Search The Site
 
More options | Back issues
Home
News
Opinion & Forums
Careers
Multimedia
Chronicle/Gallup
Leadership Forum
Technology Forum
Resource Center
Campus Viewpoints
Services
The Chronicle of Higher Education
The Chronicle Review
A weekly special section
Brainstorm: Lives of the Mind Mark Bauerlein

The Obama Appeal

In the tally of campaign contributions this season, Barack Obama comes out well in front, and conservatives and libertarians may be inclined to cast it as just more left-wing hegemony on campus. But when some of the toughest minds among the professoriate such as David Bromwich (an admirer of Edmund Burke) support Obama, and when Peggy Noonan, columnist for The Wall Street Journal and speechwriter for Ronald Reagan hails Obama’s words, opponents should recognize that his appeal derives for many from a region different from left vs. right.

College students provide one key to the appeal. They love him, and many attribute the rise in youth politics this year precisely to Obama’s candidacy. It comes not from his policies, though, or his Senate voting record. Other politicians have the same profile, but don’t inspire the rapture he does when he pops up on Saturday Night Live or takes his turn in a primary debate. No, Obama appeals to students precisely on the grounds of their youthfulness.

This is one of many points made by Andrew Ferguson in this piece on Obama’s rhetoric. It takes his gnomic pronouncement as illustration: “We are the ones we’ve been waiting for.” What does it mean? Apparently, it stems from a short story collection by Alice Walker, who borrowed it from poet June Jordan. Walker explains (cited in Ferguson): “We are the ones we’ve been waiting for because we are able to see what is happening with much greater awareness than our parents or grandparents, our ancestors, could see.”

There it is, the youth temptation. Every time Obama utters it, young people in the crowd can say, “Yes, we’re special,” even if Obama doesn’t really intend it that way. In Ferguson’s words, they can proclaim “We’re the smartest yet!” They can believe they occupy a unique point in history, that people in the past just couldn’t get things right, and now is their turn to fix it all.

That’s what the kids love. When Obama talks about change, adults hear policy adjustments on Iraq, taxes, health care, etc. When 18-29-year-olds hear “change,” it means erasure of the old, the irrelevance of the past.

As a campaign tactic, it works brilliantly, and there is no reason to abandon an effective message. But if Obama lands in the White House, we have every reason to hope that the policy meaning of “change” will eclipse the generational meaning. And we should urge Obama to remove the rhetoric that indulges adolescent vanities and instead to forge a rhetoric that leads them into a more adult awareness of history and citizenship, which includes respect for the achievements of the elders.

Posted at 07:45:15 PM on March 26, 2008 | All postings by Mark Bauerlein

Comments

  1. Or maybe America’s romance with the baby boom is finally coming to an end.

    — Boomed out · Mar 26, 08:39 PM · #

  2. Greetings,

    Thanks for writing this article; it’s interesting. I’m one of the 18-25 year-old “kids” that your article refers to. I’m currently an undergrad and will be beginning my first year of Ph.D. work in the fall. As president of my campus’s Students for Barack Obama (SFBO), I must say that your article barely seems to skim the surface of the primary reasons explaining Obama’s appeal to youth (at least from my perspective).

    From my own experience, I don’t really think that it’s a “youth temptation” that has drawn youth participation to his campaign in the way you described it. With his “Yes We Can” and “We’re the Ones We’ve Been Waiting for” slogans, Obama touches on universal themes of optimism and a carpe-diem attitudes, and who’s more optimistic and ready to seize the day than youth? Indeed, if the whole guiding narrative of his campaign was simply geared at “tempting youth,” how in the world has the campaigned “tempted” the myriad of other demographic voting blocks who have shown their support?

    Again, this is just from my own perspective as a young Obama supporter. I would be curious to see any supporting quantitative data that could perhaps clarify these points, showing how such a candidate has made himself so appealing to both adults and kids.

    Thanks for your time!

    Gratefully,
    D. Polk

    — Daniel · Mar 27, 04:44 AM · #

  3. That different people do the same thing for different reasons is always a good basis for a commentary, along with such themes as “things are not always as they seem.” So, here I am, a little too old to be called a “boomer,” because I was born before the US entered WW II, but I am enthusiastically supportive of Barack Obama. Why? Because he is a constructive unifier. He appeals to a broader range of people than other candidates do. His is a remarkable story that illustrates some of the most promising aspects of our society, at the same time as he reminds us of the need for personal initiative and responsibility and the importance of moving beyond the stereotypes of the past that divide us to our detriment. It is true that those of us who have a lifetime of experience view the world differently than our grandchildren do, but we share the hope that domestic, environmental, energy, educational, economic, and foreign policy can and will be steered onto a more sensible and sustainable course. Obama is not just more of the same. We can’t afford more of the same.

