I thought this comment from Guy Rundle in Crikey yesterday was incredibly astute:
Part of his appeal is that he put together a new sort of political career from the standard chaos of a postmodern life — tens of millions of younger people recognise in him the same bewildering wander through college, a couple of different dead-ends, a bit of going-back-to-the-roots, etc. All they’ve lacked is his adamantine, albeit well-concealed, will.
An interesting point of identification in a world where you have to work to construct an identity? I think there’s a lot more insight in there about the appeal of Obama’s persona than all the “cosmopolitan background” stuff or for that matter the official script from the Democratic Convention – “lived in a log cabin in Hawaii with his single mother” etc.
his adamantine, albeit well-concealed, will
It’s one of those verbs you conjugate, isn’t it:
None of these people get to the top without these qualities. You don’t get to Obama’s (or McCain’s) position without having the ability to charm a room combined with being, underneath the surface charm, a power-obsessed egocentric. So anyone willing and able to go through what it takes to become POTUS (or PM for that matter) is ipso facto unfit to exercise the office.
Nice one, DD.
And in that vein, per Palin’s daughter:
Sorry for the derail, Mark – back on track now…
“…in him the same bewildering wander through college, a couple of different dead-ends, a bit of going-back-to-the-roots, etc.”
Hardly admirable qualities. I had to read it a second time to make sure it was more than just a fancy way of saying “deadbeat”.
I agree a very astute point. He will rake in lots of votes, a candidate who reflects a voter’s own mediocrity!
Having one’s achievements all in the future (or possibly on the resume of the next generation) is something which will resonate with a LOT of people.
Beacuase being president of the Harvard Law review isn’t an acheivement…
So, SATP, what’s your idea of an admirable life history? And if Obama is “mediocre”, who is your idea of “exceptional”?
Seems to me this so called Uni wanderer Obama was able to lead and help coordinate a team of experts & volunteers, many the “little people” on-line, in game winning fashion.
He and his team did a pretty darn good job of putting a huge convention together in Colorado after a long, gruelling march to the Democratic Party nomination…when they coulda been exhausted & demonstrated the lacklustre performance we’ve seen time & time again from the Republicans.
Instead we got a mighty performance…a linking & retelling of proud, heart swelling, courageous history…the emergence of a vision that positively promotes science, research, education, manufacturing & technology (beyond these morally Luddite, greedy, traitorous corporation focused years) …combined w/ a focus on respect for workers and their needs…and in the process creating an environment of togetherness…bridging communities…unafraid to demonstrate the achievements of the once GREAT AMERICA that is proud of its diversity, inclusivity, diplomatic outreach, tolerance & inspiring examples.
If Barack Obama’s presidency can translate that kind of efficiency & humble pride & unity & motivation & sense of forward thinking to America as a whole…and connect positively w/ other nations, then he’ll have achieved what the Busheviks blew after the support they garnered after 9/11…without requiring tragedy, the REVENGE MOTIF & pre-meditated attack threats to do it.
All the way w/ Obama I reckon. If he’s a Uni slacker, give me a whole government of ‘em.
N’
Proof of Obama’s special qualities is to be seen in the astuteness of his primary campaign.
He did an extraordinary end run round the Clintons’ formidable big state political network.
He took the idea of identifying as a Democrat to places where the Democratic Party hardly existed.
At the very least, many Democrats will be elected to rusted-on GOP congressional districts because of Obama’s two-pronged insurgency against both Clintonistas and against Republicans.
So, Steve, you reckon anyone who doesn’t know precisely what he or she wants to do by the time they’re 17 is a deadbeat? Jesus! I didn’t have much of a clue what I wanted to do with my life until I was nearly 30, and I’ve had a couple of career-changes since then. I don’t think I’m a no-hoper, particularly as I are a highly-regarded IT Professional.
David – SATP knew what he wanted to do the moment it became clear pappy’s business would be his.
Apparently we should all aspire to such certitude.
A bit of self projection there eh Rog?
Your efforts at ‘constructing an identity’ appear to have failed rather comprehensively.
Now now Roger; it’s pretty amusing that a guy who uses a pseudonym thinks that “constructing” an “identity” is a load of rubbish. Have you had your irony bone surgically removed?
At any rate, Mark was referring to some fairly well-established and not-so-controversial points from recent sociology. The main idea, which I first encountered reading Ulrich Beck, is that up until the last 1-2 generations, people who lived in advanced (and not-so-advanced) industrial societies like ours had some fairly stable identity “templates” to which they could conform and have a reasonable expectation of those templates being a cradle-to-grave proposition: “worker”, “boss”, “farmer”, “husband”, “wife”, “clerk”, “Catholic”, “Anglican” etc. Different but equally stable templates existed in the earlier feudal and agricultural societies too. For many generations, most if not all people could pretty much “lock on” to an identity and find that decades later, it was still an effective organizing principle around which to live their life.
But more recently, those formerly stable elements of identity formation — family, education and work — have been overwhelmed by the action of global economic and political forces. Indeed, throughout developed countries, there is much empirical evidence that many people’s lives are following a less predictable course, coupled with a higher likelihood of chronic unemployment, multiple careers and casualisation of work, than in the immediate postwar generation.
Guy Rundle was attempting to link that well-established phenomenon in sociology to the case of a specific individual – Barack Obama – in an attempt to explain why Barack Obama’s candidacy may be appealing to many people.
Now, I happen to reject Guy Rundle’s argument. I don’t think he’s done enough to justify the assertion that “tens of millions” of people somehow, perhaps unconsciously, identify with Barack Obama on a personal or political level, just because they have had some slightly confusing life trajectories.
Heck, like Obama, I was actually raised for a few years in Indonesia, grew up for many years in a single-parent household, started and stopped a couple different careers, achieved very highly academically — but I don’t “identify” with the man.
Rundle’s suggestion is interesting but, I think, quite wrong. I’m going to go with occam’s razor and suggest that “tens of millions” of people support Obama because they like the things he says, they’d like universal health-care, they think that he might be able to achieve more in foreign relations through diplomacy than war, they thought will.i.am’s video was cool, they’ll vote for whoever Pink supports, and they don’t trust the Republicans in the White House for now, even if they hold a high level of personal regard for John McCain. There, no impressive theorizing from the sociological literature, a fairly pedestrian and jejune explanation – but one that I think has a greater chance of being true.
Mercurius:
But Edwards and Clinton were pretty much saying the same things. Except for universal health care – I don’t think any Democrat’s actually putting forward such a plan. I’m with you on the cool thing though. But I reckon Obama got up not because people identify with him, as Rundle suggests, but rather because he projects a credibility and a reality that the other two Democrat contenders could not match. People believe in him, and I think it’s this that’ll bring him home. I think Obama will win at least 300 electoral college votes (although I recognise predicting election results is a bit of a mug’s game).
Pavlov’s Cat #5. An admirable life history would be more heavily weighed with deeds than with words. Who is my idea of exceptional – see previous sentence.
David #8. Read for comprehension, you are attributing me with a statement I did not make.
FDB #9. Small mindedness is never going to desert you is it? Neither is inaccuracy. Though it seems for you relevance shall continue to remain a stranger.
Alister #12. Excellent point.