I am still not persuaded, and I reject the main premise of the piece–that the person can transcend the policy1 –but Andrew Sullivan sure has me thinking. His piece on Obama is really worth the considerable period of time it takes to read and digest. He really got me going with two things. First:
…if you sense, as I do, that greater danger lies ahead, and that our divisions and recent history have combined to make the American polity and constitutional order increasingly vulnerable, then the calculus of risk changes. Sometimes, when the world is changing rapidly, the greater risk is caution. Close-up in this election campaign, Obama is unlikely. From a distance, he is necessary. At a time when America’s estrangement from the world risks tipping into dangerous imbalance, when a country at war with lethal enemies is also increasingly at war with itself, when humankind’s spiritual yearnings veer between an excess of certainty and an inability to believe anything at all, and when sectarian and racial divides seem as intractable as ever, a man who is a bridge between these worlds may be indispensable.
The other is from a speech by Obama himself, about his conversion to Christianity as a young adult (an experience I had not known about before; he was raised in a secular home):
But kneeling beneath that cross on the South Side, I felt I heard God’s spirit beckoning me. I submitted myself to his will, and dedicated myself to discovering his truth and carrying out his works.
Although I was standing before the ark, I know what the man means.
Still, I am not persuaded. I am getting closer. I am not quite there.
_________
- Or, perhaps more accurately, I understand where this idea comes from–presidentialism itself, especially without either party lists or ranked-choice voting in the congressional electoral system–but that only points towards the underlying problem of the institutions themselves. [↩]
I’ve decided to drink the Kool-Aid. The policy differences between the Democratic candidates are all in the margins, so it’s really about personal style (vision, communication, charisma, etc.,) for me.
I was a rhetorical studies major once upon a time and I’ve read more speeches by pols than I care to admit to, so it doesn’t take long to grow numb to all the sweeping metaphors and heart-tug stories. Off the top of my head, there have only been a handful of speeches in my political lifetime by national pols that have really moved me: Reagan’s Challenger eulogy, Jesse Jackson’s 1988 American Quilt speech, Clinton’s Oklahoma City speech.
Obama, twice this year, has dropped my jaw with his oratory, first with his “fierce urgency of now” speech in South Carolina, and then with his speech after the Iowa Caucus. Those speeches are too good, there’s just too much there for me to believe the speaker to be an empty suit.
Call me a sucker, but happily I sent in my $100 about five minutes after that.
Seed planted by David Peng — 07 January 2008 @ 08:28
Very good points, David–both on the rare rhetorical skills exhibited by Obama on the similarity on policy positions among the three most viable pre-candidates.
I am still not quite sold, but then by the time the primary contest gets here, it may be over anyway. In that case, I get a freebie on policy-voting (where, beyond the ‘viables’ there is actually a lot of difference, as I noted in the planting on the pre-candidates and political reform).
Seed planted by MSS — 07 January 2008 @ 20:55
I’ve got my eyes open about Obama, I don’t agree with all his policy positions and I wish he had a few more positions about some key issues, but I’m for him because he’s selling hope rather than fear. For the past eight years, we’ve had an administration in this country that has played on – and drummed up – fear, all for the purpose of manipulating and repressing us. The effect has been profoundly destructive on our national politics. I don’t trust Hillary not to continue this kind of discourse – she’s a panderer to the core, and fearmongering is a species of pandering. There are also other reasons I think Obama gets the better of the comparison, but that’s the main one.
Seed planted by Jonathan Edelstein — 07 January 2008 @ 21:08
Obama’s a talented writer. Dreams From My Father demonstrates both high intelligence and considerable sensitivity to people.
I don’t know whether that will make him a good President, but I know I dislike all the other contenders.
Seed planted by Pithlord — 08 January 2008 @ 22:26
The immortal words of Paul Keating come back to me when he accused a former opposition leader of being a policy-free zone. As an evil furriner, I find the passion for Obama’s rhetoric incomprehensible, and his repeated use of frankly Republican talking points on unions, social security, and partisanship disquieting. He is getting a free ride from the US media. If his positions and performance were being subjected to the same level of critique as, oh, say, Hilary I submit his standing in the polls would be somewhat less.
Obama won the narrowest of victories (by any rational standard) in Iowa and that seems to be rapidly translating into a lock on the nomination. Do you really need an extended primary season? Could the whole primary calendar be abolished and the nomination be delegated to the people of Iowa, or rather to that section of the people of Iowa not prevented from voting by their economic situation?
Seed planted by Alan — 08 January 2008 @ 23:38
Alan, over on this side of the Pacific it looks like a pretty good thing if a candidate is using “Republican talking points” and getting a pass from the corporate media, all the while having the 11th most left voting record in the current Senate.*
I am much more worried that his Senate record will become an issue in the general election than I am that he is getting a pass now for not talking like the “liberal” (in the American sense) that he apparently is.
___
* Clinton is 20th. Lieberman 32d. (I add the latter just to show that the claims that Lieberman is a virtual Republican are pretty ridiculous. There are 19 Democrats to his right. Almost as ridiculous as the claims that McCain (8th most right-wing in the current Senate) is some sort of bridge-builder (talk about getting a free pass).)
Data source: Vote View, page on 110th Senate Rank Ordering.
Seed planted by MSS — 09 January 2008 @ 01:11
It was clear from his NH speech last night that Obama was already campaigning for California votes. Or at least for old California Angels fans‘ votes.
Seed planted by MSS — 09 January 2008 @ 21:57
“The Fierce Urgency of Now” is a line from Martin Luther King Jr.’s “Beyond Vietnam,” in which he called for an IMMEDIATE end to the war, and a broader movement, to change the core values and direction of america, away from waging war to have peace. a government, he said, that spends more money on the military than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death.
agreed. that’s why i’m voting for kucinich. i like obama. i liked his book. i think it’s more a creative (beautiful as it is) work of character development than an honest declaration of principles–but i do relate to him, i think. but MLK would be rolling over in his grave, despite the fact that obama is black, because the problem of continuing irrational war was the reason he gave that speech, and obama certainly does NOT plan to end the war. he also wants to expand the size of the army, which was pretty much the opposite of what king spoke of.
yes, yes, yes “kucinich can’t win” blah blah blah
Seed planted by ryan — 13 January 2008 @ 05:20
“Obama of the three is the most dangerous, because he raises greater expectations of the youth and can’t deliver. And the worst thing a leader can do is raise expectations, and they don’t happen. You create a whole new generation of cynics. And that’s what he’s doing.”
–Mike Gravel
(Note: I am not endorsing the statement, or Gravel. I just thought it was interesting, and worth thinking about.)
(Note 2: While not an endorsement, I did previously note that Gravel is probably the best candidate on political reform.)
(Note 3: I am having trouble with that You Tube link, but I found a transcript.)
Seed planted by MSS — 13 January 2008 @ 20:36
Choosing among Dems, by default
I rather like the idea of being a dues paying member of one party while being legally able to participate in the nominating primary of another–I suppose that is a very American form of political party participation!
Scion grafted by Fruits and Votes — 23 January 2008 @ 01:01