Barack Obama can be hard to see. He doesn't have a simple rallying-cry cause and his campaign is often derided as so much hazy inspiration. The more complicated truth is that he is running a meta-campaign that's about more than just The Issues. He has intelligently-considered, progressive stands on The Issues. (Here they are.) But his campaign, as I see it, revolves around two larger questions: What kind of politics do we want to have? And, who are we as a nation?
What kind of politics do we want to have?
Compared to war, to poverty, to global warming, this sounds like a trivial question. (To paraphrase John Edwards, how many kids does this help?) In fact, it is anything but trivial. Washington does not lack for policies and plans. The affliction to which so many of these policies succumb is the dread "partisan gridlock," the stepchild of a particular destructive style of politics. That would be the Nixonian, Clintonian, Rovian style: lie, double-talk, squirm out of blame on technicalities, destroy enemies, eschew ethics, break laws and grant pardons, be secretive, tout American democracy in word and resemble a banana republic dictator in deed. The ugly mess of the last seven years is as much the result of dirty politics as right-wing principles.
Who are we as a nation?
Are we a nation of overprivileged, overfed assholes who bully the less fortunate, hog the world’s resources and leave messes in our wake? Are we really what the Bush administration makes us appear to be? This is not only a question of “our image abroad.” It also pertains to our self-image. It determines both our actions as a country and our views of one another. Must we have perpetual shadow enemies on the other side of the political color wheel and define ourselves in opposition to the easily-disdained Other?
Obama thinks that kind of polarity diminishes all parties, and I agree. If coming of age in the Bush era has taught me anything, it has taught me that. Obama has a compelling vision of national cohesion, and I admire it. It’s a vision that he, himself representing a multiplicity of cultures, is uniquely suited to midwife into reality.
If George Bush is the cowboy conquering the natives, Barack Obama is the melting pot personified. With him at the helm, we would instantly shed the Nation of Assholes image and instead tap into a prouder American legacy: the nation of immigrants with big dreams. Individual, imperfect, bearing the various scars of so many historical wounds, different from each other in every possible way, but inextricably bound together.
“Out of many, we are one.”
When Obama spoke these words in sonorous baritone after his landslide win in the racially-fraught South Carolina primary, I cried. Critics and cynics can write off his "pretty speeches," but you can't speak with that kind of power and resonance without really having the goods. He doesn't just give his audiences the candy they want, either. At Martin Luther King's old church, he chided black America for failing to embrace "our gay brothers and sisters." No one cheered. But he still said it.
What kind of politics do we want to have?
Compared to war, to poverty, to global warming, this sounds like a trivial question. (To paraphrase John Edwards, how many kids does this help?) In fact, it is anything but trivial. Washington does not lack for policies and plans. The affliction to which so many of these policies succumb is the dread "partisan gridlock," the stepchild of a particular destructive style of politics. That would be the Nixonian, Clintonian, Rovian style: lie, double-talk, squirm out of blame on technicalities, destroy enemies, eschew ethics, break laws and grant pardons, be secretive, tout American democracy in word and resemble a banana republic dictator in deed. The ugly mess of the last seven years is as much the result of dirty politics as right-wing principles.
Who are we as a nation?
Are we a nation of overprivileged, overfed assholes who bully the less fortunate, hog the world’s resources and leave messes in our wake? Are we really what the Bush administration makes us appear to be? This is not only a question of “our image abroad.” It also pertains to our self-image. It determines both our actions as a country and our views of one another. Must we have perpetual shadow enemies on the other side of the political color wheel and define ourselves in opposition to the easily-disdained Other?
Obama thinks that kind of polarity diminishes all parties, and I agree. If coming of age in the Bush era has taught me anything, it has taught me that. Obama has a compelling vision of national cohesion, and I admire it. It’s a vision that he, himself representing a multiplicity of cultures, is uniquely suited to midwife into reality.
If George Bush is the cowboy conquering the natives, Barack Obama is the melting pot personified. With him at the helm, we would instantly shed the Nation of Assholes image and instead tap into a prouder American legacy: the nation of immigrants with big dreams. Individual, imperfect, bearing the various scars of so many historical wounds, different from each other in every possible way, but inextricably bound together.
“Out of many, we are one.”
When Obama spoke these words in sonorous baritone after his landslide win in the racially-fraught South Carolina primary, I cried. Critics and cynics can write off his "pretty speeches," but you can't speak with that kind of power and resonance without really having the goods. He doesn't just give his audiences the candy they want, either. At Martin Luther King's old church, he chided black America for failing to embrace "our gay brothers and sisters." No one cheered. But he still said it.
* * *
Maybe it's time we called into question the idea of defining candidates foremostly by their stands on Issues. Is that even what presidencies are based on? Have an agenda in the campaign, enact it in office? Did Bush run on starting wars and racking up debt? Character matters because in the end, that’s all we’ve really got. Candidates can say anything in a campaign; it might bear no relation to how they govern. (Remember, "uniter, not divider"?) Times and issues change. Real character is the only sturdy campaign promise.
Obama is not pure as the driven snow. I know about Rezko and “present” votes and leaving the butter out. But I think his effort to engage in a politics of integrity is genuine. (Ironically, because he is pegged as the idealist candidate, he is lambasted for every “You’re likable enough”-type slip, while Clinton's Machiavellian tactics are forgiven as tough politics that Obama “better get used to.”)
And, by the way, he has the progressive bona fides and he's proud of them. He worked as an organizer on the South Side of Chicago. He squandered his Harvard law degree on civil rights work. Many on the left are suspicious of the fact that he doesn’t jump in front of every conservative he sees and say, “Let’s fight!” He is not perpetually antagonistic like Edwards or Kucinich, and apparently some find his geniality disappointing.
Me, I’m just sick of it all. I'm sad about our national downward spiral. I'm weary of the bullshit artistry and the vitriol and the pitting of teams against one another. I don’t care about winning every argument. I want good things to actually happen.
Speech at Ebenezer Baptist, 1/20/08
South Carolina Victory Speech, 1/26/08
