A STRANGER CAME TO TOWN

    By Oxy Mora on Tue, 01/25/2011 - 9:16am |

    A Presidency can be about programs and policies. A Presidency can also be a story about a man and a journey.

    The writer John Gardner claimed that there are two basic story forms -- "A Stranger comes to Town" and "We go on a Journey".

    Taken as story President Obama's first two years in office overlooked both basic forms.

    In my opinion, in the first two years the "stranger" story form was used extensively against Obama. This counter narrative included code words for "black", plus a host of sub texts about how Obama was "different"--not one of us. I think that Obama's fine speech in Tucson largely ended the effectiveness of the "stranger" counter narrative.

    Now Obama needs to establish the "Journey" story. What journey are we taking with him?

    I think that the Republicans have a "journey" story about returning to the mythical town of Mayberry. Religion, apple pie, guns, and no need for science or education, the Pastor will provide.

    The President needs to tell a different kind of story, a story of our society being re-energized, re-constituted to take on our new role in a world of expanding world economies, retooling our infrastructure and focusing on education and innovation.

    Quite possibly the "stranger" narrative can be turned against the Republicans, especially the Tea Party elements. "If you've come here to help fix the town, you'll be welcome. If you've come here to tear the place down, we'll fight you." 

    Comments

    Great analogy, Oxy.  You've nailed it.  Your last line should be engraved over the chamber doors in the Capitol building for all to see.

    I've been watching the Republicans this morning talking about what Obama needs to say tonight.  Obama needs to repeat their talking points or they won't budge.  If he doesn't talk about easing the deficit and making drastic cuts in social programs, the "American people" are going to turn away from him even further.  That's their spin and they're sticking to it.

    I personally want to see Obama ignore the Republicans in the room (and their Wall Street doppelgangers) and speak to the people hurting the most.  They are the ones who are waiting to hear about some real signs of hope, some real recognition of the problems we're facing, and some real solutions to those problems. 

     If he panders to either the Republicans or Wall Street, or gives them a pass on the part they've played in the near-total destruction of the America we once knew,  he will have shown himself not worthy of his title.  We need a leader, not a follower.  I want to see a leader tonight.  I don't have to like everything he says, but I want to see a leader who understands what his mission is and why it's so important not to deviate from it..


    by Ramona on Tue, 01/25/2011 - 10:55am

    I suspect the President will trot out the same failed policies.  

    He’ll be the cheerleader, expounding the virtues of our capitalist system  

    A little patriotism, with some flattery, telling us even he recognizes the American worker can compete in a global economy.

    Never mind the statement is only true, if the American worker will work as cheap . 

    Will he announce that he realizes the pain many American families are feeling and he knows of the burden of debt that is crushing the American dream?

    We’ll he say, we’ve helped the banker class, now it’s time to help the poor and the oppressed? 

    He’ll tell us how the model of GE and how we can increase our exports.

    Will  he admit the grand hope of exports saving our nations jobs, is a dream; and the reality is we are bleeding NOW, and when  bleeding is uncontrolled you stop the bleeding.  

    The House needs to do its job, using tariffs and duties to support the safety net. 

    What does America have to offer the World as relates to products? Even Americans don’t buy American.  

    It appears the American middle class is the sap.  

    Our natural resources are being exploited; it is the raw materials the World capitalists want.

    Maybe we can make a trade, but were tired of the Capitalistic predators stealing them and we get nothing in return.

    You want our forest products; let’s trade .....You want our grain; lets trade.

    Now let US tell them what we want in trade.  A safety net.

    You think Obama will speak up in behalf of the poor or the downtrodden? 

    Mr. President, you want to talk about the deficit being the reason for not doing the things we would like to do? 

    How about the abuse of farm subsidies? Or is that group to powerful, so it’s much easier to ignore the poor, who have no voice?  Do you think Obama will be the voice for the poor or the downtrodden?

    http://farm.ewg.org/ 

    I suppose Obama will tell us about how the Nations leader should focus on jobs. How it will be his number #1 priority.  

