- Home
- About Us
- Contributors
- Departments
- Topics
- Back Issues
- Weekly Archives
- AmSpecBlog
- Subscribe
- Newsletter
- Advertise
- Donate
- Contact Us
- Daily Digest
- Templeton Essays
search
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
The Obama Watch
Obama as Hoover: The Importance of Storytelling
You may have heard of the late liberal historian Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. How about Charley Michelson?
As the Obama era takes shape, the roles of both Schlesinger and Michelson deserve attention. Particularly as Americans are seeing newsmagazines with cover stories comparing the President-elect who campaigned on a dour vision of scarcity with Franklin Roosevelt and Abraham Lincoln, a considerable leap to understate.
So who was Charley Michelson? There is no better source on Michelson than, yes, kindred soul Schlesinger himself. Already a Pulitzer Prize winner at 28 for writing The Age of Jackson, Schlesinger was a liberal's liberal. Over the course of his long career as academic, professional historian and Kennedy White House aide turned biographer -- and iconographer-- of both JFK and brother Robert, Schlesinger used three books in a series he called The Age of Roosevelt to glorify big government and its alleged marvels. The first, The Crisis of the Old Order, focused on Herbert Hoover, the stock market crash of 1929, and the subsequent arrival of the Great Depression. Schlesinger says this of Charley Michelson, who was hired as "a full-time publicity director" for the Democratic National Committee:
Schlesinger does admit that, well, Hoover had created his own image problems in the first place. But Charley Michelson took the ball and -- with considerable help from his fellow scribes who were in the tank for FDR (sound familiar?) -- the image of Herbert Hoover and capitalism were sturdily fixed in the minds of Americans.
It was Schlesinger himself who took the Michelson method to the next level. Using his academic background and writing skills, Professor Schlesinger became Charley Michelson-as-historian. The Age of Roosevelt series spent well over a thousand pages professionally crafting a portrait that so glorified the theory of Big Government while demonizing the politically hapless Hoover, the free market, Wall Street, and capitalism itself that any evidence to the contrary was received by future historians as unworthy of discussion, much less serious historical consideration. Not to mention as possible government policy. This approach of history as expanded political PR, reflecting not the facts but the author's personal liberal political bias as it effectively excluded governing alternatives, was so successful Schlesinger would later use the method to turn both JFK and brother Bobby into demi-gods, their policies as unquestioned successes.
The lesson for conservatives as the Obama crowd begins to run the government is unmistakable.
The power of narrative -- of repeatedly telling the true story of an Obama administration -- cannot be left to the Charley Michelsons and Arthur Schlesinger Jr.'s of our day. Using the bias and power of liberal journalists, academia and the media of the time, these two very different yet very similar men were key players in the initial phases of the sanctification of big government liberalism. Their successors are at work today in the same venues as well as the new outposts of technology. With the inaugural not even had, they are busy re-creating a freshman U.S. Senator and his announced political policies from the campaign as the new gold standard of American and global life.
What they are pushing here is not, to say the least, true.
And unlike the days when conservatives were effectively shut out of the media world, it will now become both possible and critical to meet the daily barrage of distracting falsehoods as well as the long term assaults on conservatism that are to be expected. Assaults on individual freedom, on capitalism itself, on the free-market and, in foreign affairs, the time-tested principle of peace through strength.
The narrative -- the storytelling of history -- cannot be left unchallenged in the hands of those who will use the potency of the presidential bully pulpit and the media to convince Americans that up is down, left is right, the earth is flat and gravity -- really, truly, cross-their-hearts -- simply doesn't exist.
The next four years of opposition for conservatives should and surely will summon forth an even more sharply formed talk radio, as well as creative uses of the Internet, video, television, film, books and simple written composition. One would hope that someone at Fox News is already at work on a new perspective of the Great Depression and Hoover and FDR, using smart folks like writers Amity Shlaes, Ben Stein and George Will, all of whom have been in print the last few days on the subject.
