The "O" in Polemics

The other day I was reading an article in the New York Times that elaborated on the star-quality that Oprah Winfrey brings to the Obama campaign via her highly publicized endorsement of the Illinois Senator. An observer cited in the piece noted that Winfrey is a rarity in the entertainment world in that she represents the perfect embodiment of a "post-polemical" celebrity. The point was to underscore how controversial many Hollywood luminaries can be; think for instance of Mr. Clooney, Ms. O'Donnell, Mr. Gere, Mrs. Streisand, Ms. Fonda, etc. The list could go on. Would an nod from any of these celebs. be of any help to a particular candidate seeking to connect with the average American? In the '04 election, President Bush scored some potent points in Middle America by pointing out the dysfunctional, cultural bond of the 1960's between Sen. John Kerry and the Hollywood establishment. Obama, continued the observer, is the paragon of a "post-polemical politician." His campaign, centered on "The Audacity of Hope," has enraptured millions across the country, and he speaks quite eloquently of his goal to unite Republicans and Democrats into one America. So the tag team of Obama and Oprah are setting out to convince America that there's a different way of doing politics, we're not forever and hopelessly resigned to the status quo of an interminable polemical existence. But this strikes me as naive and chimerical. Everyone agrees that a certain decorum should characterize and accompany discussion of germane public policy. But we shouldn't confuse or equate genuine yet reasoned outrage and flummox regarding over-the-top remedies proposed by liberal democrats with boorish incivility. It is simply illusory to think that we can fashion our political reality into another segment on the Oprah Winfrey Show; that is, a boutiqueish, airy, feel-good therapy session.