The Two Uses for Teflon

So many people have called Barack Obama the “Teflon Candidate” that I don’t even need to document this description. All you have to do is go to Google and search for the phrase to see how many have repeated it. You will also find lots of people who described Rudi Giuliani with the same phrase. In fact, this isn’t even a new description, considering that some referred to Reagan as “the Teflon president.”

But reading all of the reviews of Wednesday night’s debate made me realize that there is more than one use for Teflon. Typically, the phrase has been used to mean that, like Teflon, a candidate has a surface so slick that criticism just doesn’t stick - it slides right off. It serves as armour, so to speak, to deflect incoming fire.

Usually, in today’s world, the media enables this, or it couldn’t happen. How?

1.) They don’t pose a question at all, even though they well know it needs to be asked.

2.) They allow the candidate to just blow the question off with a fluff answer, and then drop the subject. No “wait a minute.” No “do you really mean that….” So the issue just slips and slides off into never-never land — in this case, usually defined by the ending of a news cycle and the beginning of the next.

3.) Finally, sometimes they just accept an answer that they know isn’t true. Even worse, sometimes they report an answer they know to be false without giving equal attention to the alternative point of view, or to the known and documented facts.

In this case, fawning may be involved. Witness MSNBC pundit Chris Matthews’ comment, “I Felt This Thrill Going Up My Leg,” as Obama spoke. (Huffington Post, Feb 13, 2008)

Wednesday evening, though, I realized there could be another function for this Teflon. It might also act as a shield from input. Now input is something a candidate should welcome, isn’t it? If you don’t accept input from your constituents, how can you ably represent them? How can you even answer their questions? How can you learn from experience? How can you grow?

That brings me to the next question. If, in the interest of maintaining your image, you chose to put on a Teflon coating, aren’t you, in truth, hiding yourself from your constituents? And if you are, isn’t that the very essence of deceit? At the very least, it amounts to the ultimate arrogance, because it implies that you don’t want or believe you need that input.

I fear this is the trap into which Barack Obama has fallen. It might be the reason Obama has given such unsatisfying answers to the questions concerning Rev. Wright, Bill Ayers, Tony Rezko, the lobbyists and special interests who are bundling for his campaign, “Bittergate” and a number of other flipflops and inconsistencies. If you are so used to questions and issues just slipping off, perhaps you become immune to the need to give real answers to legitimate questions. How can you be a president who is truly “of the people” if you disdain the people’s input?

Senator Obama, regretfully, has largely succeeded in keeping his teflon coating intact during this primary season. If he succeeds in winning the nomination, however, I fully expect the Republicans will get out the armour-piercing rounds, and he’ll deflate like a punctured balloon. I would much prefer for him to learn big lessons from this primary season, then withdraw and help unite the party behind Senator Clinton. During the next 8 years, he might evolve into a more transparent, more humble, more practical and productive candidate who can occupy the White House for an additional 8 years. That is my hope.