The Politics Of Delusional Pundits

The New Republic: Media's Dangerous Infatuation With Obama Similar To Bush In 2000

(The New Republic)  This column was written by Sean Wilentz.

---

Every now and then in American politics, normally balanced people get swept up by delusions of greatness about a presidential candidate, based on an emotional attachment to the candidate's oratory or image. The youthful William Jennings Bryan brought down the house and swept up the nomination with his famous "Cross of Gold" speech at the Democratic National Convention in 1896 — only to be crushed by the dreary William McKinley in November.

Political journalists have never been immune to the delusional style. But editorialists and pundits are supposed to be skeptical experts, who at least try to appear as if they base their perceptions in facts and reality. Enthusiasm for a candidate because of his or her "intuitive sense of the world," "intuitive understanding," and discovery of "identity" — the favored terms in some recent press endorsements of Barack Obama — is presented as the product of such discerning, well-considered thinking. But it is in fact nothing more than enthusiasm, based on feelings and projections that are unattached to verifiable rational explanation or the public record.

In recent years, pundits from across the political spectrum — and not just in politics — have denigrated informed and reasoned decision-making in favor of hunches, snap judgments, instincts, and what the upscale middlebrow's favorite trendspotter, Malcolm Gladwell, defends as "instant intuition." The political pundits have praised candidates based on their projections about the candidates' characters, personalities, and inner lives — and what they imagine about the candidates' instincts. Possessed by a will to believe in somebody, the pundits intuit intuition. It is the delusional style in American punditry.

The style was particularly prominent during George W. Bush's rise to the presidency. Although Bush had a thin record on domestic matters as governor of Texas, no record whatsoever on foreign policy, and things to hide about his past, none of it mattered. As president, he has asked the American people to trust him because of his faith in himself and his God-given instincts — what he calls his "gut." For years, the Washington press corps was bowled over by such self-assurance. Having decided that the wonkish, reasonable Al Gore was boring and inauthentic, reporters covered Bush as a centered man with superb intuition.

Bush has governed in much the same way, with harrowing results. Shortly after the invasion of Baghdad in 2003, when Senator Joe Biden raised serious questions at a meeting in the Oval Office, Bush serenely pushed aside Biden's concerns about rising sectarian violence, the disbanding of the Iraqi army, and the growing problems of winning the peace. "Mr. President," Biden finally said, "How can you be so sure when you know you don't know the facts?"

Bush stood up and placed his hand on the senator's shoulder. "My instincts," he said meaningfully. "My instincts."

Biden, who had never been mesmerized by Bush's manufactured mystique, was incredulous. "Mr. President," he said, "your instincts aren't good enough."

Yet today, after seven disastrous years of the Bush experience, otherwise rational editorialists and commentators are insisting that instincts basically are good enough — and are actually more important than what they consider prosaic credentials such as knowledge, experience, and sound policy proposals. The pundits have vaunted good vibes and gut-thinking as the crucial qualifications for the nation's highest office. They have turned the delusional style into a rallying cry — in support, at least for the moment, of the candidacy of Barack Obama and his allegedly superior intuition.

The Boston Globe, in an ideal specimen of the delusional style, ran an editorial that endorsed Obama because he is biracial and grew up in "multi-ethnic cultures" — adequate substitutes, by the editorial's lights, for serious background and expertise in foreign affairs. Obama, according to the Globe, has engaged in "a search for identity" and taken "a roots pilgrimage to Kenya," all of which supposedly displays a "level of introspection, honesty, and maturity" that the newspaper longs for in a president. "Obama's story is America's story," the Globe intoned — a sentence that comes as close as any distinguished newspaper ever has to perfect emptiness.

Let us hold aside that the book the Globe relied on in discovering these singular Obamaesque virtues, Dreams From My Father, contains composite characters and other fictionalized elements — not exactly a portrait of sterling honesty or authenticity. What is especially delusional is the Globe's confidence that its own projections about Obama's character and personality, as well as the mystical conclusions it draws from his ethnicity, are serious grounds for endorsing any candidate for any office, much less the presidency.

Fareed Zakaria, in his column for Newsweek, likewise claims that in foreign affairs, his own specialty, "personal identity" is more important than "experience and expertise" — at least when it comes to Barack Obama. (It would be hard to imagine anyone granted a foreign affairs column at Newsweek on this basis.) Out of his own experiences as a foreigner and aspiring immigrant, Zakaria builds a case that Obama has "the perspective and judgment" that it takes to be president. "I know what it means not to be an American," Zakaria emotes — supposedly just like his new hero. Quite apart from the dismaying prospects of this line as a Democratic campaign slogan, it is striking how Zakaria's admiration for Obama is based in blind narcissism as well as utter projection.

