Jane Austen’s Obama
An interesting op-ed on New York Times.com today has Maureen Dowd comparing the 2008 presdiential race to Jane Austen’s Pride and Prejudice casting Obama as Darcy, McCain as Wickham, and the American people as Elizabeth Bennet. Check it out:
The odd thing is that Obama bears a distinct resemblance to the most cherished hero in chick-lit history. The senator is a modern incarnation of the clever, haughty, reserved and fastidious Mr. Darcy.
Like the leading man of Jane Austen and Bridget Jones, Obama can, as Austen wrote, draw “the attention of the room by his fine, tall person, handsome features, noble mien. …he was looked at with great admiration for about half the evening, till his manners gave a disgust which turned the tide of his popularity; for he was discovered to be proud, to be above his company, and above being pleased.”
The master of Pemberley “had yet to learn to be laught at,” and this sometimes caused “a deeper shade of hauteur” to “overspread his features.”
The New Hampshire debate incident in which Obama condescendingly said, “You’re likable enough, Hillary,” was reminiscent of that early scene in “Pride and Prejudice” when Darcy coldly refuses to dance with Elizabeth Bennet, noting, “She is tolerable; but not handsome enough to tempt me.”
Indeed, when Obama left a prayer to the Lord at the Western Wall in Jerusalem, a note that was snatched out and published, part of his plea was to “help me guard against pride.”
If Obama is Mr. Darcy, with “his pride, his abominable pride,” then America is Elizabeth Bennet, spirited, playful, democratic, financially strained, and caught up in certain prejudices. (McCain must be cast as Wickham, the rival for Elizabeth’s affections, the engaging military scamp who casts false aspersions on Darcy’s character.)
My wife Katie, resident Austen aficionado, perhaps showing her own political bias, thinks Obama is more a Willoughby from Sense and Sensability. Thoughts?
Clinton was Willoughby, not obama
Obama is Wickham and the American people are Lydia. Very sad.
EVERYbody with the right combination of sense and sensibility, and a complete set of Austen knows that Obama is Henry Tilney, never rattled, arch sense of humor, easily sees the ridiculous in a situation.
McCain is Sir Thomas Bertram, strong moral compass, sense of duty, but a bit unbending and sometimes too unwilling to take advice from the wrong people. E.g., Mrs. Norris = that TV preacher who turned out to be an embarrassment. I have forgotten his name momentarily.
But, yeah, poor Bill is Willoughby. Love ‘em, leave ‘em, deny it all, make excuses, feel bad for the rest of your life.
It would be easier to see all this if you required Obama and McCain to dress up in puffy shirts with cravats, like the delectable Mr. Firth you have pictured here.
Ooops, that should be “too WILLING” to take advice from the wrong people, i.e., Mrs. Norris = John Hagee.
For those who haven’t spurged on the 5-part bbc dvd staring the delectable Colin Firth, here’s more or less an abridged P & P: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3N2B_GVUf88&feature=related
One poor man’s view: Jane Austen should be treasured.
Instaanalysis by analogy should be disregarded.
Sorry.
Any chance we could get to some policy issues on this blog? You will please excuse me if I think THE WINDOW IS CLOSING FAST for this planet and a civil way of life and maybe we should be asking which character in this presidential drama will have more of a positive impact on the future, and why.
Ideal Breeding Material!!!???
Bob, of course Jane should be treasured. I re-read at least two Austens every year, so that every three years or so, I’ve read the entire oeuvre, and have done so for the past 30 years, which means I’ve read most of ‘em about 10 times. Maureen Dowd writes a lot of dopey stuff, including the bit posted by Eric, but isn’t it testimony to Jane’s powers that we see each other in her characters 200 years later?
Joe, I agree that there are many important issues at stake in this campaign, but if you can find a Catholic blog, including this one, that doesn’t ultimately devolve into “because of” and “despite” Democratic Party abortion plank arguments, let me know. I get my broader political issues fixes elsewhere.
