A couple of days ago, I observed that Barack Obama has a little trick where he makes conservatives like him by summarizing their point of view before rejecting it. Ross Douthat and I talk that over and Ross says it makes him a dangerous, dangerous figure. See also what I think Iran is up to.
« Huckabee's Not Ready for Prime Time | Main | New Old Lies »
Obama's Trick, Revisited
12 Dec 2007 04:19 pm
Comments (37)
I observed that Barack Obama has a little trick where he makes conservatives like him by summarizing their point of view before rejecting it.
He stole that from David Brooks.
God I hate these video things. Don't you realize most of us read blogs at work?
I observed that Barack Obama has a little trick where he makes conservatives like him by summarizing their point of view before rejecting it
Didn't Bill Clinton use a similar style? He'd summarize the conservative view, showing empathy to various points, then do a little logical jiu-jitsu to show how it's wrong to think of the issue from that perspective, and then re-frame it. Very effective debating technique...
If begging in a blog post is a bleg, what would begging in a comment be ... a cleg?
Following up on Lemuel Pitkin's post, can someone post a transcript or at least a summary?
I do notice that people in the category of "smart people who really should know better and aren't politically that connected but somehow still do parrot GOP talking points" (they probably get them at church) seem to be very anti-Obama -- they find him slick, dangerous, etc. ... but I don't understand why (they don't give any real, concrete reason). Maybe they are afraid Obama has the best chance of winning?
OTOH, such people prove they ain't racist by supporting Keyes. Maybe it'll be an Obama v. Keyes contest?
Could someone summarize why Ross thinks it's a dangerous trick? I can't stop everything to watch TV.
For those of us reading from work, why does this make Obama dangerous and, importantly, who is in danger?
Ross thinks Obama has a Reagansesque (high praise amongst conservatives) way of connecting to people that will make him a formidable candidate and potentially a very effective liberal president. He thinks Obama has the most "Republican curshing" potential of the Democratic candidates.
"curshing" = "crushing"
In deference to the host, I'm righting in Yglesi-ish.
As the recent poll ably demonstrated, Edwards has the most "Republican curshing (sic)" potential. This is because he is a white man and many people who won't answer "no" to "Would you vote for a woman/black?" out of embarrassment express it instead when they say they would vote for Edwards but not Clinton or Obama.
I have no issue voting for a black or a women, but I'm on the opposite side of the spectrum. I never even think about how Clinton would be the first woman president or Obama the first black until someone else brings it up because it doesn't have any significance to me at all*. I think Edwards has the best proposed policies, so I prefer him. Obama next. Clinton is horrible. Is there any doubt at all that she is the frontrunner solely because of her last name and family connections? Kind of reminds me of another president.
Led, your righting (sic) is fine.
* Hey! Condoleeza Rice was the first female NSA. Wow!! She also is a horrible SoS and was an abyssmal NSA. The only reason she's not as bad as SoS as she was at NSA is events on the ground and Bush's popularity have eroded the power of Cheney et. al. If Bush was still popular and the perception of Iraq was still positive (the facts don't matter at all) she'd still have all the force of a slight, momentary summer breeze. Policies and actions are all that matter. Skin color or the number of X chromosomes someone has does not.
That Barak sure is a magic nee-grow.
Well, that video was a clear example of the inability of "blog pundits" (blundits? How about "blunderers"?) to comprehend anything going on here about Iran.
1) Iran was never "caught" with a military nuclear weapons program - or even a "secret" nuclear energy program. The Natanz plant was not required to be reported to the IAEA until nuclear material was introduced to it. There was ONE "material breach" of that rule by Iran, which the IAEA has cleared up and dismissed. Also, it was not the M.E.K. group that revealed this, it was the Mossad using the M..E.K. group. People are relying on M.E.K. to reveal details of Iran's operations are idiots, since the intelligence community uniformly regards them as unreliable fantasists.
2) Douthat is an idiot. There is no "Libya" option for Iran. Iran requires a nuclear energy program in order to secure its oil revenues in the future. There will be no benefit to them simply "giving that up" in exchange for nebulous acceptance by the international community or the lifting of sanctions compared to basic economic considerations concerning their primary source of income.
3) Iran has not been doing the "Saddam gambit" - which is speculative at best - of trying to convince the international community that they don't have a weapons program while trying to convince the local they do. They have explicitly said that Iran would be HARMED by the impression that they have a nuclear weapons program - especially since said program if it existed is far from complete.
