MURDER, POLITICS, AND THE END OF THE JAZZ AGE
by Michael Wolraich
Order today at Barnes & Noble / Amazon / Books-A-Million / Bookshop
MURDER, POLITICS, AND THE END OF THE JAZZ AGE by Michael Wolraich Order today at Barnes & Noble / Amazon / Books-A-Million / Bookshop |
When Barack Obama rose to the lectern on Inauguration Day, the nation was in tatters. Americans were scared and angry. The economy was spinning in reverse. Three-quarters of a million people lost their jobs that month. Many had lost their homes, and with them the only nest eggs they had. Even the usually impervious upper middle class had seen a decade of stagnant or declining investment, with the stock market dropping in value with no end in sight. Hope was as scarce as credit.
In that context, Americans needed their president to tell them a story that made sense of what they had just been through, what caused it, and how it was going to end. They needed to hear that he understood what they were feeling, that he would track down those responsible for their pain and suffering, and that he would restore order and safety.
...
But there was no story - and there has been none since.
Drew Westen is a professor of psychology at Emory University and the author of “The Political Brain: The Role of Emotion in Deciding the Fate of the Nation.”
Comments
Incredible piece Genghis. Thanks. Hope you don't mind if I quote what Westen suggested Obama might have said when he first took office, but it resonates. Westen suggests that Obama should have said something like:
by Bruce Levine on Sun, 08/07/2011 - 1:36pm
I thought so too. Thanks for adding Westen's story.
by Michael Wolraich on Sun, 08/07/2011 - 4:11pm
Everybody should read Westen's article. Obama should read Westen's article.
by acanuck on Sun, 08/07/2011 - 4:15pm
From your comment above, I think you should re-read Westen's op-ed.
There's not a lot of hope there. This isn't a pep talk expecting the guy to get up off his stool, shake it off, come out swinging.
This is a brutal dissection of a psyche and temperament, telling a middleweight that he's just not going to cut it, that he's simply out of his league, that he might lose a few pounds and fight in the welterweight class, but he doesn't have what it takes for the big guys.
I'm gobsmacked. The biggest questions are whether this attitude will go viral, and if so what will be the repercussions.
by PeraclesPlease (not verified) on Sun, 08/07/2011 - 4:58pm
I got Westen's point, Peracles. And unfortunately, I think he's right. But politics and history play out in real time, and it ain't over till it's over. The U.S. has had flawed presidents and flawed candidates for about as long as I remember -- nothing new there.
Obama is both intelligent and articulate, and not entirely self-unaware. He will be the Democratic nominee. Our one hope has to be that, despite (or because of) the bruising he's received over the past three years, he is growing into the job. (People can change, for better or for worse -- though I saw little evidence of a new, improved Obama during the debt-ceiling fiasco.)
At this site, I'm very seldom accused of being overly positive toward Obama (though I did applaud the killing of bin Laden). So your criticism is a bit disconcerting. Call me a starry-eyed optimist, but maybe Obama has something he hasn't shown us yet.
by acanuck on Sun, 08/07/2011 - 5:43pm
Wasn't accusing you of being starry-eyed, but your 3rd paragraph above seemed to go against the Doctor's diagnosis. "Aversion to conflict" is Obama's primary career strategy, not just a way of achieving "bi-partisanship".
There is no guarantee he will be the Democratic nominee, certain as it looks 15 months out.
And there is more than "one hope" even though you immediately counter that that hope isn't even a hope, more a Hail Mary. But the universe is full of possibilities. If you're a starry-eyed optimist, be one in that regard, not just that the one horse we're stuck with backing will turn in diamonds.
by PeraclesPlease (not verified) on Sun, 08/07/2011 - 6:17pm
Hey, I've written elsewhere that if a Sanders-Franken ticket were to magically appear, I'd sneak across the border to vote for it repeatedly. (As I explained to the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, that was hyperbole. FBI, please copy.) But counting on that is way more of a Hail Mary than hoping Obama simply grows a pair.
by acanuck on Sun, 08/07/2011 - 6:30pm
Well, from what I remember of human physiology in pre-med, aside from hair, cuticles and fingerprints.... once you lose it, you lose it.
