The Shuffle President

[babylonsister]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/19/magazine/19fob-wwln-t.html?_r=1&ref=magazine

The Shuffle President


Brendan Smialowski/Getty Images

By MATT BAI
Published: July 15, 2009


Like romantic comedies and superhero blockbusters, the modern presidency has evolved into a reliable form of dramatic narrative. A candidate comes into office brandishing a broad theme — a vow to clean up government, perhaps, or to fearlessly prune it back — and then lays out one or two big proposals to make it real. In time, of course, a presidency tends to sprawl as events intrude. Bill Clinton couldn’t have imagined he would spend so much of his two terms fending off resurgent Republicans, just as George W. Bush didn’t envision going to war. But at least for those first several months, while the White House controls its own fate, the presidency is supposed to unfold in discrete chapters, each building atop the last. Both Ronald Reagan and Bush began with an almost single-minded push for tax cuts during their opening months, while Clinton opened with an economic program and then a monthslong drive for health care reform. The simple premise here is that every new presidency is a story; the more muddled and erratic the storyline, the harder it is for the public to follow along and the less likely the chances of reaching a satisfying end.

Barack Obama is a born storyteller, which makes it all the more confounding that as president he refuses to inhabit a neat political narrative. Obama’s themes are clear enough (salvaging the American economy, reversing the Bush years), but his legislative priorities seem to rotate in and out like so many suitcases on a conveyor belt. One day his presidency hinges on health care, then he’s lobbying for a cap-and-trade plan to reduce carbon emissions and then he’s out there trying to re-regulate the financial world or sell a new treaty with the Russians. “An administration about everything is an administration about nothing” is the way the conservative columnist Peggy Noonan put it in The Wall Street Journal. Colin Powell made a similar point, telling John King of CNN, “I think one of the cautions that has to be given to the president — and I’ve talked to some of his people about this — is that you can’t have so many things on the table that you can’t absorb it all.”

Some of this itinerancy must be attributed to the sheer scope of the wreckage Obama inherited. When you’ve got failing banks and corporate giants, two ongoing wars, melting icecaps and mountainous health care costs, it’s hard to see what gets pushed to the margins. It’s also true, though, that Obama’s style reflects, whether he means it to or not, a cultural shift on the importance of narrative. Americans acclimated to clicking around hundreds of cable channels or Web pages experience the world less chronologically than their parents did. The most popular books now — business guides like “Good to Great” or social explorations like “The Tipping Point” — allow the casual reader to absorb their insights in random order or while skimming whole chapters.

Once we listened to cohesive albums like, say, Bob Dylan’s “Highway 61 Revisited,” which kicked off with the snare hit of “Like a Rolling Stone,” almost like a starter pistol, and worked its way toward the melancholy postscript of “Desolation Row.” Now your iPod might jump mindlessly from “Desolation Row” to “Tombstone Blues,” or from Dylan to Rihanna. The shrink-wrapped record has given way to the downloaded single. Wasn’t this one reason for all the tributes to Michael Jackson? It’s not that “Thriller” was really as singularly awesome as so many of us thought it was in high school. It’s more that we know there may never be an album that epic again.

Obama is the nation’s first shuffle president. He’s telling lots of stories at once, and in no particular order. His agenda is fully downloadable. If what you care most about is health care, then you can jump right to that. If global warming gets you going, then click over there. It’s not especially realistic to imagine that politics could cling to a linear way of rendering stories while the rest of American culture adapts to a more customized form of consumption. Obama’s ethos may disconcert the older guard in Washington, but it’s probably comforting to a lot of younger voters who could never be expected to listen to successive tracks, in the same order, over and over again.

more...

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/19/magazine/19fob-wwln-t.html?_r=1&ref=magazine

[glowing]

1. delete

[Liberation Angel]

2. Shuffle as in IPOD NOT as in "Shuffle and Jive"

My initial view of this article was skeptical. "Shuffling" is often a derogatory term.

But in this context it is not, really. This is a pretty insightful Pomo article in many ways and worth a close read.

The author makes a valid point (which is debatable).

But the concept of "key word highjacking" is obviouly a concern.

To say that Obama is "shufflng" makes him look weak.

To say his message is on "shuffle" mode (as in an ipod) is not IMHO.

It is pretty apt.

Obama knos how to relate is the point.

But the title is, at first blush, going to leave a bad first impression of Obama.

K&R for reflection.

[MarjorieG]

3. First instinct also, and I'm white and older. Matt likes newfound appeal, as Obama critic. Not

totally undeserved, and with good research, but agenda from the left is clear.

[Liberation Angel]

5. The author's agenda is "from the left"?

Can you elaborate a little?

It seems pretty positive to me. But then again I did a quick read.

Does the author have an agenda?

Is it a negative one?

Just wondered your perspective.

[MarjorieG]

6. Not necessarily on 'shuffle' and association maybe unintended, beyond his age association, but he

is the newer darling and critic of the left. He can sometimes, as with all writers, fudge the facts to make a point. Which I've seen him do on Rachel and Maher, etc.

[babylonsister]

4. Except the expression you're grasping for is 'shuck and jive', not

'shuffle', at least not to my knowledge.

[floridablue]

7. Goes way back

Black men "shuffled" along aimless and unconcerned. It is a real slap if you are an old person like me and remember that crap.

[babylonsister]

10. And this author had no intention of using it that way, given the

context, so it seems a moot point to me.

Obama is the nation’s first shuffle president. He’s telling lots of stories at once, and in no particular order. His agenda is fully downloadable. If what you care most about is health care, then you can jump right to that. If global warming gets you going, then click over there. It’s not especially realistic to imagine that politics could cling to a linear way of rendering stories while the rest of American culture adapts to a more customized form of consumption. Obama’s ethos may disconcert the older guard in Washington, but it’s probably comforting to a lot of younger voters who could never be expected to listen to successive tracks, in the same order, over and over again.

[Liberation Angel]

13. May have been Freudian. May have been subtle (or not so subtle) slap at Obama

But I still think its a good article with good insight.

Some folks from the civil rights struggle will spot this slip right away.

Shuffle to young kids means Ipod.

To those in the movement it means "Uncle Tom"

[Liberation Angel]

11. Yeah - Bamboozled and Hollywood Shuffle were two films that express it well

It's a slur.

[Liberation Angel]

9. No - Shuffle and jive is used as is shuck, shuffle and jive and shuck and jive

It isn't used as often but it is used

here's a few links:

http://www.filmmusicmag.com/?p=1847

http://66.102.1.104/scholar?q=cache:VwMUw0VIZI0J:scholar.google.com/&hl=en (Artile entitle "What's in a Slur"

shuffling is as in "Uncle Tom-ing" is old. shuffling and jiving is slightly different from shuck and jive but sometimes used altogether.

[babylonsister]

12. You are making mountains out of molehills. Taken in context,

that wasn't the author's intent. Shuffle as in ipod is more apt.

[Liberation Angel]

14. I agree, but those in the movement will immediately think "Uncle Tom"

just based on the Title.

My GUESS is that the author WANTS to confuse the issue and get discussions like this going.

Its clever if he wants peope to read his article.

And I actually LIKE the article and K&R.

If there are any older head civil rights activists here they will tell you that "shuffle" was ALWAYS either a slur or just something you talked about when playing cards.

No disparagement meant for you babylonsister at all.
i think its an insightful article which has resonance and relevance.

Maybe no insult was intended but I know many who would, at first blush, call bullshit on his intent (even if it was just unconscious)

[madamesilverspurs]

8. One wonders about intent

when this sentence jumps out: "Bill Clinton couldn’t have imagined he would spend so much of his two terms fending off resurgent Republicans, just as George W. Bush didn’t envision going to war." Certainly, Clinton was no political idiot and knew damned well that the Republicans would be seething; as for George W. Bush, he stated when he was still governor of Texas that presidents need a war in order to be considered 'great', and he was barely in the White House when he first asserted his intent to invade Iraq.

[Liberation Angel]

15. Yeah - double edged sword here

I need to do a little background on this reporter and see where his empathies lie.

I can kind of buy the first thing about Clinton. But this is kind off with respect to "Dubya". Dubya and friends wanted a war from birth, pretty much. It was in their fascist genes.

[alsame]

22. The PNAC documents proposing 'endless war' were written in

the late 90s. They had every intention of going to war,which is why they had to steal the 2000 election.

The author makes it sounds like Bush was forced into war because of 9/11, which is the right wing talking point.

[ChimpersMcSmirkers]

16. This article uses a pretty weak analogy. I guess the point is that Obama is moving randomly from

issue to issue?

The author may think it's cute that he managed to tie the ipod and Obama together, but I don't think it really works. The author is comparing apples to oranges The sheer size and number of issues the president is confronting overshadow anything other recent presidents have had to deal with. Reagan was pretty much three issues; deregulation, tax-cuts and expanding the military. Bush I? the gulf war I guess. He didn't really seem to have any direction. Clinton? He had a broad agenda that pretty much got cock-blocked by congress. W? Tax-cuts and Iraq. It's easy to look focused if your only pushing one or two issues. Obama has laid out an agenda that in scope is larger then all of those presidents combined.

I see it as Obama addressing something, getting legislation passed and going to what's next on the list. In the mean time he moves up coming issues along. I think Obama is pretty methodical myself.

[Liberation Angel]

17. While it is Cutesy, it is very clever. K&R

After a little googling I am pretty sure that this guy knows exactly what he is doing.

I K&R this article precisely because he inspired the brief debate here over whether his use of the term "shuffle" was loaded - either consciously or unconsciously.

But after looking at his wiki page I am pretty confident he used this term precisely because he knew it would create buzz, sell his book on internet and politics, and would get linked in on sites like democratic Underground.

It is a discussion which is, as I said, a pretty good Pomo (postmodern) twist on what he seems to know a lot about.

I will reserve judgment on him overall.

And stil think he may do more harm than good with the title. But it will get attention and I think he makes a couple of excellent points.

[Berry Cool]

19. It's kind of a cheesy journalistic device.

And it's not really all that insightful.

I get the feeling that if Obama were president about the time the first cafeteria appeared, the writer would have written something like this:

Once we sat down in restaurants to eat cohesive meals with a menu dictated by the chef, presented in a specific order: the soup course, the salad course, and so on. The heat and heft of, say, a good bowl of vichyssoise would prepare us for the cooling refreshment of a watercress salad. Today, we can walk into a cafeteria and choose whatever we like, and eat in in whichever order we please. Now, we might enjoy a sweet fruit salad before the tang of a French-onion soup, or skip the soup course altogether and get right to the entree. Wasn’t this one reason for all the tributes to that great chef who recently died? It’s not that his meals was really as singularly awesome as so many of us thought they were back when we ate them. It’s more that we know there may never be complete meals, from start to finish, that epic again.

Obama is the nation’s first cafeteria president. He’s making lots of stories available to us at once, and in no particular order. His agenda is fully a la carte. If what you care most about is health care, then you can choose that. If global warming gets you going, then select a big bowlful of it. It’s not especially realistic to imagine that politics could cling to a linear way of rendering stories while the rest of American culture adapts to a more customized form of consumption. Obama’s ethos may disconcert the older guard in Washington, but it’s probably comforting to a lot of younger voters who could never be expected to sit down to a formal series of dinner courses, in the same order, over and over again.

Such an approach does, however, invite significant peril. Eating at a cafeteria may popularize a given style of cookery in the aggregate, but it doesn’t foster the same kind of investment in the courses themselves. French food may have more fans than ever, but that doesn’t mean these listeners can name half the courses typically served in a traditional French meal.

See, that was kinda easy as a metaphor to hammer the concept of Obama into...really. It's not any great technique of journalism, but it does make journalists tend to think they did something really kewl.

[PurityOfEssence]

18. He really is in a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation

Nearly 30 years (my entire adult life) of reactionary dismantling of the New Deal has left us broke, looted, entangled with powerful interests that control industries and demand that they be run badly, and facing imminent extermination at the hands of climate change. This guy's like a relay runner who was handed a burning stick of dynamite instead of a baton.

Still, the rules of show business apply, and it's a bit perplexing that he doesn't get this better than he does. I think the problem is basically this: he got a long way with the same repeated tactic, and now he's in a game where it doesn't really work. His habitual riff is to be on both sides of most issues that he can't duck outright, and to use vague emotional promises to get people to think he's on their side.

To not move on a broad front would have given him lots of grief, and to ignore certain things would have brought him the same. Truly, no president since FDR has walked into such a mess, but Obama KNEW this. There's no holy right for things to be easy or fair.

I have a lot of problems with the guy, principally stemming from my extreme dislike of religion and of people who are compelled to let private enterprise be a given in any solution. Still, I hold out hopes for his heart being in the right place and for his obviously well-circuited head to accept that he's going to be disliked by many and loose him from this Clintonian need to be loved by all. This is a replay of the Clinton Administration: appeasing and playing nice with the reactionaries while dragging the Democratic Party farther to the right; the result may well be the same, too, since all the bones and concessions offered to these primitives net precisely NOTHING, and they continue to clamor for his political head.

This is a TOUGH JOB, and it is to be judged by standards of excellence, not what's acceptable for the average schlub on the street.

Personally, I like the broad-front approach, but there are two huge problems with the way he's using it: he should announce all intentions and concentrate on a few issues (he's SORT OF doing that, so he should get some points for that) and he should confront the forces of ugly privilege by taking on Medicine Incorporated and the assholes of unrestricted financial warfare. The people who caused this financial disaster are literally running the economy. This is either extreme naivety or complicity on Obama's part, and it's his fault. Those who make excuses that he's hired the wrong people or some tommyrot like that don't get the reality of the situation: he's fundamentally in agreement with the premise that the few have the right to risk the very stability upon which many people's lives rest just for the sacred right of that same few to make unrestrained massive profit with no accountability or even risk. It's a deep perversion of capitalism where profit is private and loss is protected by public giveaways. He believes this. He's enabling this. This is a problem.

Meanwhile, another larcenist from Goldman Sachs is hired into the inner circle. Those guys should be in jail.

[boppers]

20. ON NOES! I CAN HAS LINEAR NARRATIVE?

CD players have had random since the 80's... and the author is using vinyl(!) as a comparison point.

Up next: Why Obama's kids won't stay off my lawn, and how the web might be a bad thing because it can't be read front-to-back, on paper, by lamplight, in the outhouse.

[alcibiades_mystery]

21. Matt Bai is a laughable Bush lover and noted fool

:rofl: