Matt Welch points out that President Obama seems to be working a theme—using three recent speeches to rail against the hyperconnection of our Internet age: a commencement address at the University of Michigan on May 1, a remark at the White House Correspondents’ dinner on May 2, and another commencement address, at Hampton University on May 9.
You’re coming of age in a 24/7 media environment that bombards us with all kinds of content and exposes us to all kinds of arguments, some of which don’t always rank that high on the truth meter. And with iPods and iPads; and Xboxes and PlayStations—none of which I know how to work—information becomes a distraction, a diversion, a form of entertainment, rather than a tool of empowerment, rather than the means of emancipation. So all of this is not only putting pressure on you; it’s putting new pressure on our country and on our democracy. . . .
With so many voices clamoring for attention on blogs, and on cable, on talk radio, it can be difficult, at times, to sift through it all; to know what to believe; to figure out who’s telling the truth and who’s not. Let’s face it, even some of the craziest claims can quickly gain traction. I’ve had some experience in that regard.
Welch rightly notes the political purpose here: “While hypocritical,” he writes, “this critique is strategically clever. For those still inclined to believe it, the message reinforces Obama’s fading image as a truth-telling, above-it-all academic. . . . And for the straight-journalism types this is a soothing tongue-bath from the Sensible Centrist in Chief that reinforces their own self-pity/importance and gives them even more motivation to go after the real lying liars: The ones who noisily and hyperbolically oppose the policies of the most powerful man on earth.”
And Ann Althouse correctly notices the peculiarity of a man warning us against “diversion” as he leaves for the diversion of a golf game.
But there’s more here—particularly in its echoes of the kind of big-think that Christopher Lasch used to do.
Everyone who reads Lasch seriously falls for a while under his spell—as well they ought, for a book like The Culture of Narcissism is a powerful experience, and its author was a brilliant man.
But is big-think what we actually want from our presidents? Jimmy Carter once read Christopher Lasch—and the result was his famous Cutural Malaise speech (in which, as it happens, he never actually used the word malaise; that came from the pollster Pat Caddell’s later—but sadly accurate—description of the speech).
By the time of that 1979 speech, Carter was deep in his presidency and had an approval rate below 30 percent. The world was ready to mock him, and it did.
Obama is earlier in his presidency, and the political turn he gave his words offers a self-congratulatory way for his listeners in the media to ignore the Carteresque echoes.
But make no mistake—this recent Obama stuff is genuine, old-fashioned big-think: “information becomes a distraction, a diversion, a form of entertainment, rather than a tool of empowerment, rather than the means of emancipation.”
It may be smart-ish. It may even be true-ish. But it’s not presidential. As Jimmy Carter learned after he tried to be Christopher Lasch, the job of cultural gadfly and the job of leading the Free World just aren’t the same.
May 10th, 2010 | 7:08 pm
Is this the same President who famously held on to his Blackberry above the objections of his secret service? For so effectively using text messenging in his campaign?
May 10th, 2010 | 7:13 pm
Um, these were commencement addresses. For college students. And as someone who interacts with such students on a daily basis, I’d say that this is one of the most important messages for them to hear before going out into the world (however much Obama may have personalized the message). But it’s nice to know that First Things is becoming ever-more creative in finding ways to criticize Obama.
May 10th, 2010 | 7:26 pm
As the much less ideologically driven conservative, and therefore much more interesting, Andrew J. Bacevich has recently pointed out in the Limits of Power, Carter was right in what he said in the Malaise Speech. The nation stood at the precipice of the vapid consumerism that is now the status quo, and Carter had the courage to summon us to a different future.
Shouldn’t we care about the truth of what’s said by our presidents more than the success of the speech at any particular political moment?
I notice that you are not particularly interested whether or not the claims are true (what in the world is true-ish?). Why is it all conservative spin, all the time? Or rather, all small think, all the small time?
May 10th, 2010 | 8:05 pm
Steve–The White House correspondents weren’t college students, I hope.
May 10th, 2010 | 8:27 pm
Mr. Collier–
I’ve always liked Andy Bacevich; he’s a friend and an author for magazines at which I’ve worked. But what makes you think he’s not as ideological as the next man, except that you agree with him and don’t think of your own positions as ideological?