by PeraclesPlease (not verified) on Mon, 08/08/2011 - 4:24am
If there was one thing about Obama rhetoric from the beginning of his campaign, it was that this was not the approach he was going to take. Maybe if the economic crisis had happened sooner, Clinton would have been given the nod instead of Obama. But a lot of the momentum and support his campaign had came from those who were tired of politicians who came out swinging and looking not to take any prisoners. Because whether one wants to hold the idea that he would be swinging for the little guy, swinging away in DC, especially in the past decade, is inevitable and thoroughly partisan.
by Elusive Trope on Mon, 08/08/2011 - 10:13am
Oh, I thought we were still talking about "growing a pair" ;-)
by PeraclesPlease (not verified) on Mon, 08/08/2011 - 1:30pm
Yes, he should, but Obama will be too busy kissing the ass of the Republican far right to read it.
by oleeb on Mon, 08/08/2011 - 2:53am
It wasn't that he didn't tell a story. He just didn't tell one that exactly aligned with some people view on the way forward. Even in these words one can see the Obama we have seen over the past two years, the Obama of the debt ceiling deal.
The reason people do not see a story or a narrative isn't because none was offered. Rather it is because it doesn't reduce things down to the simple us and them. When Bush made his now infamous comment "you're either with us or you're against us" he was touching on the theme of the narrative most people it seems want to hear, just as long as their side are the ones wearing the white hats.
by Elusive Trope on Mon, 08/08/2011 - 9:50am
You wrote:
That is exactly correct, well said Trope. The Us v Them narrative, is destroying us, but I guess this is what people really want. You are correct this is simply not his narrative, but that many people seems to want that narrative and only that narrative, where FDR tried to hold us together, this particular narrative seeks to drive us apart. Soon we will have simply no attachment to being that one nation, to being Americans, we will be nothing more than regions, hell bent on reinforcing our differences rather than what holds us together as a nation. Oh well, if we are to balkanize, I am going to hope for the Callenbach model.
by tmccarthy0 on Mon, 08/08/2011 - 11:01am
Well I would have to say in correction that the picture painted here is as if today was Inauguration Day... much of what has happened in terms of extensive home loss happened after that. And actually on that day we were filled with hope. That hope led us to give the president the benefit of the doubt time and time again. So many times people would say he's playing a smarter game. He's playing chess while they are playing checkers. They would even say I can't see where he's going with this but I trust him... or he's playing multi dimensional chess. We would 'hope' that next time he would stand strong. I
still don't know 'why' he didn't close Guantanamo. I still don't know why he did not allow the law to be applied to Bush, Cheney, et al. I do not know why he has not rallied the full force of the people behind him to put Wall Street in check even a bit. He has some excuse because of the vapid republican energy he faces but it's not enough. I still don't know why because he has never bothered to truly explain these things other than to pretend 'we must look forward' is an answer. He has known that we have seen him as a conceder and capitulator. He is not stupid enough to be so unaware of his choices.
I feel if Obama is our candidate we are doomed and so I will fight for another choice however challenging that may be to make happen.
Friday I heard the president stand up and pathetically say 'I did not promise you change today, or next week... I need more time.' That made me feel just fuming mad and disgusted with the man. I feel like Charlie Brown when Lucy just offered to hold the football again. No thanks. I'll find someone else.
by synchronicity on Sun, 08/07/2011 - 6:03pm
His college speech recently was basically, "being grown up means accepting you're not going to get all you want".
http://tonightsforecastdark.blogspot.com/2011/07/president-obama-speaks-to-college.html
It's a big step back from "you're the change we've been waiting for".
by PeraclesPlease (not verified) on Sun, 08/07/2011 - 6:28pm
He feels the need to lower expectations for his second term. Again, he's wrong.
by acanuck on Sun, 08/07/2011 - 6:34pm
Not much to add to Westen's excellent piece. I hope Obama reads it, and appreciates that he is fast approaching a decision point about what kind of historical legacy he is going to leave. His name might go into the history books as a byword for disillusioned hopes, misguided collaboration and failure. But fortunately, this article doesn't have to become the first installment on the post-mortems for the Obama administration. Obama still has time to transform himself and his administration.
Obama told the country during the 2008 convention about his conversion to Christianity. That must have been a difficult and momentous decision for him. I'm sure he is still capable of making big changes in direction. He needs to get himself born again. And he can start by throwing some of the money-changers out of the temple.
But if he stubbornly doubles down on his chosen course of action, and refuses to admit failure, failure is assured.
