One of the advantages of reading the Progressive Review
is not only that we bring you the news while there’s still time to do something
about it, but we also give you a head start on metaphors. For example Michael
Barone has just discovered the similarities between Barack Obama and Chauncy
Gardiner, which we pointed out four years ago:
Sam Smith, February 2007 - Perusing still more puerile
pandering in the cause of pacific politics by Barack Oblather, a vision
suddenly appeared. While, according to Google, a few others have already
experienced this transformational experience, it is still rare enough to
deserve mention.
The apparition was, without doubt, Chauncy Gardiner aka
Chance the gardener, the last manifestation of magnificent nothingness to
appear on the American political scene - albeit the fiction of Chance was
safely contained in the movie "Being There" while Obama is running
for election to a real White House.
Like Obama, no one knew where Chance had come from. Even the
CIA and FBI were unable to discover any information, with each concluding he is a clever cover-up by one of their own
agents.
In the final scene, reports Wikipedia, "Chance is seen
apparently walking across the surface of a lake while the most important movers
and shakers in the USA discuss running him for President. This scene continues
to generate discussion and controversy. Clearly we see Chance walking on water,
an act with a clear biblical reference. . . Is there a prosaic explanation,
such as hidden stepping-stones? Or is Chance the Savior (as so many of the
characters are looking for)? Does he truly possess some special grace, given
his simple innocence and simply being present to each moment without filters
and ideas? In his 2001 book, The Great Movies, Roger Ebert argues for the
latter interpretation. Another view is that the director (and the author) are
simply asking the audience: "How much more would you have believed? We've
been kidding you all along you know!"
The novel upon which the movie was based was written over
thirty years ago by Jerzy Kosinski. The Obama candidacy may elevate Kosinksi to
one of the most precient political authors of modern times. After all, what is
more Obamesque than the sort of phrase that got Chance started? - "In the garden, growth has its seasons.
First comes spring and summer, but then we have fall and winter. And then we
get spring and summer again."
Of course, there are differences between Obama and Chance.
Obama does have a modest political record and he is intelligent where Chance
was dense. But the dynamics of his unprecedented rise has painfully
similarities, especially in the willingness of the public and the media to turn
corny platitudes into evidence of a Second Coming.
At a time of economic disjunction, enormous military
failure, a national reputation on the skids and massive political corruption,
it is not hard to see why the unwary should be attracted to a candidate whose
name in Swahili means "one who is blessed."
This illusion is aided by a media that has, to a major
degree, given up covering facts in political campaigns in favor a
deconstruction of images, rhetoric and sensations. One of the results is what
candidates pretend to be becomes infinitely more important than what they
actually are.
Thus the media has all but ignored the long list of scandals
in Hillary Clinton's past in favor of such things as positive coverage of how
she cynically responds to mention of her husband's impeachment.
Obama is playing this same card for all its worth. He knows
full well that the presidency is not about the "audacity of hope" and
that, even if it were, he has no right to control its downloads as though he
was the CEO of the RIAA of optimism.
Obama is engaged in a sophisticated con with a long history
in this country. We normally associated it with evangelicals - the Elmer
Gantrys and the Jerry Falwells - but the scam can be used by liberals as well.
Born-again liberals can turn their backs on reality as well as any
conservative, finding solace in the comforting chicken soup of faith and hope.
The problem, of course, is that reality just keeps truckin' along and Americans
need far more than cliches to get them through the next few years.
While Obama is clearly being intellectually dishonest, this
is, to be sure, a lesser sin than the congenital variety practiced by his
leading opponent. The little available evidence suggests that Obama would more
likely be a disappointment than a disgrace. Still in the end it's a sad choice
between the venal and the vacuum.
