Ed Morrissey, over at hotair.com, comments on a piece from an Obama’s beat reporter who notes Obama’s curious opacity. The report, Peter Nicholas, writes:

I’ve watched Obama demonstrate a soccer kick to his daughter in Chicago; devour a cheesesteak in Philly; navigate a roller rink in Indiana; drive a bumper car; and catapult 125 feet in the air on an amusement-park ride called “Big Ben.” He’s done it all with dogged professionalism, but with little show of spontaneity. After all this time with him, I still can’t say with certainty who he is.

This of course, touches on the cipher quality of Barack Obama that many on the right have noted. Morrissey interprets Obama’s “discipline” as a reflection on Obama’s lack of experience, writing:

If Obama sets barriers between himself and voters, it can only be because more transparency would demonstrate a lack of fitness for the job.

I have a slightly different perspective and it comes from first-hand experience. Many folks have interpreted this distance and opacity as a sign of Obama’s superior temperament; some on the right, like Chris Buckley and David Brooks remain dazzled by it. Surely, they assume, this temperament will serve as a bulwark against extremism, and thusly they dismiss a great many of their concerns about Obama. I find this remarkable to say the least. But more, I find it troubling. These folks, for all their admiration for “fine temperament”, seem to have almost no idea of how its created. And here, let me bring in my first experience. Yesterday, I had a formal debate on the Iraq War for one of my classes. I was assigned to argue that we should end the Iraq war immediately. I spent days gathering evidence, arguments, etc and I calmly articulated my position, clarified during cross-examination, etc. I even used traditional liberal buzzwords such as “occupation”. In short, I argued against the Iraq as though I genuinely opposed it. A year or two ago, I had another formal debate on health care policy, where I was assigned to argue that we should cut off medical care to the elderly and infirm. I did precisely the same thing; gathered evidence, absorbed the arguments, and made a calm, persuasive case for my position. In both circumstances, it would have been impossible for anyone in the audience to recognize that I passionately disagreed with the arguments I was making. In both cases, I had folks come up to me afterwards to discuss the issue, on the assumption that the position I articulated was my own. I think its probably fair to say that I have something very like a “first-rate temperament”.

Many who advanced similar propositions didn’t; their biases were obvious in the presentation. What was the difference? Why was I able to calmly articulate a position antithetical to my belief system, while they weren’t? The Brooks’ and the Buckley’s of the world would like to believe that I was simply more “thoughtful”, and by thoughtful they mean “moderate” or persuadable. In their formulation, this will lead me to occasionally adopt a position contrary to my instincts. This is a mistaken conclusion, because it misunderstands where my temperament comes from. I have a “first-rate temperament” precisely because I’m used to camouflaging my conservatism in front of liberals. I do this because I’m a young, black guy in a blue state who’s attended a college of liberal elites. Being a conservative is a negative in all of these contexts, and I’ve learned to give “on the one hand, and on the other hand” presentations, because I have something to hide. Now, in my case, what I’m hiding shouldn’t be all that worrying; its simple, and pretty generic, right of center beliefs. Nearly half of America holds similar beliefs.  Its only radical in my particular context.

I see a similar sort of development in, for instance, Mitt Romney who also has a “first-rate temperament”. He grew up in a relatively liberal state, to relatively liberal parents. He went to a liberal college and spent some of his formative years in a liberal country (France). He later moved to a more liberal state. In all of these settings, “conservative” and “Mormon” are negative identity traits. Someone who embraces these identities in such environments, would quickly learn a similar skill; the art of moderating speech, speaking calmly, and presenting contrary viewpoints. This is why, I suspect, Romney seemed equally convincing in 1994, articulating relatively liberal positions.

We have a completely different situation with Obama. There is nothing about his identity or background that would give rise to this sort temperament, caution, and opacity, if he were simply masking a generic liberalism. Black liberals are standard issue. Liberals in Chicago, black or otherwise, are standard issue. Liberals at Occidental College, Columbia University, and Harvard Law School are standard issue. By all accounts, within his mother’s family, liberals were standard issue; he discusses his family’s relationship with avowed Communist Frank Marshall Davis in Dreams from my Father. There’s no evidence at all that Obama was ever placed in environments where boilerplate liberalism would have been anything but a benefit.   And yet, from the little we know of his college history and his early career, this remarkable “temperament”- this opacity- seems to have been fully formed early by his mid-twenties. Fellow U of Chicago (the first place where liberalism might have been a burden) Law professors report seeing it.  It was certainly present during all of the sound-clips from the 90’s that have surfaced.  He’s been a cipher for decades.  Indeed, even the remarkable “major redistributive change” video from 2001 is infused with this caution and calmness.  He neatly lays out the “negative liberties” interpretation of the constitution:

It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the constituion. At least as it has been interpreted and the Warren Court interpreted it generally in the same way that the constitution is a document of negative liberties.  Says what the states can’t do to you. Says what the federal govt cant do to you, but it doesn’t say what the federal govt or state govt must do on your behalf and that hasn’t shifted.

The highlighted part stood out to me, because it reminded me of something I did in my Iraq War debate.  On cross examination, I was asked if I felt American troops were stemming the violence in Iraq.  I responded with something like “the theory is, American troops are viewed as occupying forces by many Iraqis and this has, to some extent, helped to fuel the insurgency”.  “The theory is”, “at least as it has been interpreted”.  These are things someone says when they’re attempting to present an argument with which they don’t agree.  But, Obama rarely slips in this fashion, which is part of the reason he’s produced so few quotable phrases; he’s too calculatedly obtuse.   Outside of his speeches, can you recall a single memorable phrase he’s uttered?   Everything is wrapped in layers.  Were he to endorse communism he’d probably say something like “You know traditional capitalism has given way to a more socially Democratic view which, I think, in some ways isn’t as extreme as it could be.  We haven’t adopted communism and that’s left us without an economic system that truly promotes fairness”.

My central point is this: people who spend their entire life in environments where liberalism is rewarded, simply DON’T learn to camouflage their words in this fashion unless they’re hiding something more extreme then liberalism.  What could he be hiding?  Look to his associations.  Look to Ayers the radical education reformer, not Ayers the terrorist.  Look to his record, which is unremittingly liberal.  Look to his New Party membership.  Look to his failure, despite his ambition, to distance himself years ago from many of these radical figures.  Look to his occasional slips on the trail and in debates (he doesn’t care if raising the capital gains tax will lower revenue, because he wants “fairness”).  It all paints the picture of a man who learned to hide viewpoints that even traditional liberals would have found radical, and who still has occasional trouble figuring what others find worrying.  If borderline socialistic quotes indicate the extent of this guy’s radicalism, I suspect we’ll be getting off very light indeed.