Joe Klein frets that Barack Obama may be too high-minded for working-class rubes:
But that was nothing compared with the damage done to Obama, who entered the primary as a fresh breeze and left it stale, battered and embittered  still the mathematical favorite for the nomination but no longer the darling of his party. In the course of six weeks, the American people learned that he was a member of a church whose pastor gave angry, anti-American sermons, that he was “friendly” with an American terrorist who had bombed buildings during the Vietnam era, and that he seemed to look on the ceremonies of working-class life  bowling, hunting, churchgoing and the fervent consumption of greasy food  as his anthropologist mother might have, with a mixture of cool detachment and utter bemusement. All of which deepened the skepticism that Caucasians, especially those without a college degree, had about a young, inexperienced African-American guy with an Islamic-sounding name and a highfalutin fluency with language. And worse, it raised questions among the elders of the party about Obama’s ability to hold on to crucial Rust Belt bastions like Pennsylvania, Michigan and New Jersey in the general election  and to add long-suffering Ohio to the Democratic column.
Yes, yes, the bulk of the sludge was caricature, and some of it, especially the stuff circulating on the Internet, was scurrilous trash. But there is an immutable pedestrian reality to American politics: you have to get the social body language right if you want voters to consider the nobler reaches of your message. In his 1991 book, The Reasoning Voter, political scientist Samuel Popkin argued that most people make their choice on the basis of “low-information signaling”  that is, stupid things like whether you know how to roll a bowling ball or wear an American-flag pin. In the era of Republican dominance, the low-information signals were really low  how Michael Dukakis looked in a tanker’s helmet, whether John Kerry’s favorite sports were too precious (like wind-surfing), whether Al Gore’s debate sighs over his opponent’s simple obfuscations were patronizing. Bill Clinton was the lone Democratic master of low-information signaling  a love of McDonald’s and other assorted big-gulp appetites gave him credibility that even trumped his evasion of military service.
The audacity of the Obama campaign was the belief that in a time of trouble  as opposed to the peace and prosperity of the late 20th century  the low-information politics of the past could be tossed aside in favor of a high-minded, if deliberately vague, appeal to the nation’s need to finally address some huge problems…
Tom Maguire rejects this:
The vagueness ought to be a clue – why not argue that Obama simply developed a new method of “low-information signaling” designed to energize previously untargeted groups such as the cultural elite and the young (OK, and the media)? “Hope and change” and not much else; “We are the ones we’ve been waiting for” – please. This is a serious discussion of our nation’s problems and the way to solve them? No, this is an attempt to galvanize the NPR crowd and make them believe they are making history.
I would argue (and have) that Obama and McCain are just satisfying the current public demand for hopeyness and changitude, which is expressed more as the fanciful desires for bipartisan cooperation and the elimination of “special interests” in Washington, DC. It is what sells on the 16-year cycle of “change” elections.ÂÂ
The appeal is vague precisely because it is illusory. It is not based on what Popkin called “gut rationality” but on irrationality. The Framers of the US Constitution recognized – as James Madison explained in Federalist No. 10 — that factions are one of the costs of liberty. There is nothing high-minded about selling the notion that faction can be magically eliminated — a notion that is equal parts snake oil and tyrrany.
Klein’s piece is nevertheless dumb, but that is mostly due to the overweening bias he shares with those who rail against subjecting Obama to culture and character questions. To demonstrate the point, let us travel back in time to the previous “change” election of 1992:
“Only 10 more minutes of this crap.”â€â€President George H. W. Bush on what he was thinking as he checked his wristwatch on camera in the midst of a 1992 presidential debate with Bill Clinton and Ross Perot.
***
Voters were overwhelmed by issues for which there were no easy answers and confused by the rhetorical subterfuge of a political process in which no candidate dared risk alienating voters by taking a stand, says Fitzpatrick. And “into the void steps this focus on symbolism and gesture…. You can look at the person on TV and size them up on the spot.”
Such snap judgments can also work the other way, something Bill Clinton showed with seeming ease when he responded to the same questioner. “Tell me how it’s affected you again,” he said as he walked up to her and looked straight into her eyes.
