I first noticed it back in April, during the G-20 meetings in Europe. Obama was his usual charming, articulate, presidential self. That's nothing new; he's a public relations dream come true. But during one of his speeches, his eye and head movements were out of sync. His eyes would remain fixed in one location while his head would move onto another location, with the eyes catching up a second or two later. This delay created a dissonance within in Obama's delivery. Something wasn't right; he was off kilter. That's when it struck me; he's reading from teleprompters. This would not have been a big deal if I could actually see the teleprompters. But the more I looked, the more I could not find them. I actually began second guessing myself. Is he really reading his speech? If so, then where in the world are the teleprompters? If he's not reading, why are his eyes and head out of sync? My obsession with this kind of detail may seem strange, but I am a professor of Public Communication, having taught numerous courses in public speaking, rhetoric, persuasion, analysis, and so on. I am trained to see and for the most part obsess over such details.
My partner of ten years happened to walk into the room during my observation. She, too, is experienced in the field of communication, having earned a masters degree in Speech Communication with an emphasis in performance and theater. Upon asking for her input, she said that Obama is definitely not reading from teleprompters. "There's nothing there," she said. "The cameras are showing full frontal positions, side positions, close ups and long shots. There's no teleprompter. It would be impossible to hide." "But look at his eyes," I responded. "Something's not right." Then all of a sudden I saw it--two teleprompters strategically placed to conceal their presence. "Ha! I saw it! There it is!" My partner, not seeing the evidence, started to question my observation. But as time passed and with me literally walking up to and emphatically pointing to the television, she acknowledged that the gig is up--Obama is reading from teleprompters.
This story points to something much more important than a friendly debate between two partners: Obama's use of hidden teleprompters symbolizes the deep-rooted and wide-ranging systemic constraints that prohibit profound and progressive social change. Even an individual as gifted as Obama cannot overcome the constraints of the modern day American presidency. There's no way that he can personally write, rehearse, craft, and memorize every speech. Too many other pressing demands consume his time and energy. These wider constraints thus prohibit Obama from exercising his full potential. Obama's teleprompted oration is of course symbolic of the entire Obama presidency: His calls for progressivism are quarantined by the system in which he operates.
I hope that I am wrong. More affordable healthcare, better education, green technologies and new forms of energy improve our living conditions. And the restoration of civil liberties, the outlawing of torture, and the curbing of the exaggerated "war on terrorism" can repair some of the damage caused by the Bush administration. But let's face the facts. These policies are not all that progressive. Most industrialized, democratic nations have been pursuing such items for years, even decades. A truly progressive (let alone radical) agenda would build upon and advance--rather than catch up to--these policies. And let's not forget about the escalation of war in Afghanistan, the upward distribution of wealth created by the bailouts, the timid support for same-sex marriage, and the very weak healthcare proposal. I am not saying that Obama is a horrible president. I voted for him, and I am glad that he rather than McCain is running the show. But we must maintain perspective.
Obama is a one and at most a two term president. He is enveloped within a long tradition of elitism, corruption, partisanship, top down government, the exclusion rather than inclusion of everyday citizens, and of course imperialism and empire. These problems and oppressions both precede and exceed his time in office. Obama does demonstrate potential to follow in the best rather than the worst of presidential traditions. But even the best of these traditions isn't all that great, and that's the point. What will Republicans--as well as many Democrats--allow him to do? What will lobbyists and war profiteers allow him to do? What about the military-industrial and prison-industrial complexes? What about capitalism itself? The list goes on and on. The United States of America is a super power built upon greed and self-preservation. Obama's capabilities for accomplishing truly meaningful, deep-seated, long-lasting change within this system are fairly low. Too many influential voices speak to and through the presidency and those voices want to maintain rather than change the power dynamics of this country.
Many people will acknowledge the legitimacy of my assessment. But many people also quietly and conveniently ignore the wider ills of American power. That's because people want to see Obama as a heroic figure. They want to believe that a single person is capable of righting the wrongs of the past and steering this country toward the Promised Land. This wishful thinking is influenced America's David-versus-Goliath stories. Religious scriptures, folklore, novels, Hollywood movies, television shows, video games, comic books, fairy tales, and even low budget commercials are based on heroism. We are predisposed toward the heroic narrative.