    — Joe Erwin · Mar 27, 04:49 AM · #

  4. This essentializes Obama’s appeal to a portion of the electorate as based on a single utterance. That is rather facetious on Ferguson’s part, and your embrace of that argument and your pronouncement about how 18-29 year olds hear the word “change” comes across as shallow.

    — Steve · Mar 27, 07:57 AM · #

  5. Thanks to Bauerlein for his engaging post and to those who’ve posted their comments on Obama.
    Bauerlein’s points on Obama’s youth appeal have merit. That Obama has drawn support from other areas is not a separate issue.
    Democrats who hunger for a chance to get a candidate into office are going to be supportive of a voice that brings people from under-represented demographical areas out to the voting booths! If Obama is luring the 19-32 year olds to to be politically involved, that, in itself, is powerful. If more african-americans are interested in voting, and if a large percentage of that group votes democratic, then democrats surely need to strongly consider Obama’s draw.
    It seems that Obama’s appeal is his appeal— more than his politics, his accomplishments, or any other concrete factor.
    I’m concerned.
    On the one hand, his appeal— his ability to mobilize voters—strongly recommends him as a candidate with the potential to bring victory to the democratic party.
    On the other hand, his lack of experience, his past associations, his behaviors—these all a a bit frightening.
    I’m uneasy about a candidate who smoked cigarettes up until a couple of years ago when he decided to put his hat into the presidential candidate ring. Others might be apprehensive about a candidate who smoked pot and did coke. But what makes me more uneasy is a leader who has demonstrated the weakness of smoking cigarettes with in the past 3 years. To have little kids, to be in Hyde Park, and to smoke cigarettes means that you’d have to adopt a type of furtive behavior pattern that would be akin to drinking on the job or doing drugs. In educated circles, a behavior choice such as smoking would be so frowned upon that the smoker would be forced to sneak. period. Picture this: the president of the U.S. slithering into an alley, looking left and right to check that no one can see what he’s doing as he lights up and then drags on his cigarette. That was a behavior of Mr. Obama very very recently.
    I am no stranger to stupid choices. But I’m not holding myself up as a potential leader of this nation.
    We’ve had and will continue to have fallible leaders. But when I picture the senator in an alley off 57th street in Chicago stealing a few drags off a cigarette, I just have a hard time getting past my doubts.
    Sherry 27 March 10:29 AM

    — sherry · Mar 27, 09:31 AM · #

  6. I agree with this post’s premise. At the same time, however, I think that it’s simply too easy to assume that 18-29 old voters have such an idealistic notion of how change happens. Young voters today are vastly more informed than ever before: They know that Obama’s message of “change” might not be very specific, but they also know that it’s a lot less nefarious than the message they’ve heard for the last 8 years.

    — Eric · Mar 27, 09:34 AM · #

  7. Sherry: He smokes! That is it! That has to be the weakest, most ignorant political assessment I have ever heard. Also, I think GW did his fair share of coke, so that shouldn’t bother voters at all…

    — Marcus · Mar 27, 11:27 AM · #

  8. Laura Bush still smokes — furtively. She also killed a guy.

    — Elaine · Mar 27, 11:43 AM · #

  9. That old Robert Redford film from the 70s, I believe, comes to mind at this time of the political season: “The Candidate.” (Yes, and many would add others: “The Manchurian Candidate” – both versions, etc.)

    Who is Obama? Clinton? McCain?

    We always find out, really, only after the campaigns are over. Moreso than in those countries which have a true multi-party system (to “grow” their leaders literally from the bottom up), we Americans “vote” for simulacra — media-mediated, of course.

    In short, it isn’t even “rhetoric to the rescue” in trying to sort it all out. For, as Hamlet so aptly put it: “My tables, my tables! Meet it is I set it down — that one may smile and smile and be a vilain.”

    Good luck, America. We’re going to need it, no matter which “candidate” wins….

    — Anti-hypocrisy advocate · Mar 27, 11:55 AM · #

  10. Wow. Sherry. Seriously? That’s jacked up. Obama’s vice for lighting up is small potatoes— you make it out to sound like he’s involved in a cock fighting ring or something. The whole “educated circles” comment really smacks of some big time elitism as well. Sure, people should not smoke. But to equate it to some kind of heinous moral failing that should be taken into consideration during a political campaign is… out there.

    — AnthonyS · Mar 27, 12:41 PM · #

  11. Marcus:
    I agree that Obama’s smoking would be a weak political assessment.
    The smoking, as any kind of an assessment, would be a personal one.
    My observation is not about some kind of moral high ground either.
    Smoking in the U.S. has such a stigma that those who chose to smoke are allocated to alleys as though they were doing some reprehensible act.
    To decide to smoke in th U.S. means that you have to somehow learn how to avoid or evade the judgment of others.
    Anthony: the smoking as a vice is not the issue.
    The issue is that to engage in the behavior in his circles of fellow politicians, friends, and family members requires the ability and decision to dissemble.
    To quit smoking to run for office makes sense for the same reason that to smoke and to run for office does not make sense.
    If anyone has make Obama’s cigarette smoking political, it’s Obama himself.

    Thanks for your feedback.

    — sherry · Mar 27, 01:03 PM · #

  12. This smoking issue is WAY off base, as is the assertion that Obama lacks experience, at least by comparison with his rivals. None has substantial experience as a CEO. All have experience in directing a legislative offices, which is pretty close to executive experience. The claim that being married to an executive somehow equates with executive experience, though, has no face validity. Don’t we teach our students to be more critical thinkers about such things as “guilt by association” than is displayed by some commenters here and elsewhere?

    — Joe Erwin · Mar 27, 02:32 PM · #

  13. Somebody’s been watching too much Obama Girl.

    — C.C. Puede · Mar 28, 04:27 AM · #

  14. Regardless of why anyone gets enthusiastic about any candidate, I for one agree with Gore Vidal’s 1976 assessment of anyone running for president: “No one who gets elected the way things are currently done should be allowed to take office.” I think Bauerlein is essentially correct about the Obama appeal, but there’s really nothing new here. Every generation thinks it invented everything; as Philip Larkin put it, sexual intercourse began in 1960. For starters, consider what the current crop of “kids” have had to look at in the Oval Office for their entire lives: Cheney’s Chimp for the last eight years, preceded by eight years of Slick Willy “I didn’t inhale” Clinton, and four years of the Bush who brought us Saddam Hussein in the first place, and for the real elder statesmen of their generation, Mr. Hollywood.

    Why wouldn’t any fresh face look good to these folks? In their shoes, I’m sure I’d be thinking it would be virtually impossible to do worse than we have. I’m not saying that would be true, but that would be what I’d be thinking. But I bet I’d also be thinking that the idea that Obama, Clinton, and McCain constitute the best possible choices was insane.

    — Dan Kirklin · Mar 28, 07:33 AM · #

  15. As a boomer myself, I hope that Boomed Out is right. I’m so ready to see the next generations begin to take their place and take over. I’d love to have President who’s YOUNGER than I am! Go Barack!

    — David · Mar 28, 09:00 AM · #

  16. Thanks for this thought-provoking post. One of the things that has always made me a little nervous about the phenomenon associated with Senator Obama’s candidacy is the vagueness of the campaign’s “change” message. But, as the author points out so cogently, this is brilliant politics. Younger voters can choose to hear the “generational” message while older voters can elect to hear the “policy adjustment” message. Each group can identify with the message they want to hear, while the candidate avoids specific policy commitments. Much more elegant than the Clinton campaign’s harping on about experience and much less controversial than Senator McCain’s sometimes rather wooden messaging and prickly temper.

    As others have pointed out, however, the post-election challenge will be managing the inflated, and sometimes contradictory, expectations of different groups hearing different messages. To use AHA’s word, the problem will be when, if elected, the “simulacra” has to make real decisions. Said another way, what will be the real mandate if people hear, and vote for, such different messages?

    — joe · Mar 28, 09:04 AM · #

  17. Anyone who criticizes Obama for being a smoker has never been to Chicago. It’s like criticizing a Roman for eating spaghetti.

    — Billy · Mar 28, 10:18 AM · #

  18. I think this is the first time I unreservedly agree with AHA…

    Our voting system (first past the post) polarizes us to a two-party system, and thus a successful (primary) candidate is one who can typify the archetype of their party. More often than not, this seems to be done by ‘modifying’ one’s views or activities to meet the ‘acceptable criteria’.

    So to all those out there who care:
    Support Run-off (or Instant Run-off) voting. Push for it at a local level and in time we will grass-roots our way to fixing a fundamental flaw in our particular instance of democracy.

    — Dan · Mar 28, 10:41 AM · #

  19. So what if Obama appeals to some younger voters. This has little to do with his potential ability to be President. I am less concerned about his addiction to nicotine than I am about what this reveals about his character, as Sherry points out. Smoking around young children shows a callous disregard for their health, as studies of second hand smoke reveal. And the whole Jeremiah Wright issue has not been addressed here either. Where there is smoke, there is fire.

    — mary · Mar 28, 11:37 AM · #

  20. Oh young people are emotional and made the Beetles billionaires. Obama is the great savior of the Republican party in America.
    Oh well there are always some who hate America including Obama and his wife who could have never succeeded in any other place in the world the way they have here. But they see nothing in America to be proud of except themselves. Dismaying insight into to strage characters.

    — james oakley · Mar 28, 12:55 PM · #

  21. Yet another futile attempt by Professor B to sound all-wise when all he’s doing is oversimplifying. There he goes again: Obama devotees, you see, are like the spoiled Spock babies reviled by Agnew and Nixon. They used to catch hell during the sixties for not respecting their elders and happily running off to do what needed doing in Vietnam. It’s the same old right-wing trick that Professor B. tries to play. And, of course, it’s clear he just hadn’t heard Obama’s speech on a more perfect union. There were lots of references to the “elders,” that is, unless your ears were so stuffed with conservative beeswax we missed them: as i recall, words from the constitution, from William Faulkner, Richard Wright, as well as Obama’s own grandmother were introduced, and, oh yeah, there was that bit from the Bible. Mark never heard those words, probably because he’s used to gushing over the Roveian rhetoric of Bush who, of course, always laces his speeches with quotes from his elders; you remember, right? BRING IT ON! Great words from the past. And as for BUSH respecting his elders, well, there was daddy telling him not to be so foolish and attack Iraq, and there was Colin Powell and General Shinseki, elderly generals. And who does Bush listen to? Well, his fellow war criminals and sociopaths: they know who they are: Rumsfeld, Perl, Wolfowitz , Feith, and, of course, the dude from the dark side, Cheney.

    Really, Mark, if you’re going to launch a critique, don’t presume that your readers are brain dead or too stupid to be on to your game.

    — George · Mar 28, 08:11 PM · #

  22. Wow. The idea that Republicans might support Obama’s campaign is surely news! Give me a break — this has been going on for months. That’s because they recognize that Hillary is the real threat to Generalissimo McCain, not Obama. So let’s get Obama in, then swiftboat him. Lots of videos are out there on Ms. Michelle and her love of the USA. Can’t wait to release those after Obama gets the nomination!!!!! Right on, Professor B.

    — mary · Mar 28, 09:15 PM · #

  23. Special accord with 2 and 3 above. As an elderly (octogenarian !) Obama supporter, I have seen many elections, and have given thought and enthusiasm to this one. Petty and irrelevant negatives seem to be part of all of us in the human race!

    — constance pratt · Mar 29, 10:30 AM · #

  24. As an ancient, I am delighted to see the young people engaged!

    — NJH · Mar 29, 10:53 AM · #

  25. The Master’s is just around the corner but come November put me in the AHA corner (#9). The fact that our candidates appear on SNL, Leno and Letterman is not progress. It reflects the superficiality of the process. And recent results buttress AHA’s comments.

    Let’s unearth some Murrows, Paars et al., put the guys and gals in the hot seat and find out what they are about BEFORE we’re stuck with them for four years. Until then, I’ll paraphrase Jeremiah Wright: “the gods save America”—and the world.

    — the jayhawk · Mar 29, 02:21 PM · #

  26. As a child of the 60’s, I remember the excitment of possible change and it looks like much of it took!! Maybe this is a renaissance the torch can be passed and we’ll just wait to see how it evolves.

    — sandra kelso · Mar 31, 09:03 AM · #

Commenting is closed for this article.
Copyright © 2008 by The Chronicle of Higher Education | Contact us
User agreement | Privacy policy | About The Chronicle | Site map | Help
Subscribe | Advertise with us | Press inquiries | RSS | Today's most e-mailed
Home | Chronicle Careers | The Chronicle Review