Have you heard the news? Barack Obama is cool!
He’s not just cool, he’s way cool; the coolest thing ever!
Never having been “cool” myself (or desperate enough to seek its conferral upon me by people I always found to be rather sad trend-followers) I can only judge by past observation, but it seems to me that the first rule of being cool has always been that if you really are cool, then no one ever has to say it about you, because your “coolness” is as self-evident as the truth that all men are created equal.
If it is not obvious—if your friends in the media have to actually tell people that you’re “cool”; if they actually have to use that word (or worse, if they have to determinedly declare to the public that “He’s hip, he’s young, he’s not square!”)—then that’s really not cool In fact, it’s eye-rollingly lame; it’s “trying too hard.”
If I remember my Junior High-schoolese correctly, it’s actually “dorky.”
Being cool has to do with a lot more than being “young and hip.” No one is young forever, and any fool with money can be “hip”.
Coolness does not need anyone to define it, but allow me to try. The quality of “coolness” contains within it an attitude of discrete detachment, which is not the same as aloofness. It suggests an intellect attuned to a different frequency—perhaps to a higher muse—but still comfortable sharing the ground with the rest of us. Its muted confidence is so supreme that it bears no ill-will and holds no grudge against anyone who doesn’t “get” it, and that makes a cool cat more than likeable; it makes one slightly mysterious, and thus fascinating.
“Coolness” is not thin-skinned; it does not clench its teeth in anger; it does not overreach; it does not flail; it does not indulge in braggadocio; it does not make lists of enemies because its enemies already know who they are—they’ve been informed thusly, face-to-face, and usually with a smile and a perfectly chosen, personally meaningful gift. It does not sweat minutia. Genuine coolness knows it is not perfect and often acknowledges a blown occasion with a good-natured shrug rather than an apology, because coolness understands that not every mistake demands an apology—of others or oneself—and that too many apologies, offered too easily, signals a propensity toward the cheap and the meaningless.
“Coolness” is patient enough to watch processes play out before it comments or reacts but it has no admiration for crass thuggery and gives it no license. “Cool” people can sometimes seem cruel to their equals or their “betters” but they are never unkind to the rest of us because to be so would be—like blaming others for one’s own errors—the antithesis of cool.
Come to think of it, by these definitions, one could safely opine that the “coolest” leaders currently athwart the world’s stage are still England’s Queen Elizabeth II, who recently crashed a wedding simply to wish a bridal couple well, and His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI, who takes the daily piñata beatings that come his way in stride, and answers with a blessing. These two old-timers, who lived through most of the twentieth century and therefore know a thing or two about keeping one’s cool in the face of sensationalism, thugs, and bullies never let anyone see them sweat.
Our president, we are being told endlessly, in an apparent appeal to the disillusioned “youth vote,” is the personification of cool. But is he, really? Certainly his manner and intellect are detached, but there is a tightness to it. His skin is so thin it is almost brittle, and his impatience with process has been demonstrated repeatedly, whether in his harangues against the Supreme Court, his moves to bypass Congress, his calling-out of private citizens for the release of partisan rancor, or his unwillingness to allow trivial inter-party snipes or noteworthy police investigations to shake out on their own, without inappropriate presidential remarks that almost invariably backfire on him. He seethes, and we can see it. At times, no doubt, he is entitled to do so. But there is nothing cool about it.
Although I certainly think he is smart, and plenty canny, I have never seen evidence of historian Michael Beschloss’ assessment that President Obama is “probably the smartest guy ever to become president.” I regret to say that—all media insistence to the contrary—the quality of his coolness is quite strained, and not at all obvious.
Elizabeth Scalia is the Managing Editor of the Catholic Portal at Patheos and blogs as The Anchoress. Her previous articles for "On the Square" can be found here.
RESOURCES
It's Cool to be On Board with Obama
He's Way Cool
Self-evident cool
"He's Hip, He's Young..."
"our smartest president..."
The Wedding Crashers
Become a fan of First Things on Facebook, subscribe to First Things via RSS, and follow First Things on Twitter.
Comments:
This time he's just cool. I guess it's an advance of sorts.
"Blessed are they who are persecuted for righteousness' sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven." (Matthew 5:10)
Speaking of Queen Elizabeth II, here's are a few cool lines from the movie The Queen a few years back. The scene is the first audience that the Queen gave to newly-elected Prime Minister Tony Blair:
HM Queen Elizabeth II: Have we shown you how to start a nuclear war yet?
Tony Blair: Er no.
HM Queen Elizabeth II: First thing we do apparently, then we take away your passport and spend the rest of our time sending you around the world.
Tony Blair: You obviously know my job better than I do
HM Queen Elizabeth II: Yes well, you are my tenth Prime Minister Mr Blair. My first of course was Winston Churchill, he sat in your chair in a frock coat and top hat. And he was kind enough to give a shy young girl like me quite an education.
Tony Blair: I would imagine.
