Oh, David Brooks, trying soooooo hard...

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/17/opinion/17brooks.html?em

After praising Senator Obama's equanimity and poise for the better part of his latest op-ed piece, comparing his cool, analytical self-confidence to that of F.D.R. and Reagan, David Brooks, wanting badly to write a column worth talking about, moves in for the kill:

Of course, it’s also easy to imagine a scenario in which he is not an island of rationality in a sea of tumult, but simply an island. New presidents are often amazed by how much they are disobeyed, by how often passive-aggressiveness frustrates their plans.

Hmmmm. Huh. Well. I guess Obama would be a new president if he were elected, yeah? Yeah. Shit. He might not be obeyed. Okay.

(Next sentences:)
It could be that Obama will be an observer, not a leader. Rather than throwing himself passionately into his causes, he will stand back. Congressional leaders, put off by his supposed intellectual superiority, will just go their own way. Lost in his own nuance, he will be passive and ineffectual. Lack of passion will produce lack of courage. The Obama greatness will give way to the Obama anti-climax.

Passive and ineffectual. Lack of passion. Shit.

(Next sentences:)
We can each guess how the story ends. But over the past two years, Obama has clearly worn well with voters. Far from a celebrity fad, he is self-contained, self-controlled and maybe even a little dull.

Dull. Dull? Shit. I don't want a dull president. But you said his problem was intellectual superiority. Shit. He must be both too smart and too dumb to be president. How did I not see this before?

And...scene.

Okay, David Brooks, you lost me when you assumed that an ability to take a step back and see things as an observer means that you lack passion, that you can't be rational and passionate at once. Not only is that a logical leap of startling fancy, it's clearly wrong, because Barack Obama, whatever else you say about him, is clearly both rational and passionate. See, e.g., any speech he's ever given. He doesn't get trapped in his own viewpoint, it's true. He's able to see things from other perspectives, including, most importantly, the average American who's tired of the politics to which we've become accustomed, of Bush and Kerry and Pelosi and Rove and Clinton and Cheney and DeLay and Clinton . That's his strength, that he can empathize with outside observers -- the voters.

By the way, the idea of combining rationality and passion is indicative of something obvious about Obama: he comes from the political school of organizing, rather than that of grandstanding. One pulls people together to get things done and inspires them with what they can do; the other speaks to be heard, to be agreed with, to be chosen. It can be a fine distinction in principle, but it's a yawning chasm of difference in practice.

It was a good attempt, I guess, David, to turn Obama's most admirable qualities -- things we should aspire to in ourselves -- into something to fear in a leader. It just wasn't very convincing, is all. Try again next time!