The Rawness

[This is the first of an open-ended, ongoing series I plan to have about Barack Obama and what may or may not motivate him. I think he makes a fascinating figure, regardless of whether or not you believe in his politics. I think he is an extremely cunning and Machiavellian figure with methods that, once deconstructed, will be very instructive to anyone interested in human nature. This series will go on for as long as I have insights to make about Obama, but will not be the exclusive focus of this blog.]

I had a lot of debates with my intellectual friends during this election about Barack Obama. Many of them would take apart the logical and economic fallacies of Obama’s proposals, giving examples of why they wouldn’t work and pointing out contradictions and inconsistencies. I kept responding that their intellectual approach was actually an obstacle for them in analyzing the political race because the informed people choose their sides and ideologies early in the game. After all, both candidates laid out their agendas very early in the game, either on their campaign websites, their political careers before the election or in their stump speeches.

Most of these much-sought after “undecideds” or “moderates” are simply not that intellectually engaged in the process, because if they were they’d have made a decision already. The key to these people is not to inundate them with more facts, because that is a waste. There are already more than enough facts out there for them to make a decision on. The key to win these people over is to switch from focusing on content, like facts and policy, and focus on context arguments, like enthusiasm, charisma, emotional connection, pointing out personal and professional associations, and likeability.

Keep in mind I’m not calling these undecideds stupid. Although I think many of them actually were stupid, there were also many intellectuals that were tired of focusing on logic and facts and were looking for someone that would engage them emotionally

This is the beauty of Obama, he perfectly understood the power of context over content. When his informercial came out for example, a friend of mine went into an in-depth refutation of it, declared it a failure for being too pessimistic and showing economic illiteracy through factual inaccuracies. I told him to turn off his intellectual instinct to engage every message on a logical.  He needed to realize that the content was irrelevant. It was pure public relations, and Obama was creating a brand using snazzy graphics, slogans and iconography and creating a narrative using soaring rhetoric, cinematography, drama, characters, the narrative, the music that pulled on the heart strings.  It was pure style over substance, and it needed to be judge it as a feel-good movie trailer or commercial and not a logical argument. And from that perspective, the informercial worked.

Most Presidents have written books before or during their elections, but they have usually been policy books. Obama main book, the one most discussed in the lead-up to the election, was pure narrative, an autobiography describing his struggles with class and race and not much else. No sophisticated policy arguments, no nuanced intellectual viewpoints, just personal narrative. Dreams from My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance paints him to be the Byronic Hero. This is an archetype well proven to resonate with people, especially single women, in works of fiction:

A Byronic hero exhibits several characteristic traits, and in many ways he can be considered a rebel. The Byronic hero does not possess “heroic virtue” in the usual sense; instead, he has many dark qualities. With regard to his intellectual capacity, self-respect, and hypersensitivity, the Byronic hero is “larger than life,” and “with the loss of his titanic passions, his pride, and his certainty of self-identity, he loses also his status as [a traditional] hero” (Thorslev 187).

He is usually isolated from society as a wanderer or is in exile of some kind. It does not matter whether this social separation is imposed upon him by some external force or is self-imposed. Byron’s Manfred, a character who wandered desolate mountaintops, was physically isolated from society, whereas Childe Harold chose to “exile” himself and wander throughout Europe. Although Harold remained physically present in society and among people, he was not by any means “social.”

Often the Byronic hero is moody by nature or passionate about a particular issue. He also has emotional and intellectual capacities, which are superior to the average man. These heightened abilities force the Byronic hero to be arrogant, confident, abnormally sensitive, and extremely conscious of himself. Sometimes, this is to the point of nihilism resulting in his rebellion against life itself (Thorslev 197). In one form or another, he rejects the values and moral codes of society and because of this he is often unrepentant by society’s standards. Often the Byronic hero is characterized by a guilty memory of some unnamed sexual crime. Due to these characteristics, the Byronic hero is often a figure of repulsion, as well as fascination.

More on the Byronic Hero can be found here:

The Byronic hero is an idealised but flawed character exemplified in the life and writings of Lord Byron, characterised by his ex-lover Lady Caroline Lamb as being “mad, bad and dangerous to know”.^[1] The Byronic hero first appears in Byron’s semi-autobiographical epic narrative poem Childe Harold’s Pilgrimage (1812-18). The Byronic hero typically exhibits the following characteristics:^[2][3]

• high level of intelligence and perception
• cunning and able to adapt
• sophisticated and educated
• self-critical and introspective
• mysterious, magnetic and charismatic
• struggling with integrity
• power of seduction and sexual attraction
• social and sexual dominance
• emotional conflicts, bipolar tendencies, or moodiness
• a distaste for social institutions and norms
• being an exile, an outcast, or an outlaw
• “dark” attributes not normally associated with a hero
• disrespect of rank and privilege
• a troubled past
• cynicism
• arrogance
• self-destructive behaviour“

The Byronic Hero is immensely powerful with women, and usually just about any fictional work that is immensely popular with women has a Byronic hero as its protaganist, from Heathcliff in Wuthering Heights (Signet Classics) to the vampire Lestat in Ann Rice’s works to the character Edward in the new hit movie Twilight, based on a popular novel Twilight (The Twilight Saga, Book 1). I think the immense popularity of Dark Knight last summer with women was because it portrayed a battle of wills between two (arguably three) Byronic heroes. This Byronic appeal was so strong that it created an intense love of the movie among single women despite the fact the movie is, in my humble opinion, utter crap. Is it any wonder Obama’s biggest voting block was unmarried women?

In Obama’s bio, he mentions early on that his grandfather had a copy of Dale Carnegie’s How to Win Friends & Influence People on his desk. One of the key concepts in the book is to use dramatization and narrative to sell ideas rather than cold, hard logic, which just tends to alienate. I think this is a major part of where his strategy to build narrative over content came from, which is why unlike previous presidents, his book was a book about dramatic personal narrative rather than a book on policy. And within this narrative, he smartly chose to use the Byronic hero as his main character, except with a happier, more optimistic ending. A “safe” Byronic hero with the sharp, dangerous edges filed down if you will.

The other source of Obama’s power I think comes from the book 48 Laws of Power, which I will demonstrate in the next part, which can be found here.

Recommended Reading:

…in Harlem of all places:

Recently Ruff posted the following comment:

Say, are you ever gonna post comments about the election?
I understand all the arguments supporting apathy or ambivalence regarding the whole circus. But I?m still interested in hearing what people think and feel about the various issues (or non-issues).

I lean conservative on a number of issues but fully support Obama but that?s irrelevant.
I?m curious as to why liberals believe the democratic platform represents them. I?m even MORE interested in learning why conservatives believe the republican platform represents them (it doesn?t). and as far as this particular election why some people still consider themselves undecided at this point in the race.

I haven’t been focusing much on the election because I’m quite apathetic about it. Neither candidate moves me. I think McCain will be a much better President than Obama, but that’s not saying much. I am frustrated with the constant bitching of the media, late night talk shows, Bill Maher, Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi and their ilk. Yet at the same time I’m tired of watered down conservatism I feel that George W. Bush and McCain represent. I want a conservative that can communicate the ideas of conservatism in a way that connect with the public without having to pander to moderates, the way Reagan did.

So at this point I just want to give the Democrats the chance to stop being armchair quarterbacks and show us what they can do. Hopefully they can do a good job and show us maybe they were right all along. But in all honesty, I think liberal quasisocialist policies during a recession equals the second term of Jimmy Carter, an unmitigated disaster. And Jimmy Carter’s awful presidency was the best thing for conservatism ever. If Americans kept electing uninspiring or poorly communicating Republicans like Nixon and Ford over and over again, we never would have gotten the inspiring conservatism of Reagan, but rather just a slow ideological death for the Republican party. Ford losing opened the door for Reagan’s resounding win. Call it creative destruction. I feel McCain would be a better President than Obama, but that’s not saying much. I’d rather see some creative destruction again and just have McCain lose.

Give the Democrats the presidency and the Congress and let’s have their ideas on display for the world to see. No one to blame, no armchair quarterbacking, let them run the show. I predict the worst, but who knows, maybe I’ll be surprised.

Post comments about what I wrote or any thoughts you have on the election at all in the comments below. This is an open thread, as long as it’s election related it’s fair game.

UPDATE (10/31/2008):

This is awesome:

Someone sent me this Saturday Night Live clip from March that they thought was relevant to this post.

Thought it was funny enough to put up. Given the fact that it’s a recent Saturday Night Live clip, actually, just the fact it had any funny moments made it noteworthy. Amy Poehler does a decent job with the Hillary impression, where even though she doesn’t quite nail the voice she totally gets the mannerisms and nuance. The guy imitating Obama isn’t even close; it’s downright embarassing.  Is he even trying?!

Listen to some of these clips from Bill Clinton during Hillary’s run, as it became clear she was going to lose.

Bill Clinton claims that the race card was used against him:

Now look at how testy Bill Clinton is getting with the media here last week:

Also check out this quote from Bill last week regarding the media:

“It’s all politics,” Bill Clinton told Huffington Post. “It’s all about the bias of the media for Obama. Don’t think anything about it. But I’m telling ya’, all it’s doing is driving her supporters further and further away — because they know exactly what it is — this has been the most rigged coverage in modern history — and [Purdum] ought to be ashamed of himself. But he has no shame. It isn’t the first dishonest piece he’s written about me or her.”

He also was quoted as saying “It’s part of the national media’s attempt to nail Hillary for Obama. It’s just the most biased press coverage in history. It’s another way of helping Obama.” So what exactly is Bill talking about? What’s happening here?

Basically, Bill Clinton is right. The mainstream media, which in the past has been ridiculously pro-Clinton, changed gears this election and went in for Obama in a big way and did its best to derail Hillary’s campaign. Even when Hillary would win a primary, they’d mostly focus on Obama. It was mind-boggling, really. Obama would win, he’d be the focus of coverage. When he’d lose, he’d still be the focus of coverage. There were puff pieces galore about Obama, meanwhile the media would downplay any questionable ties he had or not report any of his public speaking gaffes, like this one on Memorial Day where he apparently saw ghosts:

On this Memorial Day, as our nation honors its unbroken line of fallen heroes, and I see many of them in the audience here today, our sense of patriotism is particularly strong.

Meanwhile every misstep Hillary did in this race was blown out of proportion. (And let’s be real, if Bush did that speaking gaffe about the ghosts it would have made the rounds over and over on the Daily Show, Colbert and the rest of the late night circuit, and even carried over onto the morning shows). I’m not too sorry for the Clintons though. They’ve been the beneficiaries of media bias so long, it’s somehow a fitting irony that Hillary ends up becoming a victim of media bias for once.

Then the final killing blow was delivered by Vanity Fair last week when it conveniently released this poorly-sourced article about Bill Clinton’s shenanigans. It starts:

Old friends and longtime aides are wringing their hands over Bill Clinton’s post-White House escapades, from the dubious (and secretive) business associations to the media blowups that have bruised his wife’s campaign, to the private-jetting around with a skirt-chasing, scandal-tinged posse. Some point to Clinton’s medical traumas; others blame sheer selfishness, and the absence of anyone who can say “no.” Exploring Clintonworld, the author asks if the former president will be consumed by his own worst self.

And it only goes downhill from there. But why exactly did a scandalous article about Bill Clinton need to be released at this critical juncture? Were people really clamoring to know more about Bill’s shenanigans after all these years, and particularly now when there are so many more pressing issues on the public’s mind like the elections, the economy and gas prices? It served no purpose except to drive the final nail in the coffin of Hillary’s campaign. It was a hit piece, pure and simple, except the real target was Hillary, not Bill. The media wants Obama to win, and wanted to do everything they could to ensure that Hillary would either drop out or lose decisively.

Now that Hillary’s campaign is basically over, note how positively the media is covering her again. They now gush over her and want to rehabilitate her image and build her back up for two reasons. The first reason is in case she becomes Obama’s running mate. Her reputation needs to be stellar again by then so that her addition to the ticket doesn’t hurt Obama’s chances. The second reason for the media to fix her image is so that her supporters will calm down, be placated and not get so bitter that they decide to vote for McCain over Obama. Unfortunately for the media, this second goal may be harder to achieve than they expected.

At this point the media’s strategy of lionizing Obama and demonizing Hillary is beginning to backfire as Hillary’s embittered followers are talking either of abstaining altogether from voting, or worse, voting for John McCain. There is major bitterness and rage on the part of many Hillary followers over what they perceive to be unfair treatment of Hillary by the media and Obama. Over at Hillary’s official blog, even as they’re reciting the official party line and urging Democrats to “come together ,” you can see 700+ comments on the thread by irate Hillary supporters who are angry with Obama and the media and are declaring their intent to vote for McCain as a result of the bitter campaign. (The comments really do make for a fascinating read; the shrillness is bad even by the standards of extremely radical feminists)

Also, check out Hillary’s concession speech, which you can see here. She mentions Obama favorably over a dozen times, but each time she uses the phrase “We must elect Barack Obama,” the crowd’s reaction is less and less enthusiastic, and you can hear a lot of people actually booing. The last time she says it there’s almost no applause save for some weak, polite clapping from the people behind her.