Obama's own brand of heroism is created by coupling two contrasting storylines. On the one hand, Obama is cast as the average Joe. He jokes, laughs, and smiles. He's always relaxed and laid-back. He likes basketball, eats hot dogs, enjoys an occasional cigarette, and is willing to appear on the Jay Leno Show. He comes from a mixed-race, broken home, has dabbled in the usual college indiscretions (drugs), and dedicated his younger years to helping Southside Chicagoans. He's one of us; regular people. But on the other hand, he is cast as a transcendent, almost untouchable figure. He's a well-groomed, eloquent Ivy League educated lawyer. He succeeded as an Illinois Senator. He is the successor of a long and brutal civil rights struggle. He is the first Black president. He is the living embodiment of the rags to riches American mythology and the twenty-first century version of JFK. He's our presidential savior.
This Joe/savior coupling allows us to simultaneously identify with but also distance ourselves from Barack Obama. Our identification with Obama allows us to see the world through his eyes. We can envision ourselves saying what he says and doing what he does. We can see ourselves walking in his shoes because, in many ways, they are the same shoes that we wear. We can see ourselves being Obama because he is one of us--an average American. This produces a jolt of existential excitement and political joy. Yes We Can!
But our distance from Obama reminds us that we are not and can never be Obama. We thus have the inverse of the previous slogan. No We Cannot! We cannot say what he says, at least not in the way that he says it, and we cannot do what he does because we are not "the president." This produces existential melancholy and political disappointment.
Obama is thus a savior and a captor. He will save us from all the wrongs of the past. But only he can save us; we cannot save ourselves. We are thus psychologically dependent upon Obama, which makes him our captor. We have no choice--we must invest ourselves in Obama in the hope that he will relieve our melancholy and disappointment. But we recognize at some subconscious level that this is not possible; he's human like the rest of us and he's just a politician. This produces anger, resentment, and confusion. We could release such negative feelings by revolting against Obama--kicking him and perhaps everyone else out of office and creating some serious change. But we have internalized the idea that the present form of government is the best that we can do; that chaos and "all against all" would ensue without it. If that's true, then we might as well go with the lesser of evils, which is Obama.
Such psycho-political torment is eased by the Obama brand promise of a guilt-free America. Consuming the Obama brand relieves us of historically horrid race relations, of complying with the Bush atrocities, of ruining the natural environment, of ignoring the health needs of our fellow citizens, of invading and occupying not one but two countries, of perpetuating gross economic inequality (home and abroad), and of accepting and even liking our imperial arrogance. Everything is alright, everything is okay, everything is cool and clean with the new Obama Brand. Consume and relinquish" the choice of a new American millennium.
"Obamania" is due in part to Obama's campaign rhetoric, which successfully employed the tactic of "strategic ambiguity." Strategic ambiguity speaks in abstractions and avoids specifics. This allows the audience to unconsciously see themselves in the speaker's words. People think Obama is describing their specific wants and desires when in fact they are projecting themselves onto Obama. Here's an example from his DNC speech:
This country of ours has more
wealth than any nation, but that's not what makes us rich. We have the
most powerful military on Earth, but that's not what makes us strong. Our
universities and our culture are the envy of the world, but that's not what
keeps the world coming to our shores.
Instead, it is that American spirit--that American promise--that pushes us
forward even when the path is uncertain; that binds us together in spite of our
differences; that makes us fix our eye not on what is seen, but what is unseen,
that better place around the bend.
That promise is our greatest inheritance. It's a promise I make to my
daughters when I tuck them in at night, and a promise that you make to yours--a
promise that has led immigrants to cross oceans and pioneers to travel west; a
promise that led workers to picket lines, and women to reach for the ballot.
What the hell is he talking about? It's never clearly defined in the speech, thus allowing us to project our own dreams and fantasies into this "great American promise that binds us together as we walk into a better future." Such rhetoric acts like a mirror, simultaneously reflecting voters' inner hopes of something better and deflecting the wider truths of past and present ills. Such strategic ambiguity, combined with the Joe/savior narratives, reveals Obama's symbolic significance as hero-therapist: he makes us feel better about ourselves.
1 | 2