Today Tim Geithner "informed" Obama that he will be staying on. But I don't see what purpose is served by rewarding and staying with people who are architects of failure. Anyone with commonsense can recognize that the administration's economic policy performance to date has been a failure, even measured according to the targets the administration set for itself. So the administration needs a serious overhaul.
Here's a problem: Having spent the last year telling the country we are running up against a big budget problem, Obama has seemingly boxed himself into a position in which he cannot do anything that requires a government expenditure. So he can't make a positive change at all unless he faces up to the very poor political decision he made, eats some crow, and adopts a new orientation.
Instead of focusing on what we can't afford to do, focus on what we can't afford not to do. The main thing we can't afford not to do now is invest in our people. We need to get all of our people working. If they lack the necessary skills to participate in the workforce then the government needs to act fast to train them up and get them into positions in the world of work. We can't afford to have over 10% of our number one resource lying idle. It's a staggering and costly waste. We can't sit around and wait for the broken and corrupt private sector to put everyone back to work in the fullness of their own sweet time.
Another thing: Obama should commit right now to welcoming a series of regular debates with other Democratic leaders and figures in the upcoming primary campaign - whether those figures are challenging him for the nomination or not. And I don't just mean politicians, but economists, activists, labor leaders and academics as well. Progressives have better ideas than the conservatives and Tea Partiers, and the country will see this if the party develops the courage to lay these ideas out there and expose them to the public. Stop being so buttoned up and cautious, Obama! I'm sure the political pros think this sort of uncontrolled, unscripted debate is a Pandora's box. But it's not a Pandora's box; progressives hold a treasure chest of great and potentially popular ideas that the public is being deprived from hearing because of the mainstream and establishment media lockdown on acceptable idea, and the control over our thinking that is demanded by those whose business is defending the privileges of wealth and status quo power.
Lets open up the progressive debate to the public, and get some of the energy and attention back into a progressive agenda.
by Dan Kervick on Sun, 08/07/2011 - 10:41pm
After reading Professor Westen's piece, I find myself in tears. He says much that is painfully true. And although I think it is POSSIBLE for the President to reverse course, the chances are that he will not.
But in the comments following the article, I found one that I want to pass along, written by Steve from New Hampshire. It has made me realize there is more to the story than what the Professor is telling us:
Does this excuse the President? No, it does not, but it may help to make it a bit more understandable, and possibly even forgivable. I don't know that even an FDR could have succeeded against the constant negative drumbeat form the likes of rush limbaugh and faux news, or a militant group of terrorists within our own congress. The president is nearly 3 years into his term, and congress has not even approved many people for the positions he nominated them to. It is bizarre and unprecedented.
And, as if that isn't bad enough, he's been beaten up almost as much by his own party.
I'm a sucker for an underdog, and I'm finding that the more people are beating up on him, the more I am pulling for him.
And every time the repubs do something as unbelievably destructive to this country as they did with the fight over the debt ceiling, the more determined I get to make sure they do not get back into power.
So y'all do whatever it is you need to do. I'm sticking with this President.
by stillidealistic on Mon, 08/08/2011 - 1:22am
If you don't try to win you are guaranteed to lose. FDR never shied away from a fight. Obama has never even attempted to stand his ground and surrenders in advance. To compare Obama in any way to FDR is really absurd. If FDR has been like Obama there would have been no New Deal at all. Speculating on whether FDR would have done better than Obama is silly and pointless. The only thing you can conclude is that of course FDR (or anyone else) would have done better than Obama has primarily because anyone else would have attempted to win or at least make sure their views and that of their party were part of the mix. Obama has lost ever major political battle of his Presidency and for all his conciliation and all his capitulation he has nothing to show for it except a whole lot of Republican policies and policy victories.
by oleeb on Mon, 08/08/2011 - 2:49am
But you have to be in it to win it Oleeb. And so far as I can tell, Obama is the only one in it. Perhaps somehow he will have a challenger from his left. I've written elsewhere that I believe that would be the death-knell for the Democratic Party in 2012. But even if I'm wrong I don't think we'll have the opportunity to test that hypothesis, and so the issue for all of us is what we're going to do with the hand we've been dealt.
