SUBSCRIBE NOW WELCOME BACK. Do you want to continue reading where you left off? New Republic subscribers can pick up where they left off no matter which device they were previously using. SUBSCRIBE NOW

Go Home Ghosts

OCTOBER 29, 2010

Ghosts

BY LEON WIESELTIER

“If you have ghosts, then you have everything.” Those are the words of a tender and demented rock legend of Austin, and they have stood me in good stead for years. Ghosts are a solution for loneliness. One needs someone to talk to. I mean about the old themes, if one believes that they are still the right themes. Ghosts are the natural companions of anybody in estrangement; the invisible officers of tradition, of all the valuable things that have been declared obsolete but, in some stubborn hearts, are not obsolete. It is one of the fundamental properties of the human that the absent may be more significant than the present. I have the best ghosts. My revenants will never utter the words “Mark Zuckerberg.” In their company I may continue the conversation that was begun long before me and will last (since I will not shirk my own ghost-service!) long after me. And the ghosts have a public role to play, too. They possess a certain shaming force. They spoil the adoration of the new with the suggestion of a decline, or at least with an unflattering comparison. I do not mean to exaggerate their authority: in the recurring quarrels between the ancients (who, by our velocity, lived just the other day) and the moderns, there are no clear winners. But the triumphalism of our moment, and its e-millenialism; its idiotic belief in the complete transfiguration of human life in our time, in the final banishment of opacity and obscurity, by means of data and the quantification of inwardness, or by the expansion of genetic and evolutionary necessities—all this is not supportable. Is it conservatism to say so? Perhaps. I think of it more as a custodial feeling about the many attainments that made it, quite improbably, all the way across time to me, and for whose fate I am, whether I like it or not, responsible. (I like it.) Too much is slipping away too easily. This is also the quintessential Washington sensation now. The capital is busily diminishing itself. I sense this every time I run into one of its ghosts. At lunch, for example: in the dining room of the Hay-Adams, the black arts of influence are practiced on the very spot that Henry Adams produced the greatest book ever written here, in which he foresaw “the acceleration of history,” where text messages now fly. Or another phantom, this one a more recent ancient: in Steven Weisman’s rich and riveting compilation of the letters and journals of Pat Moynihan, I read this, in a letter to Louis Henkin in 1989: “If we are somehow to keep our tradition alive for the next century, we are going to have to return to Trilling.” This, from a United States Senator. Whether or not we are going to have to return to Trilling, it seems incontrovertible that in our politics we are becoming trash.

 

The degradation of politics takes many forms, not all of them tea-soaked. One of them is the valorization of entertainment. The spirited defense of liberalism has become the work of comedians. But there was nothing funny about Stephen Colbert’s testimony before the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration on behalf of migrant farmworkers. It was tiresome and exploitative and insulting to the chamber’s ghosts. This time the fake blowhard was a real blowhard. When John Conyers sagely remarked (did I just type that?) that “I would like to recommend that now that we’ve got all this attention that you excuse yourself,” the putatively hilarious witness pointed out that he was there at the invitation of the chairwoman, a Democrat who lauded him for “walk[ing] in the shoes of migrant farmworkers” and serving as an “example of how, using both levity and fame, a media figure can bring attention to a critically important issue for the good of the nation.” And promote himself, too, which is all these people ever do. Their true cause is their own celebrity. Colbert—eternally trapped in the dungeon of his character—had spent a day on a vegetable farm at the invitation of the United Farm Workers, and so he was an expert on agricultural adversity. I was reminded of the few freezing hours that Martin Sheen spent on a grate with the homeless near the White House a few decades ago, after which he returned to his hotel a survivor of homelessness. And having turned the Capitol into a ratings opportunity, Colbert will do the same to the Mall later this month, when he and Jon Stewart hold a rally in response to the rally that Glenn Beck, another conscience with audience share, held last summer. The moral authority of Jon Stewart is a baffling phenomenon. “He’s Cronkite,” proclaims New York magazine, “the most trusted man in America.” He is plainly a likeable man, and always good for intelligent laughter, though an air of genial sanctimony clings to his every joke. But it is not exciting that people glean their understanding of the world from “The Daily Show,” it is discouraging. Better Stewart than Beck, sure; but the Lincoln Memorial deserves a break from all this political vaudeville, as do we from the notion that amusement is a basis for commitment. I omit Bill Maher from my complaint, because no moral authority can plausibly be imputed to him. He has the look of a man who mainly wants to get laid.

 

“‘Ghosts,’ Obama whispered.” This, in Bob Woodward’s telling, was a scornful response to an allusion to Vietnam made by Richard Holbrooke in a meeting about Afghanistan in the winter of 2009. Obama is not a ghosts man. He prefers to believe that he is the beginning. This accounts for the strange soullessness of this thoughtful man. He seems to regard the past as a long era of errors, and carries himself in the superiority of the very latest. I keep hearing that he does not like his job. It certainly shows in the dourness of his current demeanor, from which only the Damoclean predicament of the Democrats occasionally rouses him. We appear to have disappointed him. He may even be experiencing some sort of crisis, as he discovers the folly of his post-political Mugwumpery, and the failure of his illusion about the transcendence of partisanship. For there is honor in partisanship, when the differences are philosophical; and for the purpose of social change, politics is all we have. Faction is not only a reality, it is also a calling. A bummed-out White House is a misunderstanding. The memory of courage and wisdom covers its walls. Its past is its gift. Behind the Beltway, there is Washington. The Beltway is a venal place, but the streets of Washington are paved with the Constitution, the Constitution is the mortar between every brick of every building, it is in the air and in the light, you can find it even in a brandy glass, and it can get you through the day.

Leon Wieseltier is the literary editor of The New Republic. This piece ran in the October 28, 2010, issue of the magazine.

For more TNR, become a fan on Facebook and follow us on Twitter.

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 86 comments

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

86 comments

This is one of the rare moments--or perhaps only moment--in which I've felt disappointed in a Wieseltier essay. I think he's not looking carefully enough or from a wide enough view at these very effective court jesters. He gets Colbert's appearance in front of Congress wrong in the very way that congressmen who easily get their dignity ruffled got it wrong: Colbert was (I'm embarrassed to be saying this, it's so elementary) with obvious irony, irony which (to my ears) didn't trivialize a serious matter, but instead (to my ears) revealed the trivialization of a serious matter by continued unserious congressional talk, which always seems meant to avoid action. Colbert's very persona does that. Really, when he's a witness at a hearing, he's Lear's jester, telling him to cut the bullshit and getting to live another day because AS the clown he's been given dispensation. This is just plain obvious that Colbert and Stewart are the jesters we've currently picked to give dispensation for saying the truth; or rather, by giving them dispensation to say it, we give OURSELVES dispensation to hear it, because we don't seem inclined to hear it elsewhere. That Colbert and Steward miff Mr. Wieseltier would content me more if I didn't like Mr. Wieseltier's work so much. If Peretz were having this snit I'd grin. Steward and Colbert are culturally ascendent at the moment NOT because we're all too-easily seduced or distracted by stand-up comics, but because NO ONE ELSE IS SAYING ANYTHING IN THE PUBLIC SPHERE that rings of HONEST moral dudgeon. We're only turning to them because, at the moment, there's no one else one cares to hear, and not because the speakers are themselves unworthy, but because they incessantly go round-and-round with an impoverished rhetoric that has so thinned out any actual argument that we're ALL left benumbed by the 'spin.' The court jesters shake us awake by not spinning. Their act itself--their shtick--strips away layers of spin. And Stewart's routine--dare I say it? I think I can use the word correctly--actually 'deconstructs' all the freak'n spin in a way that allows us to hear the difference between the said and unsaid; between the implied and the proven. Etcetera. Again, this is all obvious, it seems to me. Stewart and Colbert get all this attention because they do us a service as public rhetoricians. Who but a comedian can reveal the sophistic shenanigans of a Glen Beck but a stand up comic? As Stewart said in his interview with Teri Gross, he can undo Beck for an audience so effectively because he and Beck do the same thing, they're both stand up comics, using the same rhetorical techniques. "Serious" writers have the skills to demolish Beck's bullshit (ok, ten-year-olds have the skills) but not the delivery. We need a clown, with comic timing, to take down the clown pretending not to be comic.