A post at TPM today pointed out that the other Gulf Coast nations are interested in nuclear energy programs precisely because Iran's acquisition of a nuclear ENERGY program would enhance their ability to sell oil in the future, and this is a concern - dwindling oil and the necessity to use it internally - for the Gulf Coast nations as well.
4) You guys really aren't public speakers, are you? Stick to keyboarding.
And the posters above are right - post a transcript. It's painful AND time-wasting listening to you guys babble.
At least McMegan was better looking than Douthat (somewhat).
Its an amazing trick where he listens to conservatives and then comes out for "fixing" Social Security.
Its a trick where he listens to conservatives and then comes out with the least ambitious health care plan.
Can't wait until he listens to conservatives again and "tricks" them with a capital gains tax cut.
Bill Clinton is fantastic at that trick. He's at his finest when he gives a gracious summary of his opponents idea and then shifts to "but here's my better idea."
Re: Iran's acquisition of a nuclear ENERGY program would enhance their ability to sell oil in the future
Am I missing something here? Is the nulcear power to be used to power refineries? For sure you can't covert plutonium into oil!
Sorry, I want to hear what you say but I just can't listen to the two of you talk for any sustained amount of time. The lighting, the voices, it's something...
For sure you can't covert plutonium into oil!
Funniest Corner parody I've read all day. Keep up the good work.
Right now Iran is an oil exporter, but a gasoline and other refined petroleum importer. It lacks the refinery capacity, and this is further worsen by government policies of subsidizing gasoline to make it cheap for the Iranian people (cheap gasoline means more political support and less unrest). 40 billion in total basic subsidy and 7 billion per year of that 40 in gasoline subsidization (the government budget is only 100 billion per year).
It has gotten to the point this year where Iran is now rationing gasoline.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/30/AR2007063000999.html
All is not well in Iran economically even though oil is so high per barrel
Why do bloggers keep thinking we'd rather watch a ten minute video of them arguing with somebody instead of scanning something they've written?
Matt, you might not realize from your comments, but there are people watching and enjoying these diavlogs. If anything, I hope you do more of them.
Yeah, I agree with Matt Scharf. I find it pretty interesting and esp like the direct links to different topics.
How is it a "trick" for a politician to recite what the other party thinks? We're too far gone in the direction of demagoguing opposing views that it's some sort of gambit when a candidate accurately lays out the other side's views in order to draw real contrasts instead of knocking down strongmen. I'd like to be un-cynical enough to believe this isn't as weird as you make it out to be.
For all those complaining about the video, a partial solution: Bloggingheads podcasts the audio. Their content really isnt very visual, except that it makes it a bit easier to figure out which participant is saying what, if it really matters. And the podcasts are a lot more convenient.
"Matt, you might not realize from your comments, but there are people watching and enjoying these diavlogs."
Well, it ain't me. Even when I *can* watch (or listen) to a video, it irks me. I can read 300 words a minute, what's Matt speak, a sixth of that? I can go back and review something, stop for a moment to do something else, you name it. Text: For most purposes it's BETTER than listening to somebody talk. Unless it actually adds some value to see somebody's mouth flapping, use text.
We're too far gone in the direction of demagoguing opposing views that it's some sort of gambit when a candidate accurately lays out the other side's views in order to draw real contrasts instead of knocking down strongmen.
If "strawmen" was intended where "strongmen" was written, I agree completely.
Also, since everyone's offering their opinion on the video thing, I'll offer mine: watching a video is a slow way of receiving text (and so is listening to podcasts). All other things being equal, I greatly prefer to read a blog off a screen because I can process the same words about a hundred times faster than if I had to listen to someone speak them.
...and it seems I've simultaneously-posted-the-exact-same-thought with Brett Bellmore.
Yeah sure, like I am going to trust Republicans telling me OIbama is a dangerous candidate. Every word from their mouths, dude, including "the".
Republicans just loved Clinton for that disarming technique, huh?
"Is the nulcear power to be used to power refineries?"
No, the nuclear power is going to be used to provide energy instead of having to consume oil to produce energy instead of exporting it for revenue. This is an established fact that has been known for years and is one of the reasons the Shah of Iran wanted nuclear power back when he was in power (and the US agreed with that at the time.)
