The Arc of Celebrity

If you burst onto the scene, they say, your celebrity will last about 15 months unless you amount to more than a flash in the pan.

Let’s see. It’s about 15 months since Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) burst onto the national scene as a breakout presidential candidate.

The trouble with celebrity, Charles Krauthammer warns, is that its currency is novelty. You can trump yesterday’s celebrity with today’s new phenomenon. It is becominig clear, with the Palin phenomenon, that the Obama phenomenon is becoming old and, well, yesterday.

It is clear, in retrospect, that the natural arc of Obama’s celebrity had started to decline by his Berlin speech earlier this summer. So his handlers decided to make his convention acceptance speech a more sober affair, full of facts and figures. Yet he had already committed to make this sober speech in a football stadium complete with faux-Greek temple.

The incongruity between text and context was apparent. Obama was trying to make himself ordinary — and serious — but could hardly remember how.



One star fades, another is born. The very next morning McCain picks Sarah Palin and a new celebrity is launched. And in the celebrity game, novelty is trump. With her narrative, her persona, her charisma carrying the McCain campaign to places it has never been and by all logic has no right to be, she’s pulling an Obama.

What we conservatives hope is that when Palin’s celebrity novelty cools off her real self will emerge and it will turn out to be the reality a gifted and serious politician.

Earlier this week she gave her first media interview, to Charlie Gibson of ABC News. “Mixed Reviews,” said the London Daily Telegraph. “[U]nfamiliar with the Bush Doctrine,” said the Wall Street Journal. On the other hand, the conservative blogosphere was full of comments about Charlie Gibson’s missteps.

Sooner or later, either before the election or after it, the American people are going to tumble to the fact that the Demcrats are not offering Change this year, but more of the same leavened with a new celebrity. How could they be offering change? Ninety percent of the government programs on the books today are their legacy, the legacy of a century of the welfare state.

Democrats are not yet ready to consider that there might be ways other than the model of the centralized government program to deliver social services. Givern that the government program has served them so well—in political power, in fame, and in comfortable sinecures—why would they offer Change?