One of the truly annoying memes among my fellow lefties has been the recurring demand that Barack Obama get angry.
“Why won’t he fight the right?” goes the mantra, as if Obama pushing through a health care plan and massive, successful stimulus in the face of absolute and complete Republican opposition does not equal fighting. “When will Barack get angry, and start demanding that the GOP capitulate to our demand for an end to Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, the passage of the DREAM act, an unlimited extension of unemployment benefits, tax increases on the rich, single-payer health care, net neutrality, a pony in every pot, and the freeing of Mumia?”
If Obama will just “get angry,” the narrative goes, all that Republican obstinateness will fall away like the roof of the Metrodome. And Democrats will get everything we’ve ever wanted, immediately, the end.
There are two things badly wrong with this narrative. The first is that Barack’s anger and will are all that’s needed to shake loose a Republican blockade on political action that will only intensify now that it’s been ratified by a majority of Americans. Barack yelling at Susan Collins won’t make her vote for DADT repeal. Indeed, the only thing that appears to have her close to voting for DADT is the potential passage of the tax deal that is the biggest sell-out in the history of history; if DADT does get repealed, it will be only because Obama dared to compromise.
But the second major reason that Obama won’t get angry is that he can’t.
I’m not saying that Barack Obama is Spock; clearly, the man is capable of anger just like he’s capable of any other emotion. But he can’t show that anger.
In the New York Times, Ishmael Reed lays out exactly why:
Progressives have been urging the president to “man up” in the face of the Republicans. Some want him to be like John Wayne. On horseback. Slapping people left and right.
One progressive commentator played an excerpt from a Harry Truman speech during which Truman screamed about the Republican Party to great applause. He recommended this style to Mr. Obama. If President Obama behaved that way, he’d be dismissed as an angry black militant with a deep hatred of white people. His grade would go from a B- to a D.
What the progressives forget is that black intellectuals have been called “paranoid,” “bitter,” “rowdy,” “angry,” “bullies,” and accused of tirades and diatribes for more than 100 years. Very few of them would have been given a grade above D from most of my teachers.
Barack Obama is black. And while the right wing tried to claim his election ushered in a post-racial America, anyone with a passing familiarity with this country knew better. America is much less racist than it was in 1950, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t still a racist nation. And one of the great racist tropes is that of the Angry Black Man.
Barack Obama was able to win in 2008 in no small part because he has learned how not to fall into the trap of appearing too threatening. The level of racism aimed at Obama has been shocking to anyone paying attention; how much worse would it be had Obama given in to the temptation to yell at his opponents? You think the right enjoyed picking out the worst of Jeremiah Wright? Just imagine if Obama had hollered, as John Boehner did on the floor of the House, “Hell no”?
Obama has to keep his cool. Even when angry and frustrated, he speaks calmly and rationally. He doesn’t have a choice — if he steps over the line, he’ll be destroyed.
That doesn’t mean Obama shouldn’t “fight” — he has to stand up to the GOP from time to time. And yes, I think we can all point out times when Obama has made poor opening gambits, or chosen to emphasize something that shouldn’t have been. And we can discuss that strategy rationally, discuss how Obama can really go after the right — and how we can help him.
But we can’t demand that the strategy be self-destructive. Barack Obama isn’t going to get angry, because the result of that is a cure worse than the disease. You and I, however, are free to get as angry as we want. And maybe, rather than demand Barack start yelling, we should start yelling instead.
I think the “because he’s Black” excuse is crap. Americans were able to look past his race to elect him; what we can’t look past are his abandonment of his campaign promises and progressive principles. Every recent poll on the Bush tax cuts issue shows that overwhelmingly the American people want those to expire. Polls also showed that the American people wanted a Public Option in the health care reforms. What we got was not what we wanted or needed. Obama can blame the Left, the Tea Party, and the GOP all he wants, but what happened to “The Buck Stops Here”?
I don’t want Obama to get angry and I don’t think people in general want this. We want Obama to grow a spine and keep his promises. No yelling necessary.
