OPD 6/17
Edited by Gillian Palmer
US: The Former President
The president is becoming a powerful and inaccessible celebrity. Young people are disappointed. There is a Republican alternative, but he is not strong enough yet.
Bitter summer: Could it be otherwise when the prospects are confusing, the forecast negative and President Obama’s second term could become an abstract concept? Not to panic; truth be told, the disillusioned ring bells at the White House. The innate sensationalism of Spike Lee, who still refers to Obama as “my man,” pushes him to predict the electoral race to be dangerous. The popular urge and enthusiasm are missing, the economic issues are difficult to digest, the lack of employment makes people unhappy and, at this point, the fact that the man in power is African-American does not help. This is what has led Lee to the devastating conclusion that whoever is unhappy with Obama’s work is racist. But it is not the first time the director of “Do the Right Thing” has asserted this intellectual slip. Still, Spike Lee concludes his analysis with another prophecy worth taking into account: “Once we get to the debates, my man is going to tear [Romney] up.” [http://atlantablackstar.com/2012/06/13/spike-lee-says-romney-cant-hang-with-president-obama/] Is it likely? It could be. However, it is impossible to predict with the accelerating scenario. Even the iPad version of the Huffington Post came out with a cover which highlights Spike Lee’s point of view: the young people who elected Obama are disappointed.
An easy election scarcely ever happens. A re-election, in times of national discontent, cannot be taken for granted. People are hesitant and seek reasons to be optimistic. The declarations of fidelity vanish and the feelings of resentment and disillusion prevail every day. One thing Obama lost is the race against time in the useless attempt to get the situation under control before it is time for him to be examined again. He did some things and obtained results, but the American sky is not clear. Besides, the latest data are not very encouraging: jobs increased by only 69,000 in May, a disappointing figure; the unemployment rate rose; production slowed down; consumers are breathless and the stock exchange suffers constant hemorrhage. Obama says, “It is because of the European spiral.” [http://www.forexlive.com/blog/2012/06/08/obama-nervous-mkts-aggravating-downward-spiral-in-europe/] Americans, in general, don’t know what he is referring to, turning this message into a strategic mistake — even more so when remembering how “European” Obama used to be. This particular fact may irritate the most passionless voters. Old Europe, is it an example or a disaster?
The all-knowing but far from infallible James Carville, a veteran Democrat strategist, says that the blunder that Obama is making in the electoral message is highlighting the efforts that were made, the catastrophes that were avoided and the limited economic successes achieved. The shared sentiment is that things will never come back to what they once were and that happy times are over, the future is grim and depends primarily on uncertainties which even the delegate of happiness — that is, the president — has limited agency on.
Americans do not feel reassured and give in to the temptation of change in the air by giving heed to those who say that everything is wrong.
In Carville’s line of argument, there is a significant maximalist contempt, distinguished from the analyses of strategists, obsessed with the idea of “fulminating.” Yet, there is some truth in them as far as the amount of uncertainty which this election will carry until the end, encapsulated in the question: “How many indecisive voters and how many states will trust Obama again?” Besides, another wise observation suggests that, this time, American voters will weigh the value of their choice more than ever before, because they have never felt the future depended so much on the man they choose as president. Therefore the clamor growing in polls needs to be reassessed, while emphasis needs be laid on changing Obama’s communication style and the related chosen subjects to discuss. This is because America is wading, the image of Obama playing a magical ferryman is outdated, and what the president now invokes is first of all “trust” — in what he does and in his leadership — based on the competence, lucidity and vision he embodies. Will he obtain what he desires? One certainty is that he will need to limit the “we’re doing better” generalizations. Many people, in front of the TV in the living room, shake their head and know it is not true, that things are not getting better as they should and that the person in charge either does not know it, does not understand or is leading them on.
During the heroic times of his first accession, sympathy was the most powerful and innovative weapon Obama had. He gave the impression of understanding, sympathizing with the average American and his difficulties, making them his own and promising to change them during his term.
