Never mind the faux outrage, the excerpts of David Maraniss’ book are fascinating. Obama’s girlfriends from the 1980’s seem like really intelligent and interesting people. The journal entries are of a much higher caliber than anything I would ever do. The psychological insights into the president are more clear than you might expect. The whole thing is so weird to me.
It’s the setting, Manhattan in the 1980s. That’s a setting I know so well. I know how things looked, how they smelled. I know what was in the news. That’s when I learned what a city was. That old dirty crime-ridden New York? So many of us flitted in and out of that scene, doing this and that, drinking underage, going to clubs, scoring dime bags in Washington Square Park, working lousy dead-end corporate-starter jobs. My uncle was teaching at Columbia then. He’s still teaching there. My Dad worked there.
Meanwhile, back home in Princeton, Michelle Robinson was walking past me on Prospect Avenue, hanging at the Third World Center. Her brother was starring on Petey Carill’s awesome basketball team. She’s just a shadow in these journals. She’s the strong black woman at the beginning and end of his relationship with Genevieve Cook:
Early in Barack’s relationship with Genevieve, he had told her about “his adolescent image of the perfect ideal woman” and how he had searched for her “at the expense of hooking up with available girls.” Who was this ideal woman? Genevieve conjured her in her mind, and it was someone other than herself. She wrote, “I can’t help thinking that what he would really want, be powerfully drawn to, was a woman, very strong, very upright, a fighter, a laugher, well-experienced—a black woman I keep seeing her as.”
Thursday, May 23, 1985
Barack leaving my life—at least as far as being lovers goes. In the same way that the relationship was founded on calculated boundaries and carefully, rationally considered developments, it seems to be ending along coolly considered lines. I read back over the past year in my journals, and see and feel several themes in it all … how from the beginning what I have been most concerned with has been my sense of Barack’s withholding the kind of emotional involvement I was seeking. I guess I hoped time would change things and he’d let go and “fall in love” with me. Now, at this point, I’m left wondering 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.Hard to say, as obviously I was not the person that brought infatuation. (That lithe, bubbly, strong black lady is waiting somewhere!)
Genevieve turned out to be right. Very, very right.
The threads of the Obamas’ lives swirl around mine like this, which is probably why I was drawn to him in the first place. Princeton, Columbia, New York in the 1980’s, community organizing, Project Vote…
So many people say that they don’t know who Obama is; that he’s exotic or rootless. I don’t feel that way at all. I grew up with kids from Iran and Ethiopia and Nigeria and the Philippines and all kinds of other places. People I knew traveled all the time, to Europe, to Japan, to China, to Cambodia, to Africa. I even knew the pretentious Ivy League college party scene, and the pretentious living room faculty cocktail party scene, and the Upper West Side post-modernist obsessed drinking party scene. What did Obama think of T.S. Eliot?
I haven’t read “The Waste Land” for a year, and I never did bother to check all the footnotes. But I will hazard these statements—Eliot contains the same ecstatic vision which runs from Münzer to Yeats. However, he retains a grounding in the social reality/order of his time. Facing what he perceives as a choice between ecstatic chaos and lifeless mechanistic order, he accedes to maintaining a separation of asexual purity and brutal sexual reality. And he wears a stoical face before this. Read his essay on Tradition and the Individual Talent, as well as Four Quartets, when he’s less concerned with depicting moribund Europe, to catch a sense of what I speak. Remember how I said there’s a certain kind of conservatism which I respect more than bourgeois liberalism—Eliot is of this type. Of course, the dichotomy he maintains is reactionary, but it’s due to a deep fatalism, not ignorance. (Counter him with Yeats or Pound, who, arising from the same milieu, opted to support Hitler and Mussolini.) And this fatalism is born out of the relation between fertility and death, which I touched on in my last letter—life feeds on itself. A fatalism I share with the western tradition at times. You seem surprised at Eliot’s irreconcilable ambivalence; don’t you share this ambivalence yourself, Alex?
Unfortunately, I am familiar with that kind of talk even when people aren’t trying to impress a girl. It’s called being competitively intelligent in a world of sickeningly intelligent people. That’s what I grew up with and nothing could seem more American to me until I stepped out of that milieu and into our more normal communities. I quickly learned that my experience wasn’t typical at all. It was as American as apple pie, but it wasn’t typical.