Amen to Aine and that b.s. is as annoying as the claims that we (Blacks) can’t handle criticism of Barack Obama. He’s not our personal Jesus and what the hell does it say about our state of democracy if everyone’s too scared to criticize Obama because it might upset a group of people. (Racialious and Bill Fletcher Jr. are among those advancing the ‘we must not criticize Barack, we must not have a primary challenge either because Blacks are too stupid to understand politics.’)
You’re worried about people wondering why he won’t get angry? Look at this headline that was over a column in the Chicago Tribune:
When will Obama go ‘gangster’?
So, I have a question:
America is much less racist than it was in 1950, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t still a racist nation.
What do you mean by the term “racist nation”? People use phrases saying that the United States is a “Christian nation” or a “racist nation” and it’s not clear what they mean by the terms. Different people interpret them in different ways. What’s the difference between “The United States has people who are racist in it” and “The United States is a racist nation”?
President Obama won’t get visibly angry because that’s not his style. If he tries it he won’t carry it off. He’ll look fake, and he’s got enough wit to know it. If he starts yelling he’s not going to remind people of an “Angry Black Man” – he’s going to remind people of Urkel.
I happened to open that Times article in a tab right next to this Politico piece:
A nice illustration of the point Reed makes–Obama wasn’t even angry and he still got attacked with a tone argument.
1, he was pretty angry but controlling it well, and 2, that isn’t a tone argument.
What sehkmet said. There’s a huge difference between “standing up for progressive ideals and explicitly rejecting rightwing framing” and throwing a tantrum.
If he can’t get Bush’s tax hike through by just biding his time just what does anyone think he’ll do in 2 years when the social security ‘shortfall acceleration’ cut is do to expire?
Where is the evidence for the assertion that the demand is he “get angry”? The demand is, as far as I can tell, that he not compromise before sitting down so he still has cards to play. This has no relationship to anger.
We don’t want Obama to get angry, we want him to stop kowtowing to the GOP and neoliberal policies:
http://louisproyect.wordpress.com/2010/12/13/black-pundits-rally-around-the-president/
I think the “because he’s Black” excuse is crap.
Let’s try and part issues of policy from issues of style ever so slightly.
The title of this post is “why Barack won’t get angry” “not why Barack’s failure/betrayal, must be shoved under “white wo/man’s burden’, sigh”.
It is responding to specific urgings that he show anger more visibly or volubly as some feel this lack is undermining his ability to get things done both in terms of his standing with the American voters and even with other politicians.
What Jeff is touching on is that black people-certainly in the disapora-have to police themselves very hard indeed as if they do not, they will quickly find themselves on very thin ice and felt to be angry, bitter or if a bit unlucky ‘schzophrenic’. In other words, the urgings ignore the fact that black people, contrary to popular belief are rather repressed-which can get in the way or they are not seen to be enough and other people’s response to that gets in the way.
As it is, problems seem to stem more from his centerist mentality and how that plays out in reality as opposed to the beliefs a lot of centrists hold that “the truth is in the middle” etc.,
If people are ‘afraid’ to criticise him because he’s black-or awareness of their deeply held assumptions, means they cannot always tell whether their criticism is influenced by that or not-take your pick; its fair play to address that.
But it would be nice if actual point was being advanced before people felt like answering it.
I realize that it’s responding to a specific complaint. I’m just curious about the evidence for a widespread demand that he “get angry”. If I could be pointed to non-fringe people calling for “anger” specifically, I’d totally be convinced. I just haven’t even heard the word. I’ve heard complaints about rolling over, but you can be firm without being angry. In fact, I’ve seen Obama be firm without being angry….with liberals. Also, I’ve seen him be angry with liberals.
James Carville:
http://articles.cnn.com/2008-08-20/politics/carville.obama_1_obama-unequal-democracy-larry-bartels?_s=PM:POLITICS
“And my last piece of advice to Obama and his team is to just get mad about something. Obama’s campaign seems so intent on branding him as a “cool and calm” leader.