Unlike the economic chaos of the 1930s, the inevitable result of government meddling in the free market cannot be seen as a wonderful thing that is the Ultimate Solution. The narrative of today should and must reflect that story in a way Schlesinger and friends did not.
In years gone by, Charley Michelson and Schlesinger had the field to themselves. No more. Conservatives have a much different and well-researched story to tell. They have also learned the hard way about the power of narrative, the simple power of telling a story. Telling the truth.
This time the truth will be told. Not the fairy tales of big government economics or, for that matter, of the appeasement style policies that induced the disaster of Vietnam.
Obama as Lincoln? Obama as FDR?
How about Obama as Hoover? Now there's a real story.
Comments
Leave a Comment
Related Articles
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Breaking Fast With Bill Safire
- When the Party Was Over
- Advent Is Coming
Are you in a mob?
The Democrats say Obamacare opponents are a mob. Are they right?
Participating in this survey will subscribe you to the American Spectator email newsletter. You may unsubscribe at any time.
ADVERTISEMENT
Jason| 12.2.08 @ 7:08AM
Here we go again. The truth will be available, but will anyone be listening?
Bob| 12.2.08 @ 7:08AM
I can tell you are a political director and not an historian. You are making the case that Fox News is right and the other outlets are wrong. I watch all of the outlets and have actually reviewed the facts and can tell you that Fox News is the least accurate of any news channel. Yes, they do present counterbalancing points of view, but they also misuse facts more than any other channel including MSNBC -- especially with O'Reilly and Hannity. To their credit, Shep, Wallace, and Hume do use facts properly. Hume probably makes the best conservative case. I also respect a few of the right wing pundits like Krauthammer who is intellectually consistent. People like Kristol are a joke.
Yes, I agree that Hoover was overblamed and FDR was overcredited. But the fact is that Hoover deserved much of the blame and FDR should take some of the credit. Why? Much of the economy has to do with the psyche of the populace. If consumers do not purchase goods and services, the economy suffers. People felt better with FDR and that helped the economy as much as anything.
While it is far too early to judge Obama's effectiveness, it is entirely clear from the polls that Obama gives the same type of hope experienced with FDR and Bush the same type of blame associated with Hoover. If the economy turns around, and I believe it will in 2-3 years, then this goodwill will help Obama's legacy. It will surely be overblown like FDR's, but it is a factor.
You shouldn't underrate the bully pulpit aspect of the Presidency -- it had a great impact with FDR, Kennedy, and Reagan. Obama is a strong enough communicator that he has the chance to use it in the same way. We will see.
Daphne Kenward| 12.2.08 @ 7:24AM
Kristol is a member of the think tank, of the Neo-Con, I call them the Neo Nazis. He writes for the Times. He is one of the most sinnister person I know of in the modern world.
Fox News is not a News channel as such, it is a propaganda machine, to confuse the people turn facts into fiction, and fiction into facts.
O'Rilley does what he does, for money, like the rest of the masses who don't care about what they do, because it's all about one thing the end game, and that's money.
You cannot confuse a service for the good of the people with money, money is the root of all evil. If you want facts you have to look it up. Put some effort into it before it's too late, and it's too late for a lot of us.
stu.b.con| 12.2.08 @ 8:11AM
Daphne, Daphne are you serious?
Fox News is a propaganda machine? What does that make MSNBC or for that matter all of the drive by media? Please get some perspective.
Also you make a fatal error in your last paragraph. Money is NOT the root of all evil, the LOVE of money is...look it up, put some effort into it before it's too late for you.
Neo Nazi's??? pick up a copy of "Liberal Fascism" and actually read it, put some effort in to finding out an accurate history of the evolution of the fascists of the 20's and 30's before it's too late.
Sadly I must say, your post was one of the lamest I have read on this or any other normally intelligent forum.
George| 12.2.08 @ 8:57AM
You guys are missing the point. It's not about politics, it's about the power of narrative shaping culture.