Someone (Barbara) astutely noted that there isn’t going to be a secular savior on the abortion front. I think she’s right. We’ve had at least three pro-life prez’s since Roe, and it’s still in force. Change has come not from presidential leadership but from grass roots efforts at the state level.
I agree with Joe that this kind of nonsense is not helping our country make a logical decision on who is best to lead our country. A couple of recent happenings concerning the campaign were of course the ads. Obama is bringing race into the “race” by constantly bringing it up, stating that people think he is different etc. Another was the fact that Obama leads in California by 24 pts. But in the rest of the US, the race in tied. California accounts for 1/8 th of the US votes. Who will be deciding our next president? Anyone know anything about the most recent biography on Obama? It is by the “swiftboat” author.
Joe, what’s your pleasure? I’ll open a thread. Name it.
Joe – The “Ideal Breeding Material” thing just came with the picture. I didn’t even notice it until after I posted. I take no responsibilty.
Joe Petit –
Yes, policy discussions are necessary. But if we don’t also laugh sometimes, life ain’t worth continuing. After Katrina I came back to New Orleans when the city was still in catastrophe mode. Believe me, Stephen Colbert was a blessing. Besides, we can learn a lot about individuals, including politicians, by comparing them to Austen characters. She in her own way was a great reporter.
Joe – On the subject of policy, I appreciated your thoughtful comment on my education post and apologize for not responding to it. Sometimes the blogosphere moves too fast for me. Those interested in issues should check it out here: http://www.commonwealmagazine.org/blog/?p=2176
Quickly, the issue of housing, I must admit, I don’t understand well enough to comment on sufficiently. It certainly seems that the economic, educational, professional homogeneity of our communities combined with a local tax-based funding system for public schools only exacerbates inequalities. I certainly agree that ideas and innovation need to and will drive any improvements we see in our educational standing. Do you think one of the things standing in the way of that kind of change, though, is the pragmatism on which our public education system was founded? That is to say that our curriculum is focused on acquiring technical skills rather than developing critical thinking. For instance, it is a crime that most public schools offer no philosophy courses. How can ideas change the world if no one knows how to think them? This might be one of the problems Obama is facing right now – an electorate that simply just can’t follow him unless he is using the right (or left) buzz words.
Cathy: Thanks for the offer! I confess that upon reflection my policy issues are a tiny bit bigger than a single policy, but here goes:
1) Entrenched and deep inequality, not just economic, but racial as well. We are increasingly become a nation where the gap is widening greatly between the very wealthy and everyone else. Location of birth is more and more influencing one’s outcome in life, no matter how much effort one applies. My problem is not inequality as such, but rather what happens to a society marked by deep and persistent inequality.
Part of the difficulty on this one is that I am not sure we know how to think about it. The standard leftist response is still deeply influenced by Marx, who I have now decided is a nightmare for economic issues. The tell tale marxist sign is a labor theory of economic value, not a market theory of value, and I really think the labor theory is hopeless (who decides how much labor is worth?).
A second part of the difficulty is that we do not realize just how much the demographics are trending toward the situation getting even worse in the U.S. (I actually think it will get better globally). The boomers are starting to retire and they do not have nearly enough money invested on which to retire.
Finally, our debt economy is just going to take a long time to work its way out and the consequences for purchasing power are dismal for years to come.
2) Of course, the environment. What this has in common with inequality is the gloomy future. I have three children. I really worry about what kind of social and civic demands are going to be placed on them twenty years from now. I think the tipping point discussions are frightening, and yet I think those who want to act with urgency on this are still a small minority voice.
3) Here is one specific thread relevant to the presidential race: health care. Sometimes I wonder if everyone has decided that this debate is over because the Democrats are going to make universal coverage affordable and available in the next four years. But if McCain wins, I think we do not get far beyond the status quo, and health care will then remain one of the markers of entrenched inequality.
Ann: Yes, of course we need to laugh, and apologize for my grumpiness. It’s just that I am getting VERY tired of these oblique critiques of Obama. I am really stunned at the unwillingness, or inability of people to debate Obama on the issues. Instead its all a bunch of name calling, and vague touchy feely analysis.
