It’s the Temperament, Stupid!
One thing living in a red state has taught me is how to speak about politics with those who do not share very basic assumptions with you. Having lived in overwhelmingly liberal places like Evanston, IL and Washington, DC in the past, it took some time to learn how to discuss politics with conservatives. Granted most folks I speak to here in East Tennessee are Democrats like myself. But I have plenty of casual conversations with those outside my liberal bubble. And I mean WAY outside my liberal bubble. We’re not talking conservative intellectuals I used to argue with in college, or even my very right-wing father-in-law.
And so I’ve discovered in these conversations just what Barack Obama’s greatest strength is: his temperament. The first major conservative pundit to highlight this was Andrew Sullivan over a year ago. Obama, to him, represented a conservative thought process, even if his policies were quite liberal. Obama was comfortable in a world of doubt. He had no qualms about admitting what he didn’t know, and surrounding himself with experts who were smarter than him – even if they disagreed with him.
The campaign season has only reinforced this preternatural calm. Far from the celebrity, Barack Obama has shown himself to be an intellectual comfortable in his own skin and at ease around ordinary people.
The Washington Post highlighted this strength of his this morning:
But Mr. Obama’s temperament is unlike anything we’ve seen on the national stage in many years. He is deliberate but not indecisive; eloquent but a master of substance and detail; preternaturally confident but eager to hear opposing points of view. He has inspired millions of voters of diverse ages and races, no small thing in our often divided and cynical country. We think he is the right man for a perilous moment.
The final debate captured this eerie calm better than any other moment. Unlike the infamous final debate with Clinton when a barrage of character questions clearly left Obama feeling exhausted, this latest debate only reinforced his strength on defense. Utterly unruffled by McCain’s various charges, Obama played rope-a-dope to perfection and let McCain wallow in rage. The dual-camera shots were lethal.
But conservative columnist David Brooks may have made the case even more compelling. After all, in order to win in November, Obama will need the support of those beyond the steady liberal voices of the Washington Post editorial page. As Brooks points out:
There has never been a moment when, at least in public, he seems gripped by inner turmoil. It’s not willpower or self-discipline he shows as much as an organized unconscious. Through some deep, bottom-up process, he has developed strategies for equanimity, and now he’s become a homeostasis machine.
Even more important, this temperamental sanity – contrasted with McCain’s often bizarre lurches into gimmickry – could make Obama a great President.
This was not evident back in the “fierce urgency of now” days, but it is now. And it is easy to sketch out a scenario in which he could be a great president. He would be untroubled by self-destructive demons or indiscipline. With that cool manner, he would see reality unfiltered. He could gather — already has gathered — some of the smartest minds in public policy, and, untroubled by intellectual insecurity, he could give them free rein. Though he is young, it is easy to imagine him at the cabinet table, leading a subtle discussion of some long-term problem.
I find in my own conversations with skeptics that this line – about Obama’s temperament – is Obama’s strongest argument. Americans want leaders that look comfortable being in charge. All the bogeyman charges about radicalism and sleaze just roll off him once voters see him in action. We know what sleazy politicians look and sound like. We know what extremists sound like. Obama reassures with his presence.
I refuse to get overconfident about this race. I predicted after the second debate that this race was essentially over, barring a crazy outside event. I still think that’s true. But I will not be complacent as a supporter of him. Above all, I will take notice of his calm and follow his example the best that I can.
13 Responses to “It’s the Temperament, Stupid!”
That very thought occured to me this AM as I woke: that democrats, en masse, should go to conservative websites and do their best to reassure those people that an Obama administration would be to their benefit: more jobs, better health care, less fat for the rich and more for the working classes.
We're preaching to the choir over here. We need to get ourselves in the trenches of “Joe Plumber”. Gentle now kids. These folks spook at new ideas, even if those ideas are like finding a pot of gold for themselves..
Obama was childish in earlier debates but no doubt was well coached because he exhibited almost no childish agitation in the final debate, and was composed and calm instead, even smiling. (He could have dispensed with the “that's not true” and “false” habit of trying and failing to discredit legitimate, factual attacks on him.)
Temperament (which I'll address in a _mature_ way) is what the near-term and medium-term future of our economy is all about. Shorter-term, it is what I have mentioned elsewhere: not just the bandwagon effect but the coattail effect (Shaun Mullen was wrong; Obama has such an effect) of Obama's success on the Dems' prospects in other elections this year.
The last very few days of the Iowa Electronic Markets will have to be discounted for the bandwagon effect (we see this in _all_ elections covered by that system), but after this weekend I'll be interested to see how the numbers and graphs move more strongly in Obama's favor now that the last debate is done and Obama's team can hold high the broom (they won all the debates). I'm also looking for a “spike” in the graphs of the presidential contest if and when Colin Powell chooses to endorse Obama. Those graphs literally, truly illustrate the current temperament of the nation.
The “secret,” Silhouette, is that so many of the Republican voters know this, and it's more important to them than dissatisfaction with the war and the GOP in 1996. You can bank on that. The only question now is matter of degree.
Why So Angry?
Angry McWalnuts strikes again.
See Also: Quote du Jour, Obama’s Contempt for the Working Class on Full Display, Debate Analysis: McAngry’s Epic Fall, The Debate Two Days Later, It’s the temperament, stupid!, and “Just Where We Want The…
For those who are curious, the deviation from 50% that has been running for months in Obama's favor over McCain, in the Iowa Electronic Markets, has resumed, and is now greater than the temporary “flat line” prior to the final debate.
Winner-Take-All (probability of winning popular vote) is approaching 90-10 for Obama.
http://iemweb.biz.uiowa.edu/graphs/graph_Pres08…
http://iemweb.biz.uiowa.edu/graphs/graph_Pres08…
I agree with Elrod's temperment article and also Silhouettes idea of reassuring people with different ideas that they will be Ok with an Obama/Biden administration. Maybe win/win negotiation needs to be discussed more also.
But… this article does not seem to be generating much discussion.
I know what you mean about going from Evanston, IL, to suddenly being surrounded by conservatives (in my case, NE Ohio for college) . . . it was a real shock at first, but I learned more than I ever could have imagined.
While I applaud the desire to reach out I'd suggest that perhaps it would be more successful if you didn't look down on those who happen to have a different view.
Condescension is not the best approach to reach out.
Such condescension is so often ironic. Point missed, not taken, usually, though.
FYI Elrod: A month ago I was in Evanston IL visiting family members, mostly liberals and Northwestern grads like you. They were not overly enthusiastic about Obama but some will vote for him because he is the Democratic candidate.
DLS- I don't find you condescending. I find your comments entertaining. At least you think about what you write and can usually back up your arguments. Dealing with opposing points of view only makes us stronger, so keep it up- you are ok with me!
[...] Obama’s preternatural calm To Andrew Sullivan, Obama “represented a conservative thought process, even if his policies were quite liberal. Obama was comfortable in a world of doubt. He had no qualms about admitting what he didn’t know, and surrounding himself with experts who were smarter than him — even if they disagreed with him…” [...]
[...] Obama’s preternatural calm To Andrew Sullivan, Obama “represented a conservative thought process, even if his policies were quite liberal. Obama was comfortable in a world of doubt. He had no qualms about admitting what he didn’t know, and surrounding himself with experts who were smarter than him — even if they disagreed with him…” [...]