« Open Link Thread: Strike Edition | Main | "Committing News" »

November 11, 2007

Sullivan on Obama

By Ankush Khardori

I should've taken Charles Kaiser's advice and skipped Andrew Sullivan's cover story for The Atlantic, about how Barack Obama is the second coming of Christ.  It is a stunningly bad piece of work -- reductive, overwrought, bloated, and, perhaps above all, patronizing. 

The setup doubles as an example of numerous overblown passages in the piece:

At its best, the Obama candidacy is about ending a war—not so much the war in Iraq, which now has a mo­mentum that will propel the occupation into the next decade—but the war within America that has prevailed since Vietnam and that shows dangerous signs of intensifying, a nonviolent civil war that has crippled America at the very time the world needs it most. It is a war about war—and about culture and about religion and about race. And in that war, Obama—and Obama alone—offers the possibility of a truce.

Needless to say, Sullivan can hardly provide actual proof for all of the steps in this argument, even if you substituted more modest adjectives for the grandiose ones he's used.  But proof, in a piece like this, is beside the point.  The Atlantic is giving us access to the mind of a serious thinker who is writing about Big Ideas.  The exercise needn't be marred by serious reporting or  self-reflection.

Nor, apparently, meaningful editing of any sort.  Setting aside the sheer length -- 6,300 frequently repetitive words -- the piece is fraught with ridiculous claims. Sullivan tells us, on the issue of health care, that "[b]etween the boogeyman of 'Big Government' and the alleged threat of the drug companies, the practical differences [between the political parties] are more matters of nuance than ideology. Yes, there are policy disagreements, but in the wake of the Bush administration, they are underwhelming."  This, as readers of this blog no doubt know, is not true, just like it's not true that "Democrats are merely favoring more cost controls on drug and insurance companies."  (There is, after all, the small matter of universal health care.)  Sullivan informs us that "[i]f Roe were to fall, the primary impact would be the end of a system more liberal than any in Europe in favor of one more in sync with the varied views that exist across this country."  He seems unaware that Congress has power to regulate abortion; overturning Roe does not simply turn the issue over to the states.  Sullivan tells us that "Islamist terror . . . could pose an existential danger to the West."  This is just silly.  Rest assured, everyone, the West will continue to exist.

Much of Sullivan's piece reads like a pitch from the candidate's camp itself: Obama, "and Obama alone," can move us beyond this unprecedentedly rancorous moment in our politics.  Sullivan's uncritical embrace of this argument is not particularly surprising.  As Kaiser puts it, "Barack is Andrew's latest infatuation. The fact that Sullivan's previous love objects have included Margaret Thatcher, Ronald Reagan, the war in Iraq, and unsafe sex makes this endorsement slightly less exciting for the rest of us." 

The more novel part of Sullivan's argument goes like this: 

What does he offer? First and foremost: his face. Think of it as the most effective potential re-branding of the United States since Reagan. Such a re-branding is not trivial—it’s central to an effective war strategy.
...
Consider this hypothetical. It’s November 2008. A young Pakistani Muslim is watching television and sees that this man—Barack Hussein Obama—is the new face of America. In one simple image, America’s soft power has been ratcheted up not a notch, but a logarithm. A brown-skinned man whose father was an African, who grew up in Indonesia and Hawaii, who attended a majority-Muslim school as a boy, is now the alleged enemy. If you wanted the crudest but most effective weapon against the demonization of America that fuels Islamist ideology, Obama’s face gets close. It proves them wrong about what America is in ways no words can.

It's tempting to ignore the ridiculously overblown language -- "first and foremost," "not a notch, but a logarithm," "close" to "the crudest but most effective weapon," " in ways no words can" -- but this is the argument.  Sullivan doesn't give us his own account of what it is that "fuels Islamist ideology" -- like so much else, one suspects he hasn't thought it through; the casual lumping together of disparate groups with disparate motivations is the first clue -- but it's not difficult to sketch simple rejoinders to some possible claims.  If they hate us because we're not fundamentalist Muslims, another Christian president, however brown-skinned, isn't going to do the trick; if they hate us because we support Israel, occupy parts of the Middle East, or otherwise do things they don't like, they might want to see some actual policy changes before they quit on the whole militancy thing at the first sight of a brown-skinned man.  This isn't to say that Obama's election wouldn't be a powerful indication of progress in America's racial politics, or that this wouldn't help us somewhat on the international stage, but we see here Sullivan's tendency to take a decent idea and magnify it to a preposterous scale.  (Hence, the end of AIDS.)