- dmillstone

October 29, 2010 at 1:10am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

It is quite unfair to criticize Stewart and Colbert for self-promotion: they are celebrities. Every public statement or action they make will inevitably contain some bit of it. The question is whether they engage in self-promotion for its own sake. The answer is clearly "no." It says much about what is wrong with this column that, in his complaint about the vulgarization of our politics, the disrespect for the hallowed chambers of Congress, Wieseltier lays the blame on *Colbert*, not on the preening politicians to whom he was speaking - many of whom are corrupt, lazy, stupid, and callous. It was clear to me, watching his testimony, that Colbert had a deeper sense of the human misery and suffering of migrant workers than most of the people in that room, and his talents as an actor and public speaker gave his statements more resonance than most of the rote pronouncements one hears from those few politicians who can be bothered to say anything about the suffering of the vulnerable in the first place. Anyway, I should let Colbert speak for himself. Perhaps Mr. Wieseltier could explains what he finds so "tiresome" about this remark: "I like talking about people who don’t have any power, and it seems like one of the least powerful people in the United States are migrant workers who come in and do our work, but don’t have any rights as a result. And yet, we still ask them to come here, and at the same time, ask them to leave. And that’s an interesting contradiction to me, and um… You know, “whatsoever you did for the least of my brothers,” and these seemed like the least of my brothers, right now. A lot of people are “least brothers” right now, with the economy so hard, and I don’t want to take anyone’s hardship away from them or diminish it or anything like that. But migrant workers suffer, and have no rights." I'm straining to find what about that statement is so degrading to the 'ghosts' of Congress - especially considering some of the things that have happened there. This morning, as stood in my kitchen for a few minutes making coffee, I heard two stories on NPR. The first was about Sharron Angle's very real chance to unseat Harry Reid. What made the story so strange was that Angle was never interviewed, because she refused to speak to NPR. In fact, she refuses to speak to any members of the press, as do many of her fellow Tea Partiers, led by their Coward-in-Chief, that quitter Palin. The second story was about Arizona's SB1070. Turns out the law may have been written by an organization representing private prisons, all in an attempt to make huge profits by using the state to round up thousands of vulnerable Latinos who would hopefully end up in private jails - breaking up families, taking parents away from children, leaving God knows how many people desperate and destitute. But, oh, the money! That was just in the span of a few minutes. Today I will hear and read 10 more stories about suffering, violence, incompetence, corruption, greed, and who knows what else, and things will seem - as they have for too long now - as if they are truly spinning out of control. Mr. Wieseltier has clearly missed the point of why so many people, in country that seems to really have gone insane, find the court jesters to be so refreshing. And why a Rally to Restore Sanity is such an attractive concept.

- npippenger@gmail.com-old

October 29, 2010 at 8:09am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

dmillstone I appreciate your take on Colbert and Stewart. The problem is that your conclusion: "We need a clown, with comic timing, to take down the clown pretending not to be comic" is precisely the point that saddens me and may be what bothers Mr. Wieseltier, certainly one of the finest minds around. I am older than he is, and he is much wiser than i am. But we both grew up in a time when there were many men and women capabale of articulate debate. It may be a vanishing phenomenon in American politics, culture and society, but the consequences for all of us are not answered by jokes and comic turns. It is a high-level, many times revealing game they play, but it is not the reasoned, courteous, spirited discussion I remember and not the tradition of learned, creative essays Mr. Wieseltier pursues. Contemporary "common sense" is grounded in two self-centered clowns and some prominent bloggers who may allow comments, but rarely true debate.

- kras

October 29, 2010 at 8:38am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Satire has historically been used to ridicule the powerful. Until the current age, when the new breed of satirists, such as O'Reilly and Limbaugh, use it to ridicule the powerless. Stewart and Colbert, in their way, attempt to return satire to its rightful place: to ridicule the powerful.

- rayward

October 29, 2010 at 9:12am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I hope Wieseltier reads these first two comments.

- subterran

October 29, 2010 at 9:41am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Among the ghosts in Congress is Will Rogers, whose statue represents the state of Oklahoma at the Capitol. He, like Stewart and Colbert, used satire mainly in the service of common decency. Comics they may be, and thus like Shakespeare mere entertainers of the lowest sort, but their art is fundamentally liberal and humane. The same cannot be said of most of the ideologues, partisans, and factionalists Mr. Wieseltier here defends.

- rhubarbs

October 29, 2010 at 10:37am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Nostalgia has its uses, and Wieseltier is enamored of his favored ghosts of the past, against which he unfavorable contrasts the "ghostless" Obama and the allegedly celebrity-obsessed comics Stewart and Colbert. Here's a ghost I would add to the discussion: ( A. Lincoln; Message to Congress of 12/1/1862) "As our case is new, so we must think anew and act anew. We must disenthrall ourselves, and then we shall save our country." I agree with dmillstone, mansfield, and rhubarbs that comics/jesters/satirists can perform the invaluable service of puncturing lies and hypocrisies and revealing truth. Wieseltier seems inextricably enthralled by his ghosts of the past and unable or unwilling to appreciate this service I don't know what it would take to disenthrall him. Maybe a crane or a crowbar.

- JackR

October 29, 2010 at 10:59am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Bravo Millstone! I will be attending the Rally in Washington tomorrow, and thank God that Stewart and Colbert have organized an event to counter "Governor" Palin, the clown Beck, and the Tea Party rallies - they with their "Don't Tread on Me" flags, ugly signs, and uglier mood. If we'd waited for the chattering classes of Washington to organize such an event, well, we'd still be waiting.

- dubyadoubte

October 29, 2010 at 11:25am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I think Mr. Wieseltier's real problem is with the wrong people commenting on how Washington works - not with disrespect for ghosts. Were the ghosts offended by Dick Cheney telling Patrick Leahy to go F himself on the senate floor? When Joe Wilson yelled "You Lie!" during the State of the Union? When parties repeatedly abuse the filibuster? When tin horn dictators are seriously compared to Hitler? Politicians have been shitting upon the country's ghosts for years, all the while expecting the media to treat them with reverence. The need for dignity is only invoked to avoid serious questions or serious actions. Given this situation, satire is one of the best tools to comment on the situation. I completely agree with all the of the previous posters who point to Will Rogers and Lear's jester. I would also add Erasmus to that list, much of Jon Stewart's work is in the tradition of "In Praise of Folly".

- Attrill

October 29, 2010 at 11:48am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Mr. Wieseltier wouldn't be expected to understand the Stewart/Colbert phenomenon. Nor would Anne Applebaum and Dana Milbank, for that matter. The key to Stewart's and Colbert's uniquely astute political commentary is that they hold our elite in contempt -- the politicians, the media, and, probably if they had any idea who he is, Mr. Wieseltier, too. A lot of us thinking people are pretty disillusioned with the pompous, self-important, not-really-educated-in-a-useful-way folks who gave us the Iraq war and this recession. Mr Wieseltier and his neighbors take themselves seriously; the rest of us don't. Wieseltier probably thinks he's smarter than Stewart, but he isn't. Nobody, not least the New Republic, has done as much to highlight the idiocy of our policy makers and our reporters than has the Daily Show. Those of us who think Stewart is Cronkite read the paper, too. But, in part thanks to Stewart, we read it knowing a little better that the reporter and the policy makers whom he quotes don't know what the f*ck they're talking about.

- ajmazumdar

October 29, 2010 at 12:40pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

And bah-humbug to you too. All this essay did was exemplify the disconnect of older generatons/"ghosts" to the 20 and 30 somethings in the country. As a 20-something that reads news, politics, books, etc. vociferously AND watches Stewart/Colbert, I feel like this is more resentment of young people (and moderates/slightly left) having some kind of voice that isn't part of the elite political and media establishment that has completely let us down but refuses to admit it, let go, or disappear into anonymity. I sure don't see many middle or retirement aged people speaking up for the younger generations. And it is exactly the older generations' and pompous elites' inability to look in the mirror and see the ridiculousness of Congress (without Colbert testifying) and media that turns us 20-somethings off. Moynihan would be disgusted with Congress as it is anyway. No need to blame it on Colbert, whose testimony was laced with satire and irony, but anybody with a sense of humor and empathy should have been able to see the real message which was quite heartfelt and serious. Congress doesn't listen to peoples' issues when presented seriously and earnestly (especially my generations'), so why not try humor and satire? They think we care about the national debt and deficits, which is garbage. If you (the government and media) cared what you were passing onto the next generation(s) you wouldn't have waged two pointless wars and ridiculous tax cuts for the rich. What the 20/30-somethings want are jobs and a chance at the American dream without needing elite Ivy League degrees (which just about everyone at TNR, Slate, and many media outlets possess), which would require spending. And that is ok with us. And it's this disconnect that Stewart/Colbert so artfully put on display four nights a week. At this point, I'd like to see everyone over 50 out of government where they can go talk to their ghosts until they become ghosts themselves.

