Another backhanded complement

In a new article written by Virginia Postrel called "The Peril of Obama" for The Atlantic, the writer suggests that Sen. Barack Obama's candidacy is based on an asset he possesses: something she calls 'glamour'. While seeming to suggest that it is good (suggesting that only Franklin D. Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan possessed this attribute), she also infers that it may serve as a double-edged sword that might undermine an Obama presidency.

I decided that I thought she was a little off. Here's the e-mail I sent her:

Virginia Postrel,

I just finished reading your article for Atlantic Online: "The Peril of Obama" in which you discuss the candidate's 'glamour'. I find your suggestion that a Pres. Obama may not live up to the expectations of the campaigning Sen. Obama interesting--that this asset (glamour) may be what spells his undoing. It is interesting and a bit strange.

Sen. Obama's most interesting personal characteristic is not glamour, but actually what he is not: a panderer. Every president in the post-Nixonian era has succumbed to the will of special interests: especially Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and Bush II. The darkness that was thrown over the presidency by Nixon has never been removed. If anything, the Ford pardoning of Nixon and the Republicans’ constant polishing of the myth of Reagan have allowed the short-term histories to be rewritten without the S&L and Iran-Contra scandals and failed economic conditions. Even the current Bush seems to be proving that the president, when supported by willing conspirators, can ignore the very heart of our legal system: Articles 1-3 of the constitution.

But I digress. Obama is not a panderer. Both Clintons and John Kerry were panderers; even Al Gore's staff turned him into a panderer. Bush I was a serious panderer. So was Bob Dole, Bush II, and now John McCain. All of our major party presidential candidates not only give up their most important values (for Bush I and Dole it was abortion), but go out of their way to gain the support of the lunatic fringe, jeopardizing their core morality (John McCain with John Hagee). Obama's message of hope and change, while vague and perhaps glamorous, serves to avoid this basic element of pandering to these entrenched interests.

The danger of Obama's presidency is not the popping of some bubble and the fallout from unmet expectations, but that those willing conspirators will prevent unity-building (as the Ted Kennedy-led Congressional majority stonewalled Carter). It is the Baby Boomer establishment that is afraid that a coming revolution will leave them out: a fear typified in the civil rights establishment’s backing of Sen. Clinton and claiming Obama hasn’t “paid his dues.” Further proof is found in the current favorite Super Delegate claim: “my kids have convinced me to back Obama”.

Gen Xers and Millenials aren’t backing Obama because of glamour, his “rock-star status”, or any claims of good looks. He is the first candidate to actually speak to these generations and offer not a token seat at the table, but the opportunity to drive the election. Besides, compared with Sen. Clinton’s scorched-earth tactics and Sen. McCain’s actual plans to scorch the earth, doesn’t Sen. Obama’s glamour seem a little small, as issues go?

Sincerely,

Andrew Downs

How is glamor any different than "looking presidential" as a requirement of our candidates? Isn't that always part of the equation? And further, isn't the idea of focusing on the "style" of presidency the very substance of this debate? Sen. Clinton is running on the image of her policy savvy and Sen. McCain is running on the image that he is of military stock and he sure likes to use guns. Isn't Sen. Obama's image, carefully crafted, just as any candidate tries to do, part of what is intentionally appealing about him?

And one last thought. Since when has discrepancy between how one runs for president and how one acts as president been so important? Has this notion not been proved useless by the presidency of George W. Bush? Bush destroyed his credibility and his name, not by being the opposite of the person he suggested himself to be in 2000 (though he is), but by being a complete jerk! No president in recent memory has acted less presidential and more inappropriately than has Bush. That was his downfall. If Obama is half of the man he claims to be, then the country will be infinitely better the second he takes office than it was only moments before.

So what do you think?