Well, voters want to see a sense of urgency and outrage in their president: Outrage over our dependence on foreign oil; outrage over our increased cost of living, health care and education; outrage over declining incomes; outrage over an endless war and an idiotic foreign policy; and outrage over our country’s loss of prestige over the last 7½ years.
To put it bluntly, Obama needs to get outraged over something other than “attacks on his patriotism.””
I can sign up for some of these at least. I’ve wanted to see some leadership on the oil/energy issue since 1973. There’s certainly low correlation between education spending and education quality; the current costs of both K – 12 and secondary education are not justified by the output. Argue what you will as to the cause, but the point is that simply throwing money at the issue is not the panacea. Real answers are needed. As far as idiotic foreign policy and loss of prestige, I’m afraid that’s going to need a 180 degree turnaround from the current administration, as from what I can see the policies pursued in the last two years have made this worse, not better.
The best public school systems in the country are the one’s that spend the most per student. I grew up in a town where the property taxes funded one of the top systems in the country. Teachers, in the 70’s & 80’s could earn well more than $100k/yr. As a result of those salaries, we had a lot of teachers with doctorates.
My folks have been paying more than $20k/yr in property taxes, almost all of which go to K – 12 education.
http://www.ppinys.org/reports/jtf/educationspending.htm
http://education.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/articles/education/high-schools/2009/12/09/americas-best-high-schools-gold-medal-list.html
Do you have links supporting your assertion, Ron?
Jenny @11, from the link:
Then let me be the first. I’ll donate $100 to the Democratic National Committee if he does. I saw that movie (and I don’t go to the movies much) when it first came out and it was a sensation.
From that link’s cite of a column by one Matthew Continetti:
How is that a center-right position? How would keeping their merit raises be a leftist position? Is it a leftist position that federal salaries continue to climb even when private salaries remain steady or even drop? I didn’t realize that protecting federal salaries was a tenet near and dear to the left. What do you think of that statement? Because I can tell you that the right has long suspected that kowtowing to the public labor unions in exchange for votes is a leftist position (or strategy, take your pick), but it’s odd to see it asserted by the left in print.
BTW, I read in various sources that the President is in fact not freezing federal salaries. It is asserted that Federal employees get two different kinds of raises every year. One is a function of tenure and position. Like a public school teacher, if you manage to not get fired you get a raise every year. The second kind of raise is indexed to inflation. The second raise has been frozen. The first one has not. But overall, Federal salaries have not been frozen. The sources on this that I’ve seen tend to have a particular point of view that leads me to ask if anyone can confirm this. Because if this is true, an unqualified assertion that Federal salaries have been frozen is a lie.
Of course, not all the black pundits are circling the wagons. The link I cited was written by a black man who has been a supporter of Obama.
http://cfpolicyblog.blogspot.com/2009/09/no-correlation-between-pa-school.html
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.27.8710&rep=rep1&type=pdf
http://www.idahofreedom.net/blog/there-no-correlation-between-education-spending-and-achievement
http://www.human.cornell.edu/hd/circ/publications/upload/CeciPapiernoMuellerJohnson.pdf
http://www.ctpost.com/default/article/Little-correlation-found-between-per-pupil-823833.php
http://www.21pstem.org/EducationalExpendituresPA.pdf
A couple of those compare per capita spending per state with test scores averaged over that state. A couple, notably the last link, compares the per capita spending and the academic achievement among school districts within a given state.
It is NOT my assertion that spending on public education is not a good thing to do, nor do I assert that it is not possible to underspend on public education. What I do assert is that there are many examples where increasing public spending on education does not lead to increased academic achievement by the pupils, to the extent that there is no correlation between increased spending and increased academic achievement. It is certainly possible to either overspend or improperly spend on public education.
There are schools where “we don’t have enough money” is the problem, or at least is the outer layer of the problem onion. You can tell those places right away; they have tire fires guttering in the weed-choked playing fields, broken windows, etc.
Past a certain level of material investment, however – and that level is not enormously high – I find it extremely implausible that “we don’t have enough money” is a substantial contributor to the problems. “The community doesn’t have enough money” may well be, since many social pathologies that attach to poverty follow the kids right into the school building, but building a computer lab for sociopaths to smash is not going to fix that.