And according to the NY Post, McCain is poised to take advantage of this Democratic rift:

Polls show around 30 percent of Hillary Clinton’s voters saying they’ll vote for John McCain. Most will come around – but if only 5 percent of her 18 million voters stray to the GOP side, that could be enough to swing the election.

The McCain camp is on it. It believes it can siphon off older female voters, who are skeptical over Obama’s lack of experience. McCain clearly heard Clinton’s battle cry after the final primary, when she said she wanted her voters to be respected. His surrogate, Carly Fiorina, even told reporters she believed Clinton suffered sexist treatment during the campaign – music to these Clinton supporters’ ears.

McCain started courting Clinton’s voters in the days between that last primary and her concession speech. He said the media had mistreated Clinton and talked of how much he respects her, noting she was often underappreciated.

Now he’s planning a campaign tour to reach out to her voters, as well as to independent female voters. His campaign has dedicated part of its Web site to them, and is mobilizing high-profile female surrogates to flood states where Clinton won.

Think about that…only 5% of Clinton’s female base will be enough to swing the vote McCain’s way. It will take that little. So of course the mainstream media, which desperately wants Obama to win, is running scared.

Which leads to this article published today by the Daily Mail about John McCain, with the delightfully unbiased and objective headline “The wife U.S. Republican John McCain Callously Left Behind.” From the article:

[T]here is another Mrs McCain who casts a ghostly shadow over the Senator?s presidential campaign. She is seldom seen and rarely written about, despite being mother to McCain?s three eldest children.

And yet, had events turned out differently, it would be she, rather than Cindy, who would be vying to be First Lady. She is McCain?s first wife, Carol, who was a famous beauty and a successful swimwear model when they married in 1965.

She was the woman McCain dreamed of during his long incarceration and torture in Vietnam?s infamous ?Hanoi Hilton? prison and the woman who faithfully stayed at home looking after the children and waiting anxiously for news.

But when McCain returned to America in 1973 to a fanfare of publicity and a handshake from Richard Nixon, he discovered his wife had been disfigured in a terrible car crash three years earlier. Her car had skidded on icy roads into a telegraph pole on Christmas Eve, 1969. Her pelvis and one arm were shattered by the impact and she suffered massive internal injuries.

When Carol was discharged from hospital after six months of life-saving surgery, the prognosis was bleak. In order to save her legs, surgeons had been forced to cut away huge sections of shattered bone, taking with it her tall, willowy figure. She was confined to a wheelchair and was forced to use a catheter.

Through sheer hard work, Carol learned to walk again. But when John McCain came home from Vietnam, she had gained a lot of weight and bore little resemblance to her old self.

Today, she stands at just 5ft4in and still walks awkwardly, with a pronounced limp. Her body is held together by screws and metal plates and, at 70, her face is worn by wrinkles that speak of decades of silent suffering.

For nearly 30 years, Carol has maintained a dignified silence about the accident, McCain and their divorce. But last week at the bungalow where she now lives at Virginia Beach, a faded seaside resort 200 miles south of Washington, she told The Mail on Sunday how McCain divorced her in 1980 and married Cindy, 18 years his junior and the heir to an Arizona brewing fortune, just one month later.
Carol insists she remains on good terms with her ex-husband, who agreed as part of their divorce settlement to pay her medical costs for life. ?I have no bitterness,? she says. ?My accident is well recorded. I had 23 operations, I am five inches shorter than I used to be and I was in hospital for six months. It was just awful, but it wasn?t the reason for my divorce.

?My marriage ended because John McCain didn?t want to be 40, he wanted to be 25. You know that happens…it just does.?

Some of McCain?s acquaintances are less forgiving, however. They portray the politician as a self-centred womaniser who effectively abandoned his crippled wife to ?play the field?. They accuse him of finally settling on Cindy, a former rodeo beauty queen, for financial reasons.

Now just like with the Bill Clinton Vanity Fair story, why this particular story and why now? Could it have something to do with the media viewing woman as reactionary, emotional decisionmakers and hoping that this article will make Hillary’s female base hate McCain for being a cad more than they currently hate Obama, thereby ensuring they won’t cross over to the GOP come November? I’m sure you can put it together for yourselves.