The mistake the president now needs to avoid making is to talk cynically about the petty politician who flaunts a “win all” and does not have citizenship in the country. It is essential. Obama cannot stop being the original Obama, the one projected by Michelle and Axelrod, who became a fascinating, celebrity-like, tired and powerful but aloof Obama. He needs to reconnect to people who loved him and do what is technically impossible for Romney, which is to share. He needs to regain the familiarity which enchanted America, his value given to original experiences and his background as a revivalist preacher. He sways. There is no point in hiding behind the hard results of his government. He should be dedicated to understanding the pain of the country, which no longer finds its roots.
Then there’s Romney: How many chances does the Republican candidate have to destroy Obama’s social structure? He has some, but not many. This is because he lives in the reflection of the work of the president and benefits from his misfortunes. However, he does not represent a strong and effective alternative opinion, despite the liberal generalizations which spread like propaganda in a small portion of the country. Besides, he has internal battles to win, with a conservative country unhappy to be represented by a Mormon who always lacks courage and honesty. Of course, Romney can ask Reagan’s question to American citizens: “Are you better off now than you were four years ago?” [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1980] Yett his representation of the alternative way does not have the strength the old ham actor had, nor the emotional drag effect, which is similar to that of a mint popsicle.
Does Obama need to fear Romney? He needs to respect him, as he respected McCain four years ago, by refusing to play dirty and by imposing his innovative angle, keeping distances, relying on personality strength that — as Spike Lee professed — Romney cannot compete with. Without making blunders, indecent provocations and outdated moves — many analyzed him deeply, listening to him take the field on the homosexual issue, not for the points discussed but for the timing. All this is contained in the fact that Obama is no longer an unconquerable wave which the project-nation cannot wait to be submerged by. He is a great, active politician putting himself to the test and giving what he can. The numbers are hanging on his side, but the imbalances can be changed any time now, depending on how the indecisive will shift. This is precisely where Romney, toughened by four years and fresh demands, waits for him, pointing at his failures. Romney is not a hero, nor the product of popular imagination; he plays in the league of Nixon and Bush Senior. If he wins, it will be because Obama stopped to expand himself. Otherwise, it will be because the myth of Obama has ceased to convince.
Bitter summer: Could it be otherwise when the prospects are confusing, the forecast negative and President Obama’s second term could become an abstract concept? Not to panic; truth be told, the disillusioned ring bells at the White House. The innate sensationalism of Spike Lee, who still refers to Obama as “my man,” pushes him to predict the electoral race to be dangerous. The popular urge and enthusiasm are missing, the economic issues are difficult to digest, the lack of employment makes people unhappy and, at this point, the fact that the man in power is African-American does not help. This is what has led Lee to the devastating conclusion that whoever is unhappy with Obama’s work is racist. But it is not the first time the director of “Do the Right Thing” has asserted this intellectual slip. Still, Spike Lee concludes his analysis with another prophecy worth taking into account: “Once we get to the debates, my man is going to tear [Romney] up.” [http://atlantablackstar.com/2012/06/13/spike-lee-says-romney-cant-hang-with-president-obama/] Is it likely? It could be. However, it is impossible to predict with the accelerating scenario. Even the iPad version of the Huffington Post came out with a cover which highlights Spike Lee’s point of view: the young people who elected Obama are disappointed.
An easy election scarcely ever happens. A re-election, in times of national discontent, cannot be taken for granted. People are hesitant and seek reasons to be optimistic. The declarations of fidelity vanish and the feelings of resentment and disillusion prevail every day. One thing Obama lost is the race against time in the useless attempt to get the situation under control before it is time for him to be examined again. He did some things and obtained results, but the American sky is not clear. Besides, the latest data are not very encouraging: jobs increased by only 69,000 in May, a disappointing figure; the unemployment rate rose; production slowed down; consumers are breathless and the stock exchange suffers constant hemorrhage. Obama says, “It is because of the European spiral.” [http://www.forexlive.com/blog/2012/06/08/obama-nervous-mkts-aggravating-downward-spiral-in-europe/] Americans, in general, don’t know what he is referring to, turning this message into a strategic mistake — even more so when remembering how “European” Obama used to be. This particular fact may irritate the most passionless voters. Old Europe, is it an example or a disaster?