But more seriously, the best definition of cool seems to be "what the youth aspire to be." It changes because it is like fashion--faddish trends based on popularity. That's the point. In order to be with it you have to stay with it. It's a lot of work.
As applied to Obama, as long as popular culture (i.e., popular media) proclaim him as the "cool" guy, then it will sort of de facto be true. And protesting against that is, just, well, not cool. :)
It also reminds me of dogs establishing the order of the pack, one by licking the other's muzzle in submission and the other by turning away. But since people aren't dogs, we don't have to fit into such structures.
The responses to cool that I will be telling my kids are attributed to Eleanor Roosevelt ("No one can make you feel inferior without your permission") and King Solomon ("The wicked borrows and does not repay, but the righteous is gracious and gives")
None of this represents what Obama is doing.
But what seems clearly uncool regardless are several paragraphs telling us why our president is not "cool," from an Anchoress, no less! This comes across as petty at best. And then it switches gears at the last minute to tell us why the President is not *that* smart, either! Geez. How about this: supporters will find him cool, others will not. I imagine most black kids find him very cool.
I normally like Scalia, but this comes off as trying to score easy points with the like-minded, and also as condescending in the Peggy Noonan mold. It does not IMO fir with the better climate at First Things.
Now, being a nerd is considered the very antithesis of cool, but most nerds, myself included, are serenely OK with that. We posses an "attitude of discrete detachment" w.r.t. that judgement.
Obama's probably not as cool as he's made out to be. Nor is he "the smartest person ever to be President". As John Kennedy pointed out, that was Thomas Jefferson. But I'd be willing to bet that he knows far more about both John Kennedy and Thomas Jefferson, or even Ronald Reagan, than the largely empty suits with over stuffed shirts whom the Republicans have been running for President since as far back as Bob Dole. Or even Vice-President. Not to mention the current crop of sorry losers who've been polluting our television screens for months.
If I had to choose between being cool and being informed, I'd choose the latter. And we really don't have to consider being neither one. But since our hostess has championed using reason to criticize a narrative, I'll venture the observation that Mitt Romney is about as cool as a minivan with a dog caged on top, and about as well-informed as an upscale clothing and furnishings catalog.
I'm sorry, Meggie, but, unfortunately, there is only one issue. And even the writers at First Things can't write about it all the time. They have an obligation to keep the discussion lively and entertaining. And certainly our Hostess is always both.
I'm afraid that those who regard Obama as cool are merely referring to his promotion of a populist, hedonistic agenda rather than any qualities of genuine coolness which he manifestly does not possess. His dictates are more sweeping & autocratic than Louis XIV or any Russian Tsar. Only an unreformable egotist could refer to the blandest restatement (having no material change), accompanied by the what he obviously considers the magnamanious condescension of a year's delay in stripping untold millions of Americans of their First Amendment rights, as an "accommodation". That the popular press conspires in this lie bodes ill indeed. See Edmund Burke, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, George Orwell, etc.
Considering the man, his actions, his apparent guiding philosophy that he spatters on others most times he speaks, how can you not feel repugnance as well?
I live a long, long way away from the United States, so I miss a lot of detail about your President and how his doings are reported.
But I think of Mr Obama as a Lord of the Flies. Overly dramatic? Perhaps, but he makes my skin crawl. NOT cool.
Personal coolness, especially when wrapped in a Schott NYC Perfecto 618, is always a feigned degree of temperament (see Brando, The Fonz, Charles M. Schultz and my 18 year-old daughter). Otherwise one is just a jerk and definitely NOT cool.
Now we find ourselves with the first black president challenged by first Mormon contender. How novel and cool is that?
There are hard cases, such as individual proprietors who are personally liable for their business debt, but these days there are not very many of them. It is, after all, not very wise to open yourself to personal bankruptcy from your business failure when there is an alternative. There are also hard cases of people whose genuine religious belief includes animal sacrifice in violation of local cruelty to animal laws. But even though they believe in it, they have no legal right to do it.
As the saying goes, hard cases make bad law, but hard cases there will be, and even bad law is preferable to no law.
As a Buddhist, I condemn both animal sacrifice and abortion. But I think Christians do their cause a large disservice both by their insistence that stopping abortion is the only serious issue of Government and by spurious claims of "freedom of religion" which are logically ridiculous and lead to the conclusion that any religious belief exempts either a person or a business from any law which does not please them.
It never ceases to amaze me that Christians cannot understand that even if they are morally right, they are in the minority and have to persuade non-Christians of the worth of their cause. As worthy as it is, it is really not self-evidently so, any more than preventing the sacrificial killing of animals is self-evidently so in a culture where most of us buy meat killed for us to eat.
If you are non-Christian, a politics of opposition to abortion to the neglect of everything else makes you look like a bee-in-bonnet hysteric, and a claim to religious freedom from any law you, or your corporation, pleases make you look like an irrational political anarchist.
If you are a Christian it makes you look exactly the same way. And neither appearance is very persuasive to anyone else.