Far more often the thick layer of the problem onion is a lack of competence in administration, a low grade of teacher (usually not because the salaries are too low, but because nobody good wants to live in Shaw, Mississippi), low or no commitment from community parents, low or no commitment from the local economy, foolish/misguided/miseducated school boards, and/or kids who missed the formative boat and do not want to learn.
Money can’t do much about many of those problems. You could drop a billion dollars on Shaw High School and it will still be a craphole producing illiterates.
This is where incentive programs such as “Teach in Shaw, Mississippi and we’ll pay for your teacher’s degree” come in. Of course, they’re going to tend to stay in Shaw until about 5 minutes after they get the credit needed to pay for their schooling, but then the next new teacher shows up. Their teachers will be low on the experience scale, but at least they’ll have some. And the distinctive label will be “lower-income teaching graduate” rather than “lower-grade teaching graduate”.
Back to something from the original post. It’s asserted that Obama can’t be angry because that will evoke fear of the Angry Black Man in this racist nation. So I ask, what do you mean by “racist nation”?
I don’t know, Ron, maybe something like this?
The first means that the racists have racist beliefs, the second means that the non-racists hold racist beliefs.
A less flip answer, I hope: the first one means, obviously, that some people are racist. The second means that it’s part of the culture — that the racist people have been cultural if not actual leaders.
It is asserted that Federal employees get two different kinds of raises every year. One is a function of tenure and position. Like a public school teacher, if you manage to not get fired you get a raise every year. The second kind of raise is indexed to inflation. The second raise has been frozen. The first one has not. But overall, Federal salaries have not been frozen. The sources on this that I’ve seen tend to have a particular point of view that leads me to ask if anyone can confirm this. Because if this is true, an unqualified assertion that Federal salaries have been frozen is a lie.
Yes and no. For the first three years in a career job, if job performance is above a certain quantitative standard, a federal employee gets a moderate (~3%) “within-grade increase” in salary. Then after three annual increases, wait times for eligibility for these increases gets longer and longer (two years, then three years) the longer the employee stays in the job. After they’ve gotten 9 increases the employee is ineligible for any more. Many folks – especially baby boomers as many have been in their jobs a while – are maxed out, the only way for them to get an increase in pay is to move to different (higher graded) job. Typically there are no year-end bonuses, except for relatively rare awards for exceptional work.
The thing that’s been frozen – as you say – is a different salary increase that is supposed to keep federal pay a pace with inflation. That salary adjustment is generally a 2%-4% annual increase (depending on the year) set magically somehow, somewhere to track inflation. That increase is across-the-board for all salaried workers.
In my agency this is all pretty problematic, as we usually don’t get additional *funding* to cover any salary increases. So we end up lapsing positions when people retire or find other jobs. As you can imagine, it’s not very strategic. So this is not even going to save the government the 2%-4% of government wages per year – at least not for my agency – ‘cuz it generally just comes out of our hides and our ability to fulfill our mandates, not out of the tax base.
So . . . many individual federal employees will indeed have frozen salaries. But, no, not all. Ironically, the people most affected will be those employees that have been doing their jobs the longest time (and these are not necessarily high-salary workers).
FWIW . . . all the federal employees I’ve spoken with about this are OK with this freeze as a way to share the burden of the horrible mess we’re in, although many wish that the lower-graded employees were exempt.
marmalade, I have to say that what you’re telling me is shocking. Apparently Federal employees have been getting annual raises of anywhere from 3% to 7% a year. Holy crap! How long has this been going on? People in private industry have been getting pay freezes and even pay cuts for a few years now. When we have been getting pay raises they’ve been on the order of 2% or so. If that. This Federal raise schedule is exorbitant!
Obama should freeze all pay increases, whether in-grade-based or inflation-based. Based on what you’re telling me, if he hasn’t stopped the in-grade-based increases he’s lying when he says he’s frozen Federal salaries.