Where Bush appeared impatient, “Clinton steps in and empathizes, empathizes, empathizes,” says University of Pennsylvania political scientist Kathleen Hall Jamieson, coauthor of unSpun: Finding Facts in a World of Disinformation. “So it’s declared a victory for Clinton.”
Does anyone think Joe Klein (author of Primary Colors) or anyone in the Leftosphere felt the same sense of high dudgeon about “low-information signaling” that day? Are they outraged by the urban legend spun by the New York Times that George H. W. Bush was amazed by a supermarket scanner? Yet both are cases where it was the Republican was seen as “out of touch” with the electorate.
As Popkin explains, “gut rationality” operates from a combination of bedrock beliefs with a smattering of new information. The video of Mike Dukakis in a tank damaged him because of other information about Dukakis (e.g., soft on crime) and the generally dovish bent of the Democratic party since the arrival of the New Left. Gore’s sighing hurt him because of a steady stream of stories painting him as a self-aggrandizing prevaricator so shameless as to insult the intelligence of the average voter.ÂÂ
Obama’s missteps ultimately hurt him for two reasons. His association with Rev. Jeremiah Wright runs contrary to his claim that he will be a Unifier. His comment about small town Americans clinging to God and guns due to economic stress aligns him with the McGovernite image of the Democratic party. Moreover, in neither case did Obama confess any error on his part after controversy erupted.
If his supporters and media cheerleaders want to complain about that, they should consider the degree to which Obama’s (and their) beliefs about small town Americans may be driven by the same low-information signaling.
(h/t Memeorandum.)
This is the latest attempt, with the vagueness and the hopey-changiness, for a candidate to claim to be the next JFK who will usher in anew the Golden Age of Camelot! This is what happens when a party truly is bereft of new ideas. It stops looking for the future and yearns to return to a past Golden Age. That is pure emotion, it involves no thought at all, and if you look at the Obama campaign before all those nasty problems erupted it was eerie. The rallys, the gushing, the screams, the fainting, the larger-than-life transcendent being – it was Camelot and Beatle-Mania all at once.
As theater it was stupendous, but as an intellectual argument it was lacking, and still lacks.
You’re going to feel de-boned come the general election, either way, McCain of Obama, right? Why don’t you just be Jeremiah enough to come out and say it. __________ America! ___________ America!
You’ve become what you claim to despise. A bitter little man.
Nah, I’ll explain voter behavior, bit will leave blaming the voters to Andrew Sullivan.
I’ll leave the angry projection and predictions to you thor. You seem to be best at that.
Um, Bill Clinton won the first time because of Ross Perot.
People keep forgetting to mention that and act as if Bill had performed some kind of magic when he won.
I have never understood what people meant when they said Bill was some kinda political genius. He always seemed like a total goober to me.
I’ve been thinking that the rise of identity politics in the Democrats is tied to the loss of fresh ideas, as represented by the longing to return to the Golden Age of Camelot. Without any new ideas for the party to rally around, buying different groups by promising each a ‘goody’ kept the coalition together, but now the various identity groups are starting to war on each other to take control of the ‘goody bag’, and there isn’t any large party-wide ideas that are new and inspiring for the party to rally around otherwise; there isn’t any other alternative to the identity politics fight.
I also wonder if the same isn’t beginning to happen on the right. There are people who want the return of Ronald Reagan, and are disappointed (some very vocally) that there was no True Heir to Reagan running. I think that this is a warning sign to the political right to assess what they wanted to achieve in Reagan’s day, acknowledge the victories, and posit new ideas to go forward with. Things have changed since the late 1970’s – early 1980’s in what is politically accepted reality, and acting as if it hasn’t is electorally dangerous. It is like being the French Army in 1940 – operationally ready to fight the campaign of 1919.
I was having my continued imaginary conversation with Karl, sorry Mikey if you thought I was referring to you.
Karl and me we go round and round. I officially kicked him out of the Republican Party. He’s still pissed.
Ok, so that’s Karl out and Obama in? Got it.
Oh, you were refering to Karl – that was obvious. But the contempt spills over to everyone else who tries to respond to any post Karl puts up.
And what’s worse – you never bring teh funny! Teh funny is a form of low-information signalling. The anger is also. The part about kicking someone out of an American big-tent party is another. You got a real tyrannical thing going there Hammer-Guy.