I held my nose in 2008 and supported Obama. I was bitter about the primary fight and fed up with much of what I thought was both naive and othering. But I supported Obama as much as if not more than I supported any other candidate in my lifetime. And I'm glad I did.
That doesn't mean that you don't keep pushing the guy, and pushing folks like me, but you don't throw the baby out with the bath water. Politics is like life, and in life and politics, shit happens and you either deal with it or you don't.
by Bruce Levine on Mon, 08/08/2011 - 8:43am
I know it was a different time, but in mid-March 1968, Gene McCarthy poked LBJ with a stick and LBJ popped. Shortly after, Robert Kennedy entered the race and by early June, RFK was the winner of the primary season, to go up against Humphrey, who didn't compete, at the convention in July.
How is it the Republicans have no problem imagining Rick Perry coming off the bench to challenge, while as far back as springtime we'd declared the Democratic choice absolute and untouchable?
The point is simply, if someone can come out and kick Obama's ass, he/she kicks it, and takes over. At that point, whoever the candidate is can do little worse than Obama would.
If Obama wins, and the other's fans feel they made their point, and he's a little bit gracious, then he likely has better support than he would have.
Right now a lot of people are disgusted with Obama. For them, it can only get better, whether it's a different candidate or a humbled, responsive Obama. So a primary challenge does not necessarily harm him - it could pop a boil.
by PeraclesPlease (not verified) on Mon, 08/08/2011 - 9:06am
Not to mention what a challenge could do for Democratic candidates further down the ticket who really have a lean platform to shout about at the moment. "We didn't cut Social Security and Medicare! (yet)"
by PeraclesPlease (not verified) on Mon, 08/08/2011 - 9:08am
I absolutely agree with you that there is real reason to be concerned about Obama's short coat-tails, particularly with so many more Democratic Senate seats open next year.
by Bruce Levine on Mon, 08/08/2011 - 9:15am
"How is it the Republicans have no problem imagining Rick Perry coming off the bench to challenge, while as far back as springtime we'd declared the Democratic choice absolute and untouchable?"
Is this the first election season you've ever paid attention to? The rap on Republicans is that they nominate the guy who's "next in line" for the presidency, and that the party leaders dictate who the nominee will be. Not to mention, someone entering the primary season "late" (with only fifteen months to go before the election!) is much different in the context of a crowded field of people seeking the nomination for the first time, as opposed to challenging a sitting president from your own party.
I also find it interesting that you cite 1968 as a positive example of a primary challenge to a sitting president. You do know that the president who got elected in 1968 was not a Democrat, don't you? And that Republicans held the presidency for twenty of the next twenty-four years?
Finally, a question for all of you agitating for a primary challenge to Obama: if a primary challenge will be so good for the progressive cause, why are the usual suspects mentioned as exemplars of progressivism, e.g. Bernie Sanders, Al Franken, or Sherrod Brown, not even entertaining the notion? Could it be that your political heroes know something you don't?
by brewmn on Mon, 08/08/2011 - 10:10am
The best contender in 1968 got shot. Should I use that as the example on why not to challenge a sitting president? Yes, RFK was a positive example.
And should we blame Gene McCarthy for the lack of election success over 24 years? Perhaps Carter and his sweaters, Thomas Eagleton and his electroshock, and Michael Dukakis and his puny self climbing into tanks had some responsibility?
As to your final paragraph, people don't usually challenge the incumbent, which is why it took an outsider, McCarthy, to do it in 1968. Once LBJ was out, RFK rolled in, much to McCarthy's dismay. While we can't prove that RFK would have won, it's pretty obvious he was well electable.
Bernie Sanders however is an old man, and Al Franken is a bit new. That doesn't exclude them, but makes it difficult to gather up support.
by PeraclesPlease (not verified) on Mon, 08/08/2011 - 1:38pm
This was an excellent, excellent piece. I thought the most powerful little bit (out of many) was:
"But the arc of history does not bend toward justice through capitulation cast as compromise. It does not bend when 400 people control more of the wealth than 150 million Americans."
Seems to me that Prof. Westen tore back the protective veil and clearly exposed Obama as the ineffective and weak President he really is. Whether it is bad strategy, naivete, incompetence or bad intent that is responsible for the string of defeats and humiliations Obama has wrought, the outcome is the same and it's bad for the Democratic Party and bad for the people of the United States and their future.
by oleeb on Mon, 08/08/2011 - 2:44am