Against Toughness

[Ta-Nehisi]

The phrase “I ain’t no punk” has probably led to more renditions of “Blessed Assurance,” more grandmothers in big hats and dark dresses, and more black boys laid out in closed caskets than any other four words in the English language. “I ain’t no punk,” is of course corner-talk for “I am foolish enough to mortgage my life on even the pettiest act of perceived disrespect.” I grew up in West Baltimore during the late 80s, a time when being seen as a chump was basically the worst thing that could happen to you. So I’ll admit to throwing out that line once or twice in my younger days, though I can’t think of one instance where the "slight" was actually that bad.

Having seen the cost of living by the “I ain’t no punk” credo, I have an instant distaste for posturing. This runs the gamut from rappers who threaten each other with great bodily injury (often mere months before doing a press conference, and recording a song together) to Democrats attempting to show that they're tough on the various annoying phenomena of the day. (crime, defense, obscure black people etc.) So I’m going to whole-heartedly back John Dickerson’s call for Obama and McCain to kill the “I’m more macho than you act.”

I like seeing Obama get after McCain as much as the next vino-sipping, Claritin-popping, trust-fund dipping, lefty. (It’s been told to me that you can put virtually any string of adjective in front of “lefty” now.) But I’m now seeing how much more I enjoyed watching Obama mix it up with Hillary. I think maybe because he was running against a woman, or a fellow Democrat, Obama basically didn’t get into a competition of brass balls. Instead he responded with the jujitsu of humor, which repeatedly exposed the stiff, stilted nature of Hillary’s whole campaign.

Much has been made of gender’s role in this race. To me, it’s most insidious effect was that Hillary always had to show she “wasn’t no punk.” In debates she was always solid on the issues, but then she’d throw these wild haymakers which would leave her open to some brutal counterpunches. It began with her yucking it up during an Iowa debate at a tough question about Clinton advisors on Obama's team, and Obama catching her flush with that "I look forward to you advising me Hillary" line. In the Ohio debate, she allowed Obama to get in the last swing (“I would reject and denounce.”) when Tim Russert had him in a tough spot on Farrakhan. What I remember most about her “Shame on you” rant, is how Obama turned it on its head with that Annie Oakley riff. Her woefully scripted “change you can xerox” line only served to highlight Barack’s earlier “silly season” response to the whole plagiarism flap.

But the jujitsu period of this campaign seems to be over, and now its Obama who has to show that he “ain’t no punk.” Of course, war hero John McCain is going for the gold in the "ain't no punk" olympics. So now we reconcile ourselves to a long hot summer of dueling press releases, miscellaneous rants, and feigned rage. Yay. Obama really shouldn't drop the humor from his pitch--it's one of his best qualities. McCain may not need to show toughness because of gender, but he can’t help himself, and does it anyway. I’m hoping Obama doesn’t leave me thinking he deployed his humor, strictly, against the only woman in the room.

Comments

Dickerson's column is typical Slate faux-even-handed B.S. His thesis is that McCain and Obama are both getting too macho. The evidence is that McCain taunted Obama over not serving in the military (and, though Dickerson completely fails to mention it, that he double-dog-dared Obama to go to Iraq), and that Obama... said that McCain had a "fear of tough and aggressive diplomacy." (Also, Obama criticized McCain on Cuba, but I'm a loss as to how that criticism was particularly macho.) Obama is advocating nonviolent solutions here. This is about as bound up with the macho ethos as "If you like to fight you're a double-drag fool."

I think Obama is handling McCain exactly right; McCain is trying to act like a schoolyard bully and Obama has said (in so many words) enough with the schoolyard taunts. What is Obama supposed to do? As Dickerson himself acknowledges, if he didn't respond to McCain he'd look weak, and he'd lose the election. McCain is running entirely on his personal toughness; Obama can't ignore that.

Posted by Matt Weiner | May 28, 2008 9:00 AM

I’m hoping Obama doesn’t leave me thinking he deployed his humor, strictly, against the only woman in the room.

Yup. Me too.

Obama's pot-shots at Clinton have sometimes struck me as condescending, and there have been moments when I've wondered whether he was adopting a more dismissive posture with her than he would have against a male opponent. How he takes on McCain is going to say a lot about what he was doing in taking on Clinton.

There's a lot of talk at the moment about how Obama can mend fences with Hillary's supporters, and it seems to me that how quickly and enthusiastically they come around is going to depend in large part on how he deals with situations that on their surface have nothing to do with Clinton at all.

How he deploys humor against McCain may be an example of that.