Denise: Could you please support your claim that Obama is always talking about race. I simply must challenge it because I think it is dramatically false, and yet so many are getting away with saying it that lots of folks think it must be true.
Eric: I did not mean to imply that you were responsible for the IBM! I was just responding to its presence. As for the education question, I want to clear up one miscommunication. I was not so much interested in innovation in education as I was in the ability of our economy to generate innovative ideas, because it is ideas that have created more wealth than anything else (think filaments, microchips, cellphones, etc.). What we need are people well enough educated both to trade in great ideas and to think up new ones. I am not sure our schools are making this happen.
To bring this post full circle, I think that better investment in education could help a lot to close the inequality gap, but this investment would need to be deep and would need to take place at every level of education. But I think we will be wasting money if we try to invest it in drug, crime, and poverty marked neighborhoods. We have got to change the character of the neighborhoods before we can improve the education, not the other way around.
Joe–Often I have heard Obama at televised rallies refer to himself as the guy with the funny name, the guy that doesn’t look like any of the guys on our currency…etc. He did this during the primaries too. Why does he have to emphasize this? This last time, he told the audience that “they” are going to tell you that I have a funny name, that I’m a different race, he even said “they” are going to try to scare you. That is insinuating that the Republicans are racist, and maybe if Obama gets called on it we can hear more about some real issues, and whether he can help us out or not.
Denise: I guess we are listening to different rallies. I hear passing references to the topics you raise, with 99% of the discussion focusing on issues and ideas other than the ones that concern you. In other words, I think Obama is being ignored, not that he is ignoring the issues.
But the passing references do get tiresome and can cause people to tune out. I don’t look for him to say this anymore since it was so glaringly brought to his attention.
Your ideas on education are spot-on. Since I am a teacher I have some authority to speak to these issues. Throwing money at poor neighborhood schools will not erase the environment of the kids. McCain is more out of touch with the education issues than Obama. With all our technology, the right teacher for your child is still the best investment in your child’s education. The teacher can make a lot of difference in the school setting. In Eric’s earlier ed. post, I mentioned all the other ills of society that prevent learning. But in my heart, I believe the teacher still has enormous influence.
Cathy: Given your kind offer, I thought I might pass on the following in the off chance that you did not see it. Perhaps it requires its own thread:
http://www.comedycentral.com/colbertreport/videos.jhtml?videoId=177674
Eric, in reply to your education thoughts…critical thinking skills bring to mind Bloom’s taxonomy of questions which could enhance any HS course. All teachers are exhorted to use them in all courses taught using that hierarchy of questioning strategies. Philosophy could come to high schools…psychology is becoming a staple now at most high schools, especially in the senior year. The challenge would be helping kids interpret the ideas and helping them see the relevance of those ideas applied to today’s world. The courses would be in addition to our skills based education. However, I don’t think a lack of training is keeping the electorate from connecting with Obama. I think the electorate is connecting well with Obama. We have a very savvy population, more so than we give ourselves credit for, and it compares more favorably to the world’s population than we give it credit for–China still wants to emulate the West!
Eric, without doubting that your wife is a perceptive and insightful woman … Obama as Willoughby? Lothario and scoundrel? I’m sorry, I just don’t see it.
Personally, I liked Dowd’s column, and I think this is a good discussion. Completely agree with Jean re: the universality of Austen’s characters (although I’m certainly not as well-read in the Austen canon as she is) and think this is actually a good exercise. I think many voters make their voting decision on personality, comfort level – i.e. on things besides issues.
We could do the same with Shakespeare characaters. Obama as Hamlet, anyone? Or maybe MacDuff? McCain as Coriolanus? Hillary as Regan?
[...] while back, I posted a thread on Maureen Dowd’s reading of Obama through the lense of Jane Austen. Last week, Stephen Colbert, with the help of Harvard scholar Stephen Greenblatt, offered this [...]