Obama’s main man will do whatever it takes to fell Republicans and conservatives. Where does his ruthlessness and drive come from?
Getting Barack Obama elected president would be “something you could really be proud of for the rest of your life,” said David Axelrod in January 2007, a month before the young Illinois senator proclaimed his candidacy. “It would really change politics in a positive way.”
Axelrod, already an established political consultant, had in front of him a potential huge star, a game changer—a political advent. He saw in Obama a boy wonder, at once compelling, winsome, engaging, historic, spiritual, a hope-filled, hope-emanating “agent of change.” The consultant had a candidate who could sail to the stars.
Axelrod scheduled the ascension for a Saturday in February, year of our Lord, 2007. The site was Springfield, Illinois, where another timeless figure, Abraham Lincoln, once held forth. The Anointed One bestrode the frozen ground before a mesmerized crowd of 15,000 liberal faithful. There, Barack Obama proceeded to invoke Lincoln a half dozen times in a speech guided by the hand of Axelrod, whose personal bookshelf is packed with Lincoln biographies. The assembled ached and awed as Obama offered them not mere leadership but transcendence, an overcoming of the “smallness of our politics,” of the “challenges” of the “generation,” and of the “failure of leadership” in America and on the planet.
Once the Obama ‘08 campaign was in full force, David Axelrod did not relent, ramping up the appeal, packaging and selling and heralding this Illinois marvel of singular historical magnificence: “I think he’s unique, and he offers something very special and important in these times,” said “the Ax” of Barack. “He can heal this country and move it forward in a way that perhaps no one else can.”
Obama could calm the waters, commanding them to be still. Americans need only rise up, grab his hand, walk, and be healed; they need only assent and accept the gift. Hope and change had come to rescue them. Here was a form of change unlike anything this nation had ever seen, a politics of meaning to make Hillary Clinton blush—and lose.
That was the message. Obama was the message. But there was a messenger behind the message.
All of it, right down to the very words “hope and change,” was David Axelrod’s doing. Axelrod was no mere spinster or political consultant. He was the architect and author of the Obama message. The Los Angeles Times, in one of many media puff-pieces on Axelrod, correctly called him the “keeper” of the sacred message in an image-based campaign in which “message is everything.” The New York Times dubbed him “Obama’s Narrator.”
He is imager of the image and narrator of the narrative. No single person is more responsible for making Barack Obama president. Come November 2008, it was nothing short of a stunning change for America, a genuinely historical feat the man known as Ax hopes to repeat in November 2012.
And it helps that the two—story-maker and story, composer and theme—think alike. “You know, he and I share a basic worldview,” Obama told the New York Times. “I trust his basic take on what the country should be and where we need to move toward—not just on specific policy but how politics should be able to draw on our best and not our worst.”
Axelrod agreed unhesitatingly, saying of Obama: “He’s not just a client. He’s a very good friend of mine. We share a worldview.”
That worldview began taking form and focus in New York a half century ago. There began three decades of varied leftist influences on Axelrod, from progressives to communists, that would redound all the way to the Oval Office—and with the direct effect of each influence not always clear.
David M. Axelrod was born February 22, 1955, to Myril Bennett Axelrod and Joseph Axelrod. Both were liberals, “your classic New York leftist Democrats,” says Axelrod. Politics was a family interest. Though Jewish, they seemed animated more by politics than synagogue. They loved politics. The father, a baseball aficionado and reportedly a decent player, became a psychologist. The mother had worked for an extremely political newspaper-the liberal New York daily, PM.
The story of PM is fascinating and revealing of the nuances and internecine warfare of the 1940s left. The founder of PM was Ralph McAllister Ingersoll. The newspaper ran from 1940 until 1948, funded by Chicago-based millionaire Marshall Field, pioneer of the department store chain. Field was a progressive dupe. The communist left could often count on Field as a sucker to fund their fronts and causes.
PM’s problem was the penetration by communists seeking to use the newspaper to advance the Stalinist line. Communists on the staff (most of them in the closet) pushed for a U.S. alliance with Uncle Joe; the liberals resisted. These tensions were visible to readers and were corrosive, ripping at PM’s seams. It was often hard to know which PM writer stood where. The self-proclaimed “liberals/progressives” ranged from Arthur Miller to I. F. Stone. Arthur Miller was surely at one point a small “c” communist who considered joining the Party, whereas I. F. Stone went further.
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
H/T to National Review Online