Mr. President, tell us a story
By Celeste Ng
One year after President Obama’s inauguration, everyone seems to have either criticism or advice for his administration–for pushing health care reform; for not yet passing health care reform; for not waving his magic wand to fix the economy, eradicate H1N1, and end both wars; for not leaping tall buildings in a single bound. But author Junot Diaz points out a different problem in an an essay in the New Yorker: President Obama’s lack of storytelling since his election.
All year I’ve been waiting for Obama to flex his narrative muscles, to tell the story of his presidency, of his Administration, to tell the story of where our country is going and why we should help deliver it there. A coherent, accessible, compelling story—one that is narrow enough to be held in our minds and hearts and that nevertheless is roomy enough for us, the audience, to weave our own predilections, dreams, fears, experiences into its fabric. [...] But from where I sit our President has not even told a bad story; he, in my opinion, has told no story at all. I heard him talk healthcare to death but while he was elaborating ideas his opponents were telling stories. Sure they were bad ones, full of distortions and outright lies, but at least they were talking to the American people in the correct idiom: that of narrative. The President gave us a raft of information about why healthcare would be a swell idea; the Republicans gave us death panels. Ideas are wonderful things, but unless they’re couched in a good story they can do nothing.
What do you think? Is Diaz on to something here? Is the lack of presidential narrative part of what’s hampering Obama?
I wish it were that simple. It’s true that Obama hasn’t come up with an effective narrative to sell his programs to the public. But that isn’t to say that the opposition deserves much credit. Obama’s problem is that he’s trying to act democratically and truthfully. Democracy and truth are of little interest to the people who disseminate death panel and tea party propaganda. Because Obama has principles, he doesn’t resort to lying and mudslinging. That puts him at a disadvantage, because most of the public, most members of Congress, and even most members of the Supreme Court are, to put it bluntly, ignorant. This is apparent in the so-called Wall Street versus Main Street story line. Basically, Wall Street had to be rescued in order to prevent a major world depression. The populist narrative that is being used against Obama ignores that fact and inappropriately directs attention to corrupt cronyism that probably never occurred.
As an observer, I find it embarrassing that Obama has to repeatedly explain the obvious. If people can’t understand the basic economic causes of the recession and the steps that were taken to fix it, if they don’t realize that major reform of the health care system is critical to everyone’s future health, what do they understand? Very little, I think.
I hope I don’t seem too pessimistic for you, Celeste. Actually I’m a realist. Obama is an incredible talent, and I still have high hopes that he’ll be able to pull it off – preferably without resorting to pure fiction.
Thomas Friedman also addresses this idea: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/01/opinion/01friedman.html.
Hey y’all; too much hype/attention, too little data? Just a thought. Great article/link, thanks Anne!
Natalie, that link is broken, but I think this is the essay you were referring to:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/01/opinion/01friedman.html