    Mr. President with all due respect; please remember the working class isn’t as stupid as you believe we are.

    No more semantics Mr.President; we the people aren’t looking only for a job; we know slaves had jobs……… picking cotton.  

    “What’s your job………  picking cotton, slinging burgers, cleaning bed pans?

    What’s the going rate for cotton pickers these days? Can you support a family on those types of jobs? 

    Not much hope for a slave class, is there Mr. President? Come down from the ivory tower; see how the people fear and how we tire of empty promises.  

    State of the Union, depends upon what class your in.  


    by Resistance on Tue, 01/25/2011 - 1:08pm

    Resistance, I agree with you that there's a lot of lip service to workers, exports and such but the prospects aren't very good. I particularly like your comment about natural resources--we are simply wasting our resources.

    As for export jobs, I'm o.k. with focusing on the high margin technical products which have a chance of being produced by our workers at a fair wage. I fear, however, that "export jobs" means low wage manufacturing jobs here as we begin to ship consumer specialty products back to the emerging middle class in other countries.  


    by Oxy Mora on Tue, 01/25/2011 - 4:00pm

    Obama is not going to be outright confrontational with those on the other side.  He will be focusing on "competititveness." He will not doubt be taking a pro-business path at one point, in the name of creating jobs. He will also be calling for increased investments in education, innovation and infrastructure. But it will part of a call for an overall budget freeze and earmark ban.  The question is where does the cuts come from?

    Overall, he will probably try to frame the road ahead as call for everyone to come together to make the tough choices.  The Republicans will need to appear at least for now as being willing partners in finding the solutions.  They can't be the party of no anymore.


    by Elusive Trope on Tue, 01/25/2011 - 1:19pm

    Why not?

    They can't be the party of no anymore. 

    Obama and the rest of the Republican lites figure, if you can’t beat em join em

    They never really intended to fight back  If you don't want to beat em, join em

    At the masters request.....Keep walking the Nation back from the Edge of Democratic Socialism.

    FDR was a fluke, he was forced to sign his own Magna Carta, The New leaders will not be forced.


    by Resistance on Tue, 01/25/2011 - 1:34pm

    So if he isn't leading the country toward socialism he's Republican-lite?  Whatever. 

    Obama is taking the center road, which would also make him Democrat-lite as well.  No great insight there.  Recent poll (can't find it right now) showed 1/3 think Obama went too far, 1/3 think he didn't go far enough, and 1/3 think he is doing things just about right. So with a combination of the need to keep the big campaign dollars coming in and electoral eyes set on the states that could go just as easily R or D, I wouldn't expect anything radical. 

    The main issue that Obama will wrangle with the Republicans over is whether the government has a significant role to play in the moving the country forward beyond tax breaks. 

    And of course the Republicans can do they want, but their poll numbers have already slipped since the election.  If they want the White House back, they going to have to get the messaging and their actions wrapped around doing things to create jobs, rather aimed at making Obama look bad. 


    by Elusive Trope on Tue, 01/25/2011 - 2:54pm

    Do the Republicans feel they are their bothers keeper?

    Or do they believe, whats theirs is theirs, and they have no more to give to social issues?

    Who do Republicans suppose will take care of the less fortunate? Capitalists or  a form of Democratic socialism?

    Could the Essential Social programs, be supported by the royalties from our Natural resources?

    Why is it those who take the resources they found, feel no obligation to pay back the one that gave it? They owe no one? Get your own?

    Then let the Rich pay for their own defense. Seeing as how the poor slave class will always be in servitude to someone anyway.  

    I'd like the peace dividend, to work for the good of the Nations vulnerable. Not just survival of the fittest.

    When a Nation cares for the social needs, thats the tide, that raises all boats.  


    by Resistance on Tue, 01/25/2011 - 3:19pm

    Thanks, AT. Obama is definitely on the center road. I think he's so far Right of Center, wrapping himself in commerce, that the Republicans will have to run a Glenn Beck in order to differentiate themsleves.

