The psychobabble is a little dispiriting. Still, the bit about the Democrats being a party of capital who sort-of have to pretend not to be is basically true, and yes that issue probably does explain some of the problems with communication that party figures sometimes have. Not sure if it really explains Obama's battery powered corpse act though.
One of the most annoying things that I found about the psychobabble is that it doesn't even seem to come from a good place. He is basically saying Obama is some noveau riche, Jay Gatsby figure who desperately wants to be accepted by the old money types. Who knows, maybe this is what helped his Yale cohorts boost their self esteem back in the day. 'They want to be us'. It implies further that the people who really can make a difference to 'fight the power' come from this class, in this case FDR. Similar, unmerited, themes are used for civil rights too; i.e., that it took a Southern racist like Johnson to get passed etc. etc.
I agree with his analysis about the party. And I think you can find plenty of cases of massive contradictions and hypocrisy. Alas, this is the fundamental flaw of our cherished two party system.
The first paragraph is fair enough (But I have to agree on the comment that Obama often seems bored around many people) though I can't agree that the contradictions and hypocrisy of contemporary American politics have as much to do with the two-party system as they have to do with money.
So the OP article essentially boils down to: Obama lost because he is an a-hole. Cogent!
Its more likely a combination of:
- challengers always do well standing up to a president
- Romney was far better prepared and practiced
- Obama team strategy of prevent defense was not smart
- Obama team prepped to debate the "severe conservative" Romney and not the new moderate Romney (although they should have known Etchasketch was coming)
- Obama just not used to taking tough questions/challenges due to presidential bubble effect
You need to improve your reading comprehension skills.
I don't think the Republicans have a more coherent philosophy than the Democrats. Just a simpler one, with no sense of shame, embarrassment, or qualifications.
But yes, the Democrats have a lot of internal contradictions that are easily perceived as weakness by not just the Republicans, but also, the many "swing" voters who vote based on the strength of the economy, the charisma/gravitas of the Presidential candidates, and the perceived "toughness" of the Commander-In-Chief.
Bottom line is: the American political process is based on wealth, power, confidence (manufactured, more often than not), and the corporate sponsorship and ownership of the media that promotes democracy-by-sound-byte. In this context, the better your party is at generating simple, memorable sound-bites on a regular basis, the more of an advantage your party has throughout the election season.
Politics is a business in the US; that much is clear. The Republicans figured that out quite some time ago. The Democrats haven't fully gotten the message yet.
Nonsense. The whole point of the article is to say (and I agree with it) that the Democrats understand very, very well that US politics is a business but for political reasons they can't show that they do. One only has to think of the vast chasm between liberal rhetoric and Democratic performance once in government to see this (Education reform, anyone?)