Hershele – so a racist nation is one where some of the cultural or political leaders are racist? Just a few? At least a third? The majority?
I’m sorry, but the term “racist nation” gets tossed around a lot without a whole lot of exposition as to what it means. Right now it doesn’t mean anything, at least to me, so I’m trying to put a definition on it.
From what I can tell, your numbers are a little high. The majority of federal employees don’t get step increases annually, so it’s not correct to add it in every year. And the cost-of-living increases are more like 1%-2% a year — the 2011 col raise that just got canceled was for under 0.9 percent.
But I agree — it’s deceptive to talk about a col raise freeze as if it were a total wage freeze.
By the way, not everyone in private industry has had frozen wages — people in finance, in particular, have generally been doing very well indeed.
That’s why I said “anywhere from 3% to 7%” – where I was told that the inflation raise was around 3% and was provided every year. But in reviewing the statements there was a range give from 2% to 4%, not a flat 3%. But if it’s 0.9% this year, then the range would be from 0.9% to, say, 3.9%, depending if they were in line for an in-grade raise or not.
Sure, some people are getting big raises (or bonuses, which not the same as raises because they don’t permanently jump up your base salary). But across the entire privately employed work force that’s unusual.
BTW: what happened to the “edit” function. I can’t edit a post I’ve put up anymore.
Racism isn’t just about an individual’s or a society’s beliefs (and societies can’t believe anything; that’s something people do). Social racism is about how systems function.
Part of the Federal employee wage growth is a statistical artifact. In the last thirty years the gummint has employed fewer low-end workers (GS-8s processing paperwork) and more high-end workers (GS-14s doing law stuff). That has shifted the average up somewhat and makes the government look like it’s paying people more. It is, but that’s partially because it’s different people these days.
That said, it used to be that the deal for American government employees at all levels was basically “you will not get paid as much as your private sector counterparts and your working environment will not be as pleasant on average, but you will have your job for as long as you do it competently.”
That understanding appears to be broken, and we now have employment for life PLUS competitive wages. That isn’t sustainable.
OK, so now going for full derail (stop me or edit if this is too much), but I wanted to understand this salary issue better, and this is what I found out:
Say you graduated with a master’s degree in 2000. You’d qualify for a federal government job at a General Schedule (“GS”) grade 9 salary. In my agency a GS 9 usually supervises about 3 to 5 field level staff and manages 2 to 3 year long moderate complexity projects.
If you stayed in that job for 10 years and got “satisfactory” or better performance reviews, at the end of 10 years you’d have an average annual salary increase of 5.13% per year. That’s incorporating both the annual across-the-board automatic cost of living increases and all performance-based salary adjustments. I don’t know how that compares with the salary for that time period for a similarly-educated private sector employee. But yes, RonF, this is an annual average salary increase between 3% and 7% for this employee. I’m sorry that it shocks you! I’m not defending or decrying it, just trying to describe it.
However, Robert’s point about competitive wages AND benes and security being unfair? I see it as being more about cycles. When I came out of grad school a decade ago the private sector was better salaried than government. But I wanted to do public work and liked the security too. Now private jobs are scarce and federal employees still have our security that we bought with lower wages a decade ago, but now we’re being supported by a very stressed tax base. A decade ago the economy had been on the upswing and people were willing to pay for more comprehensive government. Now we’re on the downswing and many people don’t want to pay for those services. The government employment cycle just lags severely behind the rest of the economy. As you say, Robert, it’s unsustainable to support a rich-cycle government when we have an ailing private sector.
I suspect that Obama can’t stop the within-grade increases without a big battle. So I predict that – just as in very the early 90s – the government will be facing a round of RIFs (reduction-in-force layoffs) before too long.
And yeah, I miss that edit function too!
