Buying the president, but not in that Blagojevich kind of way

The crowd that gathered for President Obama's inauguration ceremonies was, as commentators have noted, a rainbow of ethnicities, ages and social groups, gathered for the common purpose of - well, that part isn't that clear. 'Witnessing history' is a common response; 'just to be there' justifies countless excursions like this one. What people came to see is emblematic of the power and problems facing Obama (and his entire family) - the attraction and strength of popular culture and media, our decidedly postmodern approach to politics and celebrity, and the gray area between the two. It's unnecessary to say that Obama is famous-for his job, his personality, and his ethnicity. The very image of him has become inspiring, and people around the world are familiar with that stylized red-and-blue poster, with Obama facing left, his head tilted upwards as if in hopeful thought. From the beginning, the Obama campaign placed a strong emphasis on the way in which it presented (and represented) its candidate. However, Obama would have been a compelling figure without the simple red, white and blue-striped logo or the expertly-produced campaign videos. What the campaign staff realized more than others in recent memory, however, is that when people want to wear their candidate, they must like him an awful lot, and to do this, you have to feel some deeper connection with a person you've never met.

Obama's campaign narrative touched the ideals that many consider to be inseparable from America, yet had been lost in the Bush years. Although John McCain attempted to weave 'the people' into his narrative with his summon of "my friends, " he failed to connect his own ideals and experience with that of the everyday individual. Obama's story was a collective call to consciousness, and people responded tenfold, albeit often for a profit of their own. There's merchandise attached to every campaign, but the explosion of it for Obama's was unprecedented. People weren't content with buying a pin and supporting the campaign - they needed to have Obama's face, family or name branded on their shirts, jackets, hats and scarves; to eat off plates with Obama's seal on it; to pour Obama hot sauce on their tacos. The President's face was reproduced in forests of magazines and newspapers, the 'commemorative' editions of which continue to be on sale. Tabloids like "People "regularly featured stories about the Obamas, and, as with any public official, no stone was left unturned in the media's virtual vetting of the family. Thus, in the postmodern world, consumerism is the main way to participate in history, not the experience of the election and inauguration itself. Buying things is a way to prove later that you were there - a photo or a memory isn't enough, but a mass-produced "I Witnessed History! " pin solidifies your place in the larger congratulatory sequence of events.

The curiosity surrounding the Obama family represents the position of information as a commodity, bought and traded with theoretical or actual funds. The months before the election seemed like a contest to see who could write the story with the most interesting facts about the Obamas, which could result in notoriety or disgust (but no publicity is bad publicity, right?). Like Brangelina selling pictures of their newborn children, the Obamas 'marketed' their lifestyle and values to America. We like our politicians' lives to be as transparent as possible, and we feel the need to know everything about them, from their college careers to their underwear preference. Honesty and openness are important parts of creating a positive image in every campaign, but it wasn't always that way. Plenty of presidents had unsavory features - Andrew Jackson regularly participated in duels and ethnic cleansing of Native Americans, Warren Harding drank during Prohibition and hid his mistresses in closets, and JFK lied about having Addison's disease. In the cross-cultural connectedness of our day and age, there would have been little recourse in hiding such scandalous facts. Even so, it's hard to tell whether the public would have been more or less amenable to such behavior, but using our current yardstick, I think our public would have reacted unfavorably with each situations.

Although Obama has been in politics for much of his adult career, he was not raised in a family accustomed to such constant attention. Perhaps, then, we are fascinated by the fact that despite their relative inexperience, the Obama family is facing this scrutiny and curiosity of celebrity with dignity and aplomb. The unsettling experience of having their image and life stories all over the media and on merchandise has not shaken their patience or stride. Save for a recent spat over dolls that resemble Malia and Sasha with the Bratz doll makers, there have been neither extreme infringements into the Obamas' personal lives nor lashing out by the first family.

The postmodern world has implications that reach beyond 'soft power' and into Obama's policy as well. The basis of economic expansion in the U.S. in the first half of the century rested on Henry Ford's assembly line. Using F.W. Taylor's theory of labor specialization, Ford expedited his manufacturing while creating company policies to promote a 'morally sound' worker. The popularity of the Fordist system spread, strengthening the U.S. economic base but also depersonalizing the entire craft process. While many of the jobs in the workforce today have more flexible aspects-consulting, working from home, and contracting labor outside of the company-the economy still rests on the hard labor of Fordist rigidity.

Obama's administration is facing the slippage of the system and those who abuse it at the expense of everyone involved. What do we do about the widening gap between the Fordist laborers and the white-collar executives, and what do we do when neither have a job? The extreme fallout from lack of oversight or planning for increased flexibility rests on the various camps within the administration to improve.

The Obama family and administration face obstacles that are not unique but are still intensified under the scrutinity of the world. What will be the implications of an African-American president in our postmodern age? In terms of public and foreign policy, where will this new image take us? Perhaps the steps taken in Obama's first hundred days will be a worthy barometer, but the larger picture will need more time in the darkroom.

Joswick is a Comparative Literature senior.