At bottom, however, Sullivan may simply be engaged in projection:

Earlier this fall, I attended an Obama speech in Washington on tax policy that underwhelmed on delivery; his address was wooden, stilted, even tedious. It was only after I left the hotel that it occurred to me that I’d just been bored on tax policy by a national black leader. That I should have been struck by this was born in my own racial stereotypes, of course. But it won me over.

Do his "racial stereotypes" involve non-white people being unable to talk about tax policy?  In any event, others with non-aesthetic concerns (even those Islamist ideologues) will look beyond Obama's face.  They may be interested, for instance, in his actual policies -- though they will need to turn to sources outside of Sullivan's piece to learn anything about them.

The remarkable thing here is that I'm an admirer of Obama's, so I'm hardly opposed to people writing about how much they like him.  But The Atlantic can do better than this -- much better than this.  I remain baffled as to why purportedly serious publications treat Sullivan with such high regard. 

November 11, 2007 | Permalink

Comments

It may be embarrassing for Andrew Sullivan that he confesses in this manner to wanting to have his Black Friend (tm Stephen Colbert) as President. But it remains worth noting that very many white Americans really do wish they had a Black Friend, and that this has been helping Obama's candidacy a lot.

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

And the other thing being that, if Sullivan actually wants Obama to get elected, it's fine to think that his blackness is one of the best things about him, but PLEASE DON'T SAY IT SO LOUDLY.

Posted by: brooksfoe | Nov 12, 2007 3:09:32 AM

I'm sure this is going to draw a lot of the usual anti-Sullivan types to make this about the man more than the writing. But it strikes me that your assessment of the writing is dead-on. Sullivan's windy, deadly prose (especially when he's Serious) is a big flaw, and I think it's the very pretentiousness that explains why places like The Atlantic and Time get bowled over - he uses big words, he's British and it's about the Big Ideas... he must be serious. In its way, it explains his fame in Washington circles... he's the celebrity deep thinker. I'd also point out that Sullivan's man-crush on Obama has led him to minimize the fallout from Obama's Donnie McClurkin fiasco on the gay community, which is also a reminder of how Sullivan has managed to give himself no constituency by being unorthodox with virtually everything. So he likes Obama... but not in the way everyone else does. How brave. How thoughtful. How... silly.

Posted by: weboy | Nov 12, 2007 4:55:51 AM

Sullivan may be a good writer, but he's lacking much of the brains needed for a political pundit. Always writing from his guts, no rational thoughts will be allowed to second guess his instincts. I can't understand at all why people keep reading this moron, even after he showed what kind of a person he is by running contact ads for bareback sex, knowing perfectly well that he's HIV positive. Irresponsible in his private life, irresponsible as a columnist.
|-(

Posted by: Gray | Nov 12, 2007 5:51:20 AM

weboy says: I'd also point out that Sullivan's man-crush on Obama has led him to minimize the fallout from Obama's Donnie McClurkin fiasco on the gay community, which is also a reminder of how Sullivan has managed to give himself no constituency by being unorthodox with virtually everything. So he likes Obama... but not in the way everyone else does. How brave. How thoughtful. How... silly.

Indeed.

The only cavil I have with it is that, by being unorthodox with virtually everything, Sully has gained himself the only constituency that seems to matter these days: the Broderites, The Village, the Gang of 500, whatever you want to call them.

FWIW, I started out this year bullish on Obama. Like Dylan sang, "she was with Big Jim, but she was leaning to the Jack of Hearts," back in February I was an Edwards supporter, but I could feel myself falling in love with Obama.

But as the long year dragged on, I kept waiting for the substance that Obama's vision would sustain and win people's loyalty to. They say you don't sell the steak, you sell the sizzle. Obama's got plenty of sizzle, but I still don't see a steak.

And the whole Donnie McClurkin thing: I don't get why this hasn't been a crippling blow to Obama. A very large chunk of his supporters are young people, educated people. Most of them regard gays as normal. These people should really have a serious problem with Obama's association with McClurkin, but it doesn't seem to have hurt him, and I'll be damned if I know why.

Posted by: low-tech cyclist | Nov 12, 2007 6:55:45 AM

Btw, hi brooksfoe! Long time no see. What brought you here, from your usual stomping grounds at washingtonmonthly.com?
:D

Posted by: Gray | Nov 12, 2007 7:04:43 AM

I think the worst part for me is that it'd be great if there was a candidate out there who seemed like they would resolve the "culture war about war" but I can't see any reason to believe that Obama is that candidate...

Posted by: Meh | Nov 12, 2007 7:12:09 AM

"the war within America that has prevailed since Vietnam.."

