For a lot of us, the past year, which began with so much promise, has become a bitter series of disappointments, culminating now in the loss of a parallel government health plan — robust or otherwise — and prompting re-evaluation of whether we got the President we wanted. Some on the left have answered no. While I share their disappointment, I think we may be overstating the case. Here’s another way of looking at it.
Although I do not intend to imply he lacks substance — nothing could be further from the truth — President Obama is a charismatic leader, depending on his personal magnetism and leadership skills to hold together disparate coalitions. Naturally, though, governing towards the center is harder than campaigning in that direction. What we could be witnessing is the difficulty of translating charismatic ideas into rational/legal action — the routinization of charisma on a political scale.
Usually, when we talk about the “routinization of charisma,” per Max Weber,* we refer to the difficulty of transitioning a movement into an organization, following the death of a charismatic leader. Examples abound — whether successful (Jesus of Nazareth to Paul; Mohammed to Abu Bakr) or otherwise (Augustus to Tiberius), charismatic movements tend to make it into the history books.
Of course, President Obama is still alive — but Candidate Obama is not. That man is gone, merged with the Office, as all Presidents must. It falls to President Obama to put Candidate Obama’s plans into action, but he cannot rely on the flexibility of his former self, or the charismatic tools that flexibility bestows. In a very real way, the charismatic politician ceased existing on January 20th, and Obama has been rebuilding ever since.
Other Presidents have suffered similar difficulties (and recovered): Lincoln, elected on a similarly aspirational platform, was forced to drop all of his plans in the short term to fight a losing war. His first year was bleak, owing to an intractable (and violent) opposition, and dissent within his cabinet. He hit his stride in course. But translating ideas into action in the restrictive, ultra-sensitive D.C. atmosphere takes time.
This perspective is, obviously, artificial, but it’s a different way of approaching the real challenges the President faces. He’s entered office facing generational, existential crises, and a massive agenda, and to his credit, he’s chosen to approach them from a nuanced and consensus-building direction. That’ll be hard to effectuate, but we should be glad he’s trying.
I do not mean any of this to excuse the mistakes Obama has made thus far. We, his friends, should hold him accountable. But we should appreciate the difficulties that accompany big-picture thinkers.
* = Weber’s actual work is only available online in the original German. If you’re interested in learning more, read this essay analyzing it from another perspective.
<"…President Obama is a charismatic leader, depending on his personal magnetism and leadership skills to hold together disparate coalitions."
I’m not trying to be flip when I ask this, but do you really believe he has proven himself as a leader? Yes, he was a very talented candidate and insomuch as we can call that leading I guess you are right. He’s obviously been inspirational to blacks in general and liberals specifically (and for a short time he held sway with Independents) but does inspiration equal leadership?
Maybe we have to separate charismatic leadership from political or governmental leadership. I think if we do that it’s much, much harder to make a case that he has been an effective ‘leader’ in the sense of running the federal government. He punted to Pelosi on the Stimulus. He has lost control of healthcare reform (if he ever had it – which is debatable). I just don’t see areas where he has LEAD.
Posted by Mike at The Big Stick | December 17, 2009, 11:23 am“I do not mean any of this to excuse the mistakes Obama has made thus far. We, his friends, should hold him accountable. But we should appreciate the difficulties that accompany big-picture thinkers.”
Just as an aside, it would be interesting for Obama admirers/supporters/soldiers to lay out some sort of realistic wish list that they expect from this President. I’m curious as to what, if anything, he could do to actually make you question voting for him in 2012.
Posted by Mike at The Big Stick | December 17, 2009, 11:25 amVoting decisions aren’t a function of whether leaders live up to expectations as much as whether we expect the other guys to do better. That’s why I’m not worried for Obama… because… who else is going to do better? Palin? Pawlenty? Snort.
Posted by ACG | December 17, 2009, 1:04 pmMy money is on Mitch Daniels right now.
Posted by Mike at The Big Stick | December 17, 2009, 1:07 pmAs someone on the left, I’m disappointed in Obama from that perspective. State secrets, wiretaps, executive privilege, gay rights, Guantanamo (hopefully soon to be fixed),
In the general perspective, I think he’s done well. I think he’s started some good initiatives and programs. He’s had a lot to do, a lot on his plate, it’s only been a year (a lot can change in only a year). If he gets health care passed he’ll be the first modern democrat to succeed where everyone else failed.
All the things that the right is railing against him, didn’t come out of the blue, are frivolous, or didn’t reflect promises betrayed. Where I see “failed” charisma, is not getting Republicans in line. Who both contribute to blocking Obama’s/Demcorat policies and creating an air of disappointment at the same time. But I wonder if anyone could have overcome tha, and how much that has to do with the Republicans electoral positions.