- hbonynge

October 29, 2010 at 1:42pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

great comments all. "But it is not exciting that people glean their understanding of the world from “The Daily Show,” it is discouraging." It is also not true. Whoever does get their understanding of the world from it would likely get it from nowhere if not for the show, and for whoever doesn't the comment doesn't apply. So what, exactly is discouraging?

- blackton

October 29, 2010 at 2:03pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Good point Blackton. If one were to just watch the Daily Show/Colbert Report, and have no knowledge of politics or current events, the shows wouldn't be entertaining. Keeping up on current events is sort of like required reading in school, if one is to truly enjoy and get the humor out of Stewart and Colbert they must have a foundational knowledge of the current world around them. In this case, I would say that Wieseltier is "discouraged" because he is losing relavence and becoming one of his "ghosts." In my opinion, the sooner the old people are out of power, the better.

- hbonynge

October 29, 2010 at 2:11pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Mr. Wieseltier needs to pull up the Daily Show's website and search for a 'report' that they ran on energy independence. The clip - showing every President from Nixon to Obama assuring us that we would end foreign dependence on oil in __ years - was Pulitzer Prize worthy. That it was accompanied by Jon Stewart's hilarious commentary and exasperated looks at the camera did not make it any less impactful. I welcome our new media conscience overlord.

- mschwark13

October 29, 2010 at 2:54pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Absolutely. It is impossible to get the humor of the Daily Show without keeping up with current events, but even that isn't really enough. You also need to have a good knowledge of a wide variety of news/commentary outlets to get many of the jokes.

- Attrill

October 29, 2010 at 2:57pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-june-16-2010/an-energy-independent-future His first broadcast after 9/11 was brilliant as well.

- Attrill

October 29, 2010 at 2:59pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Don't get slap happy with disrespect for Mr. Wieseltier, people. I disagree with him on Stewart and Colbert at my peril. Wieseltier's writing remains among the most deeply humane and spiritually aware of any contemporary writer to whom I think I, for one, have been exposed (as little as that may be saying).

- dmillstone

October 29, 2010 at 3:36pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

This is an excellent discussion, and Wieseltier is to be congratulated for getting it started if nothing else. I agree with the various defenses of Stewart/Colbert already given, but would add this: There's a long if largely forgotten history of important political commentary being delivered through satire, and particularly through satire that spoofs the politicians of the day. I'm sure Wieseltier has heard of Aristophanes, Swift and John Gay, for instance -- "The Beggar's Opera" is all about Prime Minister Walpole and his cronies, recast as a criminal gang. You can say "Well, but that was great literature," but first, it's the tip of the iceberg, and second, no it wasn't: Aristophanes and Swift are full of sex jokes and fart jokes, and "The Beggar's Opera" was a (deliberately) debased parody of opera using the popular tunes of the day. Here in America, besides Will Rogers as mentioned above, there were very popular books and newspaper humor columns following the political antics of characters like "Solomon Secondthoughts," "Major Jack Downing" (friend and fictional advisor to Andrew Jackson and, later, Lincoln), "Col. Gracchus Vanderbomb" (fictional candidate for president in the pre-Civil War years), "Petroleum V. Nasby" during the Civil War, Mark Twain's acerbic take on Gilded Age politicians, etc. etc. For the curious, some of this is discussed in my book "The Presidents We Imagine," which can be previewed on Google Books. (Sorry for the self-promotion, Mr. Wieseltier, but on the plus side, I'm not a celebrity.) So I think what we have here is the classic syndrome in which the (alleged) best of the past is compared with the common run of today (although the argument is ably made above that Stewart and Colbert are actually the best of today). Supposedly, in the past, Congress and the press was full of legendary solons gravely debating the great issues of the day, and people didn't get political information from comedians. Well yeah, except, uh, no: That's not how it went down. (Twain: "Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself.") It's interesting that Wieseltier's one example of a departed Great Legislator is Daniel Patrick Moynihan, a classically educated intellectual who was far from typical of the congressmembers of any era. I would say, though, that Wieseltier makes a brilliant point -- and it really should have been the "teaser" for this piece, not his remarks on Stewart and Colbert -- about Obama and "the folly of his post-partisan Mugwumpery." Wieseltier is absolutely right about the importance of partisanship and the possibility that it is its own honorable calling. I think Stewart and Colbert would both agree with this and exemplify it, which is why Wieseltier of all people should (dare I say) take them seriously.

- Jeff_Smith

October 29, 2010 at 4:37pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The best part of Wieseltier's most recent exercise in self-congratulation isn't his claim to know more about politics and history and what it is to be president than the current POTUS. It's the implicit condemnation of the Daily Show's fans: we don't see as clearly as he does; we've been duped; we've been seduced by con men; we don't recognize the difference between mere entertainment and insight/serious judgment. I don't know anyone who is quite this proud of himself or quite this condescending toward others. The mystery is not Jon Stewart's moral authority. It's the respect that people show TNR's egomaniac-in-chief.

- ralphnelle

October 29, 2010 at 5:00pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Good points: dmillstone, for putting a good perspective on your original comment; and to Jeff_Smith, for attempting to get the discussion back on track with the essential theme of Wieseltier's piece. There was a fairly strong Burkean sentiment in Wieseltier's article which I am surprised did not spawn a bit more relevant discussion (given the venue).

- robert.cra

October 29, 2010 at 5:07pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

To Jeff_Smith's comments, I would add passing reference to Thomas Nast and Dan de Quille, and perhaps even to young A. Lincoln's pseudonymous articles, the bite of one of which landed him in a duel. Satire has in fact been possibly the most important - and morally elevating - form of American journalism since the founding of the republic. As to J_S's final paragraph, I'm not so sure. For one thing, partisanship by itself is not a moral good; imagine praising Lincoln Rockwell for the strength of his beliefs. Rather, partisanship in service of worthwhile values is to be honored, but it is precisely the absence of any centering values at all, much less worthy ones, that is Stewart's defining target. Indeed, Stewart displays an almost childlike respect for public servants in his interviews; there's an aw-shucks air of the earnest high-school civics teacher. This respect drops, and the satirist's claws come out, only after a politician or pundit lapses into partisan cant unmoored from consistent values. Then, Stewart seems to take almost visible offense at being bullshitted, and good for him, because it is offensive. And that - deliberate, "I said the opposite yesterday and I'll say whatever is convenient today to score points for my team" bullshit - is the form that partisanship most commonly takes today, and it's the form of partisanship that most candidates for president, including both George W. Bush and Obama, campaign against. The spirit of faction today consists only rarely of the consistent advocacy of any particular value or philosophy, as Mr. Wieseltier would prefer, and almost entirely of one set of people claiming that the naked emperor is wearing a Nazi costume while another set claim that the naked emperor is clothed in homespun. There is no "honor in partisanship" of that sort, and that sort is about all we have today. The moral authority of the person willing to say that the emperor has no clothes should not be difficult to understand.

- rhubarbs

October 29, 2010 at 5:37pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Sometimes it takes a comic or humorist to reveal to many of us what's so comedic with some of the arguments and utterances being passed off as weighty and thoughtful by public figures.

- jyoung1946

October 29, 2010 at 6:06pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Jon Stewart is Walter Cronkite only because we don't have a real Walter Cronkite. Wieseltier would do better to direct his ire at those whose actual job it is to engage in serious political reportage and commentary, as opposed to those whose job it is to be funny. But he doesn't. Few do. Except for Stewart and Colbert, filling in once again. I agree that Stewart can be sanctimonious and he's not always on the mark. I do think Colbert is very sharp, and is a modern incarnation of the devastating classical satirist. Lots of worthy ghosts on that path. As for the dignity of politics or lack thereof, I blame politics, and not those who make fun of politics. As for Obama's alleged "soullessness," Wieseltier persists in misunderstanding and mischaracterizing Obama, and in a pretty nasty way. The point of his transcending partisanship business -- a point that has completely gone over Wieseltier's head -- is that the Democratic agenda of today -- or his agenda at any rate -- *is* post-partisan. It embodies common sense and common decency. The other side, meanwhile, consists of a bunch of crazy ideologues. It's a sell-job. If he had kept it up, it might have worked better.