I am getting so sick of hearing about this "war". The Sixties are gone, and most of us have moved on from events of a very long time ago. But the right insists
that this war goes on for its own purposes. Why does Obama buy into yet another Republican talking point?

Posted by: bob h | Nov 12, 2007 7:53:35 AM

'Do his "racial stereotypes" involve non-white people being unable to talk about tax policy? '

.... isn't that transparently what he was saying? Or, rather, that black political leaders can't talk about tax policy. I seem to recall part of his infatuation with Obama supposedly being that Obama is not a "race man," in contrast with a prior generation of black leaders (Sharpton, Jackson) whose agenda was primarily focused on the issue of race in America. To Sullivan, this is progress.

Of course, it's still bad logic-- Sullivan like Obama if his speech thrills, he likes him if his speech bores, and actual policy never enters the question.

Posted by: Anthony Damiani | Nov 12, 2007 8:11:05 AM

bob h, they're still fighting the Civil War, remember - the Sixties were practically last night for them.

Posted by: Avedon | Nov 12, 2007 8:47:17 AM

"Barack is Andrew's latest infatuation. The fact that Sullivan's previous love objects have included Margaret Thatcher, Ronald Reagan, the war in Iraq, and unsafe sex makes this endorsement slightly less exciting for the rest of us."

boy, ain't that the truth. When I saw Silly Sully on Real Time with Bill Maher recently, Sully's vociferous attacks on Hillary and fanboy adulation for Obama struck me as the kind of emotional hysterics of an infatuated lover defending the honor of his amour.

Posted by: r€nato | Nov 12, 2007 8:59:12 AM

Ezra,

It is not clearly settled law that Congress has the power to regulate abortion: that power has not been squarely challenged. Indeed, in the recent decision upholding the federal ban on partial birth abortion, Justice Thomas, joined by Justice Scalia, penned a concurrence expressly withholding judgment on that question, noting that it was not presented in the case at bar. Both have long suggested that as they read the Constitution, abortion is not a federal matter.

The question is whether they can cobble together 3 more votes, especially among the liberals, who have been loathe to deny Congress anything it wants in exercising its power to regulate interstate commerce.

A betting person would not bet heavily that Thomas and Scalia can win this fight, but it would not be a bad thing for the Court to recognize that the Commerce Clause was not intended to empower Congress so broadly, and if it takes the liberals' fondness for abortion to awaken them to that reality, so be it.

Posted by: Bill | Nov 12, 2007 9:03:15 AM

Funny how Sullivan swoons. He was also deeply infatuated with Georgie, and with Georgie and his war, and with Georgie, his war and the rest of the entourage. Sullivan is still British, if I'm not mistaken. Does he make use of the National Health Service? Does he think that the NHS is 'bad' government, immorally non-conservative. After all, not even the lady of his dreams, Mrs. Tatcher, intended to dismantle it.

Posted by: Quentin | Nov 12, 2007 9:11:09 AM

I'm a huge fan of Sullivan, been reading him since he started writing for TNR over ten years ago. (Full disclosure: I'm an editor at a magazine in NYC and he's written for me too.) I watch the goings-on and have to scratch my head. I ask myself: why is it the young guys who go after Sullivan? Must be because he writes the way young guys should be writing: reductive, overwrought, bloated, and, perhaps above all, patronizing.

Posted by: Castiglione | Nov 12, 2007 9:13:29 AM

I think sully's point about tax-policy is not that Obama's shouldn't be boring. Most people find tax policy boring, and he's playing on this assumption. So his point is that black culture has advanced to the point where they can enter the arena of tedium. They don't have to be musicians, or preachers, or Oprah. They don't have to entertain to have their opinions respected.

Posted by: Brian | Nov 12, 2007 9:21:17 AM

In Sully land, "culture war" means getting Sully his all else be damned. Which is why in the same article he calls for the end of the culture war (i.e. gays get to be married!) while talking about how stupid Black people are.

Posted by: Rob | Nov 12, 2007 9:22:18 AM

"Must be because he writes the way young guys should be writing: reductive, overwrought, bloated, and, perhaps above all, patronizing."

Sounds like a plagiarism to me. I'm sure I read a similar statement somewhere before...
:D

Posted by: Gray | Nov 12, 2007 9:28:31 AM

DISCLAIMER: First, it must never be forgotten that Andrew Sullivan is a political thug who revealed his true authoritarian colors once and for all after 9/11 with his comments about the traitorous liberals in their decadent enclaves on the coasts. Given his obvious ability to jump on bandwagons despite all counterevidence - counterevidence that even he now admits is strong -- if Sullivan had been a German in the 30's he would very likely have expressed pro-Nazi views and helped turn in Jews.

