As I write, it is a little more than two hours before the first presidential debate of the 2012 campaign. Consistent with my recent commitment to avoid the world as much as possible, I will spend the evening rooting for the Yankees to hang on to win the Eastern Division.
But the presence of the debate has reminded me of what has always seemed to me to be the key event of the 2008 campaign. It occurred during the fight for the Democratic nomination, during a debate between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. I forget the setup exactly; there was some version of this campaign's discussion of likability. Mrs. Clinton was saying something mildly defensive and Mr. Obama slipped in "You're likable enough, Hillary." It was a knife in the ribs; the campaign for the nomination was essentially over and, because the presidential campaign was never really at issue, the presidency had been decided.
Now this is speculation based on intuition, so take it for whatever it's worth; but I still believe that it was at that moment that the electorate really started to take Mr. Obama seriously.
It was a mean line, a line that one could imagine being spoken by Sarah Michelle Gellar in "Cruel Intentions" or by Rachel McAdams in "Mean Girls." There is a whole social reality implied: an outsider tries to gain acceptance by the cool girls. She is unsure of herself and desperately hoping that they will embrace her as one of the in-group. "You're likable enough" is cutting because it is patronizing and condescending. There is no argument, no contest, no possibility of winning against the odds. One has been dismissed, not worthy of consideration.
By now it's obvious that I found Mr. Obama's remark both ugly and ignoble (as did many New Hampshire primary voters who sent him to a loss in that state). But at the same time, I was impressed. This was someone who knew how to win and did not hesitate to do what it took to win.
How such contradictory responses? The reptilian hind brain is still alive and well. When looking for someone to lead us --- which necessarily includes protecting us --- we look for qualities that are not always and not entirely civilized.
Mr. Obama was not just cool; he was someone who knew he was cool and was cool about that. That level of self-confidence, of self-assuredness matters to us on levels of analysis and evaluation that may be unconscious but are no less powerful for that.
A psychologist I knew in the mid-'60's once opined that we want to elect someone who we will trust to have his finger on the button so that we can go to sleep at night. That was only 3 or 4 years after the Cuban Missile Crisis, the Cold War was as hot as it was going to get, and we were just beginning to sense that Vietnam was a mysterious undertaking that could lead almost anywhere. So maybe "finger on the button" is no longer the apt metaphor that it was. In 2008, Mrs. Clinton asked the question, "Who is best prepared to respond to the phone call at 3:00 o'clock in the morning?" I would contend it's the same basic idea.
Who has the confidence and the courage to take on the responsibility? Who can we trust?
Three-and-a-half years after Mr. Obama's inauguration, many have come to think that his self-confidence and self-assurance are really a reckless arrogance. In this sense, I think the election really will be a referendum on Mr. Obama; not on the basis of the leading economic indicators but on the basis of whether we trust him as much as we did in 2008.
And where is Mr. Romney in this? A fine question and one to which I have no answer. Possibly tonight's debate --- or the ones to follow --- will reveal an answer. If so, someone please let me know.
In the meantime, I'm edging closer and closer to P.J. O'Rourke's attitude: "Don't Vote: It Only Encourages the Bastards."
No comments:
Post a Comment