Yet, of all the people I’ve known and seen come out of that elite culture, no one has seemed to me better-suited to be president than Barack Obama.
“no one has seemed to me better-suited to be president than Barack Obama.” In my nearly 59 years, I feel the same way. Not perfect, makes me crazy sometimes, but remarkably right for the job. I simply can’t imagine anyone else doing better these past 3 years.
It’s mainly temperament, although it helped that he worked his way up into it and didn’t land there merely by obeying the First Law of Motion.
It’s called being competitively intelligent in a world of sickeningly intelligent people.
How many of them are truly intelligent? And if they really are, aren’t you admitting that a lot of our elites are truly evil people?
Peacocks show off their feathers. Ivy League undergrads show off their intelligence. One of the few ways to avoid this game of oneupmanship is to stay comically inebriated or stoned 100% of the time. In that case, you can settle for being ironic.
It only really comes off as pretentious to people who don’t want to or cannot play the game. But within the circle, the competition is enlivening. It’s pure exercise for the mind. The brain is like a musical instrument, and very high IQ folks can use it in a way as unfamiliar to most folks as the way John Coltrane used a saxophone or Jimi Hendrix a guitar.
Good and evil has nothing to do with it. More pertinent is a certain sense of privilege that goes along with a huge does of obliviousness. There’s the familiar “born on third base and thought they hit a triple” element, although most Ivy Leaguers are at least brilliant on some level. This is much truer today than it was in the 1960’s when legacies like George W. Bush were quite common. No one is stupid, you can be sure of that. But empathy can be severely lacking in many cases. And the value system is based on such a high level of competitiveness that it is distorted and brings with it many unfortunate traits.
One reason I complained about Obama hiring so heavily from the top 20 schools in the country is because i know these people so well and I know their shortcomings and blind spots. There are other kinds if intelligence than raw brain power. This administration is all raw brain power, and that’s one of its weaknesses.
One of my first thoughts reading these passages was trying to imagine George W. Bush, in a similar milieu at Yale, writing anything comparable. After I had stopped laughing so convulsively that I couldn’t breathe, it made me thankful that, whatever disagreements I have with Obama on his choices (and there’s quite a few), that someone with his temperament and intelligence holds the most powerful job in the world. We can, and have, done so much worse.
I had those thoughts, too.
See: “…stay comically inebriated or stoned 100% of the time. In that case, you can settle for being ironic. “
You must meet other Ivy types than I do. Granted, some of them are brilliant. The general run is merely pretentious, in my experience. Some are very good at throwing out impressive verbiage, but more often than not there’s little actual thought behind it. The late Wm Buckley comes to mind as the archetype. I read half of his books in a more naive period, and can’t remember ever seeing an original thought or interesting synthesis.
If we want our culture to grow, it’s past time to just get over the mythology that “competitiveness” is either useful or especially admirable.
It’s hard to respond to your comment without risking making assumptions about you or sounding like I’m insulting your intelligence. I don’t want to do either of those things, at all.
Think of the typical modern-day Ivy Leaguer as someone who just comes from a totally different culture that has alien values. When they step out of that culture, they have difficulty functioning and communicating with other people. Their ordinary habits of human interaction simply fail to elicit the expected responses. They are not rewarded for wit, nor for ostentatious displays of useless knowledge. No one marvels at their skills. No one cedes the field to their articulateness. People want to make the client happy and meet their deadlines, and they don’t appreciate being talked down to by people who haven’t even learned the job.
At the same time, they have to learn your values. They have to learn to value what you value. If they don’t, they are going to come off as arrogant, they’re probably going to be incompetent, and they are going to wonder why their superior intelligence isn’t respected and why everyone insists on being so stupid.
This is obviously a caricature. But it’s not an exaggeration. They aren’t actually anywhere near as arrogant as they can seem. It’s just that they got where they are by being smart. All their rewards, socially, academically, and career-wise came from being smart. They found boyfriends and girlfriends because they were smart. And they have to learn to operate in a system where being the smartest isn’t as valued as being the most experienced or the best team player or the most imaginative or the best with clients. And like anyone else, when they suddenly start to fail, they blame themselves last.
THink of them as an anthropological study and you will hate them less.
One of my teachers, a very brilliant and learned man who became acting dean for a while where I was studying, described ppl in administration who did not think like academics as “thinking like bankers” (he came from a banking family). He said, “they want to solve a problem and move on, whereas I like to pose the same question to my seminar every week”. As a result of “posing the same question to his seminar every week” he trained some very impressive scholars and wrote a profound treatise pertaining to gay rights and equality that took decades of thought to produce.
