The Myth of Obama's Brilliance

George Packer is far too intelligent to believe what he wrote yesterday. Still, he wrote it.

One day, in the not too distant future, one hopes that he will wake up and say to himself: What was I thinking?

In a post on the New Yorker site Packer offered up an absurd piece of sophistry. You have heard it before, more than you would have liked, so we have to wonder why we are hearing it again.

The sophistry: President Obama has never said anything memorable or intelligent because he is just too damn smart.

Left thinking intellectuals have given their minds over to the challenge of producing mindless propaganda about Barack Obama. They excuse Obama’s failure on the grounds that he is so  smart that he cannot say anything smart.

Packer gussies up the thought in an amazing paragraph:

The fact that Obama has given so few truly great Presidential speeches didn’t turn out to be politically fatal, but it’s not irrelevant. It’s made him more vulnerable, put him more on the defensive than he should have been. He’s never given himself a phrase or sentence to wield in the crunch, conveying an idea that’s simple and yet profound enough to embed itself in the public’s mind, and that truly defines his political vision. Obama is too complex, too nuanced, too elusive, and too careful, for words that stick.

If Packer really believes what he is saying, then he should, at the least, offer some examples of Obama’s complex and nuanced brilliance. He has done so in the past.

Everyone agrees that Obama’s 2009 inaugural address was flat and uninspiring.

At the time, Packer was praising it to the skies. Today, he tells us that Obama has never given a memorable speech. In 2009 he was taking a different tack. 

Rick Richman summarizes:

On January 20, 2009, Packer wrote that Obama’s address had “echoes of Jefferson, Lincoln, and Roosevelt.” Its “tone and vision” had been “absolutely equal to the occasion and the times.” The “most eloquent words” were addressed to the entire world: “we cannot help but believe that the old hatreds shall someday pass; that the lines of tribe shall soon dissolve; that as the world grows smaller, our common humanity shall reveal itself; and that America must play its role in ushering in a new era of peace.” The most “passionately delivered” lines began: “We will not apologize for our way of life nor will we waiver in its defense.” In short, Obama “delivered something better than rhetorical excitement”–he had spoken “the truth,” which “carries its own poetry,” and he had made “impossible” the job of the poet following him that day.

Let’s forgive Packer. He got caught up in the rapture of the moment. He was doing his best Chris Matthews imitation, showing that he too had had a religious experience while listening to the eloquent preacher-president.  

Here’s a rule of thumb: when you want to boost the self-esteem of someone whose speeches lack substance you tell him that he’s speaking poetry.

Yesterday, Packer offered on evidence of Obama's brilliance, so he left it to Richman to offer up some of Obama’s more memorable lines, concepts and phrasings. It does not amount to very much, but it’s worth quoting.

In Richman’s words:

It is not that Obama cannot come up with words that stick. Consider just a few: exceptional like Greece is exceptional; punished with a baby; typical white person; at a certain point you’ve made enough money; shovel-ready jobs that weren’t shovel-ready; pivoting to jobs; the stupidly-acting Cambridge police; we can’t eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees and just expect other countries to say OK; I don’t want the folks who created the mess to do a lot of talking; I have a gift, Harry; this time, you’ve got me; they should be thanking me; if you like your plan, you can keep it; Slurpee-sipping opponents; that business of yours, you didn’t build that; say that louder, Candy; I am a better speechwriter than my speechwriters. Few presidents have had so many sticky words.   

Writers like Packer are smart enough to know that they are looking at verbal detritus. They deserve credit for having convinced the nation that Obama’s inadequacies are a sign of his superiority.

In his enthusiasm to elevate Obama's mediocrity Packer offers yet another piece of nonsense:

If Obama is the best writer-President since Lincoln, it’s not because of an extraordinary gift for language—it’s because of his breadth of experience and depth of thought.

Packer is hedging by introducing his sentence with an “if.” Fair enough. But he quickly descends into nonsense when he writes about the dear leader’s “breadth of experience and depth of thought.”

Given that Obama assumed the presidency with precious little experience that might have qualified him for the office, the statement is obviously absurd. Someone who has spent most of his adult life working in government does not have a “breadth of experience.”

As for “depth of thought,” Packer should provide evidence for the assertion. On its face it’s absurd.

Try naming one political issue or historical event about which Barack Obama has contributed cogent or illuminating thoughts. Don’t strain your mind; there is none.

When Packer hints that Obama is the “best writer-President since Lincoln” he must be basing his opinion on the evidence of one self-serving, none-too-accurate aut0biography.

If Packer had stepped out of his role as propagandist he would have known that there is no real question about who is the best President-writer since Lincoln. The laurels belong to Theodore Roosevelt. No one even comes in second. Next to TR, Barack Obama is a mere poetaster.

TR wrote a seminal work on The Naval War of 1812 when he was 23. He followed up with dozens of works of historical and political analysis, mixed with works about his personal history and other topics of interest.

For breadth of experience and depth of thought Teddy Roosevelt towered over other writer-Presidents.

During World War I, private citizen Roosevelt wrote a series of op-ed columns about the War and America’s relation to it. These have been collected in four volumes, with the first being, America and the World War. The second was: Fear God and Take Your OwnPart.

In his columns Roosevelt offered a real time analysis of the state of the war and the Wilson administration’s conduct of foreign policy during it.

It was brilliant. It showed how a great president would have analyzed the complexities of the foreign policy challenges and what he would have done to manage the situation.

The books will teach you a great deal about politics and history and international relations. Better yet, they make for wonderful reading.