, though. I predict that the economy will tank and they'll have a rough time of things. We'll see how long America will be able to forgive President Obama.

#31 Kenneth Pike on February 21, 2008 10:10 AM

Good analysis. I think that point (2) is especially significant--it certainly has influenced my outlook on the election. I really struggled with the "issue voter" outlook on this one (http://kennethpike.com/blog/whats_at_stake.html) and finally decided that I can't vote issues in this election because none of the candidates agree with me on a majority of salient positions. FWIW, I'm registered as a Republican in Arizona.

Absent a candidate I can support on policy, who do I vote for? I think there is a qualitative power in having a charismatic president, regardless of any policy concerns.

I would also add that a lot of Obama's hype is coming via the Internet, which is dominated by people who like Obama's position on technology. The Newsweek article in particular is a little offensive to me; Obama takes positions on things like Net Neutrality, issues that McCain and Clinton don't seem to be aware of, let alone capable of understanding or getting right. He's one of the few politicians out there with a comprehensive technology strategy. Maybe this is small potatoes next to issues like health care or abortion, but to say that he has "no new policies" is to overlook the fact that Obama understands technology better than any presidential candidate we've had since, well, probably since Jefferson (http://blag.xkcd.com/2008/01/28/obama/).

On a related note, Obama is committed to open government--another issue that doesn't even register on McCain's or Clinton's radar. As technology becomes more and more integrated into our lives, the government's use (and misuse) of technology becomes increasingly important, even though most people don't yet realize it.

I'll be the first to agree that Obama is a pretty unoriginal liberal on a lot of the "hot button" issues. But Obama is at least as substantive as his opponents, and in some cases he's actually got more to say.

Just my two cents. d^_^b

#32 curt on February 21, 2008 07:06 PM

First of all, congrats on the publication! I'll look forward to reading your article.

Even though I made a little fun of the oratory aspect of Obama's hype, I really think that a major function of the president is to be a public face of the American government. I actually think that it's a significant quality in a president. When a president can motivate people, they react to their government more favorably and things happen. America loves a certain kind of leader, and they respond to words and big ideas. I'm a big idea kind of guy and one thing I love about my oft-criticized country is that American's respond to a vision of an ideal. Obama has the ability to inspire and motivate more than anyone since Reagan, and it's not insignificant. So, I think it's a big cause of the hype and it's not as irrelevant as some people think. On the other hand, there is no doubt in my mind that the hype is excessive and pretty clearly irrational (even by American political standards) when normal people are routinely physically overcome by a "political" speaker.

I'll be honest and say that I'm not really aware of Obama's positions on technology, and I think that the vast majority of the voters are in the same position as me. I'll agree with you that Obama knows more about technology than any candidate we've ever had, almost by default. The alternatives (esp. McCain) seem to be technological idiots. At least we won't have to hear about "the google" if he is elected president. But I just don't think his tech positions make any significant contribution to the hype.

I also agree that he is just as substantive as any other candidate--Republican or Democrat. But he has run a less substantive campaign than any of them (and that's saying something). I respect his intellect and ability, but I haven't see that he's run on that in any significant way.

Anyway, I'm really interested in seeing how this all plays out. My intuition is that he'll be elected president, although I won't vote for him. I just have a hard time getting fired up about this election, because, like you, there is no candidate that I feel particularly tied to. At this point, I think I'm most impressed by Ron Paul, and am leaning toward writing in his name at election time. But, we'll see. Maybe I'll be convinced otherwise. There's a long time to go.

what's new?

i recommend...

posted by Curt, on February 20, 2008 02:32 pm

#31 Kenneth Pike on February 21, 2008 10:10 AM

#32 curt on February 21, 2008 07:06 PM

Add New Comment