In the end, I think people thought Obama would “change the world” in a day, and others were dead set against him from the start, so it’s hard to win in that situation.
Posted by oneiroi | December 17, 2009, 1:39 pmAs to Republican opposition, it’s coming from two places: 1) Is just a general unwillingness to playball because they are still mad about the election. 50% of that is pettiness and 50% is because of liberal gloating.
For the other part of the equation, you have to look at the realities of why their cooperation is being pursued. It’s certainly not out of some deep liberal affinity for bipartisanship. No, it comes from a quest for political cover. The GOP refuses to provide that.
Posted by Mike at The Big Stick | December 17, 2009, 1:54 pmWe’ve talked about it, and I don’t believe that at all. There are a lot of reasons for bipartisanship, and I think that’s the one you WANT to put the most stock in. But it’s a broad assumption.
I don’t think Obama talked a lot about bipartisanship, met with Republican leaders upon election, with hopes he could cover himself later.
Posted by oneiroi | December 17, 2009, 2:45 pmWell according to Ames there were no good ideas to be had from the Right. So why bother? And don’t give me Ames’ BS about the democratic process. We’re talking about politicians not idealists.
Posted by Mike at The Big Stick | December 17, 2009, 2:46 pmSpeaking of idealists, it’s amusing how out of all the reasons for bipartisanship, you pick the one that makes your “opponents” seem like they don’t believe in the ideas you don’t believe in.
I really don’t think getting Republican votes would mean Democrats could be elected by going, “Hey but Republicans did it too”. That wouldn’t help Democrats. They would still be hurt by whatever they passed, regardless of having 5 Republican senators or whatever.
Republicans have more at stake than Democrats at what bills are passed, if they’re attached (or not) to them. If Democrats are already attached to the bill, they have more invested interest in the results not the passage.
I also don’t think we submit more “liberal” policies and moderate them to hell after Republican criticism, is for our own benefit. We don’t win there.
Posted by oneiroi | December 17, 2009, 3:06 pm“Speaking of idealists, it’s amusing how out of all the reasons for bipartisanship, you pick the one that makes your “opponents” seem like they don’t believe in the ideas you don’t believe in. “
When you have a 60 vote majority, there’s only one reason you try to compromise: political cover.
Look at it like this: Let’s say there was a bill on the floor of Congress that would completely pay off the national debt and it was funded by $6 trillion dollar goldmine found under federal land in Utah. For whatever reason Republicans wanted to spend the money instead on the military and a free pickup truck for every American. Would you advocate bipartisanship, or would you say, “Let’s go it alone,”?
Democrats had a 60 vote majority and were positive their ideas were better. So why drag their feet?
“I also don’t think we submit more “liberal” policies and moderate them to hell after Republican criticism, is for our own benefit.”
Well no, at this point you’re just trying to get Democrats to stay on board, nevermind the Right.
Posted by Mike at The Big Stick | December 17, 2009, 3:26 pmYou’re going to have to be more clear about this “liberal gloating” that’s going on, apparently, somewhere. It’s true that Democrats have been able to go it alone on a few major issues, but on others, we’ve cowed to Republican opposition too much, and given our attention to frivolous concerns far out of step with their merit.
In contrast, Republicans systematically excluded Democrats from debate during the Bush years, whether by simply going it alone, or forcing concessions by styling opponents as unpatriotic. Until we reach that level — which I pray we never will — Republican whining will and should fall on deaf ears.
Posted by ACG | December 17, 2009, 1:59 pmI was thinking post-election. If you want to pretend that didn’t happen – be my guest.
As for inclusion/exclusion – to the contrary, I think Democrats have tried to get the GOP on board. I just doubt their motives. I think it’s because they don’t have a lot of confidence in their own ideas and they need the cover.
Posted by Mike at The Big Stick | December 17, 2009, 2:01 pmAs for inclusion/exclusion – to the contrary, I think Democrats have tried to get the GOP on board. I just doubt their motives. I think it’s because they don’t have a lot of confidence in their own ideas and they need the cover.
For those keeping track, the height of distortionary issue framing was reached today, Dec. 17, 2009, at 1:01 PM EST.
You can pull that sort of stunt with anything — it’s a very Beckian thing to do. You take an inoffensive gesture, and then mine it for the slim chance that it’s done in bad faith. “I’M JUST ASKING!”
Yesterday, buying a donut, I realized I was one cent short. The clerk let it slide and I got my donut for $.01 less than the asking price. Now, maybe she was just being nice. But maybe she was trying to seduce me, and then take incriminating photos to torpedo an eventual Senate run! Or she was going to use it to argue that I was in her debt, and then blackmail me into doing terrible, unseemly things!! Who can tell for sure!?!? I JUST DOUBT HER MOTIVES. I’M JUST ASKING!!!!