Don’t compare me to Karl. That dude brings teh funny.
Johnny Mac and I revoked KK’s card because we decided Karl’s not a “real” conservative.
“In the era of Republican dominance, the low-information signals were really low  how Michael Dukakis looked in a tanker’s helmet, whether John Kerry’s favorite sports were too precious (like wind-surfing), whether Al Gore’s debate sighs over his opponent’s simple obfuscations were patronizing. Bill Clinton was the lone Democratic master of low-information signaling”
Interesting idea of cause and effect. The Republicans were dominating, so things people didn’t like about Democrats were silly little things. Okay…
Karl, I must say that I am amazed at your indefatigable interest in the campaigns. I always get some kind of insight from your posts.
Oh, and “Boobies”. There. Now this is a real PW comment.
And you don’t. So sad – you have so much potential in that line, what with the name-recognition alone. Me, I try, and I know I don’t have all the answers, especially when it comes to something as fluid and absurd as American politics.
Like the guy who went to speak at the American National Socialist Workers Party event. He didn’t know enough about the group to have an opinion about them. (The swastikas and big picture of A.H. on the wall were too subtle.) Man, you cannot make this stuff up.
And that clueless guy is running in a Republican primary, so if you could, please use the ‘Hammer of Declaring Non-Republicanness’ and get this guy out of the party toot-sweet.
Seriously, that guy is too dumb even for Congress – and that’s saying something right there.
Other Guy has been big on Baracky since seeing him speak once in Chicago and is still on Baracky’s team except he thinks Baracky is wrong about Iraq and trade policy and the capital gains tax. But he thinks he’s really charismatic and that’s what America needs. I think by November it’s going to be hard to make the case that Baracky is particularly charismatic. He gets cloying a lot I think. A lot like John Corbett kind of, or Patric Dempsey’s hair, which more and more I just can’t stand to look at cause of the doucheyness. Gack. And also gack. No mores just go away.
Oh. Sorry Patrick here’s your k. Now please go get a goddamn haircut you look ridiculous.
Thanks, Big Dan. Truth is, knowledge of Popkin is of little value in most every other situation, so why not share?
When one reads into the margins and finds meaning at the edge of the pages they’re easily given to self-serving fantasia. That’s why KK sees so many revealing truthies in those stories of Obama’s neighbors, the pastor of his church, his dead Mom and Dad’s political leanings, etc… No use for reading the author’s own words and intent, if the author is Barack Obama, obviously.
Don’t see Karl quoting from Obama’s books. I do see him falling smitten for a woman who lied repeatedly under oath and on the campaign trail – billing records, commodity futures, Bosnian snipers – whose married to a sexually deviant, impeached ex-President, who didn’t blink when trading a Presidential pardon for a donation to his library.
How quickly intentionalism can become a forgotten abstract, mere Monopoly money, when one cowers to a (imagined) audience.
Comment #18 ought to be bronzed, as a keepsake. There are so many facets and nuances – I just don’t want it to go away ever.
Given that I quoted Obama in the big post on Black Liberation Theology, as well as a follow-up, haven’t (iirc) written about his parents and wrote about Ayers myself in passing here, people can get a sense of why thor’s conversations with me are mostly in his head.
Perhaps thor can list all of my HRC-praising posts, since he seems to be getting more stalky all the time.
Baracky is a lot tearing this country apart and it’s only April. I weep for what could have been.
thor,
did you just call Bill Clinton a “sexual deviant”. Not for nuthin’ there buddy but isn’t that like something that is something calling another something that is something, “something”?
Feel my heat thor. Feel.feel.feel….feel my heat.
I speak for myself, as always. Sen. Obama is the subject of many posts here and elsewhere because he is the new face in this campaign. Sen. McCain has been on the national stage for many years and he is a known person, as is Sen. Clinton. The Republican nomination is as set as it is going to be before the announcement at the Republican convention. The Democratic nomination is not set, and it is the area of interest for any long-term (for a presidential race) commentary. The extended nomination fight in the Democratic Party is where the horse-race interest is, and it provides a lot of fodder for speculation about the state of the Democrats and where they are going – and that ties in with Jeff’s interest in identity politics and intentionalism, so far as I understand it.
