President Obama has many talents, chief among them the ability to deliver a good speech. His critics dismiss this skill because of Obama’s use of a teleprompter, as if the president’s words are meaningless unless he speaks extemporaneously – and eloquently – on every occasion. Colloquialisms, pauses, the give-and-take of conversational English, the way most people stumble for the right phrases and commit gaffes — all of these things are unacceptable in a national leader. But the president’s opponents will not be satisfied until Obama shuts off his teleprompter and then wows his audience with the same language, put forth with the same emphasis and physical punctuation, a pointed finger here and a lectern-pounding fist there, so his listeners will rise to their feet and applaud wildly. Even then, the attacks will not cease; he will stand accused of having memorized his remarks because he is too polished, his comments too rehearsed, his jokes too well-timed — his style too disrespectful, because the words are in his head and not on the page, that he cannot be trusted. In other words, he will never win.
If anything, Republicans should congratulate the president on his style while critiquing the actual content of his speeches. Concerning the latter, the president has serious problems: he does not have a sense for the cultural rhythm of American politics, which is conservative (small “c”) and skeptical of big government. Which is why his words fail to elevate his poll numbers or win independent voters to his cause. His problems have little to do with the false perception among Republicans that he is nothing more than a master of “speech karaoke,” a person who can make anything sound inspiring. If this point were true then the president would be extremely popular, his approval rating increasing with every speech; in fact, he would be speaking all the time, issuing proclamations and shaking his hands heavenward as the choir belts out a refrain of “Yes We Can” and “Hope and Change.”
The reality is that the president is in trouble because the philosophy he supports, applied to everything from government bailouts to massive spending to a complete overhaul of the nation’s health care system, does not work. The country is in the midst of prolonged unemployment, overwhelming debt, widespread dissatisfaction among Democrats and Republicans — and no plan from the president to end this mess. (There are times – too many times – when the president seems wholly detached from the consequences of his actions, as if he is a hypothetical commander-in-chief in an ultra competitive version of Model UN; he does not know, or seems not to know, that the academic rituals of a political science class are different than governance — Obama needs to act like a president, not a student who thinks he is smarter than any president.)
The academician-as-president is neither an endorsement of his brand of intellectualism, nor an advertisement for the way Obama “leads” the nation. For example: Obama seems most comfortable in a university setting – he was a “senior lecturer” at the University of Chicago Law School – which emphasizes the very things most Americans dislike: exposure of racial and sexual fault lines, political jockeying, generally impenetrable prose, the absence of practical skills and a seeming bloodlust for the ultimate collegiate prize — tenure. Indeed, the title of senior lecturer is a perfect description of the president’s behavior. He does not seek to persuade the public about his actions; he tells the electorate – he lectures us – that we must do as he says. Again, this style may work in a university setting, where faculty and students run a mutual self-congratulation society based on liberal dogma. Outside the environs of a college campus, this behavior is as alien to most Americans as the other handicap that plagues academia: moral confusion.
A simple tour of most colleges reveals the depth of this problem. Signposts and walls bear the graffiti of anti-American (and anti-Israel) hatred, while members of this community also offer everything from passive acceptance to outright support for the murderous violence of 9/11. In this world, the bill of indictment against the United States is an ever-expanding document of crimes, starting with the very founding of the country. This world is Obama’s home, a haven for the policies he embraces – without any preconditions – on behalf of our enemies. Not mere opponents or critics, but enemies who would cause great harm against us if they had the means to do so. (A note to those who think this criticism is an unfair attack against the president’s patriotism: then candidate Obama said he would gladly meet with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran – he smiled while addressing this issue – as a way to signal that he, Obama, was not George W. Bush. Never mind that Ahmadinejad denies the Holocaust and is yet committed to seeing another one happen, through a relentless effort to acquire a nuclear bomb and wipe Israel off the map. Or that Iran also ships weapons to jihadists in Iraq, injuring and killing American soldiers. To all of these facts, Obama grins while the rest of us, flawed human beings who nonetheless know the difference between right and wrong, respond with disbelief. So yes, Obama is not George W. Bush; more to the point, he is not like any president in history because of this level of moral indifference.)
Republicans must highlight these issues, rather than engaging in nonsense and political comedy. There are plenty of reasons to criticize this president, starting with the vacuity of his policies and his lack of common sense. These weaknesses make the president vulnerable. If Republicans expose these things – and the GOP has an ethical responsibility to do so – then we can have a serious conversation about leadership.
Right now, the president is too detached to win reelection. The challenge, for Republicans and independents, is to recognize this fact — and not get lazy. Victory requires hard work and vision. Now is the time for a disciplined response to the president’s inaction.
