Jonathan Alter on Obama—American’s shrink? FDR?
Jonathan Alter of Newsweek feels the Obamalove.
In Alter’s cover story about Obama entitled “America’s New Shrink,” Alter tells us don’t worry, be happy, even though Obama has utterly failed to perform what even Alter insists is the first job of a president in a peacetime crisis, instilling confidence.
Despite the fact that Alter spends the first page and a half of his article describing the myriad ways in which Obama has failed to do just that for the economy, he still thinks it will happen:
So why do I still think Barack Obama has a good chance of restoring confidence and pulling us back from the brink?…Because my take on Obama, based on conversations with him and his team stretching back more than four years and extending into the White House, is that he has a firm grasp of the psychological and substantive challenges of the presidency.
So Obama’s buddy Alter is willing to ignore the evidence of Obama’s actions as president in favor of Alter’s personal experience of what a smart guy Obama appears to be when schmoozing with the press—and that’s even though the stock market has been falling precipitously since Obama has become president, and particularly every time he proposes a new policy (today, the first day the market has been open since the announcement of the “tax the rich and businesses” plan, is no exception; at the moment we’re down 140 points to the 7220s).
But that’s okay; it’s just not the right time yet for confident optimistic talk, according to Alter:
[Obama] knows that now is not the moment to cheerlead, not when the financial players are lying dazed on the field. There will be time for that, when the banks have been “restructured” (see, that sounds better than “nationalized”) and the credit starts flowing again.
As a “shrink” of sorts myself, I will interject that both leaders—and shrinks—must convey optimism about the long-term picture, and this must be done from the beginning of a crisis.
What’s more, condescension isn’t very helpful. But Alter seems to disagree:
Obama has the chops to sell [his] approach, starting with his already-proven ability to be the nation’s teacher in chief. This was FDR’s secret weapon on the radio, and it can be Obama’s on TV and the Web. He’s the smart, cool instructor, trusted by the class to explain something important even if a little complicated. All that’s lacking is a bit more humor and a few catchphrases to simplify the message.
FDR’s “secret weapon” was not being a teacher. Rather, (although it wasn’t really very secret) it was his buoyant optimism, an attitude that was neither an empty pose nor a strategic ploy but a fundamental part of his personality—perhaps the most fundamental part. FDR’s optimism was both a natural tendency of the man and an attitude accentuated by his hard and personal struggle with polio, and his successful conquering of the despondency that would naturally be faced by most men of action struck down by such a disease in their prime, as FDR was.
The nation understood that Roosevelt was not consdescending to them as “smart, cool, instructor.” Nor was he playing a clever game of timing with his pep talks, being negative at the beginning and positive only when things were already looking up. He was imbuing them with some of the hard-won confidence he’d earned through his own triumphs over adversity.
Oh, and good luck with that humor thing, Jonathan. Obama has never shown a particle of it, and is not likely to do so now.
FDR was a naturally ebullient man; Obama is most decidedly not. Take it from another great, Winston Churchill, who ought to know:
Meeting Franklin Roosevelt was like opening your first bottle of champagne; knowing him was like drinking it.
I can’t quite imagine anyone saying that about Obama; meeting Obama is more like taking some cod liver oil.
Speaking of Churchill—now there was a man who knew who to balance optimism with realism. But he could never be compared to champagne; more like a fine port. Churchill’s optimism, like that of FDR’s was no pose—it was his natural tendency, and his eloquence and delivery guaranteed that he could deliver the message to perfection.
The main thrust of what Churchill told the British people and the world—and he said it right from the start, at the darkest hour; he did not wait for things to get better!—was that even though the way would be incredibly difficult, the Allies would prevail. Intrepid perseverance was his forte, and he was able to transmit his own endurance to the British people, and in the process amplify theirs.
In his very first broadcast after taking office, in May of 1940, Churchill doesn’t mince words about the darkness of the situation facing the Allies. But every passage in which he describes the depth of the peril is followed by a firm affirmation that victory is never in doubt:
We must expect that as soon as stability is reached on the Western Front, the bulk of that hideous apparatus of [German] aggression which gashed Holland into ruin and slavery in a few days will be turned upon us. I am sure I speak for all when I say we are ready to face it; to endure it; and to retaliate against it…
Our task is not only to win the battle—but to win the war. After this battle in France abates its force, there will come the battle for our Island—for all that Britain is, and all the Britain means. That will be the struggle. In that supreme emergency we shall not hesitate to take every step, even the most drastic, to call forth from our people the last ounce and the last inch of effort of which they are capable.
Here is my favorite—and the most famous—part of Churchill’s speech. It occurs towards the end, and is an almost perfect example of Churchill’s ability to convey the depth of the horror facing Europe while at the same time transmitting to his listeners a near-guarantee—by the sheer force of his own will and determination—of their ultimate victory:
[N]ow one bond unites us all—to wage war until victory is won, and never to surrender ourselves to servitude and shame, whatever the cost and the agony may be. This is one of the most awe-striking periods in the long history of France and Britain. It is also beyond doubt the most sublime. Side by side, unaided except by their kith and kin in the great Dominions and by the wide empires which rest beneath their shield—side by side, the British and French peoples have advanced to rescue not only Europe but mankind from the foulest and most soul-destroying tyranny which has ever darkened and stained the pages of history. Behind them—behind us—behind the Armies and Fleets of Britain and France—gather a group of shattered States and bludgeoned races: the Czechs, the Poles, the Norwegians, the Danes, the Dutch, the Belgians—upon all of whom the long night of barbarism will descend, unbroken even by a star of hope, unless we conquer, as conquer we must; as conquer we shall.
[NOTE: I couldn’t find an audio of the above speech of Churchill’s, so I offer the following substitute.]
[ADDENDUM: Commenter AuH2O has kindly led me to the correct You Tube video (the quoted part begins around 1:35):]
[ADDENDUM II: My colleague and friend Shrinkwrapped has a shrink’s take on it all.]
“I can’t quite imagine anyone saying that about Obama; meeting Obama is more like taking some cod liver oil.”
And knowing him and his “policies” is probably most like a forced colonoscopy.
That Alter piece was maddening, particularly that key paragraph where Alter explains how he knows that Obama can restore confidence etc. because of “his take on Obama” after some conversations.
This is what I hear from all the soi-disant smart people who love Obama. Nothing rational, nothing based on Obama’s accomplishments or experience — Obama has little of either — they just know in their guts that Obama is a special guy who can do a great job as president, regardless.
I used to get infuriated by Time and Newsweek when I happened across them in doctor’s offices or at the in-laws. They were regarded as serious news summary and commentary sources for most of my life, and I still fear that people are going to read them and be influenced by that crap.
The demographics are against them. They do not have anywhere near that credibility among people under 45.
Neo,
I think the particular link your looking for is this one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LtLOfkOculU
The part you quote starts at about 01:32, I think.
Churchill was prone to very bad depression. He called it his black dog. Just thought I’d mention it.
Helen: Yes, he was depressed at times, especially later in life. Also, I believe, during the period when he was warning about Hitler and no one was listening. My recollection (from reading several biographies) was that during WWII he was energized and focused rather than depressed.
Here’s a quote from Churchill after Pearl Harbor, by the way:
‘I went to bed and slept the sleep of the saved and thankful.”
He knew it meant America was in the war, and that would make the difference.
“I can’t quite imagine anyone saying that about Obama; meeting Obama is more like taking some cod liver oil.”
Nah. Cod liver oil is at least digestible, and provides something healthy. I’ve got some stuff I give the cat to make her yak up her hairballs. That’s a bit more like it to me. Nah, that doesn’t work either, because at least it helps the cat. I’m stumped.
Obama’s problem is that optimism would promote economic stability and recovery from the crisis, but his political agenda requires that he portray the crisis in as apocalyptic terms as possoble so as to justify his calls for fundamental change in our society, our institutions, and our political culture. If he hews to his political agenda he undermines attempts to stabilize the economy. If he promotes economic recovery he undermines his political agenda. Quite a dilemma!
Light: That’s not fair to say that Obama is proliferating a crisis of this magnitude for his own political ends. It is certainly true that he chose politics over proper governance by allowing the House Dems to take the reigns on the construction of HR1, but there is a threshold which he cannot cross in the construction of legislation. See also: the Dodd Amendments. When it comes down to it, there is hardly a thing that Obama can do to put a halt to this crisis at present. It is much too complicated for that. Hopefully he has learned from his trillion dollar mistake and can help push us towards more productive economic policy objectives. But to say that he’s intentionally promoting a crisis of this magnitude is hardly honest.
I suspect that Obama doesn’t know what to do and by now even he knows it.
Bringing on the gloom is at least congruent with his uncertainty. If he sounds optimistic, he has to deliver on something.
Nick: “Hardly honest?” “Unfair?” I am so wounded by those harsh words, which the Left employs to stain anyone and anything dis-agreeable.
