Obamania

---

Obamania (45 minutes)

Barack Obama has set out to do the impossible, and even today he is on the cusp of failure. The hyperbole he has built into his campaign through an overreliance on hope, audacity and their related synonyms has made for a compelling presidential candidate that has bucked trends and seems to be on the verge of bringing the critical change that everyone believes is desperately needed in our capitol.

His support is broad, and spans many demographics that are traditionally opposed or bear little/no relation to eachother, which is a somewhat lukewarm sign of possible success. Obama might be the most electable candidate the democractic party has fielded since Jimmy Carter in 1976. 1. But being electable and being a good president are two very disparate qualities. The expectations on Barack Obama are growing by the day, as more and more individuals and American groups endorse the change they think will help them prosper.

But, he can’t do it all. He is inheriting several areas of concern, largely involving foreign policy and our economy, where people expect their newfound pariah to wave his magic change stick, and make it all better. It won’t take many failures (or quasi-successes) for his masses to abandon their golden boy. Obama’s support is broad, but lacks the critical depth needed to sustain a successful presidency. People like Obama because he sounds cool, and is the latest pop culture icon that gives bonus points in conversation references. Want to sound cool, hip, in the know? Slip a casual reference to Obama in relation to someone’s complaints at the gas pump. Or, if you are over this obama-mania, maybe you’ll rock someone’s boat by revealing he is practicing Muslim (which he has never been). Either way you are tapping into the pop culture shtick that makes up 90% of the conversations in America today. Why do you go to see the Transformers movie? Because you are told to, by advertising, your friends, and so you can participate in conversations about it later…

“How have you not seen ? The part where and then .”

Obama is the latest hit Hollywood movie, transposed on the field of politics. I would venture that over half of his supporters, when polled about why they like Obama, would vaguely reference change, hope, or a bunch of idealistic mantras that serve as electoral bait, rather than presidential policy.

Luckily, Obama seems pretty good at baiting the average American, promising to lead them to the promise land of the new millennium. With us hooked, he just might reel us in to that place, but I know that bait wears off and we get to bleed as we’re pulled towards Obama’s promised future, we will try to break away, and unlike the fish I sometimes catch, the barb of Obama’s message won’t hold the majority of us long enough to see the end.

As an endnote, in terms of the 2008-12 presidency, I see one way for Obama to circumvent this failure. Select Chuck Hagel as a running partner. The electoral reasons for this choice are fairly obvious, and have been alluded to by the NYtimes. Forget about that angle, Hagel would be worth his weight in gold as a VP. Congress suffered massive turnover rates in 2006, and has historically low approval ratings now, suggesting an even steeper turnover rate in 2008. The seniority based political parties will have once-in-a-generation levels of junior members who are less apt to follow party lines because they have little invested in this …you scratch my back, I scratch yours… system. With a strong Republican like Hagel on his side, Obama could push through bold initiatives by garnering support from these members on both sides of the aisle, fusing a bi-partisan swing group that could effectively run the table with either side of the aisle. Unfortunately, this opportunity will most likely be lost when Hagel is ‘boldly’ (according to the Associated Press) appointed secretary of state/defense and we move into a strictly partisan future in which Obama’s political maneuverability will be non-existent.

1: A lot is made of Bill Clinton, but people forget his victory in 1992 would have been doubtful without Ross Perot’s parasitic draw on conservative voters.

---

« Previous Entry