Bob| 12.2.08 @ 9:40AM
George, it is actually the reverse. Those of you who are into conspiracy theories believe that narrative does shape culture. However, there is more evidence that culture shapes the narrative. Remember that we are a capitalist society. Most books, and certainly the entertainment news channels orient themselves to appeal to specific segments of the society and grow the viewer base. That's why neither Fox nor MSNBC are propaganda machines, they are simply slanting their stories for their viewer base. It's simply business.
Do you also believe that Santa really lives at the North Pole?
Mary| 12.2.08 @ 9:52AM
I think this is good advice.
The problem is the lack of talent in the party for this type of take down. Mike Judge might think of giving up his The Goode Family project for ABC, and redirect his talents to this type of subversive activity instead.
Obama's nature and lectern style might prove disadvantageous over the long haul.
Did you see his Thanksgiving address? You weren't sure whether to take the bridge or pour yourself another scotch. He's morose, and I can see him screwing up a free lunch in the joy and enthusiasm department. Morose was ok before elected and especially once the market collapsed, but if a large part of the problem has to do with confidence neither him nor his team represent bright and sunny spots.
Best thing the Republicans can do is to let Obama and the Democrats own what they create. If their plans produce brilliant results we will all gain, if they are in truth, polished dullards, that should not be obscured by motley half-measures on the part of Republicans.
Jeffrey Lord| 12.2.08 @ 11:08AM
Bob...
Fox is perpetually misrepresented. O'Reilly and Hannity & Colmes are opinion shows. Shep Smith,
Chris Wallace and Brit Hume anchor news shows. There is a considerable difference, just as there is (or should be) between an editorial page and the news papes of a paper. You have accuratewly noted that the latter three present the facts. You have innacurately assumed it is the job of the others to deliver hard news instead of opinion. That is incorrect.
Obama Yo Mama| 12.2.08 @ 11:45AM
Jeffrey: Bob never said that O'Reilly or Hannity/Colmes should deliver hard news. I am sure Bob knows these are "opinion" shows.
His point was that Bill O'Reilly and Hannity MISUSE facts. And that is wrong.
Ned| 12.2.08 @ 12:11PM
Had a little fun this morning with an old line.
What if there was a war and nobody came?
No soldiers. No generals. No heros.
No one to suffer. No one to die in pain.
Who would be killed? How many would lose their lives?
No violent murder for no cause.
No people to shoot with guns, to stab with knives.
Humans kill humans. Can you say that is sane?
Taking precious life. Emptiness now.
What if there was a war and nobody came.
What if there was a depression and nobody came?
No bums. No FDR. No Hoover.
No one to suffer. No one to take the blame.
Who would starve? How many would die,jumping from banks?
No soup lines or people riding trains.
Just life stamped out, bulldozed by shoppers like tanks.
Are they looking for goods or are they greedy insane?
Or is this just a grab for power, from the man of the hour?
What if there was a depression and nobody came.
Tim| 12.2.08 @ 12:36PM
Daphne Kenward:
If you are going to place blame and call people nazis, at least have the decency to do it the right way.
The national socialists (nazis) were of the left.
O'Reilly does not pretend to be anything but an opinion relayer.
The correct quote is: "the LOVE of money is the root of all evil."
Density, thy name is Daphne.
Thomas| 12.2.08 @ 12:37PM
Compare Obama to Hoover or FDR all that you want, but the result is terrifying. The Great Depression deepened under Hoover, but it remained no better under FDR until WWII. And then only because the U.S. managed to avoid active military participation for two and a half years as the economy surged in the "Arsenal of Democracy".
I suppose that we are fortunate, then, to have a repeat of a global conflict lurking just over the horizon; with a Russian-Islamic alliance building in the Mideast and Chinese military expansion still on course in the Orient. Happy days are here again.
Nick in Virginia| 12.2.08 @ 12:49PM
Bob,
I believe you are wrong about the "accuracy index" of Fox News. I have seen studies by professional organizations (not biased readers such as yourself) that show that MSNBC is by far the worst of the top 3 cable shows, and that CNN and Fox are just about equal. And that doesn't even take into account the Big 3 broadcast networks (of which CBS, I believe, is the big loser).
And most Fox bashers (like Daphne) listen (and sometimes, don't even listen, just "hear about") to Hannity and make their judgement about the entire network. What about liberals like Alan Colmes (who never has an original thought, reads directly off the Democratic Party talking points), Ellis Henican (a snotty weenie if I ever saw one; I'll bet he got beat up a lot as a kid), and Susan Estrich (Michael Dukakis' campaign manager - how does that make her an expert on anything but being a loser?).
Britt Hume is one of the top newsmen in the country. Fred Barnes is a great analyst, who (though undoubtedly conservative) truly tells it like it is, whether it praises or condems the Republicans. Brian Wilson, Jim Angle, Wendell Goler - these guys are all solid newsmen. You don't lose out on anything watching them as compared to ANY other network.
And compare the opinion journalists of Fox (O'Reilly - a traditionalist who is a social liberal but fiscal conservative; Hannity - clearly a right-wing conservative) with those of MSNBC (Olbermann & Maddow, both hard left, and Chris "I have orgasms when I hear 0bama speak" Matthews). At least O'Reilly and Hannity do significant amounts of factual research (whether they "misuse" the facts is a matter of opinion), while Olbermann and Maddow can't misuse facts, because they don't waste their time on such trivialities; they simply make fun of Bush (which is enough for the libs to award them the Pullitzer Prize), and Matthews - well, he is on his own planet somewhere (maybe Uranus - check your pronunciation).
Before Fox there was only one viewpoint on TV news (the classic is the TET Offensive coverage by Walter Cronkite, which was a military disaster for the NVA and the VC, which had the NVA Chief of Staff ready to sue for peace, but which Cronkite used as "proof" we were losing the war, and EVERYONE trusted Uncle Walter). Whether Fox is always correct or not isn't the issue, because NONE of the news networks are always correct. But before Fox there really wasn't anyone to point out that the other networks were not quite representing things as they were (i.e., they were lying).
My favorite example of how news can be tailored was the CBS coverage (or lack of coverage) of the Gary Condit - Chandra Levy case. Dan Rather (managing editor of CBS News at the time) did not want another Clinton/Lewinsky fiasco, and refused to let the story be broadcast. So if you were strictly a CBS News viewer, you would have gone for 72 days before you even heard that Levy was missing, that she was involved with Condit, etc. Rather was an example of how a major network can tailor the public's opinion, based on how they cover (or don't cover) a story.
Brian B| 12.2.08 @ 3:28PM
Tim,
I actually believe the correct quote is 'the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil'.
Obama yo mama,
When discussing the use of facts on an opinion program it's rather easy to characterize the opposing sides use of facts as a 'misuse', but that in itself is a matter of opinion and usually a rather biased one.
Bob| 12.2.08 @ 4:23PM
Nick in VA -- I'm one of those "schooled" people who actually check facts. Hannity, O'Reilly, Fox and Friends use specs of factual information and then blow it all out of proportion. Olberman does exactly the same thing but from the left. I see Maddow as naive, but fair. Both sides drive me absolutely crazy. Rush is just as bad.
Good analysis looks at the major factors affecting the issue and then adjudicates on those factors. Hume is especially good at this and he is refreshing. In my fact checking, I find that Fox misuses the information as much as MSNBC. CNN is usually decent and more news oriented. Virtually none of these channels gets economic analysis right because they interview legislators and party pundits -- none of whom understand economic principles.
I'm retired so I have the time to do fact checking. I can't give Fox a very high score. By the way, they are finally getting rid of Colmes. What would really be interesting is to replace Colmes with Lionel. Now Lionel vs. Hannity would be something I'd pay to see.