Posted by Brooklynite | May 28, 2008 9:01 AM

It's easier to joke about spin and six shooters than it is about veteran's benefits and national security. I mean, you or I might joke about it, but I'm not sure anyone's going to put up with a president who did.

Posted by Consumatopia | May 28, 2008 9:01 AM

A style note: what appears (in every post) as [Ta-Nehisi] actually links to a non-existent address
http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/www.ta-nehisi.com

I understand why this happens, and it shouldn't be very hard to fix.

Posted by ao | May 28, 2008 9:05 AM

I can't think of a specific example of a situation where Obama should have used humor agaisnt McCain but didn't.

Any help?

Posted by Arnold Evans | May 28, 2008 9:05 AM

Why not have a campaign wherein you just ignore your opponent, relegating him to a category of irrelevance? Obama should just to refuse to engage McCain on any issue if it's framed in a "Here's what he wants to do and here's what I'd do about he same probelm, so vote for me because my idea is better". Obama could take the tact your parents took when a sibling was needling or taunting you with the obvious goal of goading you into a reaction. Mom would say "Why don't you just ignore him/her" and left you to ponder the wisdom of her advice. Just announce to the public in a very expensive-to-buy 10 minute prime time speech McCain and his ideas are tired, dated, irrelevant and unworthy of debate or consideration. Say here's what I'm going to do and whatever McCain has to say about it doesn't matter. We're moving forward and even involving McCain is counterproductive to both the campaign and America's future. For the purpose of seeking answers to America's problems and needs McCain isn't needed and won't be engaged on the issues. Figuratively speaking he doesn't exist. You speak his name in our presence you may as well be mouthing incomprehensible gibberish so don't bother.

Posted by steve duncan | May 28, 2008 9:24 AM

Don't know why the hyperlink wasn't working. Toyed around with it and got nothing. Oh well, it's disabled. Thanks for the heads up ao.

Posted by Ta-Nehisi Coates | May 28, 2008 9:25 AM

"I’m hoping Obama doesn’t leave me thinking he deployed his humor, strictly, against the only woman in the room."

She's the only Hillary in the room. That's different.

McCain can run far more credibly than Hillary on the experience issue and on national security - even if it's mostly BS. He is a war hero who has genuinely suffered for his country. He's a LOT older, and that counts for something too. Is poking fun at him in a GE going to be effective or counter-productive? Imagine Obama running against, say, someone like Jeanne Kirkpatrick or Maggie Thatcher and I think it's clear that it's most likely to be the latter. Obama has to show gravitas, he has to look like the real grown-up with solutions to complex problems. Getting off a few zingers in a debate is not going to help him here.

Posted by Estrien | May 28, 2008 9:29 AM

I think there's a real substantive difference between these debates.

Clinton and Obama basically agreed about everything. Obama made jokes because Clinton was usually taking non-issues (speechwriting, Farrakhan) and attempting to spin them into major fights. Obama, typically, demurred from acting like these things mattered, and he did so with humor.

In the recent debates with McCain, the differences are stark. McCain wants to remain in Iraq, and he wants to extend the disastrous Cheney-OSP foreign policy of pure unilateral neoconservatism, no talks, more bombs. Obama can't respond with humor becuase his goal is not to minimize the differences between himself and McCain, but to emphasize that he represents a change from those failed policies while McCain is more of the same.

I expect that when McCain goes after Obama on non-issues, we'll see the humor return.

I don't think you're wrong, exactly, about the role gender played, and I definitely agree that Clinton had to take an "I ain't no punk" attitude in great part because of gender, but I think that the shift in the campaign from a race between two people who agree on most everything to a race between two people who disagree on almost everything has led to a change in tone. These are things worth fighting for.

Posted by DivGuy | May 28, 2008 9:49 AM

I think analysis like Dickerson's only sets a tone that benefits a McCain narrative. Obama is way too sharp to be drawn into this pissing contest. And besides, Clinton has both toughened him up and made him think carefully about his approach to various issues. I think she made him improve his debating skills and rethink some of his approaches to engaging his opponents.

Really....think about it...what does McCain have besides his service and a press who is soft on him. His ideas and policies mostly suck, he really is to old for the position, and the Republican party is toast this election cycle. I know it's a bit of a cliche, but It seems that the more Obama gets challenged the more he rises to the occasion.

Posted by michael | May 28, 2008 9:52 AM

Matt Weiner's 2nd paragraph is right-on.

Posted by JBS | May 28, 2008 9:55 AM

If Giuliani had won the nom, I could see the wisdom of Biden-like putdowns. The thing is, when one of the Clintons or Giuliani says something stupid, it's funny. When McCain says something stupid, it's kind of sad and tragic.