The all-knowing but far from infallible James Carville, a veteran Democrat strategist, says that the blunder that Obama is making in the electoral message is highlighting the efforts that were made, the catastrophes that were avoided and the limited economic successes achieved. The shared sentiment is that things will never come back to what they once were and that happy times are over, the future is grim and depends primarily on uncertainties which even the delegate of happiness — that is, the president — has limited agency on.
Americans do not feel reassured and give in to the temptation of change in the air by giving heed to those who say that everything is wrong.
In Carville’s line of argument, there is a significant maximalist contempt, distinguished from the analyses of strategists, obsessed with the idea of “fulminating.” Yet, there is some truth in them as far as the amount of uncertainty which this election will carry until the end, encapsulated in the question: “How many indecisive voters and how many states will trust Obama again?” Besides, another wise observation suggests that, this time, American voters will weigh the value of their choice more than ever before, because they have never felt the future depended so much on the man they choose as president. Therefore the clamor growing in polls needs to be reassessed, while emphasis needs be laid on changing Obama’s communication style and the related chosen subjects to discuss. This is because America is wading, the image of Obama playing a magical ferryman is outdated, and what the president now invokes is first of all “trust” — in what he does and in his leadership — based on the competence, lucidity and vision he embodies. Will he obtain what he desires? One certainty is that he will need to limit the “we’re doing better” generalizations. Many people, in front of the TV in the living room, shake their head and know it is not true, that things are not getting better as they should and that the person in charge either does not know it, does not understand or is leading them on.
During the heroic times of his first accession, sympathy was the most powerful and innovative weapon Obama had. He gave the impression of understanding, sympathizing with the average American and his difficulties, making them his own and promising to change them during his term.
The mistake the president now needs to avoid making is to talk cynically about the petty politician who flaunts a “win all” and does not have citizenship in the country. It is essential. Obama cannot stop being the original Obama, the one projected by Michelle and Axelrod, who became a fascinating, celebrity-like, tired and powerful but aloof Obama. He needs to reconnect to people who loved him and do what is technically impossible for Romney, which is to share. He needs to regain the familiarity which enchanted America, his value given to original experiences and his background as a revivalist preacher. He sways. There is no point in hiding behind the hard results of his government. He should be dedicated to understanding the pain of the country, which no longer finds its roots.
Then there’s Romney: How many chances does the Republican candidate have to destroy Obama’s social structure? He has some, but not many. This is because he lives in the reflection of the work of the president and benefits from his misfortunes. However, he does not represent a strong and effective alternative opinion, despite the liberal generalizations which spread like propaganda in a small portion of the country. Besides, he has internal battles to win, with a conservative country unhappy to be represented by a Mormon who always lacks courage and honesty. Of course, Romney can ask Reagan’s question to American citizens: “Are you better off now than you were four years ago?” [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1980] Yett his representation of the alternative way does not have the strength the old ham actor had, nor the emotional drag effect, which is similar to that of a mint popsicle.
Does Obama need to fear Romney? He needs to respect him, as he respected McCain four years ago, by refusing to play dirty and by imposing his innovative angle, keeping distances, relying on personality strength that — as Spike Lee professed — Romney cannot compete with. Without making blunders, indecent provocations and outdated moves — many analyzed him deeply, listening to him take the field on the homosexual issue, not for the points discussed but for the timing. All this is contained in the fact that Obama is no longer an unconquerable wave which the project-nation cannot wait to be submerged by. He is a great, active politician putting himself to the test and giving what he can. The numbers are hanging on his side, but the imbalances can be changed any time now, depending on how the indecisive will shift. This is precisely where Romney, toughened by four years and fresh demands, waits for him, pointing at his failures. Romney is not a hero, nor the product of popular imagination; he plays in the league of Nixon and Bush Senior. If he wins, it will be because Obama stopped to expand himself. Otherwise, it will be because the myth of Obama has ceased to convince.