So, David Maraniss of the Washington Post is out with a new Biography of Barack Obama.
What took him so long?
What took all of the mainstream media so long?
And why didn't we know more about Obama in 2008?
And why was it that the only information we seemed to be able to get was that which was provided in Obama's own words in his own carefully-crafted, pick-and-choose stories of his own life?
Why didn't the media objectively, thoroughly -- indeed, scrupulously -- examine this man's life, his background, his origins, his thoughts, his record, his experiences and his deeply-held beliefs?
Why?
Anyway, the excerpt from the Maraniss book that I've read paints a portrait of Obama at Columbia in the 1980s.
And the picture that we get is of a deeply introspective, hopelessly self-absorbed and ultimately calculatingly chilly young man; someone who clearly looked (and perhaps still looks) at others warily and avoids deep or lasting relationships.
One of Obama's gal pals at the time (Genevieve Cook) writes: "He is so wary, wary."
Maraniss says that during this period the underpinnings of Obama's character and his view of the world were being formed and these would emerge as the ideas and perceptions "that would become the key to understanding Obama the politician and the public figure."
The conclusion?
By his own admission, Obama approached adulthood "without a class, a structure or tradition."
He had no clear heritage, no definitive race, no religious grounding and no definitive, stable family background.
Maraniss says that for Obama this all led back to one place: the sense of being "a rootless outsider."
This is a man who was -- and who largely remains -- inexorably disconnected.
Yes, eventually Obama did decide to identify himself racially one way or the other. And, as we all know he decided to call himself African-American, even though he is biracial. But that seemed to be as much a practical decision as anything else.
Beyond that, Obama remained wary of any clear choices or commitments. Instead, according to Maraniss, he chose to see himself as someone who would "embrace something larger -- embrace it all."
Translation: Early on, Obama appears to have rejected notions of national, religious and ethnic identity and instead embraced a universalist/internationalist coda.
So he seemed just as comfortable saying he had been born in Indonesia (as an early biographical sketch stated) as saying he was born in America. It didn't seem to make that much difference to him because he didn't appear to be linked to America in the same way that most Americans are.
Maraniss says that Obama's decision to "absorb all [the world's] traditions" (and thus choose no one approach in particular) "would become the rationale for everything that followed."
Here's what Obama himself tells Maraniss:
"The only way my life makes sense is if, regardless of culture, race, religion, tribe, there is this commonality, these essential human truths and passions and hopes and moral precepts that are universal. . . . So that is the core of who I am."
Again, Obama remains an internationalist, a universalist.
There is clearly no measuring rod here; no judgement, no discriminating eye or ear or touch (in the best sense of the word) that would guide one in the right direction.
And note the self-centeredness: Obama's conclusions about the way of the world and its various mores, cultures, traditions, etc. all come back to him. It's all about what made (or makes) sense for him and for his life and his future and his goals.
It all starts with "the only way my life makes sense . . . "
Finally, what are "these essential human truths" that Obama refers to? One gets the sense that either they were never fully defined for him and/or the ones that were defined are not necessarily linked to our own American sense of these truths or linked even to the traditions of western civilization.
So when Obama defends the racist rantings and misguided preaching of Rev. Jeremiah Wright one minute and then tosses them aside the next, we have a better sense of where this approach comes from: To Obama, it's apparently all the same. One idea is as good as another, depending on what's right for me at any given time. Or, more simply: "Whatever . . . "
And that may be putting it kindly.
Because sometimes we're not sure that Obama's view of the world even goes so far as to embrace the shallow, ever-shifting moral relatively of modern liberalism.
Maraniss says that from his early, formative years Obama was obsessed with the notion of "choice" so that he might "resolve himself." But for Obama "choice" came to mean making as few choices as possible -- and then only when absolutely necessary and largely for practical (and often selfish) reasons.
Disconnected. Uncommitted. Ill-defined. Rootless. Often calculating. A grazer and a wanderer who seems to always return back to himself and his own perceived needs, desires and comforts.
This is the portrait that emerges of Barack Obama.
Is it any wonder that Genevieve Cook eventually concluded that her relationship with Obama must end in part because she "found him not to be 'enough,' [and] had chafed at his witheld-ness, his lack of spntaneity."
Cook saw much of this as "intrinsically part of his [Obama's] character" and identified it "as a sort of wound". And wisely, Cook wondered "if Barack's reserve, etc. is not just the time in his life, but, after all, emotional scarring that will make it difficult for him to get involved even after he's sorted his life through with age and experience."
So Cook's relationship with Obama came to an end.
And so too must ours.
No comments:
Post a Comment