Why do Liberals get all Googly-Eyed over Charismatic Left-of-Center Politicians?
Like many Americans, I have found the Democratic presidential frontrunner to be a captivating individual. He comes across as a warm, likable guy. While watching him for a moment (perhaps longer for those wishing to see more in him than is actually there), we believe there is some substance to his engaging presence. As if soaring rhetoric merely because it moves us must needs contain substantive ideas.
But, the more I explore Senator Barack Obama’s words, the less substance I find to them. And what substance there is is little more than a repackaging of the traditional liberal agenda. University of Virginia Professor James Ceaser (via Powerline finds that “in Obama’s eloquence,” the “conventional litany of liberal Democratic programs . . . achieves almost a moral and spiritual dimension.”
Last night, I read the Illinois Senator’s 2004 speech to the Democratic National Convention and found it remarkably devoid of substance. Contrast that with another speech which helped secure a politician’s rise to national prominence–Ronald Reagan’s October 1964 speech backing Barry Goldwater’s presidential bid. Each speech served (ostensibly) to promote a candidate challenging an incumbent president of the United States.
Where Reagan made specific criticisms of the ever-growing power of the state and offered an antidote–containing the size of government, Obama offered his own biography and vague notions about what John Kerry believed. The Gipper hardly addressed his own biography except to say that he was a “former Democrat.”
To be sure, Senator Obama has a compelling personal story. But, that story does not show how he has gained the qualifications — or the ideas — to lead the free world. To be sure, it does show how he developed his sense of optimism, why he has so much hope for our nation and its future.
As I look at Democrats becoming all googly-eyed over the man, I wonder yet again what so many on the left seem to mistake charisma for substance. Back in 1960, John Kennedy offered little more than a more eloquent restatement of the ideas of Cold War liberalism. Before he became president, Jimmy Carter actually did have an engaging presence. Bill Clinton wowed audience with his charm.
Senator Obama is an optimistic man and a compelling public speaker. But, scratch the surface and we see little more than hopeful platitudes and traditional liberal ideas.
Post-partisan Obama may claim to be, but Mitt Romney, his potential rival this fall, defined by the editors of the National Review as a “full-spectrum conservative,” has actually accomplished “landmark” bipartisan reform. Together with the overwhelmingly Democratic legislature of Massachusetts, he enacted speaking health care reform, an issue near and dear to the heart of many on the left. This is not to endorse the merits of this policy, but merely to note that he has done something in a bi-partisan manner. But, the media does not treat Governor Romney is as glowing terms as it does Senator Obama.
But, that’s because Romney is not a Democrat. And Obama is. While that good man has a compelling personal story, an engaging presence and a gift with words, he has not accomplished all that much in his political career (beyond winning elections and delivering eloquent speeches) nor has promoted many new ideas. And yet the Democrats are enamored with him. Just as those on the left have been enamored in the past with other charismatic candidates and leaders, believing their charisma alone makes them agents of change.
And I wonder why.
37 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Let’s be grateful for the small things. At least, in this instance, they’re not getting googly-eyed over a mass murderer. (Che, Castro, Mao, Saddam, Allende, Stalin, the VC, Ahmadinnerjacket, etc., etc.)
Yeah, but won’t it make “us” **feel** good, to have him as mascot? Don’t **feelings** count – regardless of America going to hell in a handbasket?
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 8, 2008 @ 2:01 pm - January 8, 2008
Why are gay Republicans gooey eyed over Romney who abandoned gay rights the moment it wasn’t convenient for him to do so?
I sense people on the right are threatened by Obama’s popularity. Believe me we Democrats were utterly complexed as to what anyone ever saw in George W Bush.
Comment by Houndentenor — January 8, 2008 @ 2:14 pm - January 8, 2008
Changing the subject there, but let me ask an even more basic question: WHO? (What gay Republicans are googly-eyed over Romney?)
Nah, it’s just a new fact.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 8, 2008 @ 2:21 pm - January 8, 2008
P.S. If you had said “Googly-eyed over Rudy Giuliani” or Fred Thomspon… OK, I’ve seen some of that on this blog. (And done it myself – but as an Independent ex-Democrat, I don’t quite count.
)
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 8, 2008 @ 2:27 pm - January 8, 2008
Why do liberal commenters (#2) always feel the compulsion to CHANGE THE SUBJECT?
It would be refreshing if a sock-puppet would at least once articulate a thoughtful answer.
*dreaming*
Comment by Bruce (GayPatriot) — January 8, 2008 @ 2:29 pm - January 8, 2008
Well, GP, I don’t believe Houndentenor is a sock puppet.
But I am a bit perplexed, especially given GPW’s post of yesterday, that Houndentenor thinks gay Republicans are “gooey-eyed” over Romney.
Romney to me is like caffeine-free Diet Coke — not my first choice, but if it’s what’s left in the refrigerator, it doesn’t bother me much to drink it.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 8, 2008 @ 2:55 pm - January 8, 2008
I would also add that Houndentenor has shown far more in the way of manners, grace, and intelligence than Ian, gil, KYKid, Chase, or any of the other innumerable identities Ian lives under, and has in fact demonstrated on more than one occasion that he is actually listening to both sides and shares some of the opinions expressed here.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 8, 2008 @ 2:57 pm - January 8, 2008
Substance doesn’t matter in this election. I worry that we’re about to repeat the Deval Patrick experience on the national level. Last year in Massachusetts, Patrick was elected as our state’s first black Governor, defeating (ironically) Mitt Romney’s Lt. Gov, Kerry Healey. His campaign centered around broad platitudes, feelings and warm slogans like “Together We Can.” Any time that his opponent tried to point out the differences in their records or his lack of experience, she was accused of attacking him. Patrick’s first year has been bumpy, to say the least.
Obama’s meteoric rise is being fueled by eight years of anti-Bush hatred. Nothing’s going to stop it. He’s likeable, charismatic and let’s face it…this is an Oprah-group-hug-American-Idol world we’re living in. The one bright light is that it looks like Hillary and by extension, her smarmy husband, will get their political comeuppance. :0)
Wish it didn’t have to come at America’s expense though. Romney would be a great president, as would Giulani.
Comment by Lori G. — January 8, 2008 @ 3:07 pm - January 8, 2008
#2’s comment seems fair game to me. GPW was comparing Obama and Romney, claiming the latter was a person of substance in contrast to Obama. To choose the health care reform in Massachusetts as an example of Romney’s sucess at bi-partisianship is misleading at best. For different reasons both Massachuset’s legislature (akmost 100% democratic controlled) and Romeny had a vested interest in passing some form of health care reform and typical of Romney he now acts like it was solely his idea. In truth the Massachusetts’ plan is a disaster. I say this from the left, but many on the right of the political spectrum hate for other reasons and it already appears to be unraveling.
[Misleading? Whether or not he had a vested interest in this or not is irrelevant to my point, that he successfully enacted a bipartisan proposal. Even if he says it was his own idea doesn't diminish the bipartisanship nature of the plan--which was my point. The merits of the plan are another discussion altogether -- Dan]
Look at anything else Romney did and he was completely ineffective as Governor. The last two years of his term he travelled the country courting the cultural right wing by bashing the state he was allegedey running–focusing quite a bit on homophobia. Regardless of what one’s politics are Romney showed himself to be complete opportunist and I think the more one sees him the more obvious this is and thus explains his imploding campaign.
Comment by Brendan — January 8, 2008 @ 3:12 pm - January 8, 2008
NDT (#7) – You are quite correct. I just get tired of the CONSTANT attempts to change the subject by liberal commenters.
It would just be refreshing to have thoughtfulness as the knee-jerk reaction.
Comment by Bruce (GayPatriot) — January 8, 2008 @ 3:14 pm - January 8, 2008
No one’s ever called me a sock puppet before? I’ve been called worse by better people so I’m not offended. Just confused. I’m I’m a sock puppet can I be the one from those pets.com commercials? He was so cute and funny!
Sorry I seem to remember one of the bloggers here talking about Romney. I might be confused. I read way too much and then can’t remember who said what about whom. It’s very confusing these internets.
Comment by Houndentenor — January 8, 2008 @ 3:40 pm - January 8, 2008
Oh, that kind of sock puppet. Duh.
No, I don’t post under any different names on this site. One is already more than enough thank you very much. If I get banned I just won’t come back. It doesn’t really mean that much to me, really. I also use this name on several other sites including americablog, huffingtonpost and some sites for opera singers.
And thanks, ND30, for defending me. How gallant!
Comment by Houndentenor — January 8, 2008 @ 3:48 pm - January 8, 2008
In the 1960’s and 1970’s I spent a lot of time in the third world keeping track of the Russian communist networks and their expansionist programs.
The communists were telling the peasants that their revolutionary government would take the rich man’s land and divide it fairly among the people. Their message was one of instant, measurable gain through government power. The US was telling the peasant to get educated, learn a trade and build a higher standard of living for himself and his family. We offered schools, a participatory democracy and the rewards of capitalism. The peasants overwhelmingly preferred the immediacy of communism to the learning curve of democracy and capitalism.
Obama is speaking communist code (“change”) to the millions who want the government to give them more entitlements. Evening the playing field means pull it out of the rich and redistribute it to the rest. It doesn’t involve merit or even need. It is a populist malevolence against the success of individuals.
Obama has done the math. He knows that if he can keep the masses charmed with his platitudes and get them to the polls, that the bulk of the rest of the democrats will trail along because of his party label.
The Republicans are forced to resort to facts and ideas in campaigning against him. But the people most enamored of the idea of Obama are not interested in facts and ideas, they are in love with the dream. In reality, facts and ideas are the antithesis of what Obama is selling and, therefore, heretical.
This has always been the challenge of fighting communism when the audience has already bought the dream.
Comment by heliotrope — January 8, 2008 @ 4:04 pm - January 8, 2008
“Why do
LiberalsConservatives get all Googly-Eyed over Charismatic Left-of-Center Politicians?”Hmm.
How’s Huckabee doing these days, anyway?
[Conservative intellectuals aren't getting all googly-eyed over Huckabee as liberal intellectuals are over Obama. --Dan]
Anyway, the original question is a bit flawed, naturally, since Obama has plenty of substance to him. It’s being ignored in favor of the, “OMG white Iowa voted for a black man” story, but it’s there. Stories and articles about his work in Illinois as well as DC are all over the place. Perhaps looking somewhere besides one cherry-picked speech comparison and (lol) Powerline, for god’s sake, would help you find some of them. I’ve read two posted just in the last day about his actual record; they’re not hard to find if you leave the conservative blogosphere.
Comment by torrentprime — January 8, 2008 @ 4:11 pm - January 8, 2008
Question for helio: Now that the GOP has also embraced the word, “change” in their speeches and sound bites, do you think that the GOP is also speaking in communist code? If not, are the GOP candidates in fact campaigning with facts and ideas, as you say, and are simply using the word as a counterweight to the D’s use of it? If so, how do we know when “change” means, “Communism is nigh,” versus, you know, “change?”
Comment by torrentprime — January 8, 2008 @ 4:15 pm - January 8, 2008
A fair question; one I’ve been asking myself.
A dumb question, possibly asked in ill-will. But here’s the answer anyway.
Communism, socialism, left-liberalism are different flavors of the same basic underlying idea: Collectivism. (Or, Redistribution.) When the word “change” is coming out of the mouth of someone who habitually runs with collectivists and high-taxing redistributionists, is when you know.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 8, 2008 @ 4:27 pm - January 8, 2008
Much of the talk of “change” among the Republican candidates is code for the erosive effects of state socialism which is the precursor to communism. When a candidate talks of “change” in terms of tax cuts, vouchers, privatizing social security, reforming the tax code, encouraging responsibility and self dependence, the candidate is promoting democracy and capitalism.
[Did you mean Democrats above? --Dan]
The word “change” is meaningless if the context is not noted. I have not heard any democrat talk about “change” except in the context of increased socialism. My gripe with Huckabee, in particular, is that he is on the socialism bandwagon.
[Ditto that. Huckabee may well be the evangelical incarnation of the Catholic socialist Dorothy Day--Dan]
Clearer?
Comment by heliotrope — January 8, 2008 @ 4:28 pm - January 8, 2008
Obama and his appeal to ages 17 – 29 was a mystery until I read the statistic that, since the turn of the century, over 60% of college-educated individuals moved back in with their parents immediately following graduation so they don’t have to pay market rent or take a job and start earning money. In 2005, no less than 50% of college graduates from 2003 surveyed were still living with their parents.
Once you understand that, the allure of his “The government should give you everything, just like your mother and father did” message becomes far more comprehensible.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 8, 2008 @ 4:49 pm - January 8, 2008
“But, the more I explore Senator Barack Obama’s words, the less substance I find to them.”
Just playing to the base….
Comment by iamnot — January 8, 2008 @ 4:58 pm - January 8, 2008
Dan, I do mean that much of the talk about change from Giuliani, Romney, HUCKABEE, McCain is toward more socialism. All of the talk about “change” from the democrats is socialism and Edwards and Obama are skirting with Leninism.
I know that a confirmed republican is supposed to accept the words of the party’s candidates, but my party is responsible for enough socialist programs to make a Swede blush. Only Thompson and Hunter have stayed clear of endorsing creeping socialism. I can not get a bead on Ron Paul. I think he is mostly Ross Perot nuts, so I don’t pay him too much attention. Thompson bothers me because he was hand in glove with campaign finance reform, but I have not heard his present views on it.