In a general election match I think Sen. Obama is the weaker candidate to face Sen. McCain. Sen. Obama is of the end of the baby-boom generation, but he now appears to embody and embrace the worst of that generation, which is at odds with his official campaign rhetoric. His reactions to this, as the new kid on the block, are interesting and worthy of analysis. If this blog does not speculate on this, then other blogs will – and are.
I would prefer to have Sen. Obama as the Democratic candidate only if I am certain that he will not get elected. I have enough humility to know that my druthers are not necessarily what will occur. And I have enough thought for the future to not want an Obama presidency. I think that would be too damaging to this nation as I believe that he will screw up badly. The presidency is the one office that determines foreign and military policy – no matter what Rep. Pelosi and Sen. Reid want. I do not want to go through a Carter term again just so we can get ‘a proper Ronald Reagan conservative back’; I love my country too much to want to inflict that on her. Of the Democrats left standing, it is my belief that Sen. Clinton, despite her faults, is hard enough to do what would need to be done. I do not think she would dither for hundreds of days over the fate of embassy hostages as no one, any where, would be allowed to ruin her reputation like that. She would treat the reputation of the United States as an extension of her own, and while that is incorrect I am willing to risk that result. I am not willing to risk the result of a Sen. Obama who, I think it is clear, would see the humbling of the United States as only an enhancement to his reputation and a sign of a job ‘well-done’.
To be plain – I would prefer that Mr. Peace, Love, and Understanding not have a chance at the White House; and in that line I would rather risk Ms. Kill ‘Em All, Let God Sort ‘Em Out. No matter how Nixonian she is. (And think of that for a damaging presidency and its repercussions all you “I want Carter II” folks.)
Your Mileage May Vary.
Haha, Klein’s self-congradulatory bullshit obscures any legitimate self-criticism that might actually help them appeal to the people whose votes they need. He is half right about Clinton, though – even though he was vastly overrated, he knew enough to figure out that actually *liking* the average, mainstream American might project well and benefit one politically.
Does anyone not really understand that Dukakis’ problem was that he quite incorrectly thought that he was so much smarter than your average American – someone who would look at Willie Horton and say ” . . . and throw away the key” – that he had to adopt the categorically opposite position (i.e. let Willie have an outside, unsupervised social life on the weekends) in order to define himself as superior to him? This is *contempt* for the average benighted American, and it shows, and voters reject it – Gore, Kerry, and Obama have it in abundance. Americans aren’t bitter, they just don’t accept that you are as smart and as right as you think you are, because no one is – this is the hallmark of proper Democracy.
Yeah, Bubba “got” the middle – Ricky Ray Rector missed his last piece of pie to prove it.
Reaching back to 1992? Talk about ancient history. Why not back to 1800? Wasn’t some newspaper spreading rumors about John Adams not knowing the price of ale in a local tavern.
“It’s the economy, stupid”
It’s still April and I think there will be a lot of buyers remorse by the time of the final throat cuttings at the Dem convention.
My Prof. is a bifocaled gent from Oxford. When asked what Fors Clavigera meant he responded “the truth of a nail is the best translation.” I repeated my question, “what does that mean”, in a maybe-you-didn’t-understand manner. He responded, in kind manner, simply stating “truth of a nail” in a rising voice each time I asked until my fourth go at “what does that mean?”, where at he screamed “the truth of a nail!, what are you asking?” “If you own a hammer!” then adding, “is the best translation,” I replied.
I foresee consequences from that. But not here.
To the assertion that you don’t quote OBama’s words from his books because you rely on situational abuse of the man’s intent to form contrived post-modern interpretations, you reply with an affirmation of your quoting the man in your “big post on Black Liberation Theology.”
Your honor, can we break for lunch because I so rest my case. Karl, I blister your feet for good reason. And the sole reason for your coy act of non-response toward me is because the truth of the nail is that you don’t own a hammer!
Hillary wanna-be!
I’m splayed with my nipples alight. Nice zing.
O!
Because that would be 192 years earlier. Decade and a half; couple of centuries: what’s the diff?
Plus there’s this Joe Klein/1992 thing that contextualizes the reference. Is everything lost on you?
Never ask Caricature a rhetorical question.