The most interesting thing about David Brooks' recent pro-Obama column in The New York Times — along with Obama-friendly observations by Karl Rove and Rove's former deputy Peter Wehner — is that they mark Obama as Republicans' favorite Democratic candidate for president. But Brooks has also fallen into the delusional style. He likes Obama, he says, because of the senator's "character and self-knowledge" which "matter more than even experience." (Give Brooks credit for consistency; he said more or less the same thing in praise of George W. Bush in 2000.)

Brooks channels the late sociologist David Riesman to declare that Obama is a secure "inner-directed man," who was "forged by the process of discovering his own identity." Then, channeling Abraham Lincoln, Reinhold Niebuhr, and Isaiah Berlin, Brooks expostulates about Obama as a man with a tragic sense of life and acute powers of observation — relying chiefly, like the Globe, on Obama's semi-fictional memoir. Brooks offers nothing about politics and knowledge and positions: it's all about personality, character, and attitude — or what Brooks whips up about Obama's personality, character, and attitude.

There are many possible explanations for this latest outbreak of the delusional style. An ever-intensifying cult of celebrity personality-worship, the more sentimental the better, may finally have overwhelmed precincts of political commentary. (Obama's sidekick, Oprah Winfrey, is, after all, the reigning master of that cult.) Democrats may simply be so battered after what the Globe calls "seven desolating years" that they are looking for a man on a white horse to deliver them from despair — and so they have invented one.

There is also the troubling possibility that what a senior Bush official once cheerily described as the downfall of "reality-based" politics, including "reality-based" reporting, and commentary, has in fact come to pass, and that fantasy has taken over. Eight years ago, defiance of reality in favor of delusions about instinct helped bring the incumbent president to the White House. A catastrophic presidency ensued — directed largely on George W. Bush's intuition. Today's Obama-awed commentators, unchastened by that experience, describe breathlessly his "intuitive sense of the world." No doubt if Obama falters, these pundits will someday find another intuitive child of destiny to call their own. What remains to be seen is if American voters will prove to be more skeptical — and more reality-based — than the pixilated experts.

[mcvet]

I love it.. a Nazi rag like this who has been the biggest and most disgusting excuse finder for that horrible piece of human trash a few still call a President, using it to downplay a Democratic Canidate. I just wish these fascist would sit down and shut up. Haven''t they done enough damage? Sieg Heil Bush!

[bluestardad]

so tired of politics and christmas....

be done with it all...

change the channel

[Razzl]

Fine, Obama isn''t your guy, I can live with that, but your elaborate thesis here isn''t holding water. Some individuals out there do have special character, and when many educated observers say so, it might just be because it''s true, if subjective. Obama''s poise on the stump is exceptional and his ability to sustain it while evolving his experience is also exceptional, and I say so as a non-pundit citizen who can''t possibly be under any delusions after living with 7 years of the surreal Bush/Rove world view...

[closethippy1]

Fine, Obama isn''''t your guy, I can live with that, but your elaborate thesis here isn''''t holding water... Obama''''s poise on the stump is exceptional and his ability to sustain it while evolving his experience is also exceptional, and I say so as a non-pundit citizen who can''''t possibly be under any delusions after living with 7 years of the surreal Bush/Rove world view...
Posted by razzl

I couldn''t have said it better. It is more than clear the New Republic folks are not happy Hilary Clinton is having such a hard time with her campaign because of Obama.
What other reason can there be to call this man "delusional"? You have got to be f''n kidding me!
If there''s anyone delusional here is the entire roster of Republican candidates and their anti-evertything stand.
Don''t forget the NR is published by a freaking Zionist and I''m sure he and his ilk are very nervous about having someone in office that is going to be a bit less friendly to Israle than Bush.
Clinton has already proven she couldn''t care less about Palestinians, pretty much like the rest of the candidates be they Democrats or Republicans.
Obama is the exception not only on this issue but also due to his proposals to actually talk to Syria and Iran for a freaking change.
It''s the delusional Middle East policies of both Democratic and Republican parties that got us in so much trouble over there, not Obama''s hope for a change of course.

[may240]

BIDEN. He is the only qualified candidate. No delusions.

[may240]

BIDEN. He is the only qualified candidate. No delusions.

[perception5]

Sioux City Journal in conservative Western Iowa has endorsed for the Dems Obama...........and for the GOP MITT ROMNEY!.......check out this link..........and I do believe the Huck-a-bust is in full swing right now...........here you go:

http://www.siouxcityjournal.com/endorsement/

[tylenol6]

RON PAUL ......no delusions here....

[blazercoach1]

I agree with closethippy.

Could this be any more covertly a pro-Hillary piece? Just go ahead and say it New Republic....you want Hillary.

I wish your support for Biden were sincere...but since he''s unfortunately NOT a top tier candidate, your veil is thinly disguised.....

[tbweb]

This is rich and too funny! Everyone thought Obama''s campaign was nice and cute as long as his Poll numbers didn''t appear to be a threat, including the Clinton''s! But once Obama raised just as much money as Hillary and stayed close to her in the Polls and even passed her in some Polls the Clinton''s and others started to show their true colors and their FANGS as well!! LOL

[brianbwb-2009]

"The New Republic: Media''s Dangerous Infatuation With Obama Similar To Bush In 2000"

I knew it, it had to happen. The new tactic of the day is, call them "another Bush". Even the right leaning Bushbot op eds will soon start doing this, after 8 years of goose stepping with the Bush klan.

[quatrops]

A very on-target response by razzl @ 1:29 (and those of you who offered a "second that" since). Thank you!

One might think Wilentz was being paid by the word. Although he makes an observation worthy of consideration, it could hardly be said he "proves his point", as razzl points out. Either way, he took far too many words to do it!

I don''t have access to the New Republic''s commentary in 2003 about the Biden/Bush exchange quoted here (if they made one), but I''d be willing to wager they would have argued that "sometimes one has to go with one''s instincts". Unfortunately for all of us, the "one" in that case was George Bush.

Bush''s sad, incompetent failure is that he found (finds?) "facts" to match his instinct (WMDs, aluminum tubes, yellow cake, terrorist training camps . . . . .).

Lesson learned? Don''t trust the "instinct" of a man who''s life has been a litany of failures. Obama''s life thus far has been a series of successes.

Only 394 more days and this nightmare will be over.

[doctor--o]

It is inappropriate to pick a President because of media-hyped, gut feelings; couldn''t be more wrong or ill-advised. Yet even a well informed-American has little factual knowledge of even the most promoted candidates. What we see and hear and are made to think is a carefully crafted illusion. It is much like thinking your favorite TV show character is really that person you see on TV.

Most Americans can''t associate anything at all with a candidates. In fact, most don''t even know or care who the candidates are.

Unfortunately, we live in a time where baseless opinion is given equal or greater weight against well supported fact and we choose based fundamentally on ideology and psycho-social mechanisms of manipulation.

All said, it doesn''t bode well if a democracy is dependent on a well-informed, educated electorate. Even education is perceived mostly as a way to make more money to get more stuff.

We are what we choose to be.

[trillion1]

Not one front runner is worth a bucket of spit.

[jon2012-2009]

One might think Wilentz was being paid by the word. Although he makes an observation worthy of consideration, it could hardly be said he "proves his point", as razzl points out. Either way, he took far too many words to do it!
Posted by Quatrops at 06:55 AM : Dec 23, 2007

I don''t think there was a really serious effort to "prove his point." I don''t think any was needed. Isn''t this self-evident. In any rational discussion, we have to guided by facts and well-established principles. Those are the only things that will keep our thinking hinged to reality and provide an objective framework. The absence of transparency in "gut instinct" decisionmaking is a surrender to intellectual sloppiness.

The only areas where it''s even tolerable to disregard reality and facts is when the subject is morals, values and religion. Not when the business at hand is the business of the nation.

[jimbo554]

I wish I could say it doesn''t matter what the pundits say, that the American people are smart enough to make the right decisions, but sadly, the American people are not.

[quatrops]

I don''t totally agree with jon2012 in his statement about "intellectual sloppiness" in gut-instinct decision making, although it is true MOST of the time.

There ARE situations in which relavent "facts" are not accessable or available, and whose nature requires an immediate decision. In such cases, my evaluation of the "decider''s" gut instinct is important as to whether or not I concur in the decision.

The sad history of Bush''s incompetency suggests that I would not trust his gut-instinct when faced with such a situation. Although Obama''s gut-instinct may have yet to be proven, he at least does not have Bush''s history of failure, so I would be less likely to be lacking in trust.

[aldee41]

The next President will be a Democrat.
Chose wisely. Chose Richardson.