An Internet hub for moderates, centrists, and independents, with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, and right

The Obama Pledge Video

Many called the 2008 Presidential election the first “You Tube election”. The below video may demonstrate that in 2009, You Tube is expanding its reach far beyond just elections:

Not surprisingly, the video has come in for some criticism from right of center bloggers for being weird and creepy and generally worth of mockery. There is a muted tone to the mocking from James Poulos and Rod Dreher tries his best to hold back saying,

I swear, I’m trying to be kind about this. But it’s hard. This line:

“I pledge to be a servant to our president and all mankind–”

…was where I lost it. Who are these people?! If right-wingers had made a video like this and pledged their loyalty to Messiah Dubya, there would have been no end of mockery of it. And I would have been among them.

So fair game, any video featuring Hollywood celebrities oozing patriotism is going to come off a bit weird and surreal, many of these folks’ lives have become so carnival-esque that it’s hard to take anything they do terribly seriously. But look, the critical snark of the blogosphere is only so useful, and at the end of the day this video is actually advocating for something that I think both Poulos and Dreher are heavily in favour of: a reignited interest in civic responsibility and engagement.

What’s more, while I know that every right-of-centre blogger and his dog want to paint this as a classic example of the nefarious “cult of presidency”, I think it acutally speaks directly against just such a notion. I know, I know, the now classic Obama face is at the beginning, with clips from Obama’s inaugurations speech no less, and part way the oozing celebrities make a pledge to Obama. Yes, this is all true.

But what is the primary message of the video? The primary message seems to be that it isn’t up to the President to do everything to get the country on the “right track”, but rather that it’s going to take the whole country committing to this endeavour in some way, shape, or form. The President is just one man and the challenges facing the country are many, so everyone better belly up to the bar and pitch in. That is a fundamentally different message than: the future of the country rests on electing the right president.

Now, Poulos ad Dreher might well say, and their derision is most certainly based in part on the fact that, it’s hard to take that message seriously coming from the likes of Ashton Kutcher, Demi Moore, Anthony Kiedis, and others. I agree, insofar as that message getting to Poulos and Dreher is concerned. But the fact of the matter is that this video isn’t aimed at Rod Dreher, James Poulos, myself, or even you, dear reader. The “I Pledge” video is aimed at the legion of folks who aren’t already engaged in the political process, it’s aimed at the folks out there for whom the words “civic responsibility” seem utterly foreign, its aimed the many folks we need engaged for whom there isn’t an obvious avenue in to such engagement.

We high and mighty politicos might not like the idea, but the fact of the matter remains that star power works — ask any advertising executive. There any number of more “serious” people delivering “serious” messages that we might like to see addressing the issue, and many of them are. But at some point one has to ask one’s self, “How many people in America know who Ashton Kutcher is? How many of those people think he’s cool, for whatever reason? How many people will listen to what he has to say about civic engagement if he says it in his own words? Is it, perhaps, then worth it to have Ashton Kutcher speaking to those people?”

When it comes to civic engagement, I believe that the ends justify the means. And while it might de rigueur to snicker at efforts you think fall short, actually getting people engaged is more pressing than such snickering belies. At some point you have to drop your own notions about what getting people engaged on a civic level looks like and just go about getting people engaged however you might be able. Sometimes that will mean doing and endorsing things that might look silly to you, but work in terms of getting the attention of the people you need to address. What’s more important, getting people engaged or looking cool while unsuccessfully trying to get people engaged?

So yes, this video is imperfect in a lot of ways. But if it works, then I’ll take it and say thanks to the folks who made it. Afterall, an imperfect start is better than no start at all.

  • To be fair, they could have left Obama out of it entirely and it would have still gotten the message across.
  • CStanley
    But the point is, Michael, that they never would have made this if it weren't for Obama. The attitude when there's a president that they disagree with is that dissent is the highest (and really only, apparently) form of patriotism but when they have the 'correct' leader they're all for pitching in and uniting around our common values to improve the country. At the very least, if you think a president is leading the country in the wrong direction, you ought to realize that you need to roll up your shirtsleeves at THAT time to help improve conditions.
  • greenschemes
    Fascism is an authoritarian nationalist ideology focused on solving economic, political, and social problems that its supporters see as causing national decline or decadence.

    Fascists aim to create a single-party state in which the government is led by a dictator who seeks unity by requiring individuals to subordinate self-interest to the collective interest of the nation or a race.

    Fascist governments permanently forbid and suppress all criticism and opposition to the government and the fascist movement.
  • Fascism is also a right-wing ideology that subverts the good of the people and replaces is with ultra nationalism, and the enriching of loyal corporations.