For that matter, how are we to read your constant complaints about how overly political you think things are at the First Thoughts blog? By my count, there are 25 posts visible on the page, of which only 6 could even be thought to have direct political content.
What you mean, of course, by too political is politics you disagree with, and those posts all have your complaints written on them.
Which is fine–it’s pretty much liberty hall, here, as far as politics go, and precisely because we’re not political animals, a political animal like you is welcome to comment.
But the day you comment on some of the non-political posts–on, say, Mary Ellen Kelly’s interesting item about headless mannequins–that’s when your often-repeated complaint about too much politics might have a little more purchase.
May 10th, 2010 | 8:41 pm
Mr. Bottum,
Point taken. Except that, after college students, the press (especially those involved in political reporting) are those who most need to hear such a message. Third in line are President Obama himself and his own staff. Hopefully he is taking his own words to heart.
May 10th, 2010 | 9:49 pm
Absolutely loved the use of “but make no mistake”, Jody. Made me laugh. Thanks.
I agree that his speech was not presidential. But honestly, based on his performance in office so far, is it right (or sane) for us to think he’s even capable of giving one?
May 10th, 2010 | 9:50 pm
Thank you to Joseph Bottum for defending his post. Yes, “liberty hall” is the policy on this blog, but unfair and untrue assertions and personal insults should be countered. I hope there will be much more of this. It is long overdue.
May 10th, 2010 | 10:59 pm
No, Other Steve, it’s your point that should be taken: Journalists may rank even ahead of college students in needing to hear such a message.
For that matter, I think some of what Obama has to say is true—or, at least, true-ish: there are serious distinctions to be made, but it’s still kind of right.
But, then, you and I get to say that, being gadflys and observers of the scene. The president is the scene itself.
Note that it’s not just Kit Lasch who can be a cause of big-think. I remember years ago writing for First Things about the big-think to which Newt Gingrich was provoked by Alvin Toffler—a lesser but still dangerous author for a politician to read.
May 10th, 2010 | 11:26 pm
Our President appears to be equivocating. What he considers “pressure on Democracy” may at root be the weight of dissent that is disproportionately expressed in the sources and media about which he expresses suspicion. His not so tacit point is that the national “truth meter” should be plugged into legacy outlets whose energy can be demonstrated by sufficiently loyal levels of leg-tingling. Shocking, that.
May 11th, 2010 | 12:03 am
So, is the problem that youth spend all their time at portals, or that they spend all their time at the wrong portals, as defined by this president?
In his speech at Hampton University, the president spent the first several minutes discussing the enriching experience access to education offered freed slaves and, later, GI’s returning from WWII. Then, he criticizes the value of a similar “flattening” in the world of information dissemination and discussion.
If the world is made better by inclusion of a broader spectrum attending classes in the halls of the academy, how is it not also true that there is value in the liberating of the portals through which information is both shared and improved upon through open dialogue?
Is truth only served when entrants keep their eyes and ears open, their mouths (and fingers) quiet, and their minds tuned in only to established voices?
Something is getting frustrated with all the open dialogue, and it starts with “t,” but it is not truth.
May 11th, 2010 | 7:58 am
The president’s use of the term “truth meter” brings to mind Cass Sunstein’s recommendation that the government take positive steps to control the message that gets out, quashing what are defined as false rumors (meaning facts and commentary that counteract the government’s agenda). With others in his administration advocating other steps to control the media, including the internet, I find the speech ominous.
May 11th, 2010 | 9:14 am
Mr. Bottum,
I defy you to produce a single comment or email in which I’ve complained about First Things being “too political.” I think everything is political, including desires to be “less political,” which, again, I have never expressed.
The problem at First Things is not that it’s overly political, but that its politics has become more and more strongly identified with a particular, and particularly mistaken, strand of conservatism. A strand that has often been wrong about very important matters—particularly war and peace—and one that has also been incapable of acknowledging when it’s wrong.
You also display a nasty intellectual habit of trying to change the subject when you’re criticized. Now it’s my apoliticism, yesterday it was bias at the New York Times, a couple of years ago it was Bush critics’ anti-Americanism. I guess it’s easier to change the subject than it is to deal with the substance of the criticism.
