The decline of my Obamamania?

In recent weeks, I find myself unable to follow the US presidential race with any enthusiasm. Partly, this is a result of such stunts as an Obama visit to Israel and a McCain visit to a supermarket- both of which strike me as equally empty, political tricks. This is in marked contrast to the first half of the year, where every primary day or Obama speech meant days if not weeks of anticipation for me. The times I waited for most expectantly were Obama speeches, rhetorical and oratorial feats decried (falsely) as substanceless by his detractors, but in truth, the most inspiring speeches delivered by any American politician in several generations. It isn't only that Senator Obama gives off a cleaner smell than any other politician of left or right. It was his unique commitment to unity and humanism that was so evident in his speeches, and so different from the politics of victimhood and enmity that have dominated Western elections for so many years. To my mind, his finest moment was not his speech on race in Philadelphia (although that was a magnificently reasoned and restrained oration) but rather his call for black fathers to pull up their socks; what a change from the blame-the-whites-for-everything approach of Jackson and Sharpton! That if anything proved that Barack Obama takes risks.

I'm not alone, however, in feeling less excited, and even somewhat bored, of Senator Obama these days. To many young people, especially those on the far left, Obama has lost some of his lustre because of his supposed "flip-flops", changes in ideological position while on the campaign trail. Apart from a principled opposition to dogmatism, the other reason I strongly disagree with this line of thinking is that Obama's ideological evolution has, on most issues, been a move from populist pandering to more logical, rational approaches. On Iraq, for instance, his refusal to commit to a very early withdrawal is certainly preferable to his earlier Clintonesque desire for a withdrawal possibly in 2009. Iraq is a mess the US had no business creating, but to withdraw now would be lunacy. On free trade, his flip-flops betray only the fact that he is a trade centrist posing as a protectionist, which I suppose is something he has to do. His "impeccably centrist" (to quote The Economist) team of economic advisers are a reassuring change from the anti-NAFTA rhetoric that both he and Senator Clinton were spouting a few months ago. Equally, he is less and less an opponent of India, whether on outsourcing or the nuclear deal.

I admit to being somewhat disappointed that Senator Obama is just as beholden to the Israel lobby as every other presidential candidate. I firmly believe that he is wrong, that the keys to the White House do not rest with the American Israel Public Affairs Committee- yet this appears to be the prevailing wisdom across party lines. But more generally, his much-criticized move to the centre, along with his increasingly faith-based rhetoric, can be accepted as legitimate political moves. An election win will mean that these small compromises were worth it.

Why then, am I no longer enthused by Senator Obama? Partly because Indian politics is suddenly so complex and unpredictable (more on this in the days to come) that Obama vs. McCain- where such non-stories as Phil Gramm now make the front pages- is sleepy by comparison. But more importantly, because the US election, so dependent on television, is suffering at last from overexposure. Gore Vidal remarked in deep gloom in the early 1980s that the only thing a President would have to be in the future was good for television- he was referring of course to President Reagan. Senator Obama is without question good for television, although one can't say the same for his opponent. And by and large, television has been good for Senator Obama. It has broadcast his oratorial skills, his charm and integrity to the world, and news channels other than those on the right have broadly covered him favourably. But now, almost four years after he first became a television star, in his Senate election against Alan Keyes, that Barack Obama appears just a little stale, just a little too familiar, a man who for the first time is ghar ki murgi, rather than a radical new force. If this feeling that I get is shared by many others, it will be something of a tragedy, because Senator Obama is potentially the greatest US president since FDR. Fortunately, Obama is still the comfortable favourite to win, and this tragedy is unlikely. But I suspect that I need a month without Obama in order to once again be truly enthused.

Singing in non sequiturs

Whoever you are, if you're reading this, the odds are that you're familiar, perhaps too much so, with the song "Happy Together", written by the professional songwriters Gary Bonner and Alan Gordon and first performed by The Turtles, on the album of the same name in 1967. "Happy Together" raced to the top of the charts, pushing The Beatles' indelible "Penny Lane" off the top spot, and remains a popular song to this day, as evidenced by recent up-tempo covers by the likes of Simple Plan and two separate covers on the last season of American Idol alone.

Anyway, I was listening somewhat idly to The Turtles' version of "Happy Together" the other night when, suddenly, this line struck me:

"The only one for me is you, and you for me"

This is one of the most memorable and important lines in the song, coming as it does immediately before the refrain, "so happy together!". At first glance the line appears to make complete sense; "it's me for you and you for me", isn't that what it's saying? Actually, as the line is written it makes no sense at all. The first half, "the only one for me is you" is fine, except that "the only one for me is you" means the EXACT same thing as "you for me". In both halves of the line, the singer is commenting on how his beloved is the only one for him. The "and" in the middle compounds the nonsense by pretending that the latter half of the line is an addition when it is in fact a clumsy repetition.

Those who think that modern songwriting is a travesty, that the 1960s were the glory days of pop music, need to listen a little more carefully. The Top Ten of the Billboard Chart has usually been populated with bilge, be it this sort of non sequitur lyricism or the more tasteless appeal of Katy Perry's pseudolesbian fantasies.

Readers' polls, mindless trolls

After a month's hiatus, Talking to Myself returns- to lament two "readers' polls" conducted by prominent websites that amount to little more than nonsense.

The first is a poll conducted by Cricinfo, the world's best sports website, purportedly to find the world's best commentators from a master list prepared by the website. There was nothing wrong with the pool that Cricinfo had selected- they included every internationally known commentator. I thought the poll interesting enough that I participated- they asked respondents to name their top five commentators, and also to vote for the "most entertaining", "most insightful" and "most unbiased" commentators. Finally, there was an "additional information" section, which I turned into virtually a blog post, containing a summary of my thoughts on cricket commentators in seven countries. I was somewhat put out, therefore, when the results of the poll were not accompanied by any excerpts from reader comments.

The results themselves bear little relation to reality. Harsha Bhogle and Ravi Shastri are, on any parameter, poor-to-mediocre commentators, but they were ranked one and two because a)they were Indian and b)they are somewhat superior to the execrable Gavaskar and Sivaramakrishnan. This was understandable, if inaccurate, but what was truly mind-boggling was Bhogle's rating as the second most unbiased commentator. Anyone who has ever listened to him do a match involving India knows that the man, quite apart from his other defects (such as verbosity and overexcitement), is hopelessly biased in favour of his home nation. Commentators are not supposed to be fans, but all Indian commentators break this rule and Bhogle is no exception.

For reference, my votes in the poll were as follows:
Top 5 Commentators:
1. Ian Chappell
2. Geoff Boycott
3. Barry Richards
4. Waqar Younis
5. Ian Bishop

Other commentators I like are Bob Willis, Michael Holding, Robin Jackman, Richie Benaud and Michael Atherton. I voted Ian Chappell as "Most Insightful", Geoff Boycott as "Most Entertaining" (an easy one) and Waqar Younis as "Most Unbiased", although the great fast bowler is unusually insightful as well, and hampered only by his poor command of English (which is why he is rarely popular with viewers).

The second poll deals with a somewhat more weighty subject than cricket commentary- a listing of the world's top 100 "public intellectuals", as chosen by the readers of Prospect and Foreign Policy magazines, once again from a master list. The poll received over 500,000 votes, and as the results reveal, block voting was used, with the result that the top ten are all Muslims. Yes, the logic of internet democracy means that Fethullah Gülen is the most important and influential public intellectual in the world today, far greater a figure than Amartya Sen (16), Mario Vargas Llosa (20), Vaclav Havel (26), or most ludicrously of all, Wole Soyinka (a scarcely believable 55). These lists are meaningless.

Right is the new left

Kevin Pietersen's unusual reverse-shots against New Zealand in the one-dayer at Chester-le-Street has kicked up quite the storm. The MCC, still the guardians of the laws (and thank god for that, imagine if Lalit Modi had the power to change the Laws of Cricket) are meeting tomorrow to discuss the legality of Pietersen's innovations. What Pietersen did was to alter his grip during the bowler's run-up and thus, effectively, switch to batting left-handed for that delivery. Being a man of remarkable strength and skill, not to mention I strongly suspect being ambidextrous, he was able to use this ploy with great success. Most observers, including the magnanimous opposing captain Daniel Vettori, marvelled at his audacity and ability. Pietersen himself claimed that "Reverse sweeps have been part of the game for however long," he said. "I am just fortunate that I can hit it a bit further. Everybody wants brand new ideas, new inventions and that's a new shot. Nobody has seen it before." This is bad history, as reverse-sweeps have traditionally always been played without changing grip and thus have been perfectly legal.

The most intelligent comments on the matter, with which I can have no disagreement, come from the cricket correspondent of The Guardian, the former England fast bowler Mike Selvey:

"Astounding and audacious strokes these may have been but there is something not quite right about their provenance. It poses a number of questions. Should the batsman be obliged to declare if he is playing right- or left-handed? The bowler has to. Vettori and the bowler would have wanted to change his field setting had he known of the reversal. Had Styris fired the ball away to the right of the stumps, would that have constituted a leg-side wide?"

I am certainly not against innovation- which has been central to the success of the game throughout its history, and has always attracted controversy that has usually died down. Over-arm bowling, for instance, attracted criticism and the anger of umpires when it was first used in the early 1860s- although I daresay Kevin Pietersen cannot claim to be the exponent of such a radical form of change. Ranji, the creator of the leg-glance, was accused of "never having played a Christian stroke in his life". Selvey's argument, however, is near irrefutable. The MCC experts who meet to discuss the issue will, I hope, realize that popular opinion is not as important as the fundamental laws of the game.

The fine art of bad timing

Only a few weeks ago I added to the bloggerati chorus of proclaiming Gordon Brown's slow death and his sure replacement in 2010 by the smarmy Blairesque David Cameron. When election day comes two years from now, the Tories are still overwhelmingly likely to win. But David Davis' bizarre resignation as an MP over the issue of detaining terror suspects for up to 42 days has, at least in the short term, hurt Cameron badly. Before Cameron's sudden and shocking rise at the 2005 Conservative Party Conference, and Davis' limp performance at the same conference, he was the hot favourite to replace Michael Howard as leader of the party (although it should be noted that many commentators had always contended that appointing Davis as leader would be foolish).

After Cameron won the 2005 contest by two to one, he appeased Davis by making him Shadow Home Secretary. Davis' current behaviour is a poor repayment for this generosity. His resignation has made the party look weak, and while he was undoubtedly right on this issue he has alienated the Sun-reading Thatcherite core of the party. What's more, it's a bit rich for a man who opposed the repeal of Section 28 (which allowed local government to promote homosexual relationships in schools) and is a proven social conservative to style himself as a libertarian. Davis allowed Gordon Brown to score his first press victory in months and the Tories' poll lead has slipped by seven points. With potentially two years left for the general election Cameron need not start panicking again. But he might well decide that to distance himself from such a master of bad timing would be a wise course.

Selling state secrets, like Guy Burgess or AQ Khan, is one thing. How about leaving secret government documents on a train?

Rules

A few near-certainties you can rely on in our uncertain world:

1. In a two-party election, the right-wing candidate will move to the left during the campaign, while the left-wing candidate will move to the right;

2. The winner of the Grammy for Album of the Year will finish outside the top ten in the Village Voice Pazz and Jop poll;

3. A winner of the Nobel Prize in Literature will see his/her works suffer an inexorable decline after the award;

4. Doctors will marry doctors;

5. Harbhajan Singh will continue to bowl over the wicket to left-handers and appeal loudly for LBW when the ball pitches a foot outside leg stump;

6. The BJP and the Democratic Party are protectionists in opposition and free-traders in office;

7. The further north you go, the worse the coffee gets;

8. The winner of the Nobel Prize in Economics will begin to regard himself/herself as an oracle on all matters of social science and ethics;

9. The DMK and AIADMK will win alternate elections in Tamil Nadu;

10. In Kerala, the Left and Congress ditto;

11. A Kannadiga man will have a moustache;

12. Private schools will have disproportionately many Malayali teachers and disproportionately few Muslim ones;

13. The best singer will not win American Idol;

14. Spain will start brilliantly at a football tournament and burn out just as spectacularly;

15. A descendant of Indira Gandhi will be either leader or heir to the throne of the Congress Party;

16. The above Gandhi will have transferred colleges at least once due to academic struggles;

17. With each coming day the headlines in The Times of India will get bigger and the articles shorter;

18. Preoccupied with change we forget the innumerable things which stay the same.