More Obama Narratives
| Fri Nov. 20, 2009 10:17 AM PST
A couple of days ago I griped about the media's insistence on imposing its preferred one-size-fits-all narrative on Obama's trip to China. The narrative I had in mind was the one about 
China's huge dollar holdings driving major changes in policy when the evidence for that was pretty thin, but over at CJR Greg Marx picks up on another one:
As media narratives go, this whole “Barack Obama is a popular individual and a gifted speaker with a compelling personal story, but doesn’t automatically get everything he wants!” thing is getting awfully old, awfully fast.
The theme popped up months ago, when the press began to notice that though America had elected a “change” president, the world was—surprise!—not changing overnight. It cropped up again around the time of the off-year elections, when the media noticed that Obama’s personal appeal is not a magical amulet that can be transferred to unpopular Democrats. And it has framed much of the coverage of Obama’s recently completed trip to Asia.
[Several examples follow.]
If it were clear that Obama is pursuing a “biography-as-diplomacy” approach, this question might be pressing. And, if he were pursuing a strategy that rested primarily on his public appeal or his silver tongue, the observations from the NYT and LAT would be more significant, too. But, since evidence that he’s doing so is slight, this sort of frame comes off as more trite than trenchant.
Narratives will always be with us, but it would be nice if they could at least be tenuously based on reality. The narrative about China's increasing leverage due to its dollar holdings has at least a little bit of that going for it, even if it gets overplayed, but the "silver tongued orator" narrative has really been plucked out of nowhere. Yes, Obama is a good speaker, but there's zero evidence that his administration or his governing style is based on this in any significant way. Just the opposite, in fact. So knock it off, folks.
Advertisement
Advertisement
Comments
They won't.
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Fri Nov. 20, 2009 10:32 AM PST.
It works well with the style over substance (*waves at Politico*) meme the Right and the media has going for the President. That's why you have the "he hasn't done anything his first year in office" thing starting and if health care doesn't happen that'll be the story going into the state of the union. Otherwise, if he gets health care, it's going to be massive unemployment and how he wasted his time on health care.
Cairo seems to fit the model
Submitted by OmerosPeanut (not verified) on Fri Nov. 20, 2009 10:47 AM PST.
I generally agree with your griping here, Kevin, but what about the Cairo speech? That, at least, does seem to be a perfect example of "silver-tongued diplomacy."
Any good will generated by
Submitted by g. powell on Fri Nov. 20, 2009 10:59 AM PST.
Any good will generated by the Cairo speech has been killed by continued settlement building by Israel. Obama challenged Netanyahu and lost. So I think Kevin is slighty wrong, and at least in this case (which is a big one), the media did get it right. Obama did hope to change the Mideast dynamic in part with a change in rhetoric, and so far, it's been a significant faliure.
narratives
Submitted by JimB (not verified) on Fri Nov. 20, 2009 11:37 AM PST.
Judging from my circle of acquaintances, a lot of people who voted for Obama bought the "silver tongued magician" theme, so these stories are relevant. It's true that Obama and his administration never thought that the rest of the world would magically give them what they wanted, but a lot of voters did...
apples & peanuts
Submitted by junebug on Fri Nov. 20, 2009 12:12 PM PST.
"Yes, Obama is a good speaker, but there's zero evidence that his administration or his governing style is based on this in any significant way."
I've been doing more than my fair share of handwringing about Obama, but I'll stack the sheer amount of legislation he's signed in his first year up against that of Bush 43 any day of the week. The comparison is instructive:
Bush, 2001:
Economic Growth & Tax Relief Reconciliation Act
AUMF Against Terrorists
United States-Jordan Free Trade Area Implementation Act
USA PATRIOT Act
Internet Tax Nondiscrimination Act
Obama, 2009:
Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act
Children’s Health Insurance Reauthorization Act
DTV Delay Act
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
Omnibus Public Lands Management Act of 2009
Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act
Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act
Helping Families Save Their Homes Act of 2009
Credit Card Accountability, Responsibility, and Disclosure Act of 2009
Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act
Cash For Clunkers Extension Act
Veterans Health Care Budget Reform and Transparency Act
Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act
Ryan White HIV/AIDS Treatment Extension Act
Worker, Homeownership, and Business Assistance Act of 2009
It'll never stop the wingers from spouting inanities about Obama being nothing but style over substance, but he's accomplished far more, legislatively, than his predecessor -- and in less time, to boot. (It isn't even Thanksgiving yet.) Add to this the fact that Bush came into office with a serious tailwind because of his Democratic predecessor, while Obama is tasked with cleaning up two failed wars & an economic crisis, in addition to the ambitious agenda he had already set for the country, and it makes you wonder how Republicans manage to keep a straight face when they complain about his speeches.
"If it were clear that Obama
Submitted by Anonymous44 (not verified) on Fri Nov. 20, 2009 2:54 PM PST.
"If it were clear that Obama is pursuing a “biography-as-diplomacy” approach, this question might be pressing."
No, Kevin.
The issue is that Obama campaigned (and got elected!) on the basis of his claims that his wonderfulness would lead to other states being more accommodating.
So the point of this narrative is that we got duped.
If you were duped, you must
Submitted by nutty (not verified) on Fri Nov. 20, 2009 3:07 PM PST.
If you were duped, you must be pretty dupid.
Yeah, we must have listened to different speeches ...
Submitted by kenga (not verified) on Fri Nov. 20, 2009 3:28 PM PST.
Reminds me of this line:
"I know you think you understood what I said, but what you heard was not what I meant."
All of this kvetching,
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Fri Nov. 20, 2009 4:36 PM PST.
All of this kvetching, mostly from the Right but also continuously from the Left, reminds me of a quip I heard a dean fire back at some faculty whiners. "There are always going to be some people," he said, looking meaningfully around the room, "who, if they were invited to the Last Supper, would complain that the bread was stale."
BTW, the "dupid" line above is priceless.
So knock it off, folks. Yes,
Submitted by Luther on Fri Nov. 20, 2009 5:48 PM PST.
So knock it off, folks.
Yes, sir.
Obama
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sat Nov. 21, 2009 7:22 PM PST.
Why, why, why do we have to condemn Obama with these ridiculous reports???
The fact is, Presidents address problems in the world with speeches and his are brilliant!!! What the hell is so awful about that? Why does it have to have a negative twist???? Do we really want to just drop bombs all over these countries instead? Why does Obama have to get attacked for the talents he has that are serving us well? If he were Republican, the story would spin in another, much more favorable direction. If Palin talks to China as President, I'm sure she will get it all done by minute 5 and three winks, according to the media.
Post new comment
MoJo Comments: Send Us Your Feedback
We changed our spam software to better filter comments. Should you encounter any issues, please let us know.