The fact that you host Jim Hoft’s absurd and cynical Gateway Pundit blog is a sign of just how terrible your politics have become. Please, please, offer us an account of why you allow the resources of First Things to be used to support such a destructive and ruthless endeavor as The Gateway Pundit blog.
Christianity is a politics—kingdom, Lord, glory, vindication, justice—and I just wish First Things would abandon the foolish attempt to align that politics with the political Right in America. I’m not any more interested in aligning it with the political left, so please resist the temptation to go there. Just because someone doesn’t like the Yankees doesn’t make him a fan of the Atlanta Braves.
Bacevich’s conservatism is more interesting and less ideological because it’s not a closed loop that always tells you the same thing, or repeats the same “conservative” nostrums. I was surprised to see him commending Carter’s “malaise speech,” and I think he made a terrific point about it.
Lastly, I emailed you personally to thank you for your children’s literature essay, which I know you received, because you kindly replied to it. I’ve also posted and emailed appreciatively about less-political matters. I think Anthony Sacromone is one of the more hilarious guys around. So knock of the cheap shots about me only commenting on political posts, and knock of the canard about the “irony” of me thinking First Things is too political. Wrong on every account.
May 11th, 2010 | 11:52 am
I like Christopher Lasch.
I think Matt Welch might be giving the Academic-in-Chief just a tad too much credit?
From the Obama Tapes. The White House, Oval Office…
Mr. Emanuel: Mr. President, your image as a truth-telling, above-it-all academic is, to be blunt, fading.
The President: Damn it, Rahm. I’m about to go golfing. Can’t this wait?
Mr. Axelrod: Rahm’s right, Mr. President. We need a plan, something hypocritical but strategically clever.
Ms. Jarret: A series of speeches centrist in tone, with a critique of the hyperconnection of the Internet age. Something that will reinforce the media’s self-pity/importance and give them even more motivation to go after the real lying liars.
Mr. Axelrod: Just don’t use the word “malaise.”
The President: Fine! I’ll be on the links. Email the text to me on my BlackBerry.
May 11th, 2010 | 12:11 pm
I’m pondering and will be blogging a question that this raised for me. But as few people read my blog, I thought I’d throw it out here and see what everyone thinks.
My question is as follows:
Why do you suppose the President changed the meaning behind the symbol of technology? Now he’s talking about “iPods and iPads” as a distraction and solely entertainment. But at the Michigan commencement, he used technology in a more positive light as a way of getting information. Specifically, he said, “In an era of iPods and Tivo, where we have more choices than ever before … government shouldn’t try to dictate your lives.”
And a less serious question: Doesn’t this makes the gifts to the PM and the Queen seem even tackier?
May 11th, 2010 | 12:35 pm
Per:
“Why do you suppose the President changed the meaning behind the symbol of technology? Now he’s talking about “iPods and iPads” as a distraction and solely entertainment.”
Actually he changed more than the meaning behind the symbol of technology – as he actually said if you listen to him, “With iPods and iPads and Xboxes and PlayStations, — none of which I know how to work — information becomes a distraction, a diversion, a form of entertainment, rather than a tool of empowerment, rather than the means of e-pant-ipation,”
What the heck is e-pants-ipation? Maybe the answer to that will yield the clue to why he changed the symbol.
Per:
“And a less serious question: Doesn’t this makes the gifts to the PM and the Queen seem even tackier?”
hahahahahahahhahaha – more people should be reading your blog…
May 11th, 2010 | 1:10 pm
[...] I took a swipe at President Obama for his big-think about how “information becomes a distraction, a diversion, a form of [...]
May 11th, 2010 | 3:19 pm
If Mr. Obama had some sons he would have a harder time dismissing video games. Sure, the jury is out on their long-term effect, but the fact is they are quite mainstream, especially among boys. He seems to take equally vapid “tween” girl entertainment (such as Justin Bieber and the Jonas Brothers) with some charity, no doubt because his daughters apparently relate to them. I agree with the author’s advice that Presidents should generally avoid such cultural comments.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact