Get FREE NRO Newsletters

 

June 11 Issue  |  Subscribe  |  Renew


New on NRO . . .
Close
A Vineyard Too Far
People who rail against “fat cats” shouldn’t vacation with them.

By Victor Davis Hanson


Archive Latest RSS Send
Text  

By Sunday afternoon, the Gallup tracking poll showed a 17-point spread in the president’s approval rating — 38 percent approval to 55 percent disapproval. Such polls are fickle and can go up and down quickly, often depending on unwarranted and unfair perceptions and media hype, hinging on everything from hurricanes to killing bin Laden. That said, these recent abysmal numbers might suggest that for the first time, a considerable number of Americans are starting to be turned off not just by Barack Obama’s economic policies, but by Barack Obama himself. But why now?

Advertisement

The president’s latest Martha’s Vineyard vacation was a public-relations disaster, wholly unnecessary, and in part responsible for Obama’s most recent slide in the polls. Part of the problem was purely coincidental and no one’s fault: Who could have expected that while the president of the United States was resting on an exclusive private beach on a tony island on a calm August day, millions of Eastern Seaboarders around him would be engaged in a media-driven frenzy of emergency preparation and evacuation?

Yet most of the negative perception was the president’s own doing. For nearly three years, there has been something strange about the First Family’s ritzy getaway tastes. The annual Martha’s Vineyard rentals were bookended by First Family junkets to Vail, Costa del Sol, and Hawaii. The choice of venues spawned at least three problems for the president that have nothing to do with the First Family’s right, and indeed duty, to enjoy a little well-earned vacation time — or with the fact that other presidents have vacationed in nice places.

First, Obama’s fiery rhetoric (“fat-cat bankers,” “corporate jets,” “millionaires and billionaires,” “redistributive change,” “at a certain point you’ve made enough money,” etc.) has demonized the better off. Many successful liberal presidents do that, but they finesse the necessary fundraising and schmoozing with Wall Street zillionaires with tact and discretion. Bill Clinton was a past master at gluing a populist veneer atop his deep fascination with old money and hip celebrity. The Obamas are far clumsier in both their class-warfare boilerplate and their overt elite tastes, whose contradictions they apparently either miss or don’t much care about.

No doubt this August the presidential advisers, without a clue about life in Tulare or Des Moines, gave sycophantic pep talks to the Obamas not to listen to “right-wing talk radio” and just enjoy what they like to enjoy. Obama himself apparently is still confident that the media will always exempt his golfing in a way they never did Bush’s far less frequent putting. Michael Moore, after all, is not going to cut and paste a video clip of Obama on the fairway.

Yet some photos inevitably leaked out of the “redistributive change” statist at his $50,000-a-week rented estate, surrounded by “millionaires and billionaires” who could alone afford such rental prices, many of whom flew in on “corporate jets.” That disconnect appears to the American public as abjectly hypocritical. We all know that for the president to keep pushing his agenda of higher taxes, he will soon inevitably get back to bashing the rich. But we also assume that this time the public has seen the flip side of a one-eyed Jack and wonders, when the president hits up his Vineyard neighbors for campaign cash at his $20 million rented estate, whether he will first make sure that they are not “fat cats” and owners of “corporate jets.”

Even right-wing presidents, even in good times, know enough not to rub in too much the perks of being president. George W. Bush was pilloried for chain-sawing at “the ranch,” as if he were a counterfeit outdoorsman; but he still knew that his media critics suffered far more in his beloved nowheresville of Crawford than did he. The “Reagan Ranch” in the Santa Barbara Mountains was not really a ranch at all, but a rustic hovel, and the videos of Reagan in his early seventies, chopping wood amid burrs and stickers, with sweat spots under his arms, were not faked. In contrast, the elder Bush liked boating off his family estate in Maine — and was flayed for being a bit too happy with his seaside, preppie-sounding Kennebunkport mansion.

1   2   Next >
Text  

You Might Also Like...

Trinko: Will Fear Decide Texas Senate Race?

Symposium: Polling Life

Malkin: Obama’s Land of the LOST



COMMENTS   100

EXPAND  

   08/30/11 06:04

Barack Obama's "do as I say, not as I do" lifestyle is hard to ignore, especially when he's been so critical of the wealthy. He claims they don't pay their fair share. Does he pay his? The class warfare promoted by President Obama initially hit a cord with people looking for demons to blame, but as the country's economy gets worse, and along with it our personal financial situations, we realize the wealthy are not to blame for the unrealistic promises and out-of-control spending of our government.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
Algernon Wattismore
   08/30/11 06:48

I don't really see the contradiction here. He's not saying wealthy people are bad; he's saying that they should pay more taxes. How is that inconsistent with his taking a vacation to Martha's Vineyard?

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
Larry Brown
   08/30/11 13:44

No flowers for Algernon on this one!

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
Nel
   08/30/11 14:55

Remember the President calling for shared sacrifice?

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
Fear and Loathing In Las Vegas
   08/30/11 08:10

And in the end the Vineyard too far will not matter a bit to Obama's supporters.

About the only real effect this debacle will have is the college professor will just be seen as a smug college professor. You learn this from Kids in college; they identify far more with the minority "cool professor" than the working black man. Clarence Thomas strikes most people as one of those guys who would work insane hours at a law firm to earn his partnership. Ergo, deep down the staff respects him but who knows about the clients? Conversely, Obama is greasy cool and would be given a law partnership to fill a minority slot. Conversely, the clients would have the mistaken impression that Obama might actually be good at his job.

College professors are cool to their supporters. Obama is merely a college professor. And college professors, like the dreadful President Wilson, enjoy far more support than they deserve.

The second term of Barry O'bama is really going to be unpleasant.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   08/30/11 10:55

What second term??? This president is toast.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
Hooby
   08/30/11 15:51

"Lecturer" -- he held no professorial rank.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
Riderofrohan
   08/30/11 08:29

At some point actions have to speak louder than words to our friends across the way. The whole "walks like a duck" thing.

What else does the Pres need to do Dems, for you to recognize that he is just blowing smoke, and beleives he has you solidly in his pocket? Every low and middle class worker should be outraged at his lip service.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
Jon Bose
   08/30/11 08:38

Spot on, as usual, VDH. By the way, have you noted the price of arugula these days?

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   08/30/11 08:50

You underestimate the cult of celebrity that exists in this country. People magazine, US, and all the other celebrity mags are continuing to do very well because of their tawdry escapist qualities. Especially in a down economy. The Obamas are celebrities and Americans like to see their celebrities live it up. Eventually it will wear thin, but in the meantime, vacationing in ritzy places and rubbing shoulders with the elite is expected of them. People feel powerless to change their circumstances and so they turn to entertainment for cheap relief. The Obamas understand this and are playing to their true base: people who don't pay attention to politics but do pay attention to the mags in the checkout aisle.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
Derek Michael
   08/30/11 08:53

This hypocrisy is hurting Obama's personal image and it's rightfully deserved. It really shows our "Rock Star" president has no clue how to lead. Actions are louder than words Mr. President -- your rhetoric has got you to where you are and your actions will be what you are remembered for. Talk is cheap.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
Atlanta Native
   08/30/11 08:58

Mr. Hanson,

Sorry to play editor (because I think this article is spot on), but I think there are grammatical errors in a couple of your sentences. The noun and verb in each of these statements do not agree:

"That said, these recent abysmal numbers might suggest that for the first time, a considerable number of Americans is starting to be turned off..."

"Likewise, Obama (thanks to the two-decade tutelage of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright) does not talks like someone from Hawaii..."

I'm not an English major so I could be wrong.

Best Regards,
AN

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   08/30/11 10:46

"number" is singular, so "is" is appropriate, but it does sound a bit awkward.

The second looks like a typo.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   08/30/11 15:56

1.) A considerable number is plural
2.) We're talking about Americans, which is also plural
3.) NRO is an American publication, so using American English (as opposed to British slang) is appropriate.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
Steve Dag
   08/31/11 14:18

1.) A considerable number is SINGULAR in American English (notice it's "A" [as in singular] "number" [not pluralized]). Only in Britain do they consider words like "number," "crowd," "team," and the like to be plural.
2.) The word "Americans" is irrelevant as it acts as the object of the preposition (of [which isn't technically a preposition, but it behaves the same way]) and not the subject engaged via the predicate (is).
3.) You are correct, which is why your first two points are wrong.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
bkphoto
   08/30/11 16:26

I agree, ThinkingHousewife.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
Carolyn Barnett-Goldstein
   08/31/11 06:51

I, also, would add the fact that Obama and family are using our taxpayer monies for this and all the other trips, including most of the outrageously elaborate trips of Michelle, when so many people are trying to maintain, or lost their jobs, or live on hard earned pensions
and SS that are taxed. He - they- all fail to understand how galling it is.
I still want to know on what he is spending his annual $900 Billion /year in his Fund, which includes the increase of
$500 Billion he receives in his Presidential Discretionary Funds?

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   08/30/11 12:19

But then VDH was not President of the Harvard Law Review so he is certainly allowed a couple of grammatical slips in his otherwise spot-on piece. ;-)

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   08/30/11 09:03

Had the media not taken it upon itself, as the true artisans of groupthink, or perhaps gotten the high sign from whatever ultimate mogul sugar daddy, to relentlessly cover for Obama, this catastrophe could have been avoided (we'd have another Clinton catastrophe instead, probably). But I'll take the high road and blame George Bush for Obama. He and Rove thought it beneath them to fight back against years of slander and effectively left conservatives and Republicans without Bush as an ally in their alliance with Bush.

And the high-mindedness continued with the ex-president having no opinion about his successor's malice toward America. How convenient is that? Meanwhile, it's left to the terminally ill Dick Cheney to occasionally come out and state for the record that this man is dangerous.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
al2122
   08/30/11 09:31

you're exactly right about bush and rove. both did far more damage to the conservative brand than most democrats have done.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
Load More Comments

Add a Comment

Already Registered? Log In Here.


The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.


* Designates a required field.
© National Review Online 2012
All Rights Reserved.
Subscriptions
NR / Print
NR / Digital

Gift Subscriptions
NR / Print
NR / Digital
NR Apps
iPhone/iPad
Android

NRO Apps
iPhone
Support Us
Donate
Media Kit
Contact