- JakeH

October 29, 2010 at 6:16pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

dmillstone & mansfield-- Great posts (the first two posts on this thread)! _______________________________________ I would only add that during the eight long years of the Bush administration, Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert (first, when SC was a "reporter/commentator" on TDS, and then, later, as host of his own show) helped me maintain my sanity. And now, with the rise of the Tea Party and Fox News and the Frankenstein's monster that is Sara Palin, Stewart and Colbert are just as necessary, just as tonic as ever. Which is not, as Leon Wieseltier seems to suggest, an indictment of those who watch The Daily Show or The Colbert Report, but it may very well be an indictment of those to whom we turn (at least on TV) for serious news and analysis. Because there's virtually nothing of value, nothing that even approaches truth or vision or intelligent discourse, anywhere on the network news or cable news or political chat shows. The electronic press, such as it is, has surrendered whatever authority it once may have had. It has abdicated. And in its place, the Daily Show and the Colbert Report have filled the void. And have done so with courage and candor and hilarity. All of which is to say, the electronic press in no longer king. It is corrupt and ineffectual and dishonest. It is dead. Long live Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert!

- BenNevis

October 29, 2010 at 6:30pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I take rhubarbs' point, and let me just be clear that I spoke of the "possibility" of partisanship as an honorable calling. But yes, we need to distinguish the good kind from the idiotic, purely tactical hyper-partisanship of the current GOP, and from the principled but insane partisanship of, say, a George Lincoln Rockwell (or the white-supremacist Thomas Dixon, whom I've been studying lately -- a man truly and deeply committed to his nutball cause). It may be that we need more words for partisanship, like the apocryphal 16 Eskimo words for snow. As to JakeH's analysis, I would like to think -- and have been hoping for two and half years now -- that what's up with Obama isn't just some kind of latter-day Mugwumpism or a permanent "Kick Me" sign attached to his backside, but instead is something like what Jake describes: a clever strategy to position the Democratic agenda as nonpartisan common sense. I'm still hoping, but I think it remains an unproven thesis. As Jake says, if this is what's going on, it's gone over Wieseltier's head, and probably over the heads of millions of other Americans. There's such a thing as being "too clever by half."

- Jeff_Smith

October 29, 2010 at 6:40pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Jeff_Smith-- Regarding the President's supposed "latter-day Mugwumpism," I don't think it's Obama's fault that the Republican Party is no longer concerned with principled positions or intelligent discourse or the public good. Back in the 1980s, I was a very harsh (and public) critic of Reagan and his administration, but the Bush administration and the current GOP make Reagan look Lincolnesque by comparison. The Congressional Republicans are radical obstructionists, resorting to the filibuster as a matter of routine. The Tea Partiers are obsessed with their own anger. The supposed Conservatives on Fox News are obsessed with their own doomsday fantasies and hallucinations, twisting facts into fiction to suit their own hysterical ends. It is a political world unlike any we have ever encountered, at least in my lifetime. Which is to say, in the last half century or more. Obama's intent on taking office--which was to engage with his political opponents, to work toward reasonable compromise--was, I believe, an admirable one. What is not so admirable, perhaps, has been his inability to call the opposition out, and do so forcefully, and consistently, and in no uncertain terms, for being unable or unwilling to work for the common good of the country--especially IN A TIME OF CRISIS. With the nation involved in two wars, as well as a near economic collapse of historic proportions, none of which were of Obama's making. The other night on Colbert, Garry Wills, a one-time disciple of William F. Buckley, said that the word WFB would have used to describe the Tea Partiers was "vulgarians." He also said that the Tea Party never rose up during the Bush presidency in an outcry against the ills that existed then as they exist now. It was only after Obama was elected, that the Tea Party fired itself up. Which was, in the view of Wills, a clear indication that the Tea Partiers are, at their core, racists. I know quite a number of people in my neighborhood--almost all of them either current or retired blue-collar workers--who support the Tea Party, who watch Fox News, who support the GOP obstructionism in congress, and I can tell you that virtually every single one of them despises Obama because of his race. Virtually every one of them is a racist. And it's no secret. Many of them freely admit it. All of which is to say, yes, Obama has had his failings, most particularly as a politician unable to fight back on a consistent basis against intellectually corrupt or ridiculous opponents. But I think it's worth noting that he has taken office in the midst of a great national crisis of historic proportions, a crisis created by the policies of his predecessor. And he has, so far, kept this country afloat. He has, so far, avoided a depression, which was a very real possibility when he took office. And he has done this in the face of opposition that it is virulent and irrational to the point of literal insanity. This, I would suggest to you, is very far indeed from Mugwumpism indeed.

- BenNevis

October 29, 2010 at 7:27pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Mr. W, with each new installment of Washington Diarist, you scale new heights of ponderousness. I've been fishing around for who or what your writing reminds me of, and I think I've hit upon an answer: Norman Mailer of "Armies of the Night." Whether you take that as a complement or an insult is obviously up to you. The similarity rests in the way that both you and Mailer have of taking your fairly vague impressions of a political moment, throwing them into the blender with a lot of deep cultural references and a measure of high-literary hocus pocus, then serving them up as hard assertions as to THE WAY THINGS ARE. The trouble with this method is that it is grounded in no one's reality but the author's. If the author is, like both you and Mr. Mailer, sufficiently deep and sufficiently far-seeing, such writing can be highly valuable. But it should never be confused with journalism or even journalistic analysis. What you're doing is writing chapters to a non-fiction novel on the order of "Armies" or "Executioner's Song." I mean, face it, you don't know jack shit about whether or not Obama is a "man of ghosts," but it sure reflects well on the speaker to say that he isn't. To be fair, I don't really mind this kind of semi-stoned riffing on the men of today in the right setting. I just think that right now, when the men in question are still in a position to effect my life most directly is not the best time to be confusing matters with this sort of impressionistic fare.

- AaronW

October 29, 2010 at 8:08pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

BenNevis, I agree with everything you say about the Republicans, and I don't mean to be too hard on Obama. Yeah, he's done a lot, considering. "Mugwumpism" is one shorthand way of trying to account for that inconsistency and inability to fight back that you refer to. It may not be the best term, but the point is that I'm not sure whether this is just "inability" or instead reflects a political philosophy on his part -- one that is admirable in its way, but perhaps not as well-suited to the times as it should be.

- Jeff_Smith

October 30, 2010 at 12:14am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Jeff, the reason his approach has gone over so many heads is that, after a very strong start, he botched it. He didn't keep it up. But Wieseltier is speaking of Obama's intentions -- his very soul -- and I think his intentions were and are clear. Take the following Obaman formulation: I want to get beyond small government vs. big government. I'm concerned with good government -- government that does what's right and what's necessary. This is very good, and the sort of thing that won him the election. Note that he's distancing himself from common misconceptions of party orthodoxy -- as though Democrats go around proclaiming the value of big government in itself. They never have, but Obama's way of putting it suggests that he's above the straw man of destructive Democratic ideology and, at the same time, dismissive of petty conservative ideology, which is a genuine enemy. Consider his speech at the Democratic Convention that first made him a prominent figure. I don't care about red states and blue states -- it's all about the United States. We're all in this together. This is simply a liberal Democratic sentiment sold well -- sold as universal. Obama's great talent -- not so much in evidence during his presidency, much to my surprise and irritation -- was to brand liberalism as just the right thing, just the common sense thing, and also to exalt it as the American thing, even the Christian thing. I have zero doubt that that's how he thinks and what he believes. He even wrote a book saying as much. He wrote his own speeches saying as much. It's a persistent set of themes for him. Republicans answered this with a lot of "hell, no," which was intelligent of them, and the media started asking, "Hey, where's all this bipartisanship we were promised?" But he never promised bipartisanship as such. Bipartisanship depends on the other side's willing to dance. He quite clearly and persistently promised to push a medium-liberal agenda, which he did. He just did too good a job during the campaign of selling it. He did such a good job of selling it as non-partisan that Republicans' unwillingness to go along became evidence in itself of its partisan nature. So, we have the spectacle of people, having heard what they wanted to hear, now voicing their dissatisfaction. For some, he's guilty of left-wing overreach. (This is preposterous. He campaigned explicitly and loudly on major health care reform, for example.) For others, he's guilty of selling out to the right. (This is preposterous. He was never a left-winger. He was always nominally against gay marriage, for example.) For others (like Marty Peretz), he's guilty of selling out to foreign policy realism. (This is preposterous. He always opposed the Iraq War not because it was a war but because it was, as he said, a "stupid" war.) Here we have a president pretty well delivering on what he promised as a candidate -- a president clearly embodying the set of values he articulated during the campaign -- and sticking to them in a tough political atmosphere. For example, he went to bat on health care when everyone was telling him no. And yet there's a nagging sense of betrayal. I blame, first, the economy for this. Yes, Obama could have pushed for a bigger stimulus as some argued for, but that's a hindsight judgment. But I do blame Obama for not selling his agenda well in the face of real opposition. His state of the union was in the jaunty truth-telling mode, but he's not at his best in that mode and is reluctant to go there. So, we have the spectacle of large numbers of Americans pissed about taxes, whose taxes Obama cut. He's let the debate get away from him and dwell in Tea Party never-never-land. Be that as it may, he's not the shallow, soulless, vapid creature Wieseltier imagines. Rather, he's made some strategic errors, and, even if he hadn't, we'd probably be seeing similar results next week anyway.

- JakeH

October 30, 2010 at 12:47am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I love reading Leon on a weekend. Meandering, wise prose; "technology is making ghosts of us all".

- IggyPop

October 30, 2010 at 7:30am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

JakeH, all contrarian thoughts about Stewart to the side, what I've slowly come to think about Obama means that I'd have to work awfully hard to find omsething I didn't agree with in yours of the 10/30/2010 - 12:47am ultimo. Good post, needless to say.

- basman

October 30, 2010 at 10:06am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Jeff-Smith-- Thanks, yes, I think we agree basically, but I would point to a very different phenomenon to explain Obama's inconsistency and inability to fight back during his presidency: his fear of being labelled an intellectual, which translates in this culture into being labelled: an elitist. We first saw the effects of this fear during the campaign when Obama started dumbing down his speeches, especially from around the time of the Convention up to the election. This trend continued into his presidency, I would argue, and not to BHO's advantage. Indeed, it has cut his legs right out from under him. The very thing that Obama does well, the very man that he is, has been taken away from him. Which, in turn, has hampered his ability to fight back. If he were to return his own language, his intellectual, even poetic language (which we heard through much of the campaign prior to the Convention), then he would be able to make his case forcefully, and would then not only maintain his base, but deepen the support within that base. The drawback, some would argue, is that some voters would not be able to understand what he was saying, and the right would have a field day with this. I would argue that there is a segment of his base for whom, yes, there would be gaps in their understanding of his language, but they would be able to read his intent, they would be able to feel it. And that, in large part, would carry them along. As for the millions of voters who would not be able to read that intent, they are, for the most part, those who already hate everything Obama says, even before he says it. In other words, it is Obama's goal to be inclusive, to bring as many people into the discussion as possible, and one of the ways he appears to have gone about doing this (from the DNC on) is to dumb down his speeches. Which has turned him into a shadow of himself, weakened him as a communicator, weakened his power, and left his base wondering who it was they voted for. There can be only one solution to this problem: Let Obama be Obama!

- BenNevis

October 30, 2010 at 10:11am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

JakeH-- "But I do blame Obama for not selling his agenda well in the face of real opposition." I agree with much of what you say, but please see my response to Jeff_Smith above, which, I believe, addresses Obama's inability to sell his agenda during his presidency.

- BenNevis

October 30, 2010 at 10:14am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Ben, that's a very interesting analysis of Obama's speechmaking. Here's mine, for what it's worth: I wish he had done "Fireside Chats" shortly after taking office, while the original crash was still underway, and explained a few things very simply and clearly. For instance, it's not hard to understand the "output gap" -- America has an economy capable of producing $14 trillion worth of goods and services each year, but instead it's producing only $13 trillion worth, and the difference is the hole into which your jobs and incomes are disappearing. It also wouldn't be that hard to explain the basics of banking and credit flows, as FDR did. (And gosh, Obama's a professor! He should know at least as well as FDR how to explain something.) I think Americans eat that kind of thing up, as both FDR and Ross Perot's infomercials demonstrated. They like the feeling that they're being clued in to what's going on, and I think many more Americans are willing to trust Obama to do that than, say, Glenn Beck, who trades on that same feeling but exploits it to peddle idiotic conspiracy theories. At the very least, I think if Obama had done this, it would have shifted the conversation. Republicans and others would still have tried to denounce "spending" and "government takeovers" without reference to the reasoning behind them, but they would have been asked different questions on "Meet the Press" -- questions like, "OK, but what about closing that 'output gap' that the president talked about? What are your proposals for doing it?" I think they would have at the very least looked less trustworthy in the eyes of swing voters. I don't know if what I'm talking about would represent Obama being more or less intellectual. I'm inclined to say "more," because to me the greatest intellectuals have a gift for thinking through complex ideas clearly and then explaining them in easy-to-understand ways. But it's different from the poetic language and so forth that you're referring to. That said, I would have welcomed more of the poetry as well, and I don't think they're mutually exclusive.

- Jeff_Smith

October 30, 2010 at 2:54pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

This sentence is nothing bad about stewart: “He’s Cronkite,” proclaims New York magazine, “the most trusted man in America.” --> this is incredibly important, actually. "He is plainly a likeable man, and always good for intelligent laughter, though an air of genial sanctimony clings to his every joke. But it is not exciting that people glean their understanding of the world from “The Daily Show,” it is discouraging." --> I completely disagree with you. The author doesn't understand sarcasm -- -- and Stewart is not squandering folks' trust -- he's using it for noble intent, actually. He's actually able to say what he thinks and it's not insignificant. Also the author's tone is unnecessarily patronizing. The author of this piece clearly does not "Get it"-- that Stewart actually is serious, effective, and important. What does he think of Mark Twain, or Moliere? Stewart's response to the attack on Colbert. It's awesome: Scroll to the video on the bottom: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/28/stewart-colbert-testify-congress_n_741458.html Go Jon!!

- wharton

October 30, 2010 at 3:33pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Jeff-- ". . . I would have welcomed more of the poetry as well, and I don't think they're mutually exclusive." I agree, Jeff. Would have liked to see--and would still like to see--from Obama the explanation sessions you suggest, framed and painted and unified thematically via the poetry, the inspiriting, overarching vision, the brilliant, soulful intellect. We all know BHO is capable of this. Too bad he or his handlers have decided to scrap what he's best at, what got him where he is. Which is exactly who he is as well. Instead, he or they have tried to turn one of our most profoundly cerebral presidents into a prosaic, regular guy. Which has robbed him of his great charm, his infectious energy, his true power. It has also turned him into someone other than who he really is. Voters can smell falseness on a speaker the way dogs are said to smell fear. And if the man were allowed--if he were to allow himself--to speak in his own complex, crystalline language, Obama would be looking out at a very different political landscape right now.

- BenNevis

October 30, 2010 at 3:40pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Another small point is that I keep missing the president where I expect to see him. Where was he when that amazing new bridge near the Hoover Dam was opened a couple of weeks ago? He could have used that occasion to remind Americans we can do great things even in times of economic crisis and government is a part of doing those things. Where was he when the news finally filtered through that the TARP money is almost all repaid? Why not a big-arena talk on that, say in New York somewhere, explaining exactly why the U.S. Treasury and the taxpayer may even win on this one? There are optimistic stories out there but somehow Tea Party "anger" (wtf are they angry about, will anyone tell me, apart from the fact that their guys lost the friggin' election?) is the whole story.

- ironyroad

October 30, 2010 at 4:12pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

ironyroad-- ". . .somehow Tea Party 'anger' (wtf are they angry about, will anyone tell me, apart from the fact that their guys lost the friggin' election?) is the whole story." As I suggested in a post above, and as Garry Wills suggested on a recent Colbert Report, the Tea Partiers are, in large part, angry that the president happens to be black. Wills makes the case that the same ills were present during the Bush administration, but the Tea Partiers did not create the Tea Party, did not fire themselves up in response to those ills when a white guy was in office. I make the point (above on this thread) that there are quite a number of people in my neighborhood (mostly retired and current blue-collar workers) who support the Tea Party, who watch Fox News, who support the obstructionist Republicans in congress--and who also hate Obama because of his race. They make monkey jokes about him, for instance, they routinely employ the n word, and some of them are not at all shy about admitting that they are racists. "I can't believe what has happened to my country," one of them routinely bemoans, then tells a nigger joke. This is anecdotal evidence, I admit, but Garry Wills' point addresses the larger phenomenon: where was all this Tea Party anger when Bush was bailing out the banks, when Bush was overspending and overspending, when Bush was expanding the invasive reach and cost of the government, year after year after year?

- BenNevis

October 30, 2010 at 4:43pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

jakeH p.s. Total digression but given your comments on a different thread about public education, this essay by Daine Ravitch might interest you: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2010/nov/11/myth-charter-schools/?pagination=false

- basman

October 30, 2010 at 5:34pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

BenNevis -- I know, I was sort of posing a rhetorical question just for effect. I had read and agreed with your comment above.

- ironyroad

October 30, 2010 at 6:32pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Instead, he or [his handlers] have tried to turn one of our most profoundly cerebral presidents into a prosaic, regular guy. Which has robbed him of his great charm, his infectious energy, his true power. " Ben, I agree, and this reminds me of a scene in an episode of "The West Wing" early in its run. Toby, the White House Communications Director, is talking to the very cerebral President Jed Bartlet, who has just tried to claim that despite the fact that he knows Latin and has a Nobel Prize in economics, he's basically a regular guy himself. Toby corrects him: "You are not 'just folks.' You are not 'plain-spoken.' Do not -- do not -- do NOT try to act like it!" David Axelrod looks a little like Toby, but apparently gives a different kind of advice.

- Jeff_Smith

October 30, 2010 at 8:06pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

What's a "cerebral president"? Jeff Smith reminds me that critical commentary about this president has been consistently met with the meme: "it's not him, it's them". "His handlers"? The most cerebral of presidents is such a pushover that he outsources his the construction of his personality to his advisers? Now that his "handlers' will be gone, I expect we can finally see this most cerebral president emerge from his pupal stage in all the glory of the monarch butterfly to lead America cerebrally. Can anyone link to any article Prof. Obama has written as a law professor? I mean, aside from his two autobiographical books?

- noga1

October 30, 2010 at 8:30pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The Promise: …The idea that Obama was a “constitutional scholar” was, according to his former colleagues at Chicago, a bit of a myth. He had taught a class on race and the Constitution, an important but small slice of constitutional law, and he knew the precedents on other big legal issues, such as the separation of powers and the commerce clause, better than most presidents, but wasn’t an expert…

- basman

October 30, 2010 at 8:54pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The Promise: …The idea that Obama was a “constitutional scholar” was, according to his former colleagues at Chicago, a bit of a myth. He had taught a class on race and the Constitution, an important but small slice of constitutional law, and he knew the precedents on other big legal issues, such as the separation of powers and the commerce clause, better than most presidents, but wasn’t an expert…

- basman

October 30, 2010 at 8:55pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The Promise: …The idea that Obama was a “constitutional scholar” was, according to his former colleagues at Chicago, a bit of a myth. He had taught a class on race and the Constitution, an important but small slice of constitutional law, and he knew the precedents on other big legal issues, such as the separation of powers and the commerce clause, better than most presidents, but wasn’t an expert…

- basman

October 30, 2010 at 8:55pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The Promise: …The idea that Obama was a “constitutional scholar” was, according to his former colleagues at Chicago, a bit of a myth. He had taught a class on race and the Constitution, an important but small slice of constitutional law, and he knew the precedents on other big legal issues, such as the separation of powers and the commerce clause, better than most presidents, but wasn’t an expert…

- basman

October 30, 2010 at 8:55pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The Promise: …The idea that Obama was a “constitutional scholar” was, according to his former colleagues at Chicago, a bit of a myth. He had taught a class on race and the Constitution, an important but small slice of constitutional law, and he knew the precedents on other big legal issues, such as the separation of powers and the commerce clause, better than most presidents, but wasn’t an expert…

- basman

October 30, 2010 at 8:55pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Sorry for the repeats.

- basman

October 30, 2010 at 8:56pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

A new kind of emphasis.

- ironyroad

October 30, 2010 at 9:45pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Seriously? I mean, OK, maybe he doesn't have the towering intellect of a George W. Bush, but are we really debating whether a fomer editor of the Harvard Law Review and lecturer at a university ranked in the top 10 worldwide qualifies as cerebral? What does it take these days, anyway? Also, notice that "cerebral" isn't necessarily praise. It's the name of a quality that can work for or against a president. Some of us just think Obama could be using it to better advantage.

- Jeff_Smith

October 30, 2010 at 10:56pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Sorry for the repeats.

- basman

October 30, 2010 at 11:09pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

If I am being asked whether I think that Obama is anything less than a first class intellect, who puts that first class intellect into practice, I say no, he's nothing less than that, which is to say, he's exactly that. Hope I haven't confused anything with the awkward way I said what I say.

- basman

October 30, 2010 at 11:18pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Watch Stewart and I'd ask you rejudge him: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jXmbzLI3pnk >"The moral authority of Jon Stewart is a baffling phenomenon." Is it still baffling, now? really? Stewart named destructive games played in our media and proposes a constructive remedy. How is that not worthy of deep respect? > "air of genial sanctimony".. Did you somehow detect this somewhere in his speech? If so where? If not, is it even important? >"But it is not exciting that people glean their understanding of the world from “The Daily Show,” it is discouraging. " Is it really discouraging to encourage media literacy? I don't think you understand Stewart's underlying sincerity in what he's doing and its constructive benefits. I'll forgive you because you probably haven't watched as much of him as I have : ). > "political vaudeville"? Would you really lump him here? he's obviously trying and I believe succeeding with much more than this, or do you still just seem him just as this? Dude, hopefully you've rethought things, and have realized that Stewart is a bit more than you cynically espoused. Yes, he throws spitballs in his comedy -- and he admits it -- honestly -- but that's only part of his routine. He's serious too -- and constructive. Fundamentally, he's constructive, thoughtful, and brilliant IMHP, and hopefully your seemingly simple-minded view of him has changed. If not, oh well. Maybe ask your kids what they think.

- wharton

October 30, 2010 at 11:59pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Basman, I know you weren't endorsing The Promise, but I do have the pleasure of being in the position of having first-hand knowledge that refutes the quoted passage. I took regular Con Law from him -- a standard class and not some mythical elective, Con Law and Race. It *was* Con Law 2, which focuses on rights, as opposed to Con Law 1, which focuses on structure of government. Conservatives probably regard Con Law 2 as an illegitimate subject of study. (Meanwhile, their Supreme Court is making a hash of Con Law 3, about the First Amendment.) I also took Voting Rights from him, which is probably another subject conservatives don't look upon favorably, given their hostility to the Voting Rights Act. I also know that he was viewed by his colleagues (many of whom are conservative) as a fine intellect, and by his students (many of whom were conservative) as an outstanding teacher who led probing discussions not wedded to ideology. Indeed, like today, he sometimes picked on liberals in the class who felt too comfortable in their views. This is the sort of guy who calls up uber-published Cass Sunstein to run through ideas about the legality of the warrantless wiretapping program, and ends up convincing (or maybe near-convincing) Sunstein that it wasn't legal. I think Obama was right on that, FWIW, as the kids text. No, he's not published as a legal scholar, and "legal scholar" is probably an exaggerated appellation for him. He made a choice to pursue politics instead of an academic career, but there's little doubt that he was capable of the latter. He wasn't just a prominent figure the school had teach a few classes about black stuff. He was seen as a potential high-level academic.

- JakeH

October 31, 2010 at 2:04am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Yes, Ben, Jeff, and irony, I pretty much agree with all you say. I cringe when I hear him today lamely demagogue foreign money behind the business lobby. It's a stupid, fact-free issue that doesn't resonate. Yes, somebody is not letting Obama be Obama -- perhaps Obama himself. It's his call, after all. He's doing focus-group-tested bullshit, nobody's feeling it, and the press is giving him shit for it, as well it should.

- JakeH

October 31, 2010 at 2:21am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

An agreeably eloquent stew as usual. I think the mention of genial sanctimony gets to a larger aspect of Leon's contentions. Smug self satisfaction is not a viable personal thus political disposition.

- jacko

October 31, 2010 at 6:54am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"This is the sort of guy who calls up uber-published Cass Sunstein to run through ideas about the legality of the warrantless wiretapping program, and ends up convincing (or maybe near-convincing) Sunstein that it wasn't legal." It's hard to see how JakeH gets from this report to his own conclusion: "I had written a short essay suggesting that the surveillance might be lawful. Before taking a public position, Obama wanted to talk the problem through. In the space of about 20 minutes, he and I investigated the legal details. He asked me to explore all sorts of issues: the President's power as commander-in-chief, the Constitution's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the Authorization for Use of Military Force and more. Obama wanted to consider the best possible defence of what Bush had done. To every argument I made, he listened and offered a counter-argument. After the issue had been exhausted, Obama said that he thought the programme was illegal, but now had a better understanding of both sides. He thanked me for my time. " http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cass-r-sunstein/the-obama-i-know_b_90034.html What struck me most forcibly about the report at the time was its unintended irony: Sunstein is amazed by Obama's thorough prudence. Unlike "many prominent Democratic leaders" who "had already blasted the Bush initiative as blatantly illegal.", Obama actually explored the opposite point of view, before joining these leaders in blasting the Bush initiative as illegal...

- noga1

October 31, 2010 at 7:37am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Maybe he concluded it was illegal, knowing better what he was talking about than before he met with Sunstein. As usual, the irony is all in your own head.

- basman

October 31, 2010 at 10:37am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

BTW, for those who are too lazy too actually check links and get the whole story, Obama's conversation with Sunstein took place on the phone and lasted all of 20 minutes, by which time the entire issue of constitutionality of the wire tapping was exhausted and doubt consolidated into moral conviction.

- noga1

October 31, 2010 at 11:06am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Jeff_Smith-- I'm sorry to say that I've never seen "The West Wing," but your description of that particular scene seems apt. And, yes, I agree: it's ridiculous to question whether or not Obama is one of our most cerebral presidents, especially given some of the recent inhabitants of that office (ie, George W, Ronald Reagan). ____________________________________ Basman-- I ususally find what you post to be well-considered and intelligent (and occasionally even cerebral!), but are you suggesting that the fact that Obama is not a "constitutional scholar" in any way implies that he's not one of our most cerebral presidents? If so, the lines you quote seem to undermine your own point: that Obama "knew the precedents on other big legal issues, such as the separation of powers and the commerce clause, better than most presidents. . ." I'd say that alone goes a long way toward demonstrating that BHO is one our most cerebral presidents. ____________________________ noga1-- You write: "What's a 'cerebral president'?" An intellectual, who also happens to be president. You also write: "Jeff Smith reminds me that critical commentary about this president has been consistently met with the meme: 'it's not him, it's them'. 'His handlers'? The most cerebral of presidents is such a pushover that he outsources his the construction of his personality to his advisers?" First, it wasn't Jeff Smith who made the point that Obama was one of our most cerebral presidents. It was me. (Jeff was simply responding to my post, and quoting it.) Second, if you scroll back up and read the lines Jeff quoted, or if you read my original post, you'll see that I said: Obama OR his handlers have tried to turn one of our most cerebral presidents into a regular guy. Third, even those among us who are "cerebral" make mistakes. And the point I was making is that Obama's mistake is that either he has scrapped what he does best (the use of poetic and complex language), or that he has allowed others to convince him to scrap what he does best. All of which is to say, it's difficult to see how said point would in any way embody the it's-not-him-it's-them meme, as you put it, especially as I am clearly holding BHO responsible for his own actions.

- BenNevis

October 31, 2010 at 11:29am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

JakeH-- Great post (the one about you taking Obama's classes). Also agree with your more recent post (the one in which you agree with me, Jeff & irony): that it's BHO's responsibility for not letting Obama be Obama (I said this myself in response to noga above). Just wish the man would figure it out: dance with the one who brought you here (ie, be the man you are: the poetic intellectual to whom the voters responded in the first place).

- BenNevis

October 31, 2010 at 11:43am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Obama's conversation with Sunstein took place on the phone and lasted all of 20 minutes, by which time the entire issue of constitutionality of the wire tapping was exhausted and doubt consolidated into moral conviction." Noga, is there a minimum amount of time in which a professional discussion by phone on the constitutionality of wiretapping can be satisfactorily completed? And if so, how was that measure established? And does it change things if the speakerphone was on?

- ironyroad

October 31, 2010 at 2:21pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Sorry to have attributed to Jeff Smith what should have been attributed to Ben Nevis. However, if, as Nevis affirms, "Obama's mistake is that either he has scrapped what he does best (the use of poetic and complex language), or that he has allowed others to convince him to scrap what he does best. " then this statement which allocates responsibility where responsibility is due (Obama), is somewhat undermined by Nevis's earlier formulations in which he says: "Too bad he or his handlers have decided to scrap what he's best at, what got him where he is." The use of "handlers" is not neutral. A handler is someone who trains and directs another person. The very introduction of such a term into a discussion about Obama's mistakes is an attempt at mitigation.

- noga1

October 31, 2010 at 2:33pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Noga, is there a minimum amount of time in which a professional discussion by phone on the constitutionality of wiretapping can be satisfactorily completed? And if so, how was that measure established? And does it change things if the speakerphone was on?" My point which I'm sure you did not miss, was, that Obama, in calling Sunstein, was not suffering from much doubt about what position to take. If he did entertain the possibility of serious doubt, how could he have considered the issue from all aspects in a 20-minute phone call? Of course if the conversation was between two legal eagles then the work of persuasion or dissuasion might indeed be achieved in a a matter of minutes. When Obama is indeed uncertain about what opinion to take, we know he takes as long as necessary to come to a decision. As we saw in the long time he took to decide on the Afghanistan surge. Just saying, ironyroad. Can't imagine why you respond as if your personal honour has been hurt, which I deduce from the gratuitous sneer "And does it change things if the speakerphone was on?". Was that really necessary, ironyroad? Why the angry sarcasm? Or can't you help but join in the fun, eh?

- noga1

October 31, 2010 at 2:46pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Once again for the umpteenth time, Noga, no sneering involved (do you just say that, or do you honestly perceive it? I'm never sure). But certainly pulling your chain a little about adjudging the efficacy of a phone call between two other people discussing an issue neither of us are expert in. But surely you can't be seriously saying that you're entitled to attack Obama, but I'm not entitled to defend him?

- ironyroad

October 31, 2010 at 2:54pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"But surely you can't be seriously saying that you're entitled to attack Obama, but I'm not entitled to defend him?" Where did I say that? I'm genuinely curious to learn how my words can get so twisted out of shape when the mood takes you. BTW, I stand by my "sneer" description. A sneer can take many shapes and act on several levels. By your own admission, at the very least, you wanted to "pull my chain". Why? My original comment was not aimed at you but was rather generic, yet you needed to respond by sarcastic exaggeration. I don't like sarcasm, it's cheap, often vulgar and distracting. You have every right to deploy it if you like just don't act all outraged when I respond accordingly ("Once again for the umpteenth time"). (Too bad you are in such a quarrelsome mood. I wanted to ask you something sideways and now I can't. It's Obama. He will always come between us...)

- noga1

October 31, 2010 at 3:25pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Ah. But am I the only quarrelsome one here? Try the thread on Entanglements, it might be easier there. No Obama, only De Gaulle.

- ironyroad

October 31, 2010 at 3:48pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

noga1-- You write: "The use of 'handlers' is not neutral. A handler is someone who trains and directs another person." A handler is a strategy adviser, and in the modern era, every president, every senator, every seriously public person who can afford one has one, at least one. This is rather common knowledge, noga1. It's difficult to believe that you would argue otherwise.

- BenNevis

October 31, 2010 at 10:48pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

One more thing, noga1-- Just so we're clear: Every president is responsible for the decision to hire the handlers he employs. Every president is also responsible for the decision to take, or not to take, the advice of said handlers. George W, for instance, was responsible was the decision to hire, as well as the decision to listen to, Karl Rove. Once again, though, it's difficult to believe that you would argue otherwise, as this is all rather obvious.

- BenNevis

October 31, 2010 at 10:54pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Well, noga, my memory of Sunstein's account had included a favorable response on his part. Perhaps I just picked that up from his generally complimentary tone. Maybe he wasn't actually convinced, though I don't remember his saying that he wasn't, and he was evidently impressed. Anyway, that's neither here nor there. It's just a small example of Obama's intellectual capacity, style, and rigor, which was put in issue. I'm not following your "irony" point. It's clear that he had already judged the situation and was seeking to test his analysis against that of a very smart guy he knew who had come to a different tentative conclusion. I don't see the irony there. It's entirely laudable, and entirely consistent with Obama's intellectual nature. He's not the sort of person who is satisfied with a half-assed argument. He's questioning himself and trying to make sure that he's making the best argument. He's trying to convince himself, and he's a tough customer. That's good. It's likely that he seldom changes his mind after forming an initial take. But that's true of everybody, and "seldom" isn't "never." The point is, he wants to know what he's doing and know what he's talking about, and he's got the disposition to probe deeply in order to get there and the mind to process that and reach good conclusions. This doesn't mean he'll always be right, but the odds are better. The only danger of this sort of disposition in itself is indecisiveness, but I don't see him falling into that trap. So, do you have a point, or what?

- JakeH

November 1, 2010 at 12:43am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Basman, thanks for the link to the Ravitch piece. As it happens, I had already read it -- in a restaurant where I drew a couple of stares for my frequent utterances of fervent agreement, as in, "Yes," "Thank you," or "Well, there it is." Lots of good stuff in that issue.

- JakeH

November 1, 2010 at 1:02am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"This is rather common knowledge, noga1. It's difficult to believe that you would argue otherwise." Sorry Ben Nevis, but the term "handler" means more than an adviser. A handler is someone who is thought to be in control and pulling the reins. When you used the term "handlers" rather than "advisers" you were making a certain value judgment which suggests mitigation for Obama. A person being handled is not a person who is being advised. Perhaps you misspoke?

- noga1

November 1, 2010 at 7:38am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Jakeh: It is obvious that Sunstein was writing the piece on behalf of Obama. He wanted to help him get elected. But his point was to show how Obama was utterly serious about looking at an issue from all sides before making a judgment yet when I read it it was obvious to me that Obama was simply looking for some authoritative reassurance and was not really in any danger of not joining the other politicians in their denunciation of the wire tapping. If he were serious, it would have taken a lot more than a 20 minute phone call to determine the outcome. That was the irony, that in trying to show Obama's thoughtful intellectual, he actually illustrated Obama the deft politician. You may not share my sense of irony because you are utterly invested in Obama's image that this piece reaffirms.

- noga1

November 1, 2010 at 7:47am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

noga1-- "Sorry Ben Nevis, but the term 'handler' means more than an adviser. A handler is someone who is thought to be in control and pulling the reins. When you used the term 'handlers' rather than 'advisers' you were making a certain value judgment which suggests mitigation for Obama." Sorry, noga, but this is a ridiculous argument. I've already said what I meant--that a political handler is an employee, that a handler's employer is always responsible for having hired, and having listened to, said handler. That every modern president, and virtually every public person (who can afford to hire one) has a handler. There is no clear "value judgment," as you put it, that a reference to such a situation implies. But, again, this is obvious, so obvious that it appears there's no point to exchanging with you. So goodbye, and good luck, noga. I wish you well.

- BenNevis

November 1, 2010 at 8:41am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

An employee being a handler is exactly why the problem of meaning arose, Ben Nevis. It suggests the employee (Obama is not an employer, btw, it's the government of the US that employs Obama's advisers) has some kind of power over the president of the US, some kind of arcane power, so much so that he can handle him, as in: train and manipulate. All you need to do is just say that you meant Advisers and not handlers. But then, it wouldn't have the same effect, would it? "Too bad he or his handlers have decided to scrap what he's best at, what got him where he is." "Too bad he or his advisers have decided to scrap what he's best at, what got him where he is." An adviser cannot decide to scrap what Obama is best at. A handler - can. Thank you for your good wishes, btw. Very generous of you to end our little linguistic disagreement with such beneficence of feeling. I'm touched.

- noga1

November 1, 2010 at 9:40am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Back to Jon Stewart: Here is some feedback from across the Atlantic: "Jon Stewart's Rally for Sanity yesterday featured Yusuf Islam aka Cat Stevens singing "Peace Train". Islam/Stevens previously showed his commitment to peace and sanity by saying that death was the appropriate punishment for Salman Rushdie's "blasphemy". " http://standpointmag.co.uk/node/3551

- noga1

November 1, 2010 at 9:56am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Noga, yes and you're utterly invested in not giving Obama any sort of credit, even where it's painfully obvious that he deserves it. It's clear, as I said, that he had already thought through the issue on his own for longer than 20 minutes and was, as I said, seeking to test hsi analysis against Sunstein's. You write that Sunstein was writing the piece in order to be complimentary of Obama. No doubt. Do you dispute its honesty or accuracy? Do you think Sunstein is a political hack? You write that Obama was seeking reassurance. So what if he was? That's good! That's my whole point. It's becoming clear that your definition of intellectual coinicdes with whether the person agrees with you. You say that the piece illustrates Obama's deftness as a politician. I used to be a very deft politician, I agree. However, I can't fathom a political motive for the phone call. Are you seriously suggesting that Obama hoped to impress Sunstein to the point that Sunstein might decide to make mention of the incident in an article he wrote read by all of, like, three people who already agree?

- JakeH

November 1, 2010 at 12:35pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I should have written, "he" used to be a very deft politician. I was never a politician of any sort.

- JakeH

November 1, 2010 at 12:36pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

p.s. This is a stupid argument, which I would be happy to stop having.

- JakeH

November 1, 2010 at 12:37pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

noga1-- "Thank you for your good wishes, btw. Very generous of you to end our little linguistic disagreement with such beneficence of feeling. I'm touched." Yes, but I really did think that would be the end of it. And I sincerely hope it does end now. There's really no point whatsoever in going on with this. Or as JakeH so aptly put it, "This is a stupid argument, which I would be happy to stop having."

- BenNevis

November 1, 2010 at 1:01pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Noga, yes and you're utterly invested in not giving Obama any sort of credit, even where it's painfully obvious that he deserves it. " Maybe. Nothing is obvious, painfully or otherwise, and nobody deserves any automatic credit just because they are Obama. I described my take on that conversation AFTER you had mischaracterized it in your original comment thusly: ""This is the sort of guy who calls up uber-published Cass Sunstein to run through ideas about the legality of the warrantless wiretapping program, and ends up convincing (or maybe near-convincing) Sunstein that it wasn't legal." So why are you so upset?

- noga1

November 1, 2010 at 1:18pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

...Basman-- I ususally find what you post to be well-considered and intelligent (and occasionally even cerebral!), but are you suggesting that the fact that Obama is not a "constitutional scholar" in any way implies that he's not one of our most cerebral presidents?... BenNevis It's me, not you. I wrote something awarkdly: I was trying to say, Obama's constitutional expertise aside--and I'm happy to have this clarified by the estimable jakeH--that Obama is impressively cerebral and that for my money he translates his braininess into his policies and his political practices and that--I'd add--the looming immediate Republican ascendancy in the legislative branch is a bloody shame.

- basman

November 1, 2010 at 4:32pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

...BTW, for those who are too lazy too actually check links and get the whole story, Obama's conversation with Sunstein took place on the phone and lasted all of 20 minutes, by which time the entire issue of constitutionality of the wire tapping was exhausted and doubt consolidated into moral conviction... Are you nuts?

- basman

November 1, 2010 at 4:36pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Basman-- "I wrote something awarkdly: I was trying to say, Obama's constitutional expertise aside--and I'm happy to have this clarified by the estimable jakeH--that Obama is impressively cerebral and that for my money he translates his braininess into his policies and his political practices and that--I'd add--the looming immediate Republican ascendancy in the legislative branch is a bloody shame." Thanks for the clarification. I suspected something along these lines (your posts are, in general, too intelligent for you to have been using the "constitutional scholar" quote in the way it appeared you were using it). And, yes, I agree with you, on all counts. As for the person to whom you address the question in your most recent post ("Are you nuts?"), I think if you take a look at the discussion above, it might give you a sense of who or what it is you're dealing with here.

- BenNevis

November 1, 2010 at 6:38pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

...a sense of who or what it is you're dealing with here... Got that: any such "dealing", generally--let me not be overly unkind--putting it mildly, a waste of time and energy.

- basman

November 1, 2010 at 10:39pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

basman-- "Got that: any such 'dealing', generally--let me not be overly unkind--putting it mildly, a waste of time and energy." Yes, that was exactly what I was suggesting. Nice to exchange with you, basman.

- BenNevis

November 2, 2010 at 11:18am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close