**This is the pay schedule for that GS 9 employee, from the government’s salary page at http://www.opm.gov/oca/10tables/index.asp. The last two numbers in each row are 1) the across the board increase and then 2) the total increase if it included a performance step increase. Sorry about the formatting:
2000 – $34,575 – GS 9 step 1
2001 – $37,001 – GS 9 step 2 – 3.57% – 7.02%
2002 – $39,922 – GS 9 step 3 – 4.52% – 7.89%
2003 – $42,830 – GS 9 step 4 – 4.03% – 7.28%
2004 – $44,500 – GS 9 step 4 – 3.90%
2005 – $47,340 – GS 9 step 5 – 3.25% – 6.38%
2006 – $48,684 – GS 9 step 5 – 2.84%
2007 – $51,019 – GS 9 step 6 – 1.80% – 4.80%
2008 – $52,549 – GS 9 step 6 – 3.00%
2009 – $55,950 – GS 9 step 7 – 3.51% – 6.47%
2010 – $56,935 – GS 9 step 7 – 1.76%
Here in the south, Obama has been repeatedly characterized as ‘Spocklike’, and therefore somehow weird. (no accident Spock is an ALIEN, you know!) And I just don’t think they’d say this about a white man… in fact, the controlled and careful politician is usually considered smart, wise and thoughtful.
Excellent post, Jeff.
The trick is to come off as wise and thoughtful without appearing aloof or as someone treating the issue as an academic exercise instead of real life. The description as “Spocklike” is telling. Spock was (ignoring various episode plot threads) presented as pure logic and intellect, with no emotional investment. I would speculate that those likening him to Spock are perceiving a certain aloofness or lack of empathy.
Daisy, what is your rationale to say that they wouldn’t say something like that about a white politician?
He’s called “Spocklike” here in the North, too. I think it’s a reference to his distinctive voice (they tend to cast male Vulcans with actors who, like Obama, have deep voices and very precise enunciation) combined with his dry, rational speaking style. ( Like RonF, I’m not sure that a white politician with the same voice wouldn’t get the same response.)
But I do think you (Daisy) are right about the larger picture, because I don’t believe for a moment that the irrational and ridiculous “birther” movement would have happened on anywhere near this scale to a white president. The visceral “he’s not a real American, he’s not one of us” reaction to Obama is very present among Americans, and is, I believe, a response to his race. And that’s why no amount of evidence will convince so many Americans that Obama is, indeed, one of us.
And that’s why I can’t dismiss out of hand what you’re saying about the Vulcan thing, Daisy. Because maybe that would happen to a white president — but maybe not. We can’t know for sure. But I am certain that, just as you say, there’s a strong tendency to want to pretend Obama is something other than a real American, and definitely seems related to his race. Maybe the Vulcan thing is part of that.
He’s not Spock-like. Spock was emotionally cool but deeply committed to the people around him. To pick one example out of the air, if Spock’s spiritual leader had been a ranting nutjob, Spock would either have disowned him when it became evident that he was a ranting nutbag, or (if for some reason the ranting nutbag was right), Spock would have the nerve to stand with him and say so.
Obama is a manipulative Chicago pol with a veneer of intellectual style. If he’s any Star Trek character, he’s Weyoun. (And lest this seem overly partisan, be aware that Weyoun is one of my very favorite Trek characters of all time.)
Too late!
And the big ears.
I think it’s more substantial than a veneer. It’s genuine intellectualism (in the non-pejoritive sense.
Hershele –
There is absolutely no evidence of that outside the wishful hopes of some of his partisans.
“Absolutely no evidence”?
Editor of the law review at Harvard Law, where he graduated magna cum laude (admittedly not as good as summa, but still better than 80 or 90% of his class). Wrote an extremely well-reviewed (and yes, well-written) first book. Taught law at University of Chicago Law School, was invited to be a tenured professor and turned it down.
Now, you could claim that the evidence isn’t as strong at it seems, or is manufactured, or whatever (you could join the “he didn’t really write his own book” conspiracy theory brigade, for example). But you’re not in reality if you think there’s “absolutely no evidence” that Obama is an intellectual.
Personally, I think it would make much more sense to slag him for his awful civil liberties record, for being waaaay too giving to the huge banks, and for a zillion other policy reasons that actually connect to the real world here and there.