But that aside, there is a reason why Obama is not our political savior. All of our current political problems are the product of three factors: 1) Republican extremism AND 2) Democratic weakness AND 3) the postmodern media. But Obama is ill-suited to handle any of these three factors.

The extremist Republicans are bullies. The way you solve a bully problem is to stand up to the bully, not to find nice accomodating things to say to him. But that's not something Obama seems to be capable of so Obama will do nothing about 1) and 2).

The media are whores to the powerful. So there is some potential for Obama to move the media as they suck up to his administration. But as we saw with Clinton there is more to it than simply occupying the White House. Never forget: the media is OWNED by Republicans. What is really needed to sway the media is the powerful expression of opposition ideas.

But Obama is incapable of the powerful expression of opposition ideas because he is all hung up on being this Christ-like figure who helps transcend and resolve our conflicts. But, as we argued above with regard to 1), the problem of the conflict caused by the Republican extremist bullies will not be solved by all of us joining hands and singing Kumbaya with Obama on lead.

Conclusion: Obama is ill-suited to deal with any of the 3 root causes of America's political problem.

Posted by: Junius Brutus | Nov 12, 2007 9:31:21 AM

Hehehe, I found it, wasn't so hard:
"And I ask myself: why is it the young guys who go after Siegel? Must be because he writes the way young guys should be writing: angry, independent, not afraid of offending powerful people."
http://ezraklein.typepad.com/blog/2006/09/coda_on_siegel.html
LOL!

Posted by: Gray | Nov 12, 2007 9:33:06 AM

"I remain baffled as to why purportedly serious publications treat Sullivan with such high regard."

Well, the Atlantic hired McArdle, so what do you expect? They've clearly decided that giving space to talented writers who say nothing of merit is the way to build readership.

Posted by: F. Frederson | Nov 12, 2007 9:35:29 AM

What's driving me nuts, more than Sullivan's constant veneration of Obama, is his manic opposition to Clinton(s). It goes on and on and on. It's almost like he's become a fanatic, ie someone who redoubles his efforts forgetting his cause. From last Thursday until yesterday, Sullivan posted more than six times hitting her. His most telling was the one on the "tip" incident that even the waitress said was baloney. His take is that it's just like the Clintons to lie. It's like attacking for attacking's sake. He doesn't like them. Okay, get over it.

I live in Illinois and cannot support Obama. He actually, in my opinion, "stands" for nothing. He's mediocre and echoes words of hope and aspiration with no real meaning behind them. In the Illinois legislature his role was always the "mediator" who tried to bring together two opposite sides and never taking one himself.

I haven't come out in favor of Hillary or any of the others as yet. I have come out against Obama. Unlike Sullivan, I trust him less than the others.

Posted by: mike/ | Nov 12, 2007 9:52:16 AM

Yes, Mike, this is about the Clintons. Virtually everything Andy writes about politics is motivated in some fashion by his bizzare, Ahab-and-the-whale-like bond to the Clintons.

Take Hillary out of the Dem race, and Sullivan is still agitating for Lieberman as part of a GOP-independent ticket.

Posted by: Jamey | Nov 12, 2007 10:00:14 AM

Sullivan doesn't know much about maths either. A 'logarithmic' step up is much smaller than a notch. Logarithmic is the opposite (or inverse) of exponential, which should have been the word he was seeking.

Posted by: Magnum | Nov 12, 2007 10:02:58 AM

How the mighty Atlantic has fallen! It used to be such a good magazine even relatively recently.

Posted by: Gus | Nov 12, 2007 10:10:12 AM

I read Sullivan daily not because he's indispensable but because he's a trained provocateur. He will find a way to insert himself and his passions in the middle of any heated discussion. On television, he's less successful since he often has to shout down other people in order to dominate. His tactic is aesthetic intellectualism - big flowery phrases inflating often pedestrian arguments. This is, in essence, the Big Idea.

His book on conservatism meanders all over the cotton-candy terrain of Big Ideas. Ultimately, you realize this isn't about any central idea so much as Sullivan placing himself at the epicenter of his own Big Idea. He's gay! He's conservative! He's hip! He's fearless!

In other words, he's Madonna and he will be heard, whether we like it or not.

Posted by: walt | Nov 12, 2007 10:25:47 AM

Sullivan doesn't know much about maths either. A 'logarithmic' step up is much smaller than a notch. Logarithmic is the opposite (or inverse) of exponential, which should have been the word he was seeking.

Thank you!! I thought so when I read it but I'm not very mathy and figured I was just losing my mind.

Posted by: eRobin | Nov 12, 2007 10:26:59 AM

The comments to this entry are closed.