Also, animals are crapping in our houses. DID WE LOSE A WAR?
Posted by ACG | December 17, 2009, 2:14 pmSo then it is your contention that conservatives / Republicans have good ideas and it was important for those ideas to be included in the creation of a healthcare bill?
Posted by Mike at The Big Stick | December 17, 2009, 2:24 pmNo — it’s that Dems place a premium on cooperation, which is good for democracy, except when the sum total of the other party’s “ideas” constitute screaming about death panels and yelling about deficits they created.
Posted by ACG | December 17, 2009, 2:30 pmSo you don’t believe we have any good ideas and yet you wanted to cooperate with us? Isn’t that a bit disingenious?
Posted by Mike at The Big Stick | December 17, 2009, 2:32 pmI believe cooperation is good in its own right, partially because it inspires the creation of superior ideas. That value has yet to be realized.
Posted by ACG | December 17, 2009, 2:37 pmSo your plan was for the Democrats to ‘cooperate’ with the Right by listening to their ideas, then (I assume) going on cable news and discussing how bad those ideas were and ultimately enacting liberal reforms.
Man, I can’t imagine why we didn’t play along.
The beauty of the Bush years was that we didn’t spend too much time pretending to care about the Left’s ideas…because if we thought they were good, wouldn’t we all be Democrats? For better or for worse, we thought we had better ideas and were happy to go it alone. Democrats would rather use the democratic process to get PR points on the Rachel Maddow show. Meanwhile unemployment is at 10%. And you wonder why your poll numbers plummit?
Posted by Mike at The Big Stick | December 17, 2009, 2:42 pmI mean the “BS” — it’s good for parties to cooperate. The validity and wisdom of the ex ante decision to cooperate with Republicans doesn’t depend on the ex post conclusion that they’ve had nothing to add. And it’s good for us to TRY to cooperate, even if the other side won’t play along.
Posted by ACG | December 17, 2009, 2:58 pmIf you enter the negotiations with nothing but contempt for the other side’s ideas then you start from a dishonest position. Not surprising for Democrats, but a reality nonetheless.
On the flip side, we could have done as Democrats did with SS reform and set the initial bar so high there was never a chance of compromise. Then we could have lied to our voters and said, “We tried to play along.” There’s a certain honor in not wasting the other side’s time if you disagree with them so strongly. Even without us you all have been working on this for almost a year. It seems you have enough problems just convincing each other. Why muddy the waters with a disinterested GOP?
Posted by Mike at The Big Stick | December 17, 2009, 3:03 pmNice snarky comment, “Not surprising for Democrats”, but please tell me how Republicans are any better in your mind.
It’s hard for me to feel that sympathetic for Republicans on SS, since I remember Democrats going along with most things Republicans did (C’mon they passed the Patriot Act), and that’s the only big one that most people can site as Democrats standing up and saying “no”.
As opposed to the Republicans who, as far as I’ve seen, haven’t budged on much at all in a variety of areas. And that’s in one year, as opposed to 8.
Are there other times Democrats refused to “compromise”? Because truthfully, inevitably a party will find something they feel like they can’t budge on. To me it just feels like Republicans tend to find a lot of them. But its’ early still, maybe they’ll find more common ground in the next 3 years.
Posted by oneiroi | December 17, 2009, 3:17 pmYou can’t really count the Patriot Act as cooperation. Post 9/11 the public would have crucified the Left if they had opposed it. And as soon as they were politically able to, Democrats ran away from their votes and said it should be removed.
You have to also look at the makeup of Congress. Republicans didn’t enjoy the majority that Democrats have now. Bipartisanship was much more of a necessity. Do you really think the GOP went after Democratic opinions because they thought they had something to offer? No, they needed their votes. Democrats shouldn’t have that problem.
Posted by Mike at The Big Stick | December 17, 2009, 3:31 pmMike, it’s beyond facetious to treat the current 60-vote majority as invincible. The coalition is built on Blue Dogs and Lieberman. That’s not 60 votes; it’s maybe 51 reliable progressive votes.
Posted by ACG | December 17, 2009, 3:30 pmAhhhhh…the pain of the Big Tent.
I thought the big O had all the troops in line?
Posted by Mike at The Big Stick | December 17, 2009, 3:32 pm[...]As an example I will share this recent post at Submitted to a Candid World[...]
http://progressconservative.com/2009/12/23/liberal-self-criticism/
Posted by Mike at The Big Stick | December 23, 2009, 3:20 pm