Last night's episode of The Barack Obama Show was blog-worthy in several respects. And it raised many important questions, such as, Will it be picked up for a full season? (We find out next Tuesday.)
One thing that struck you as you watched the show was how downbeat it was. All the families Obama highlighted seemed at the end of their ropes. They have trouble paying bills, worry about the kids' future, wonder if they will have health insurance in a few weeks. They feel like the American dream isn't working out. They remind you of something Michelle Obama once said, about how our country can be "downright mean." Every family profiled last night was looking to the federal government to help them out. To save them.
This is a new understanding of the American electorate with questionable results. Americans have typically understood themselves in terms of self-reliance and self-making. As individuals who can shoulder responsibility and strive and succeed. And politicians, especially presidential candidates, tend to appeal to voters' ideals and optimism about the future. A non-incumbent challenger may highlight what's gone wrong, but they also will almost certainly argue that things can - and will - be better. Obama does argue things can improve, but he doesn't exactly strike you as an optimist. He's a realist. There's no guarantee things will improve, Obama says. What is guaranteed is that he will try to mobilize (and expand) the state to alleviate your suffering. Not exactly "build a bridge to the 21st-century," is it?
As one watches the show, one has a growing sense of cognitive dissonance. The characters may be miserable, but they all have nice homes, drive good cars, have happy families, and certainly aren't starving. Surely most viewers noticed this as well. I wonder whether Obama's strategy - always look on the bad side - may go too far.