I will vote for Giuliani knowing he is soft on the second amendment and his heart is not in sealing the border. I will vote for Romney knowing that some kind of bastardization of socialized health care will be the result. I will vote for McCain knowing that he will flip the bird at conservatives on a regular basis. I will vote for Huckabee as the slightly better alternative to any of the democrats. I will vote for Hunter or Thompson in the proverbial New York minute. I will stay home if Ron Paul is up to bat.
Comment by heliotrope — January 8, 2008 @ 5:28 pm - January 8, 2008
So, it sounds like “change” means collectivism when you think the people speaking it are collectivists, and it doesn’t mean that when you don’t. And since the GOP has done plenty of entitlement programs themselves, they all do, or might. OK.
And no, the question wasn’t in ill-will. A bit tongue-in-cheek, perhaps, but not in ill-will. I was just curious how you would rationalize the use of the same word by both parties.
Dan:
[Conservative intellectuals aren’t getting all googly-eyed over Huckabee as liberal intellectuals are over Obama. –Dan]
That’s probably because Obama has more intellectual weight behind him than “I slept at a Holiday Inn Express last night” Huckabee.
Googly-eyed != unwarranted enthusiasm.
Comment by torrentprime — January 8, 2008 @ 5:49 pm - January 8, 2008
Why do gay liberals throw ass loads of cash and votes to liberal candidates when they know they’re going to abandon you as soon as it’s convenient to do so?
As for Oprama, to paraphrase Rush’s McNabb review, guilt ridden white folk just want to see a black man do well. That’s all there is to it.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — January 8, 2008 @ 5:55 pm - January 8, 2008
Sooo….in other words, you don’t know either. Do you know exactly which issues resonated with Ioway and NH voters that put him on top?
Comment by ThatGayConservative — January 8, 2008 @ 6:10 pm - January 8, 2008
Torrentprime: you can not get to your point in#21 if you read and understood what I wrote in #20.
I have no idea why you choose to change socialism to collectivism. While Leninism turned Stalinism equals collectivism, the highly socialist states of Europe (now in economic torpor) have stopped well short of collectivism. The former Eastern Bloc nations are back-pedaling away from collectivism as fast as they can. Even the Chinese are dismantling it in their cities and “free economic zones.”
The “dictatorship of the proletariat” talk today focuses on using the government to establish an egalitarian state. You can not escape this central theme in Obama’s coded rhetoric.
Many Republicans, past and present, have courted the voter with entitlement programs. When any Republican opens the tax coffers to woo votes, he is out of favor with me and any true conservative. That includes most subsidies, tax loopholes, grants-in-aid, entitlements and private bills.
Since nearly all democrats are whores for the tax dollar, they are all out of favor with me.
Clearer?
Comment by heliotrope — January 8, 2008 @ 6:19 pm - January 8, 2008
No, Republicans are scared shitless that they could actually be stuck with a candidate who IS a social conservative, not just one who can hoodwink social conseratives into voting for him.
It’s funny to read all these accusations against Democrats when Republicans are guilty of most of the same things. It’s also odd that so many people here can’t differentiate between communism and socialism or various degrees of socialism. It just shows how far off the charts to the right some Republicans are.
Comment by Houndentenor — January 8, 2008 @ 7:39 pm - January 8, 2008
Houndentenor, you are morphing into a pot of eels. You say:
There is no evidence of that whatsoever. If you are tacking at me on that remark, I call. (But please, let’s not get into a pillow fight over degrees and publications in print.)
Nice try, but you flunk. You mix socialism, communism, and various degrees of socialism (which are economy models) with social conservatism. SOCIAL CONSERVATISM. I can’t wait to hear how you define that mare’s nest.
Pick a point and stick to it. You are not playing dodgeball as a volunteer at the Headstart playground in this venue.
You “progressives” are always a marvel. You have an elastic meaning for every word and a coating of axle grease if the elasticity craps out.
Come back with your brain in gear and we can play.
Comment by heliotrope — January 8, 2008 @ 8:05 pm - January 8, 2008
I just think that if HT were right, the liberals would fall all over themselves to vote Republican. Same reason Bush can’t possibly be the dictator they claim he is.
No matter how much you polish your turd, it’s still a turd.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — January 9, 2008 @ 12:34 am - January 9, 2008
What’s odd, Houndentenor, is that even when people DO “differentiate between communism and socialism or various degrees of socialism” – as I did at #16, calling them “different” – you fail to pick up on it.