I think the next time someone asks me why I think of Republicans as anti-intellectual thugs, I’ll point them to comments 37-41.
“Thug” seems too strong for this disagreement, imo. “Thug,” to me, implies approval of violence or threats of violence, among other things. I mean, if you were talking about the use of mobs to intimidate and prevent vote-counting in Florida in 2000, then sure, “thugs” is exactly right.
But for just this, I’d say it’s just the usual partisan echo-chamber stuff. If you read the comments at the really strongly right-wing sites, many or most of the people there seem convinced that Obama is literally an idiot, capable of nothing other than reading from a teleprompter.
(To be fair, there were equivalent bits of unreality on left-wing sites — not this one, but places like Democratic Underground — four years ago. For instance, people doubting that George W. Bush would allow an election to take place in 2008, or people saying that there was no point at all in holding elections since the entire thing was completely fixed by Republican-favoring voting machine manufacturers anyway. But the echo-chamber disconnect from reality seems more mainstream on the right — a lot of Republicans in Congress won’t admit in public that Obama was born in the US, or are climate change denialists, or don’t believe in evolution — than on the left.)
I didn’t say he wasn’t smart. I said he’s not an intellectual.
He wrote exactly one law review article, of no particular merit (or demerit); he didn’t sign it. The law review editor is an elected position, based on popularity.
He has written two autobiographies and a children’s book. However well-written, autobiography is not policy or theory.
His brief career as a professor is bereft of publications or additions to the body of law.
Could he have been an intellectual? Sure. He’s smart enough and well-educated enough. Instead he decided to become an activist and a politician. Nothing wrong with that.
But let’s call a digging implement a digging implement. Intellectuals publish; he has published nothing of import. Intellectuals teach; he abandoned teaching for politics.
Robert, I think your definition of “intellectual” is ridiculously narrow and almost certainly opportunistic.
Since when, for example, is writing an autobiography inherently not an intellectual act? (So Mary McCarthy wasn’t an intellectual?) Since when is one only an intellectual when actively engaged in performing an activity such as teaching? (If one teaches and then retires, has one ceased to be an intellectual?)
(Also, my impression of The Audacity of Hope — which I haven’t read — is that it’s a book of policy, which even by your standards qualifies as intellectual activity. From the Publishers Weekly review: “Obama (Dreams from My Father) castigates divisive partisanship (especially the Republican brand) and calls for a centrist politics based on broad American values. His own cautious liberalism is a model: he’s skeptical of big government and of Republican tax cuts for the rich and Social Security privatization; he’s prochoice, but respectful of prolifers; supportive of religion, but not of imposing it. The policy result is a tepid Clintonism, featuring tax credits for the poor, a host of small-bore programs to address everything from worker retraining to teen pregnancy, and a health-care program that resembles Clinton’s Hillary-care proposals.”)
I think you can say that he’s no longer a professional intellectual, in the sense that he’s no longer an intellectual for a living; but it’s never been the case that only people who are intellectuals for a paycheck are considered intellectuals.
In any case, I note that you’ve changed your stance from “absolutely no evidence” to “well, yeah, there’s lots of evidence, but none of it counts because of various arbitrary standards I’m just now pulling out of my elbow.” That’ s a considerable moving of the goalposts.
Actually, the only reference I’ve seen to calling Obama “Spocklike” is right here on this blog. The Chicago Tribune and other local media don’t exactly lack for commentary on someone who’s viewed as a local, and I haven’t seen it come up anywhere.
I’d certainly say that Obama was somewhat of an intellectual. I’m less than impressed by his academic achievements. He was a lecturer/adjunct professor on a very specific area of Constitutional law (civil rights). That’s the lowest rung on the academic ladder. And as Robert noted, there’s criteria other than pure academic merit affecting one’s election to being an editor of the HLR. Harvard’s acdemic purity is a little suspect to this MIT alumnoid, anyway – but there’s a history between the two institutions, after all. But I wouldn’t say he’s all that brilliant.