By the way, Iran is supposedly aggressively addressing the gas problem, and they hope to be able to stop gas rationing by March 2009, according to an article I saw yesterday.
Yeah, should have been "strawmen." I should have read it over again since it was obvious that I wouldn't be first.
The dull politician lays out his own talking points. The bright politician lays out the opposition's talking points -- and comments on them. Obama is a bright politician.
At first glance, so is Rudy: in most of the GOP primary debates, he spent a lot of time denouncing Democrats. But "denouncing" is a bit different from "commenting on". Matt and Ross do not seem to think of Rudy as the GOP's Obama, do they?
-- TP
I've never understood this bloggingheads stuff. As someone said above, I'd prefer to listen to talented public speakers and read talented writers. That's why I read blogs, and pamphlets and stuff (how Eighteenth Century!); when you want to hear good public speakers, go to CSPAN 2 and find the 4th Circuit Fed. Appeals Court; boy, can all those guys speak. Sumthin' fierce!
I have to agree with the others. In the time it takes to get through the umming and ahhing of video, I could have read 15 blog posts.
Spare us the bloggingheads, and summarize your points.
I want to second (third?) what RJ and James Gary said above. I don't think what Obama does is a "trick," in either the sense of being disingenuous or that of being easy.
People respond when they get the impression that you're actually listening to them, even if you end up disagreeing with them eventually. One of the best ways to show that you're really listening is to restate whatever they said. It shows that you respect them enough to put some effort into understanding them.
That sounds really basic, but watch at a party or a bar sometime and see how often it really happens. More often than not, the person in a conversation who isn't speaking is to a large extent just waiting for his or her chance to impress/convince/amuse/etc. the other person.
That goes double when the subject is politics. I assume everyone here has read that NYT brain/politics article. Listening when politics is the subject is pretty rare--everyone assumes they've heard all the arguments before, and focuses entirely on defending their own views.
That applies to most politicians, too--more so, in a way, because the stakes are so high and they tend to be hyper-concerned with their goals of impressing/convincing/amusing/etc. their audience when they're speaking. It's a very rare politican that actually manages to listen well enough that they can articulate the opposition's arguments without diminishing them.
Bill Clinton was decent at it. Kennedy was very good at it, and so is Obama. When it happens, the opposition feels respected, and is much more likely to actually listen to the counterargument, and even try to find common ground. It often sways "swing voters" and diminishes the intensity of some of the opposition.
I'd call that much more than a "trick."
Yes, but should the model we're shooting for be Bill Clinton and JFK? Neither one of them produced much of anything resembling a truly liberal record. The presidents that did were FDR and LBJ, and they used the strategies of caricature, bullying, and pretty much accusing conservatives of being bloodthirty ogres who didn't care about anything other than lording their millions over the poor and hungry of the nation.
People like to remember FDR for the fireside chats, but he was also someone that liked to talk about eating millionaires for breakfast and billionaires for lunch, and LBJ explicitly called Goldwater a warmongering loon. They were both much more effective, and produced much bigger electoral victories than JFK and Clinton.
That's a fair point, but context is important.
FDR won a huge electoral victory in the middle of an enormous depression that came after the Gilded Age--rhetoric like that was close to mainstream. JFK won a with a super-slim (and some might say questionable) majority, and pretty much had to win over some of the potential opposition for each decision he made. LBJ won in a landslide and had a huge well off public support, for a lot of reasons that mostly weren't related to his rhetoric.
As for Clinton...I'd have to think about that one, but my first instinct is that he did the listening part kind of well, but he was very short on the follow-through, i.e. eviscerating the opposing argument you just stated so eloquently. Without that, the only remaining option is to cede a lot of ground. Whereas, if you do have the follow-through, you're much more likely to be able to pass your own agenda, because those who disagree still feel like they got a hearing and many who were torn will be swayed to your side.
"LBJ explicitly called Goldwater a warmongering loon."
LBJ wasn't an uber-hawk, but he's more likely to get us into an Iraq War than out of it. The chant was, "Hey, hey, LBJ, how many kids did you kill today?"
I would not call this a trick. It's a very basic technique of effective communication. Summarize what you've heard to show that you have understood and considered it. Then if you disagree - state your point. It's somewhat insulting to the other person to say he or she would be tricked by this.
Comments closed December 26, 2007.
| 
Heads in the Sand
You've got a voice for the blogosphere.
Posted by goethean | December 12, 2007 4:58 PM