I think people call it “Seeing only what you want to”. And I know I’ve seen it from you before.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 9, 2008 @ 1:17 am - January 9, 2008
If Republicans were conservatives instead of neocons and religous fanatics I would vote for them more often. You forget that I used to be a Republican before the party decided that it’s main issues were warmongering, anti-abortion and anti-gay rights.
Comment by Houndentenor — January 9, 2008 @ 10:09 am - January 9, 2008
So you don’t like Jews?
Comment by ThatGayConservative — January 9, 2008 @ 12:45 pm - January 9, 2008
I am not going to go ballistic on the “religious fanatics” stuff…….but having a religious belief is not a sign of dementia. If you had a religious belief system, you would know that. Being consumed by “religious fanatics” makes sense when they are out to kill you. Calling someone a religious fanatic because he considers your life style immoral is an entirely different matter.
Is there some band of Christian Soldiers surrounding your compound and threatening to burn you out? If so, call Janet Reno, she will save you.
Comment by heliotrope — January 9, 2008 @ 2:16 pm - January 9, 2008
If Houndentenor doesn’t like people pointing out the fundamental similarity of (bad) principle and method in such different philosophies as socialism, communism and left-liberalism, this book should make his head explode.
As one reviewer puts it,
And may I add, Goldberg argues thus correctly.
The only real difference between communism and National Socialism (German fascism) was that the latter was explicitly racist and nationalist, while the former pretended to be internationalist. The only real difference between communism and democratic socialism is that the latter pays lip service to democratic methods (while still working for rule-by-socialist-elites). The only real difference between democratic socialism and American left-liberalism is that that latter is deathly afraid of the word “socialism”, and will go to some lengths to avoid being (correctly) tagged with it. But there: I’ve acknowledged that they are DIFFERENT philosophies. DIFFERENT philosophies – same underlying totalitarian impulse, or same underlying view that individuals must be made to live for the community / State.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 9, 2008 @ 2:50 pm - January 9, 2008
#32
Whatever you call it, the liberal’s desire to run our entire lives from the womb (if your brains aren’t crushed) to the tomb ain’t for me.
It ain’t Republicans trying to dictate what kind of car we drive.
It ain’t Republicans trying to dictate what kind of lightbulbs we use.
It ain’t Republicans trying to remotely control the thermostats in our homes.
It ain’t Republicans telling folks to give up their money “for the common good”.
It ain’t Republicans coming up with the absurd notion that you can fuel America with corn with zero adverse effects.
And it ain’t Republicans telling people and businesses that they make too much money (with no definable threshold as to how much is too much). Then, of course, there’s super colossal failures of the “New Deal” and the “war on poverty”.
Well at least as a whole they aren’t doing all this.
I could go on, of course. Hopefully HT would be smart enough to realize that all of the above sucks the chrome off a trailer hitch. My guess is that he can’t see what’s going on, doesn’t want to believe the threat, or believes that he’s immune.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — January 9, 2008 @ 4:12 pm - January 9, 2008
FDR had the New Deal. Truman had the Fair Deal. Hillary promises the Raw Deal.
Comment by heliotrope — January 9, 2008 @ 6:33 pm - January 9, 2008
Why do liberals get all googly-eyed over charismatic left-of-center politicains.
Same reason evangelicals get googly-eyed over charismatic populist politicians — they’re all dumb.
Comment by Yeehaw — January 10, 2008 @ 11:18 am - January 10, 2008
What does any of this have to do with Jews? (I just sang at Temple last night and had my first Hebrew lesson. I wonder how I got charged with antisemitism?
And Republicans don’t want in our personal business? Who do you think fought to keep the sodomy laws on the books in over half the states? Please. Republicans are in my business just as much as Democrats. If you want government out of all your business then vote Libertarian because that’s not what Republicans are about. We got smoking banned in nyc under a Republican mayor (who some of you support for president btw) and lots of other nanny state issues. This is a completely bogus argument. And what’s most laughable is that in the years when Republicans had control of all three branches of government virtually none of those issues that you rail about changed. So Republicans TALK about smaller government but they actually increased the size, spending and intrusiveness of government. I call Bullshit on you all.
Comment by Houndentenor — January 12, 2008 @ 4:47 pm - January 12, 2008
NYC’s mayor isnt a Republican, liar
Comment by Vince P — January 12, 2008 @ 4:55 pm - January 12, 2008