Let's play "Funny, not funny"!

Romney wants to "Double Guantanamo": Funny!

The victim of torture flip-flopping on torture:
Not Funny!

Posted by Consumatopia | May 28, 2008 10:00 AM

Isn't "I ain't no punk" the default setting for the blogosphere, what with all the "calling out" and "calling on" going on and all the tales told of how one stood up to one's Nazi-in-exile parents/high school teachers/first bosses? Every day is like the wussiest rumble in history.

Posted by Flippanter | May 28, 2008 10:18 AM

"I ain't no punk" isn't a style or stance, at this point it's the ideology motivating our country's foreign policy. It practically goes without saying that the entire "War on Terror" boils down to this, especially the Iraq War. But I think our country's decision to make WWII the "Greatest Generation" has set up a dynamic in which lots of people want to prove that they measure up to the folks who went before them, and the only way to do that is to win a Total War Against Fascism -- for which, obviously, you need to posit fascists to fight.

Bush is giving the commencement speech at the Air Force Academy today, and from the summary I heard on the radio this morning, he seems to be playing into this impulse directly.

Posted by Pesto | May 28, 2008 10:30 AM

"Much has been made of gender’s role in this race. To me, it’s most insidious effect was that Hillary always had to show she 'wasn’t no punk.' "

I'm amazed this is still uncontested conventional wisdom. Clearly, Hillary felt she needed to demonstrate this but her undoing was that voters actually were not asking this of her. Her assumption that she needed to prove how "strong" she was, was just wrong. Voters have been turned off by this administration's macho posturing. Obama noticed that, and adopted a "feminine" approach to foreign policy accordingly. I just don't buy the notion that Clinton's gender somehow precluded her from taking the same stances on diplomacy as her rival.

As for the sharpened tone against McCain, again I don't think gender has nearly as much to do with it as the fact that Obama simply wasn't as willing as Clinton to rip into a rival from his own party. Now that his opponent is from the GOP, he's free to go for the jugular. And I don't think it's really a case of machismo; rather, it's proof of very clear ideological differences between the two. (I also think he's deliberately trying to get under McCain's skin and provoke some embarrassing outbursts.)

Posted by Jonathan | May 28, 2008 11:48 AM

"...a dynamic in which lots of people want to prove that they measure up to the folks who went before them,..."

Which accounts for the pathetic posturing of such augustean faux-warriors as Goldberg, Kristol, Barnes, Podhoretz Jr., Krauthammer, Cheney, Rummy, Rove, and of course Junior himself. His "Mission Accomplished" flight-suited strut was nothing more than an insecure 16-yr-old declaring "See, Dad, I'm as much a hero as you are!"

Posted by bluestatedon | May 28, 2008 12:21 PM

If I remember correctly, the poster Reality Man mentioned that McCain can win by making this campaign about who is going to be commander-in-chief. I think Obama has rise above such more-hawkish-than-thou rhetoric which has worked so wonderfully for the democrats. Obama has so far defused McCain's Obama-is-a-wussy rhetoric. For example, Obama campaign correctly named McCain's dare to take a walk in Iraq as a transparent stunt and told McCain to grow up. But the national security issue is not mere posturing. It's McCain's strongest suit. Obama can't be whimsical or dismissive about McCain's perceived status of strong on defense issues but must convince people that Obama simply has the better perspective on where America is and should go-with no condescension.

Or what Matt Weiner said

Posted by donut | May 28, 2008 1:11 PM

Weiner is right, and this post's argument jumps around a little bit much for my taste. Basically, you have an argument that Sen. Obama should continue to use humor because it's a) effective and b) sends a bad message if he only used that tactic against a woman and not against a man wrapped up with a couple of not particularly related arguments about the dangers of responding to all disrespect maximally and striking poses in general.

Posted by washerdreyer | May 28, 2008 1:19 PM

"Of course, war hero John McCain is going for the gold in the "ain't no punk" olympics."

And if the Dems don't gut that "war hero" crap, he's going to win with it.

Especially if Bush launches air strikes on Iran to give McCain a "war bounce."

Current rumor from a former George Bush Senior administration member is air strikes by August.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | May 28, 2008 5:55 PM

I've always wondered about the political culture of the GOP, which involves accusing each other (and the Democrats) of being "soft" on this or that, and seeing who can posture about being the "toughest" on crime, assorted foreign countries, etc.

Apparently their subconscious framing of issues is aimed at people with penis envy.

Posted by Kevin Carson | May 29, 2008 3:27 AM