    Personally I went through a period of near despression, or perhaps realization, at the news of Bill Daley's appointment. That meant further financial reform is dormant for now and probably even beyond 2012. But that's when I decided that I would, in my own mind, adjust to a much longer time frame for real bank reform and focus on that.

     


    by Oxy Mora on Tue, 01/25/2011 - 3:20pm

    So, listening to the SOTU, do really believe that the Repubs have to run a Beck to differentiate Obama from those on the other side of the aisle?


    by Elusive Trope on Tue, 01/25/2011 - 9:41pm

    Thanks, Ramona. I don't like the way Obama has immersed himself in the the superstructure of mega banks.

    There is only one reason we are even talking about cuting social securtiy right now. It is because of the disastrous consequences of the economic contraction caused by mega banks--their excesses and fraud.  

    According to one estimate $60 Trillion in world GDP will have gone down the drain in the aftermath of the bank manufactured crisis. Imagine the tax revenues lost and the deficits created.

    The elderly and the weakest among us are now being asked to correct the deficit, not the mega banks who created the deficit by destroying our economy.

    I can only hope that Obama, after choosing to maintain the bank status quo, will not, as you say, give the finance industry a pass. That would be difficult to swallow.

     


    by Oxy Mora on Tue, 01/25/2011 - 2:59pm

    I believe Obama's problem has been his steadfast insistence on bipartisanship with the GOPer's while turning the other cheek when they get rough. We've already had one person do that and he was crucified and made a God of a religious sect. He needs a new format with the public holding oil lanterns for light, cause the cities can't afford electricity for street lights and armed pitchforks. Somehow he has to convince the GOPer's it's in their best interest to cooperate with him...something he's failed miserably at over the past few years. It may very well be jobs, but should also includes wages on the level with current costs that doesn't require one to use credit as well and benefits that includes wellness programs on top of attention to medical problems. It will have to move Congress to force business to let the profits trickle down to those who have given their best efforts to improve the bottom line. I don't see that happening. I see GOPer's who believe they have a mandate, which they don't, and a GOPer policy to play politics with issues having a direct effect on the public to settling political accounts and scoring points with a base that's not representative of the population as a whole.


    by Beetlejuice on Tue, 01/25/2011 - 1:28pm

    Thanks, Beetle. I agree that the Congressional Republicans will continue to withold bipartisan support and will keep playing the "mandate" card for issues the public has moved away from. I thought Frist's recent comments on accepting the health care law as a platform for moving ahead, particularly with state exchanges, set a new tone. But the tea rabble will never get it and will keep playing to a narrow base.


    by Oxy Mora on Tue, 01/25/2011 - 3:05pm

    Good post, Oxy. Did you see this article? Josh linked to it a month or so ago. Or, ahem, this one?

    I would add that telling a good story in the SOTU is not sufficient. He needs to stick with his story for the rest of the year in order to keep the country's attention on his message.

     


    by Michael Wolraich on Tue, 01/25/2011 - 2:00pm

    He needs to stick with his story for the rest of the year

    That's the plan according to Heilemann' s article. Of course, it's a "we'll see" situation, but that's clearly what his White House sources were telling him, that they are quite aware of that problem, the article is basically about how they are on it.


    by artappraiser on Tue, 01/25/2011 - 2:19pm

    An interesting article, but I didn't see much there about the narrative. It cited a recognition that Obama needed to communicate better but talked little about how he would do that (other than to write his own speeches). I guess we'll find out.


    by Michael Wolraich on Tue, 01/25/2011 - 3:55pm

    "He is on it?"

    The Heilemann article is basically a tale of how Gergen and Daley and Podesta and the rest of the Clinton re-treads are now supplementing the original election campaign team as Obama's key advisors. Thjs is the crew who is "on it."

    Is it the objective of this President and this crew to at last bring about "change you can believe in?" Decidedly, no. And a review of Heilemann's article shows that there is an alarming lack of interest in providing any kind of "leadership" for the country. Instead, it is assumed that re-election is the penultimate objective. With that as Obama's target (and Heilemann's, and dare I say that of many here at dagblog), we are then presented with the strategic decision to simply co-opt Republican Talking Points as a means of "beating them at their own game."