Yes. When you are inside the circle, it is wonderful. There’s nothing like the stimulus of great intelligences feeding off each other. Athletes might call it “being in the zone.” Musicians have their own terms for it. But take a guy like Albert Pujols and put him in the middle of a Princeton faculty dinner party and he’s not going to know how to act or what to say. Some of what he says might sound pretty stupid and uninformed and he might alienate people unintentionally. Half the people there won’t even know who the fuck he is or care one bit about how many home runs he’s hit. Being a great physical specimen won’t impress anyone too greatly.
The world of the mind is fantastic. But it’s of limited use in everyday life outside the academy. That’s true in business and it’s true in politics. It’s true anywhere where real persuasion is required.
Go talk to some Ivy League faculty members about public opinion on climate change. Or religion. Or evolution. With the exception of the people who study public opinion, they are mystified about why science and logic aren’t convincing.
Paul Krugman has this problem, badly, IMHO. He’s just so sure that when you’re right, you win. He has no idea what to do when people refuse to be convinced by truth and reason. And what’s funny about that is that one venue where such things happen all the time is… Faculty meetings.
Yes, I understand completely. And I’m a pragmatist as far as participation in public life goes. But the intellectual life, scholarship and academics is a principal infrastructure of a self critical society. It’s just as important as roads and bridges, and it saddens me to see it trashed in the thread here (not your post but some of the comments). We wouldn’t even be discussing human rights if we didn’t have the legacy of generations of profound thinking, questioning and discussion. Can’t tell you how impressed I am that Obama wrote what you quoted. Imagine, a president who’s not afraid to think, not afraid of the world’s intellectual legacy. As far as the academics who talk a good game but don’t really have anything to say except self promotion – and we all know some like that – are we just going to have Mozart? or Dante? no, there must be a culture of music, of poetry, whatever. their colleagues, some of whom are self promoting whatevers.
As I’m sure you know, there are extant a mere handful of Classical Athenian plays from just a few dramatists. But Sophocles, Euripides and Aeschylus wrote plays every year for decades for the Athenian contests as did scores of other dramatists whose work did not survive. But no culture is going to produce only Aeschylus, Euripides and Sophocles there were plenty of whose work was not in their league.
Boo, that’s a very strange, almost bizarre reply. I don’t “hate” Ivy Leaguers. I just disagree, based on admittedly limited personal experience, that they are by definition possessed of “superior intelligence”. I’ve known people from the Ivies, from the state schools, from small colleges. In every case, the range of perceived intelligence ran the gamut, as did social adjustment. The only near-constant has been the need, among the liberal arts/science types, at least, to produce sophomoric “wisdom” of the kind quoted above.
How you can witness the spectacle of the likes of Bushes, none of whom blind anyone with their intelligence, nor appear to have problems adjusting their intellectual hothouse training to get on with the simple folk. Nor is it obvious that Donald Trump, for example, found his girlfriends because he, or they, were smart.
I have no particular quarrel with Ivy survivors. My problem is with those who keep reinforcing the mythology that they represent some “elite”. But I can see you’re in love, so carry on with with your faith, by all means.
It’s weird that you say that I’m in love.
Very weird.
We used to take these aptitude tests in elementary school. I think they were Iowa aptitude tests. In any case, the scores would come back in two forms. You would be given a national score and a score for your school district. I would get a 99% aptitude score across the board on every test for the national. And I can remember being confused and depressed and demoralized to see a 83% score on spelling in my district. It wasn’t unusual for me to score below 90% in my district. I can’t tell you my scores from memory, only the way I experienced them.
I had a chance to go to a school in New England for one year during high school. While i was there I was humiliated by the headmaster who made it a point to tell a large group of my co-students that I had the highest IQ in the school. I guess he had looked through the files. He pointed it out not to praise me, but to make the other students dislike me. I was shocked to hear him say it because where I came from, my IQ was probably in that 83% range. No matter how hard I tried in school, I was never going to be the best, or even close to the best.
I am a very competitive person, and that was not something I could deal with easily. Sometimes, if I didn’t think I could win, I would convince myself that it was stupid to try.
It’s hard to explain, but growing up in an environment of such hyper intelligence really defined who I was and it created a lot of problems for me.