Clinton Herriott| 12.2.08 @ 5:55PM
I haven't watched Fox very much lately, but if in fact Colmes is leaving I may be able to watch it again. My blood pressure kept getting too high and I was honestly afraid I was going to have my final heart attack (not joking. I am disabled due to CHF and two heart attacks). His inablity to think for himself no matter what facts were presented were just too much to endure. PTL if he is leaving! "Fair and Balanced" is one thing, "Fair and 'Stupid (Closed-Minded)'" is another.
Alan Brooks| 12.2.08 @ 8:14PM
Daphne has a right to her opinions. But she should admit she hates Jews and hates Israel.
I've seen it so many times.
Daph has a right to hate Jews, and perhaps to deny it, but my dad in WWII also had a right to hate Nazis, the real ones.
Alan Brooks| 12.2.08 @ 8:37PM
...And it might be added, my dad KILLED Nazis as well.
Joseph| 12.2.08 @ 9:09PM
I had the good luck prior to this election to have deal in another country with a "smoke and mirrors" leader much like Obama. A lust and urgency for power, and capabilities as a leader that were all about image and no substance.
Already Obama the Messiah has shown that all the rhetoric was just that as he plants rehashed Clinton operators in the quest for his only goal - a second term in 2012. His operatives like Reich are already lowering expectations to cover up for future failings.
Just as the experiences I had with a similar leader expect the high blown rhetoric, the frantic pace in Congress and the Senate as bill after shoddily prepared bill is rushed through Congress to give the APPEARANCE of problem solving. Expect the trillions of dollars to be borrowed recklessly and spent foolishly to make it appear that the economy is working. The end result is that when Obama is finished with you all ,you will have a massive overdraft headache that will hamper proper governance for the next 30 years and cripple America as the world's leading economy.
From my experience I see the following: In 2012 with the cover up by Blizer and his cohorts at CNN, the NY Times and their ilk and with a Republican Party disorganized as the "get Palin" faction moves into gear the general public will realized that Obama is a failure, a charlatan and nothing but a construct in his head and by the media. Unfortunately without a well led opposition Obama will get the nod and it will take until 2016 (when he has to go anyway) before you all will realize how the smoke and mirrors got you. But it will be too late and the possibilities are there for the thuggish liberals to hand you a shot economy, a crippled military and another 9/11 that may have even happened before 2016.
Alan Brooks| 12.2.08 @ 11:29PM
"without a well led opposition".
Yeah.
I'm not angry, I'm sad.
You bozos haven't nominated a good prez candidate since 1984! Almost a quarter century.
Twenty years ago next month since the Gipper left office.
You wont nominate Palin even if you could, you'll nominate Jeb Bush in 2012... Neil Bush in 2016.
Alan Brooks| 12.3.08 @ 2:44AM
only person i'm angry at here is Daphne, she has no sympathy for Jews? Well, I have no sympathy for Palestinians--to HELL with them.
Daphne Kenward| 12.3.08 @ 11:34AM
Alan.
I have never said, I hate Jews. What I have said is people confuse Zionism, as being Jews, which they are not Jews at all.
I have sympathy for all people in the world who face injustice.
Ms. Know| 12.6.08 @ 9:57PM
What's so sad is the left-wing illuminati are not telling them that stories of the past will not work with the crisis and times of today.
Michael L. Hauschild| 12.10.08 @ 8:10AM
I was asked to attend a seminar on Iconography being offered by a professor on one of my degree committees, a feminist geographer. (Picture if you can an entire classroom full of Bobs and Daphnes.) It was an enlightenment for me; standardized responses were the the norm, much like here, but laced with body language. Iconography can be an incredible communicative device (or tool). Ignore the "Obama as Hoover" blather (no one is ever someone else). If anything is to be garnished from the article, look into the definition, derivation, and meaning of the term Iconography and the role it plays in the propaganda emanating from the beltway.
Pingback| 7.20.09 @ 12:11AM
Ed Driscoll » Mister, We’ve Got A Man Like Herbert Hoover Again! links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
links of london jewelry | 9.10.09 @ 11:10PM
Thanks for your information, i have read it, very good！