The President as Superfan.

Spot has already taken Michael Gerson to task for his characterization of the "Obama narrative [as] intellectual and ideological (not social) elitism." Voters want a goober, not an egghead, for president.

A president is expected to be a patriotic symbol himself, not the arbiter of patriotic symbols. He is supposed to be the face-painted superfan at every home game; to wear red, white and blue boxers on special marital occasions; to get misty-eyed during the most obscure patriotic hymns.

I guess having a president as superfan works well, as long as your affairs don't extend much beyond the Nebraska-Iowa State game.

There ought to be an Constitutional amendment, in fact, just to make sure we don't accidentally hire another smart guy to do the hardest job in the world.

Great guy to have a beer with? Not a bad qualification for my insurance agent, golf pro, bike mechanic and dentist. But I wouldn't pick a president on that basis, or an airline pilot or a brain surgeon. (I hope those dudes with the painted-on skeleton ribs joined in front aren't, like, pre-med.)

Gerson doesn't get Obama, as is clear from this lame comparison.

Obama is easily the most religiously fluent and informed Democratic presidential candidate since Jimmy Carter. But, over time, Obama has assumed a much more familiar, Democratic electoral profile — the candidate of the young, the educated and the secular (he has consistently won religiously nonaligned voters), who also gets nearly universal support from African-Americans. He increasingly resembles Bill Bradley or Gary Hart — a candidate of new liberalism — with this additional element of black enthusiasm.

Is churchliness all the evangelical Gerson can see that Carter and Obama have in common? And black enthusiasm all that separates Obama from a few liberal also rans? 

Carter, of course, also got near universal support from African-Americans and received a huge boost with younger voters from Hunter S. Thompson's Rolling Stone profile. I imagine Carter got more than his share of the young, educated and secular voters, too. The real difference is not in where their support comes from, their religion, or even their less warlike, more internationalist perspective. Carter's intelligence led him to  micromanage; Obama's seems geared toward enlisting other hearts and minds.

Folksiness has its uses, and genuine empathy is a great quality in a leader. But ultimately, I want my president to be a good decision maker, and there, intellectual rigor and vigor matter, not how just many people voted for the inner good old boy.

Comments

[Mark Gisleson]

Go Cyclones!!!