It’s real simple: Either BHO intends and understands what he’s doing, in which case he is malevolent. Or he doesn’t intend or understand, in which case he’s stupid. Your choice, pal; he’s your man, not mine.
Nick Sanders:
I vehemently disagree. It’s really impossible for me to escape the conclusion that Obama and the Democrats in Congress are deliberately trying to destroy the economy. It’s pretty commonplace for the party that is out of power to “talk down”, or at least disparage, the economy during an election campaign. That’s politics.
But Obama never stopped talking down the economy even after he won, and continues to do it at every opportunity. I cannot think of any other newly-elected President in American history who did that.
FDR, trying to buck up struggling Americans during the Depression, said, “The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.” Today, with the economy nowhere near as bad as it was in 1933, Obama is saying, “Be afraid. Be very afraid.” Investors are responding to that, and the stock market continues to slide. It is down 26% since Election Day, on top of its earlier losses. Markets hate uncertainty, and nobody knows what the government will do next. Investors just know that they don’t like what they’ve seen so far.
Obama could easily reassure the markets if he came out in favor of tax cuts, spending cuts, and reducing the size and scope of government overall. He clearly has no intention of doing any such thing. This is a massive power grab, the likes of which we haven’t seen since the New Deal.
The New Dealers were starry-eyed idealists who believed they were going to improve things. We can accuse them of naé¯vete for pursuing foolish and wrong-headed policies that ended up doing more harm than good, but we cannot accuse them of doing it deliberately. Like many liberals through the years, they had “good intentions”.
But today’s Marxist Democrats have no such excuse. Decades of experience from all over the world have shown that socialist policies cause great harm and suffering. They cause shortages, lower standards of living, increase poverty, and in extreme cases lead to slavery and mass murder.
In the face of that, the most charitable thing I could say about Obama and the Democrats is that they are blindingly, mind-numbingly stupid. But how could people who must be too dumb to cross the street without being killed rise to such positions of power?
The only conclusion I can reach is they are not that dumb. They know exactly what they are doing, and are doing precisely what they intend. They believe that in order to build the New Socialist America, they must first destroy the old America.
Isn’t it interesting that Obama didn’t want the bust of Churchill? Obviously The Great One has nothing to learn from a typical white man. I wonder whether he has ever thought about how his Kenyan relatives would have fared under Nazi rule.
My take on journalists in general, and Jonathan Alter in particular: Dumb fu**in’ bastids!
In terms of my profession, as an investment research analyst: if I were a certified financial planner (I did take the course) Alter would be the worst kind of client to have. The best kind of client to have is one who is curious, intelligent, willing to learn, and who will make his own rational decisions. The kind of client you can educate.
Alter is the kind who can be bamboozled by the Madoffs of the street.
rickl,
I agree with everything you have written. These people have a game plan and they are working it. Now, what we all have to do is to hang on and vote en masse and against the Democrats in 2010 and 2012.
Another tactic of Obonga’s is bait-and-switch. He did that to the Middle Muddle and they fell for it. He fooled a lot of people that he would be a centrist, but he’s tacking Far into the socialist zone and shows no sign of letting up. In fact, the tempo is up, full speed ahead.
I agree with rickl and FredHjr: They know what they’re doing, and what they’re doing isn’t good for the country. We need a plan, too. I hope the “tea parties” are the beginning of our plan. I certainly intend to do my part, because I fear what these people could do next.
Here are a few numbers:
>13 trillion dollars of US household wealth evaporated in 2008.
State government and S+P 500 corporation pension deficits at year- end total $1.24 trillion
US GDP is about $13 trillion
US National debt now is $10.7 trillion
US budget deficit this year will be about 2 trillion
I believe that the great majority of Democrats do not consider themselves to be Marxist at all, hence the pains Candidate Obama took to distance himself from all the radicals in his career.
On the other hand, the Democratic Party is dominated by “cultural Marxists.” In policy, they believe in “pragmatism,” which can be defined as “whatever works.” What you can count on is that their definition of “what works” is what puts and keeps them in office, and keeps government money flowing to their political allies.
No real principles are required. In fact, they are probably a handicap. But I think we can absolve the Democrats of trying to destroy the country. They don’t know enough about what makes it go.
I’m still not ready to believe that Obama & Co. have some big hand-rubbing plans to destroy the economy and thereby drive us into socialism.
However, I am stunned that they have moved so swiftly and so intemperately and they markets have responded in kind.
If they keep this up, Obama and the Dem leadership will be lame ducks before the year is out. If they keep up the current pace, by the summer.
All this is even without some big international crisis blows up, and I’m certain we will see one of those within six months.
If the situation weren’t so alarming — the Dow down to 1997 levels and consumer confidence at another low — it would be amusing to hear Mitsu burble on about what a joy it is to watch Obama learning to be President.
I’m at the point where I think I “get” the caption on the sign of that famous photo that’s been on the web awhile, the one where a bunch of neighborhood guys are posing with their guns and rifles: “You Loot. We Shoot.”
Well, the federal government is really in the looting business big time now. And it’s gonna get worse.
I get the feeling we are heading into a crisis worse than we have seen before with an empty suit in charge. I expect tomorrow night will be bad. Wednesday might be a rout in the in the markets. They will smell irresponsibility and incompetence.
It’s pretty clear that the government is going to lose the populist/Perotista vote in short order. What is it going to take to turn the suburban “social moms” into “safety moms?”
How bad will the international situation need to get before otherwise normal Democrats realize that this administration is putting them at risk, too.
I think most of the Democrats are party hacks, who aren’t thinking beyond rigging the system so that they will hold on to their jobs for life. The ones who matter however have grander ambitions, which are to dissolve our good old USA into an entity called “the world community”. The motives are ideological on the part of some; downright greedy on the part of others, who are international plutocrats loyal to nothing except more profits. Obama belongs to the first camp.
This only way this can end peacefully is if we the people decide we don’t wish to be “men of valor”
Anyone see that Alter interview when McCain ran the tv spots showing pictures of Franklin Raines with Obama.
Alter did not respond at all to McCain tying Raines to Obama, he said the spot showed two black men looming
over a white woman. McCain spreading Mandingo fear!
This is gonna end in a bunker….
In Alter’s cover story about Obama entitled “America’s New Shrink,” Alter tells us don’t worry, be happy, …
In other news, Delta Burke tells her story of Love, Life, and Loss 😉
It’s odd that Alter would choose to present himself as such a lick-spittle. Something that Liberals, of a certain stripe, often fail to comprehend is that few other people wish to view government officials as therapists, or benevolent fathers/mothers, or agents of some ‘world spirit’. The very proposition is insulting. This is America, we don’t worship our elected officials.
You’re seeing a lot of articles like Alter’s at the moment. Of the ‘he may seem like he’s flailing but it’s all part of a master plan – he’s got some kind of mojo that’s just too powerful for us to resist’ variety. I wonder why that is?
Many White Liberals REALLY REALLY want Obama to be the heroic figure that they’d perceived during the campaign. But of course campaigns are stage play, and while I’m sure they recognize this
I’m put in mind of the various anti-vaccine people I’ve known, friends and not. I sympathized with their fears, but I could never quite get over my resentment that they were relying on me and most other parents to do to our children what they believed was a terrible harm, in order to protect their children. (And before I let myself in for a lot of flame, let me emphasize that I find it completely rational for a parent of a child with autism to delay vaccination or to rule it out entirely for another child and to rely on herd immunity, even though there’s no compelling evidence of a link. Who knows what micro-effects studies might miss? If I were in that situation I’d consider doing the same. I can’t resent the burned-once parent.)
I don’t think Obama and the Democratic leadership are actually conspiring to remake the U.S. in the likeness of Cuba. I think, instead, they’re angling (as armchair pessimist says) to keep themselves in power, and the massive societal change that goes along with it is just gravy. Meanwhile, though, they’re counting on ordinary, ornery Americans to do what they do – not to “shrug” too much – and pull us out of this. So their non-plan – to pull the U.S. out of this downturn – depends on other people’s drive, sacrifice, and generosity to do the actual work, while they can pursue their plan – to hold and solidify their position – and also take credit for the non-plan’s “success” without having to embrace the distasteful methods that actually bring it about.
I submit the plan outlined by Jamie@11:58 is quite bad enough for us sensible Americans to oppose.
No argument here!
Something that Liberals, of a certain stripe, often fail to comprehend is that few other people wish to view government officials as therapists, or benevolent fathers/mothers, or agents of some ‘world spirit’.
This is why I no longer am willing to engage many of my friends in conversations about politics. It’s very unnerving listening to an otherwise intelligent and well educated person appeal to mysticism when framing their arguments. Of course, they don’t regard their justifications as being based on mystical beliefs – if anything, they believe that they’re ‘scientific’. But though they may use scientific terminology – e.g. from neuro, evolutionary, or clinical psychology – their descriptions of these dynamics and effects are typically bastardized. More often they’re relying on some sort of communal consciousness a/o agency that will react to and affect their intentions.