What first seems counterintuitive about the dueling major party
presidential candidates’ recent trips to Louisiana becomes perfectly understandable
once we remember who and what the parties, candidates, and ideologies involved
are.
Following the custom born in the 20th Century, Pres. Barack Obama
is visiting the state most of which recently was declared by him as a disaster
area from Hurricane Isaac, at the invitation of Gov. Bobby
Jindal, days after the storm departed the state even as its effects linger.
But expanding upon the custom, days earlier Obama’s Republican candidate for
the presidency former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt
Romney took a brief tour also at Jindal’s invitation.
Indeed, Romney came right after his party’s national convention closed,
cancelling a campaign swing through the very competitive state of Virginia to
head to wringing-out Louisiana where he will win by a comfortable margin. Meanwhile,
Obama said during and right after the natural catastrophe he
watched sports on television, and only after word got out that Romney would
show up did he commit to coming on by the state, after doing some campaigning in
the competitive state of Iowa where he watched some
football on TV and scarfed down pizza.
There’s not much that Romney, a private citizen, can do to assist the relief
efforts with his presence. Obama can’t do much more as president other than supervise
things as implementation is in the hands of others. Really it’s more of a
matter of showing solidarity, which Romney seemed eager to do at potential sacrifice
to his electoral chances (stumping in a swing state probably wins more
electoral votes than looking presidential in surveying the effects of disaster)
while Obama remained distant and seemingly indifferent, until after Romney made
his way to the state.
On the surface, Obama’s reaction ought to surprise. After all,
Democrats construct a façade that they “care” about people as part of the trap
to get people to exchange their liberty for accepting the instruments of
control. “Care” is shown through symbolic actions that do little substantively
to benefit individuals wishing to assume responsibility and exercise autonomy
but do allow those who, wittingly or not, exercise control to feel better about
themselves and to justify this. For example, while Democrats focus on showing
how much assistance big government can provide as a campaign prop revealing policy
success, endorsing policies which necessitate transfer of wealth from and
reduction of life prospects for those who refuse the complacency of dependency
on government, their opponents measure their policy successes by the reduction of
unnecessary and counterproductive assistance in making government smaller to
liberate achievement-oriented attitudes and those who put them into practice.
So, in speaking the language with which Obama feels most comfortable,
his trooping to the Gulf Coast almost immediately after Isaac’s ravages should
have been a layup – a perfect opportunity not just to show he “cares,” but also
giving him a good excuse to pay little heed to the then-ongoing Republican
National Convention. Then why he didn’t he do it?
Simply, because he does not like the region given its conservative
politics, which in any event is of no electoral use to him and is full of
ideological enemies like Jindal that he will not go out of his way to help politically.
Compare, for example, Obama’s response
last year to Hurricane Irene, which threatened a number of reliably
liberal-voting East Coast states. He returned early from vacation and
personally took command of efforts to deal with a storm no more physically destructive
than Isaac. A few months earlier, immediately after tornadoes struck Joplin,
MO, in another swing state, Obama promised an
extensive listening tour that was delayed only because he was out of the
country visiting foreign dignitaries. A month earlier, he made
it more quickly to swaths of Alabama, a state not fond of his politics,
devastated by tornadoes along with several other states, partly compelled to
ensure that he look responsive to the biggest catastrophe since Louisiana
suffered Hurricane Katrina.
But now, in the middle of a tight campaign, Obama deliberately puts on
the back burner a visit to a ravaged area. It’s not to say that Obama would not
commit necessary aid to the area, but that he won’t do anything extra
symbolically or substantively to assist. Don’t forget that in the political
arena, where presently he fights for his political life, relevancy, and
restoration of reputation, Obama
famously carries a very mean streak when it comes to politics and
campaigning (starting
with him winning his first office), so it should not surprise that he would
give a brief flip of the middle finger to Louisiana before assuming the
appearance of the all-seeing, all-knowing, all-caring Anointed One in order to look more presidential. And he has a lot
against a state that cannot help him electorally but which did elect twice a
governor who has been an effective
critic of his (and one willing to point out the image obsession of Obama on
these issues).
Gosh!
ReplyDeleteThe one who "famously carries a very mean streak."
The one assuming "the appearance of the all-seeing, all-knowing, all-caring Anointed One."
For a minute there, I thought you were talking about our Governor.
Sorry, my mistake.