    Brilliant strategy. It really is. There is nothing to not like about it if you assume the proper role of a President is to focus upon reelection as his number one priority.

    In the event no one noticed, however, allow me to say that the status quo sucks in this country, using whatever metric you care to choose to measure it by.  Supply side economics has failed, and failed miserably. We are at a low-point in our adherence to principles of Human Rights and even the Rule of Law. We continue perpetual war in theaters across the world long after any perceived benefit escapes us. But in Heilemann's article we see that there is an aversion within this Administration to do anything that might rock the boat, such as charting a new course for the country. Actual changes in public policy aren't even discussed. No, an election can most easily be won by simply stealing the middle away from the extremists and co-opting the Republicans. It's the bird in the hand Obama is after, not the more elusive fruits of actual leadership that might - just might! - stir the electorate to follow him on the path to a greater America and a brighter future.

    And so we are offered paeans to "Competitiveness," understanding that this is Wall Street speak for labor concessions and the continued growth of disparity between the rich and the rest of us. We are promised "jobs," with no mention what kind of jobs we can expect. (Indeed, "competitiveness" requires that we be willing to redefine "jobs" as "something to do with your time," without any consideration of how much family-supporting recompense one might receive for the effort.) And we are promised "education," with an implied promise that success will come when we are all trained and employed as hedge fund managers creating "wealth," or perhaps as engineers creating gizmos that will be manufactured elsewhere - presumably by more "competitive" workers.

    I have incredibly low expectations for the SOTU Address. In my dreams, we would be witness to a President laying out a bold, new course for the country to take in pursuit of an escape from our present dire circumstances. I expect that we will instead be offered the first campaign speech of a candidate for reelection who has charted the best strategy to beat the Republicans at their own game. Obama wins! And the game goes on.

    If there is to be any notable line for the ages to come out of this speech tonight, I expect it to be a version of the following: "Ask not, what Wall Street can do for you. Ask what you can do for Wall Street."

    "Competitiveness?" "Jobs?" It's all on the table as the shared sacrifice we must make if we are to gain our common objective: The reelection of our Democrat for President.

    Call me unimpressed. Inspired? Only inasmuch as I continue seeking probable and effective ways to get this asshat and his DLC-style minions out of the way so we can get a real leader in his place. Support for a primary challenge becomes more and more attractive. Indeed, it begins looking like the only alternative to this disastrous course that has been charted for this country.


    by SleepinJeezus on Tue, 01/25/2011 - 5:35pm

    You're on it.....You really can tell it, like it really is.

     

     


    by Resistance on Tue, 01/25/2011 - 6:07pm

    Thanks, resistance! Pretty remarkable to get "shellacked" by an angry electorate, only to double-down on the policies and GOP ideology that got us here in the first place. Bound to be a much more satisfied electorate next time, eh? Maybe if we deprive them of even the pretense of an alternative, they'll fall in line, eh? Wall Street seems to be banking on it.

    by SleepinJeezus on Tue, 01/25/2011 - 8:42pm

    Thanks Genghis. Great references, especially the second one. I do remember our previous discussion. I just thought I would like to summarize the need for narrative in what I have always thought was a great insight by Gardner. (I have a collection of Gardner first editions, but I can't actually put my finger on the quote. I just remember is as being, well, elementary.


    by Oxy Mora on Tue, 01/25/2011 - 3:09pm

    I didn't mean to suggest that your piece was redundent. I found your application of Gardner to be an interesting proposal for what Obama's story should look like, better than my proposal.


    by Michael Wolraich on Tue, 01/25/2011 - 3:58pm

    Thanks, Genghis, in fact, thanks very much.


    by Oxy Mora on Tue, 01/25/2011 - 4:03pm

    I think these are some of the main questions we are going to have to ask ourselves:

    1. Is this a plan that benefits ordinary Americans?   It is entirely possible, of course, to do all sorts of things that benefit American corporations without benefiting a lot of Americans, since these corporations have a lot of overseas operations.  They can get the tax cuts and deregulation benefits here, while the main economic beneficiaries are workers in other countries and top corporate executives.

    2. Where is the accounting?  If there is a long-term deficit cutting plan, and also a call for long-term public investments, then what combinations of tax increases and spending cuts is Obama offering to pay for the investments?  And do they add up?

    3. Are the long-term educational investments really aimed at better educating Americans, or just providing them with improved technical skills that turned them into more useful serfs for industry?

    4. What is the long-term picture for Social Security?  Obama might very well declare Social Security officially safe and out of bounds.  But if he is screwing with the payroll tax funding source and has no plan to set it right again, then the claims of protecting Social Security are bogus.

    5. What is going to be happening now, in the immediate term?  It is all very well to talk about long-term plans investment plans so that Americans in 2025 and 2030 have good jobs.  We need such plans.   But what is the plan for attacking 9.5% unemployment - now, today, this year?

    6. What is Obama's approach to the problem of private household debt?  So much of the talk is about public sector deficits.   But the public sector deficits help fund the private sector surpluses we need to help people pay down their household debt and pay off their underwater mortgages, and return aggregate demand to a place where it can sutain growth in our domestic economy.

    7. Is this an austerity budget?  The UK pivot toward austerity has already had the debilitating effect one might have expected: decreased economic activity.

    8. Is export-based model for future growth the best way to go for us?  Because in the near term at least, it looks like a plan that might increase employment, but at the cost of declining wages and a lower standard of living.

    9. Is Obama really thinking abput the actual national economy and what is best for it?  Or is he just thinking about how to thred the needle politically and win re-election?

     

    My expectations for the speech are low.  Frankly, I'm expecting the speech to feel like Barack Obama handing Republicans the key to the city.  So maybe I'll be pleasantly surprised.

     


    by Dan Kervick on Tue, 01/25/2011 - 3:18pm

    Great questions, Dan. Looks like a very good check list for grading him on the speech.


    by Oxy Mora on Tue, 01/25/2011 - 4:09pm

    I doubt Obama will go into much detail during the speech.  He will talk mostly in broad generalizations as to the approach to these types of questions.  Such is the SOTU address.  It is too politicized from the get-go, so even if one wanted to deal substantially with the issues it would end up becoming a mess.  They should get rid of it as far as I am concerned.  For instance, regarding question #2, one can only imagine the flurry of noise that would occur of the phrase "tax increase" was at some point uttered during the speech.  Whatever else was said would be forgotten.  And regarding question#3, there is not enough time to deal with real education reform in the allotted time. 


    by Elusive Trope on Tue, 01/25/2011 - 4:25pm

    It seems to me that #2 and #7 are at odds with each other.


    by Verified Atheist on Tue, 01/25/2011 - 4:35pm

    Do you mean the questions are at odds?


    by Dan Kervick on Tue, 01/25/2011 - 4:46pm

    Not so much the questions as their implications. Question #2 seems to contain within it a disdain for not balancing the budget (one I share). Question #7 (effectively) cautions against balancing the budget during these difficult times, an opinion I also share. Right now, I side with #7, while realizing that we need to keep #2 in mind. So, it's not that they contradict each other but per se, but rather that helping one hurts the other, and vice-versa. The reality is that we need to keep them both in mind, as you do, but I thought I'd point out their inherent conflicts.


    by Verified Atheist on Tue, 01/25/2011 - 5:39pm

    "If you've come here to help fix the town, you'll be welcome. If you've come here to tear the place down, we'll fight you." I think this will probably sum up a lot of the speech, with the first part explicitly pontificated, whereas the the second part will be left implicit. I think Obama is going to try to avoid any confrontational language that could be construed as "uncivil." Not saying this is necessarily the way to go, but as of late it has been working for him so I doubt he will change paths tonight.

    by Elusive Trope on Tue, 01/25/2011 - 4:34pm

    President Obama, the right has no intention of helping you or the people........When are you going to take the lead and go on the offensive? 