It took me a long time to unlearn the values I was instilled with and accept who I am, and that I’m not the best at math or the most well-read or the wittiest or the best writer, and that that’s okay.
To say that I love that environment is completely inaccurate. There are many things about it that I love. And if I could have been the best, maybe I never would have questioned it. Or, maybe I would have. David Foster Wallace was about the smartest guy that culture ever produced and he couldn’t ever be satisfied that he’d won, that he had value. He had to kill himself to make it stop.
I had to go work with the neediest people in the country to make it stop. I had to find a totally different value structure.
And, yes, of course there are brilliant people everywhere in every kind of school. What Ivy culture brings is such a high concentration of high intelligence that it creates its own microculture, with totally unique and alien systems of rewards and status.
What I would love to see one day is a decent article about Obama’s development in Hawaii. Hawaii has had some unique social values compared to the mainland and people socialized under different rules. Harmony was more highly valued than in most of the US.
Good post Booman. Thanks.
Well!
I guess I can’t depend on your support for a run in 2024.
Depends.
You’re a funny one to pop in here.
Remember our debate about the word “ubiquitous” and my rants against polysyllabicism?
Yeah, that was about 18 years ago now. I was half-kidding back then, but I was half-serious, too.
Sitting around at a table of really bright people in the Annex having a conversation that was totally over most of their heads, it just occurred to me that we were wanking on an almost supernatural level.
I know why David Foster Wallace killed himself. He couldn’t make it stop.
I decided to write on a 11th-grade level as a conscious choice. I’m not out to impress anyone or win any contests or bully people through a facade of superior knowledge or vocabulary. You can’t convince anyone of anything that matters by using words that people don’t understand.
As you might imagine, I did not like Hegel.
.
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."
Precisely.
AG
Second-rate intellectual drivel. Weak syntax and not a shred of anything real in it. All derivative. Eng. Lit 101 “B”-level work at an Ivy League level school.
Maybe Dr. Adolph Reed Jr. had a point. “Vacuous” is as good a word as any to describe this kind of shit.
AG
P.S. And alla you fawning over his utter rightness for the job. At least you are correct there. As it stands now the U.S. presidency is a perfect job for someone with a good, strong “B” level intelligence and boundless ambition. Someone who is either/and/or:
1-Not smart enough to start dealing with truly hard questions like personal integrity, the ongoing guilt of this empire or the inevitable results of MLK Jr.s observation that “The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.”
2-So driven bv personal ambition and a virulent form of narcissism that he is unable to deal with complex questions of right, wrong and the inevitable, karmic consequence of certain actions no matter how “intelligent” he might be. Not as long as they threaten his own self-image and ambition.
My vote?
Number 2.
Barack O’Caesar
Bet on it.
We’re gonna need a Shakespeare to sort this all out once it truly unfolds.
Bet on that as well.
Obama’s youthful expression probably embarrasses him a bit if he reads it now, but seems a level above most of the sophomoric drivel we get from self-promoting intellectuals in their college years. At least it makes sense, shows discipline, and gets the references right, while at the same time releasing a faint odor of working more to impress than to enlighten.
More and more, Obama seems to me one of a kind. He drives me nuts with opportunities missed, killer politics gelded, and the complexities of policy glossed over. Sometimes I think I’ll vote for the vegetarian candidate or something, but am pulled short when I step back and realize again that this is probably the most thoughtful, intelligent president in my lifetime. He has the potential to be among our greatest leaders — which is what’s made him so maddening so far.
It wasn’t entirely obvious when he was a candidate, but I’d amend your last sentence, Boo. No one to come out of American culture has seemed better suited to be president.
Pretty good trick for a Kenyan.
That’s snark, sure, but it points up another strength of Obama: in a country where a significant chunk of the population resents things like composure and obvious intelligence – and another, overlapping chunk also resents non-whites – Obama’s rise is astonishing. As was his ability, in 2008, to convince both Wall Street and anti-corporate progressives that he was their guy. Without judging his policies, purely on the basis of political accomplishment he’s remarkably gifted, no more so than when he’s marketing himself (as all politicians do).
this is a good post, BooMan
thanks
Great Work
Great Work
I saw this back in 08. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bnhmByYxEIo
It shows humility, leadership, authenticity, and a willingness to show vulnerability.
All great attributes of great leaders.