The Man Who Knew Too Much

Megan Daum's LA Times editorial on Obama hits a not uncommon theme--that the President may just be too smart for politics.  In fact, she worries he's starting to dumb himself down. Her examples:

[Obama's] subtle arguments have sounded, to some ears, like hedging. In response, the president has simplified his rhetoric. The nuances of the 2009 Cairo speech about relations between the U.S. and the Muslim world have given way to chest thumping over killing Osama bin Laden. The sophistication of the speech on race he delivered during the 2008 campaign has morphed into sentimental headline grabbers: "If I had a son, he'd look like Trayvon."

Really?  The Cairo speech might have been slightly different in its political stance, but it's the kind of policy statement presidents regularly make.  I don't see extra complexity (though, as in many political speeches, there's a fair amount of equivocation--is that the "nuance" Daum is talking about?).  Even worse was his speech on race, where he'd been backed into a corner on the issue and decided it was a good time to lecture us.

So why does Megan Daum, and many others, feel differently?  Well, don't you find when someone agrees with you they seem so much smarter? And if they then have trouble getting their message across--often because what they want to say is somewhat unpalatable to the public--then it must be because the ideas are too nuanced.

Daum bemoans Obama simplifying his rhetoric, but she should go back to his speeches as a candidate and in the early years of his term.  She'll find a politician, not a bumbling headmaster.  One who, like any other, spends a lot more time appealing to the heart than the head.  I've never seen any president get elected without doing so.  Megan may have a problem, but I think it's more with how democracy works than anything particular about Obama.