    Now I suppose you’ll use the shooting in Tucson, in order to prove to others, your way is better and you can promote your “Rodney King narrative.........“Can’t we all just get along”?

     No!  Mr. president they are not going to get along, it is they telling you get gone.......They will get along, when you agree to their terms. 

    Mr. President if your not going to be an advocate for the poor, who is? 

    So wake up Mr. President, WAKE UP

    If we choose, we can live in a world of comforting illusion.Noam Chomsky

    Nonviolence is fine as long as it works.Malcolm X 

    Why do you keep groveling at the feet of the Republicans Mr. President? Do you think the Republicans will feel sorrow and regret, for being the way they are?

    Without an advocate for the poor, without a new state of mind in America, the country lies on the brink of anarchy.Louis Farrakhan 

    Who Mr. President, will advocate for the poor?


    by Resistance on Tue, 01/25/2011 - 4:57pm

    Sorry to be Destor-downer but I'm already underwhelmed that tonight's signature proposal is a 5 year discretionary spending freeze with a Pentagon exemption.  It's exactly the wrong time for that kind of thing.


    by Michael Maiello on Tue, 01/25/2011 - 4:45pm

    Yup.


    by Dan Kervick on Tue, 01/25/2011 - 7:40pm

    This piece suits my thinking about now; most of you won't hear how far the President is about to 'pivot' toward business.  What does everyone think he's done for the past two years? 

    He'll likely claim to hold SS safe from 'reform'; he reads the polls, and has felt the pressure all the outside groups have brought to bear on him.  He can twiddle with the payroll taxes later.  And Jeff Immelt and his new team can help ship more jobs overseas, along with intellectual properties, create new un-fair trade deals, and the President can tell of us his plans for a new grand pharmeceutical institute, and maybe some low-tech training for the 99-ers..

    The deal he got from President Hu apparently consists of a month's worth of trade imbalane with China.  Cool. 

    http://www.chris-floyd.com/component/content/article/1-latest-news/2078-goonstruck-the-mysterious-mind-of-modern-progressives.html


    by Anonymous (not verified) on Tue, 01/25/2011 - 6:21pm

    You got me thinkin about this. The journey.

    Barry gave a fine speech tonite.

    And your mythical town of Mayberry is right on.


    by Richard Day on Tue, 01/25/2011 - 11:12pm

    Thanks, Dick. He actually said "journey" right at the end of the speech and focused on the "future" the better part of the time.

    I would rather have seen a hell fire and brimstone speech in which the reactionary forces were skewered. But I find I am more philosophical about the speech than I am angry at its Republican-ism. Maybe I'm giving up the fight, I hope not.

    The entire speech seemed "toned down" and I can't argue with that either in terms of expediency or appropriateness. I had a different reaction to this speech than speeches in the past, maybe because the response was muted throughout. I saw the reps more as individuals, sad sacks and all, and  realized each has a constituency which paid for them and voted for them. Each is fighting for his own career and to achieve something to hang his hat on in the short time of a year at best. But none, individually or collectively, will derail this country for very long. There is a future and we are striving for it. A vast audience and purpose lies beyond the scope of these imperfect individuals. Obama was speaking over the heads of the audience in the chamber to the audience beyond, to the country as a whole. That's, imo, what a leader needs to do.  


    by Oxy Mora on Wed, 01/26/2011 - 9:08am

    I saw the reps more as individuals, sad sacks and all, and  realized each has a constituency which paid for them and voted for them.

    Do you think that might be in part due to the decision (who made that decision?) this year to mix the Republicans and Democrats together rather than create "us" and "them" seating areas?


    by Verified Atheist on Wed, 01/26/2011 - 9:14am

    I do think it was partly that. It was if they had all just been told that company was coming and they needed to behave. They looked a little disappointed that they couldn't act out.

    It seems as if the mixed seating was fairly spontaneous. I hope that it continues.

    I thought that the shots of Kerry and McCain were poignant. Strange bed fellows, united in their failed attempts to gain the Presidency.


    by Oxy Mora on Wed, 01/26/2011 - 10:18am

    Latest Comments