Speaking of locals – Rahm Emmanuel’s candidacy for Mayor of Chicago is being challenged on the basis of his not having met the residency requirement. You have to be a resident of Chicago for one year prior to the election in order to be eligible to be a candidate in that election. Clearly Rahm was residing in Washington over the last couple of years. He had a house here, but that only makes him a property owner, not a resident. He rented out that house and did not come back at any time, his wife and family moved to D.C., and on his Illinois tax returns he classified himself as a part-time resident, not a full-time resident.
He amended his tax returns after he filed for candidacy. Classifying oneself as a part-time resident gives you some tax advantages and is something that you have to actively select (it’s not the default, full-time resident is) – I know, I did the exact same thing when I was a college student. There was a hearing. My guess is that the hearing officer will find for Rahm because he’ll be scared to buck the power structure and then the whole thing will boil it’s way up through to the Illinois Supreme Court.
BTW – can you give me a cite for his having been offered a tenured position at the U of C law school? That’s news to me. And was it before or after he was elected as a State Senator?
RonF, I got that info from the official statement of the U of C law school: “Several times during his 12 years as a professor in the Law School, Obama was invited to join the faculty in a full-time tenure-track position, but he declined.” Reprinted lots of places, including factcheck.org.
Obama Vulcan.
And there aren’t any positions at the U of C Law School that can accurately be described as “the lowest rung on the academic ladder”; the lowest rungs are not allowed to teach at UCLS in the first place, because UCLS is one of the most prestigious law schools in the country.
I know that you hate Obama, but you and Robert are both being ridiculous. When GW Bush was president and the more extreme lefties were saying that he was a drooling idiot, did you tell yourself you wouldn’t act that way once a Democrat was in office? Because you’re acting EXACTLY that way.
I’m done with this topic; you can have the final word.
When GW Bush was president and the more extreme lefties were saying that he was a drooling idiot, did you tell yourself you wouldn’t act that way once a Democrat was in office?
I suppose it’s been long enough to admit it…I love the word “misunderestimate”. It may have been a mistake, but it’s a wonderful word. But Bush is still a Quaylebrain.
“He isn’t quite as accomplished as you think he is” != “He is a drooling moron.”
I’m not making wild claims about Obama being a drooling moron; I’m saying he’s not quite as accomplished as his admirers think. The equivalent to what leftists said about Bush would be “Obama is a moron, he got through school purely on the basis of his race, his IQ is about 90, everything he’s ever done is fake.”
There are undoubtedly people who do say that about Obama, but none of them are posting here.
Oh, and since we get the last word:
Zyxt.
(Onomatopoeia is cheating.)
Come now. I don’t hate Obama. I don’t like his policies and I eagerly anticipate his departure from the White House – on his own two feet – but “hate” is far too extreme and personal to appropriately describe my feelings about him.
What Robert said @50.
I checked out that cite – thanks! So, he was an adjunct professor (= part-time) from ’92 to ’96, which is the lowest rung on the academic ladder. Then he moved one step up to Senior Lecturer, which is still part-time. Not, mind you , that anyone is asking me to lecture at a college or university. I don’t claim that the man is without accomplishments. But I wasn’t too far off.
was invited to be a tenured professor and turned it down
But then, you were off as well. I was skeptical when I read that sentence. Elevation from part-time status to tenure would be quite the jump and I didn’t believe it. I was right. According to this report he was invited to move to full-time status and a tenure-track position. That means that he would become eligible to attempt to qualify for tenure at some point in the future, after the usual few years of teaching and research and publication and reviews. That’s much different from having been invited to be a tenured professor. The difficulties and odds of attaining tenure in the academic world has been the topic of a few discussions on this blog, and it’s certainly not automatic.
The report that he was asked to become a full-time professor and move to tenure track is interesting. Of course, he was bound to refuse, and the U of C well knew that. Unfortunately here in Chicago it’s impossible to separate such things from Chicago politics. Let me be clear that I’m not talking about race here, but about his position as State Senator, election to which was coincidental with his elevation to Senior Lecturer. Correlation is not causation, but to ignore the coincidence and not consider the possibility that politics were involved would be naive.