    Fascism focuses exploiting the fears people have during tough economic times, looking for a scapegoat, usually choosing a minority within society to focus on (jews, gays, gypsies) and then attacking the other side who, historically, represents and tries to protect the interests of minorities from those who wish to blame their societal problems on their existence. Much easier to blame a low paid hard working man whose first language is not english and who looks different than to look at actual mistakes made by oneself and ones own kind of people.

    As for the other two, thank god the republicans are out of power for all they represented was ultranationalism, the rejection of the opinion of the rest of the world, and despite their attempt to show otherwise, they know their bread and butter comes from serving not just majority, but mostly white base. Also, the suppression of information under republican rule seemed quite eager to suppress all criticism of their administration, it is a relief that Obama decided not to wield this power created by the framework of the previous administration and is working on a new, more transparent role which so far has proven to be more than just mere rhetoric.

    So if you are trying to tag the fascist pin on the Democratic party, I suggest a closer reading of history rather than a right wing ideological projection onto progressive enthusiasm and policies.
  • The best thing a celebrity can do is use their substantial wealth and influence to cause positive change. Whether through charity or direct help. No need to announce these things. Just do it.

    But this is America. And Hollywood may be left-leaning but ALL AMERICANS (left, right, center, backwards, forwards, sideways, etc) have helped Hollywood grow.
  • CStanley
    I agree, T_Steel, though I don't even mind if they announce it a bit. I can understand that part of their motivation is to get publicity, and as long as people are helped by it I don't care. Besides, at least when they perform charitable works or raise awareness they're acting as good role models for a change.
  • scotthpayne
    Michael and CStanley, good points. As mentioned, this video is fraught with all sorts of problems. But its an attempt in the right direction and I think that at the end of the day its a fairly sincere attempt. In some senses the problems belie the sincerity: a bunch of people just moved to try and do something will often wind up with muddled messages and off kilter delivery. But I still think that if it gets even some people more engaged in civic life and the political process because they're excited about the prospects, then the video has done its job and I'd rather have it around than not.
  • I think the video is a little too self aggrandizing and all that. "Look at me... I'm such a good and generous person!!!"

    But with that said, I don't fault them for a second for not pledging to serve during the Bush administration. It's tough to serve an organization bereft of moral integrity. And like it or not, that was the United States over the last eight years.

    Time will only tell if Obama can help fix that. Unfortunately, more changes in Congress are still desperately needed.
  • scotthpayne
    ChrisWWW: is self-aggrandizing worth it if it helps to engage more people? Or are you of the opinion that the self-aggrandizing will actually undermine whether or not others are moved to become involved in the functioning of their country?
  • scotthpayne,
    I'm not saying they shouldn't try to engage more people, even if I'm not particularly receptive to their message's style.
  • scotthpayne
    And I think that is the take home point. The video isn't really designed for those of us who read or write on political blogs, we're already engaged in the political process and some facet of civic life in one fashion or another. So whether the way the message is delivered resonates for us is, in large part, irrelevant.

    But I hear what you're saying, some of the video made me roll my eyes and shake my head.
  • greenschemes
    Fascism focuses exploiting the fears people have during tough economic times

    Yah mean sorta like what the Democrats are doing now with their bailout of every person in the country except Republicans?
  • Yah mean sorta like what the Democrats are doing now with their bailout of every person in the country except Republicans?


    Is this some kind of riddle? Or am I giving you too much credit?
  • i don't see how the democrats are exploiting fears of people. Obama has been up front that this is gonna be tough so we'll have to work together to get through this. republicans have been using the fear card consistently, however, whether before as fear of the other towards terrorism, so we must give the president these powers or we are all going to die, or the other when it comes to socialism, if we bail out these companies we'll become like Europe (real scary there) Obama on the other hand has so far shown he is willing to reach out. We'll see if this pans out, but if it fails it is because republicans refuse to budge and would rather stick to blind ideology rather than trying something that may work to help our country.
  • CStanley
    But with that said, I don't fault them for a second for not pledging to serve during the Bush administration. It's tough to serve an organization bereft of moral integrity. And like it or not, that was the United States over the last eight years.

    I suppose this comment only makes sense if you believe that 'serving' necessarily means serving via government. Meanwhile, there are actually thousands of ways to serve the nation which exist no matter who controls the White House or Congress, and if you don't find the precise avenue available you can also start up an initiative on your own. Choosing to not do so, in my view, shows that you actually in some way are rooting for the country to decline in order to attribute it to the political opposition. Look at the things they're pledging to do (many of which are pretty inane, but leaving that criticism aside for the moment...)

    Smiling and getting to know one's neighbors? They couldn't do this or didn't feel the need when Bush was president?
    Feeding the hungry?
    Helping to find a cure for Alzheimers?
    Turning the lights off and planting trees?

    What's been stopping them?

    In other words, if they had expressed some goals of political activism which they now pledge to undertake, then at least it would make sense (assuming that they felt that such things were lost causes under Bush and Co.)
  • greenschemes
    It's very simple actually.

    You are not allowed to question the democrats strategy on fixing the economy.

    You are not allowed to question Obama on anything he does or says.

    You are not allowed to question the democratically controlled congress.

    To do so means your unpatriotic or even worse. Your a nitwit. We all know the democrats have all the answers. Barak Obama is unquestionably endowed with the gift of knowing exactly what to do, when to do it and how to do it. We are not to question his ideas, motives, plans or words. To do so calls into question our intelligence, wisdom and just flat out paints us as cowardly unpatriotic partisans who worship Bush and pray for failure.

    Fascism..........Fascists aim to create a single-party state in which the government is led by a dictator.

    We will dutifully shut up and not question the wisdom of anything Obama does. We are after all the new definition of unpatriotic partisan hacks.
  • You are not allowed to question the democrats strategy on fixing the economy.

    Many prominent democrats and liberals, like Paul Krugman, are questioning the democrats strategy.

    Sounds like you're the one drumming up fear.

    CStanley,
    Like I said in the other thread, many of these perfomers have been politically active and involved in philanthropy. This video, in my view anyways, is more about serving in a way that is harmonious with government.
  • Fascism is a conservative ideology, not a liberal one. So if you want to be accurate and claim the democrats are doing exactly what you are saying, then use the proper term, totalitarian, which would cover either conservative or liberals in that case.
    But that is also unfounded in this case since they are not trying to force anything. If any of these policies are adopted it is because a majority of the people in this country, and then a majority of our politicians voted for the policies. Valid criticism is accepted and not being shouted down or labeled as unpatriotic. However, hyper partisanship, which is what you are expressing greenschemes, is quite unconstructive. In fact, it is more akin to the fearmongering which you are claiming to abhor. And where was your protest over the republicans when they were trying to label those who objected as unpatriotic and squelch dissent? Seems you only have objections to the democratic party actually getting something done which will make the republicans look worse than they already are.
    If you want to offer criticism, you should try offering valid criticism and alternate policy options, rather than trying to smear those who don't agree with you as fascists even when the term could never apply to those advocating liberal or progressive policies. Your continued application of the term only shows ignorance in that regard.
  • greenschemes
    Well perhaps AS. But then the term Oberfuhrer, Nazi and Fuhrer never applied to Bush either and it was used quite extensively and quite often by those on the left to paint Bush with the brush that they chose.

    As for me.

    Fascism is an authoritarian nationalist ideology focused on solving economic, political, and social problems that its supporters see as causing national decline or decadence...............This exactly describes what the Democratic party sees with the GOP and its followers. We should be shut down, have nothing to offer and our relevance is immaterial in the running of government.
  • scotthpayne
    greenschemes, I find that most appeals to fascism and Hitler are pretty empty, regardless of who wields them.
  • redhatmatt
    Again Scott, as I put in a comment about your Ron Paul article... facism is not just in regards to Hitler... he was merely one example of it... basically centralizing power to the government by control of all resources, money... etc. I realize the world finds this word shocking, but perhaps that is the problem. I find beauty and confidence in logical thought and decision making in looking to reality. The reality that just because a word sounds ugly striking you emotionally, simply get a strong true idea of what the meaning really is in all of it's different definitions... a faggot (cigarette and or pile of sticks) as well as the 'old' meaning of gay have had major changes in meaning, but should one not be allowed to use and or not know their true meanings just because of societies new understanding of those words?

    "I find that most appeals to fascism and Hitler are pretty empty" perhaps at the moment. We shall see when the dollar comes to an end.

    Look the Dems and the Republicans have both become the same, with slightly different focus: they are both big government, acting as governments do, they grow. The bigger the crisis, the bigger the government becomes as long as the people allow it, as long as they stay moderate and pacified.

    Don't get me wrong man, I find that you are a good writer, and identify with reality about 60% of the time, maybe more which is way better than many... perhaps deep down you are an anarcho capatalist/ anarchist/ extreme libertarian just dying to get out of that lost, vague moderate position you are in.
blog comments powered by Disqus
© 2005-2009 The Moderate Voice | Site design by Elegant Themes | Site customization, hosting, and security by Enxit Group, LLC