Obama and the Fate of Criticism

“Tattered Hope” by Nathan Rupert

Jason at postpolitical and I often get into testy email arguments about Barack Obama’s alleged “arrogance.” He is quite Greek in the sense that he thinks hubris is the fatal flaw at the heart of all political downfalls. I don’t entirely agree with that, nor with his contention that Obama represents an emblematic example of arrogant leadership. At least no more so than any other politician.

On this matter Jason is of course much more in line with majority opinion on the right than myself. Many conservative bloggers have argued for Obama’s arrogance for so long, it once was merely a kind of premonition.

It is true however, that the arrogance charge seems to be spreading out of the conservative blogs into mainstream media commentary. Jennifer Rubin, herself a staunch proponent of ‘hubristic Obama’ theory, notes Howard Fineman is the latest to be swayed to the cause:

[P]olitics doesn’t work that way. And has Obama should know, or is about to find out, that everyone needs a little help.
(MSNBC via Commentary)

Despite my objections to this, it is very easy for me to imagine Barack Obama in an interview sometime in 2011, talking about how defeat in 2008 made him reexamine himself, humbled him, improved him for 2012.

That is, I can picture Obama eventually agreeing with the allegation of his arrogance, in order to defuse it or use it to his advantage later. Therein lies the true weakness of Obama for me, even as it serves as a tactical strength. He has an ability to absorb and transform negative narratives in popular discourse, to internalize opposition and rebrand it his own. Inexperience becomes hope and change, antiwar becomes securing a military victory, an entirely nebulous patriotism becomes ten thousand waving flags. Strangely, the fate of criticism of Obama is for it to be eventually embraced by him.

While this talent can speak of a commendably reflective and self-critical nature, and it can often neutralize an attack, each time it happens we grow wearier of the transformation and his figure looks more like a pincushion of compromised convictions, or worse, anchorless ambiguity personified. What after all is the point of determinedly defending Obama, if you know he’ll eventually agree with his critics rather than your defense of him? It’s a dispiriting prospect for the ally.

Obama is therefore not in the long run typified by a resolute overconfidence in himself, he is tempered too easily by a profound insecurity in his ability to defeat or ignore criticism. For better or worse, presidents don’t agree with their critics, they must attack and defeat them. It’s worth asking whether Obama will do that on any occasion at least once.