David Brooks, "The ESPN Man": What David Doesn't Tell Us

Today, in a New York Times op-ed entitled "The ESPN Man" (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/15/opinion/brooks-the-espn-man.html), David Brooks ponders the question why Obama might still win in 2012 despite his unpopularity on the issues. Brooks begins by examining the substantive hurdles facing Obama:

• the economy is rotten and going nowhere;
• Obama has governed from the left, while the country has shifted right;
• Obamacare is extremely unpopular;
• Obama has lost support from independents, Catholics, Hispanics and young people.

Notwithstanding the above, Brooks claims that Obama has remained competitive for the following reasons:

• his popularity with single women and the "unchurched;"
• "a kind of ESPN masculinity: postfeminist in his values, but also thoroughly traditional in style."

Brooks concludes:

"I’d say that Obama is a slight underdog this year: the scuffling economy will grind away at voters. But his leadership style is keeping him afloat. He has defined a version of manliness that is postboomer in policy but preboomer in manners and reticence."

"Leadership style"? Yeah, right. The Procrastinator-in-Chief has pioneered a leadership style characterized by canned blather read from teleprompters and an inability to make the hard decisions, unless his hand is forced, as happened when Joe Biden compelled Obama to take a stand on gay marriage.

Sorry, David, but "leadership" is not keeping Obama afloat.

So, if Obama's "popularity" does not rest on leadership, why is he still in the race? Read Brooks's op-ed a second time. What is missing? Answer: Brooks only mentions Romney's lack of appeal once, toward the end of his opinion piece, parenthetically, and in passing:

"This year, [Obama] has adopted a Clinton 1996 type of campaign — strong partisan attacks combined with an emphasis on small and medium-sized policies — like the Buffett Rule and student loans — intended to display his common man values. As a result, Obama has come off aggressive, but also, (unlike Romney) classless and in touch with middle-
income groups."

In fact, 2012 proffers the American electorate with two extremely unappealing candidates, and voters, with clothespins affixed to their noses, will ultimately be forced to decide which of these two men smells less fetid.

Can Romney win? Yes, if he were to challenge the banks to go back to the boring business of banking, i.e. support the reinstatement of Glass-Steagall, and if he were to demand the reenactment of the Uptick Rule.

But we all know that isn't going to happen . . .