Hi, there. So in the time since Larry gave me posting privileges here, all anybody’s been talking about has been the 2008 presidential race in general, and Obama’s candidacy in particular. I have pretty much nothing to say about that stuff, so I thought I’d just keep quiet until 2007, when there was actual legislation being talked about in Springfield and in Washington.
But so today I was reading Robert Caro’s Means of Ascent, the 2nd volume in his immolation/biography of Lyndon Johnson (and prequel to a gift I received this week), and this passage jumped out at me:
The shredding of the delicate yet crucial fabric of credence and faith between the people of the United States and the man they had placed in the White House occurred during the presidency of Lyndon Johnson. Until the day of Kennedy’s death–until, in other words, the day Johnson took office–the fabric was whole. By the time Johnson left office, the fabric was in shreds, destroyed by lies and duplicity that went beyond permissible political license…
So, right. Starting with LBJ, we’ve been on a pretty bad streak when it comes to integrity in the Oval Office (with some exceptions of course). This has had an absolutely crippling effect on our public and political life, from the way policy gets made, to the way citizens interact with government, to the way elections happen.
Now we’re approaching something I actually feel like talking about. My activity in politics stems from a desire to engage people, to increase civic involvement. Down here at the grassroots level, we do what we can to accomplish that, but the fundamental problem really stems from peoples’ lack of trust in their leaders.
The excitement about Obama comes from a belief that he can restore that trust. In other words, he’ll be a different kind of President, one who would fundamentally transform our relationship to the presidency (and, by extension, our government and political system).
This is a part of what Joe Trippi is getting at with his talk of “transformational politics”. Our political system is broken, and we need a leader who’s willing to transform it into something different, something functional. A lot of people have faith in Obama’s ability to accomplish this.
The Obama skeptics see this faith as naive. They see his proven abilities (giving a great speech, writing a good book, voting for good legislation and against bad legislation) as small when compared to the task at hand. They worry that the believers are falling in love with a persona or an image, and haven’t thought through how that image will translate into executive leadership.
Some Obama supporters might say that his ability to inspire will in and of itself be enough to transform American politics, but I think there’s got to be more to it than that. I look at Obama and I feel instinctively that he’s got it, but then I can’t even articulate what exactly it is, and then I remember how easy it is to get your heart broken in politics, and how high the stakes are in America today, and I just can’t help but want to know more about what he brings to the table.
So here’s my question for those of you who are committed to an Obama candidacy: how exactly do you think he’ll be able to transform our politics? Not just what about him will enable him to catalyze the transformation, but what precisely will the transformation look like? How will things be different? How, for example, will the 2016 presidential campaign look unlike the 2004 one? The more specific your answer, the happier I’ll be…
ArchPundit
I haven’t heard Barack Obama speak and so I haven’t caught his magic, but at this point in my life I’m suspicious of yearning for heroes although heroes can sometimes have, yes, a substantial impact. But the transformative power of heroes in overated, and many movements headed by charismatic leaders are also crippled by them ; for so much to rest on any single human is untenable and even perilous.
If we – as individuals – cannot transcend our role as observers and produce our own magic then we who would fix whatever we see as broken in American politics are up a creek without a paddle. I don’t believe any single leader can change the national and global equation, and so I think that to look to a lone human to do that is, I feel, a misunderstanding of the problem at hand : shaping, or fixing, the world we live in.
There are other analytical lenses that can help here too : for example, William Greider’s book “Who will tell the people” might provide some perspective for you on the breakdown of trust between Americans and their leaders. There has been, to some extent, a divergence in interest between the American public and the leaders they vote for, and a lot of that has to do with income levels. The US GINI index has been sliding for several decades toward a developing world profile.
Why is Barack Obama even such an issue ? Why look towards politicians for transcendant solutions ? I feel as if the man has become a sort of image or brand rolled out long prior to when the actual product will hit the shelves but meanwhile – while Barack Obama woos the national stage – there are actual, thorny issues to address, issues about which we can look towards leaders for solutions or else look to oursleves, our own talents, our own capabilities, and even, should we dare, our own magic.
I’m not an Obama partisan. I like him a good deal. I don’t share the “he hasn’t produced seventeen pieces of litigation or balanced the state budget eleven times in a row” gripes. The “triangulating” is mostly small, and it pales in comparison to the places where he stands on principle.
But Obama says it here:
I think they are interested in being called to be part of something larger than the kind of small, petty, slash and burn politics that we’ve been seeing over the last several years. And to some degree I think I’m a stand in for that desire on the part of the country.
… Whether it’s me or somebody else, what’s most important, and I think over the long term most newsworthy, is that desire on the part of voters, because you know typically in politics, whether in America or anyplace else, I think that politicians are caught up in waves. They’re shaped by what the people are feeling and I think right now the people are feeling they want common sense, non ideological, practical approaches to the problems that they face.
This, and other statements by Obama, suggest a realignment along pragmatic/ideological grounds, rather than liberal/conservative grounds. It just so happens that what’s “liberal” and what’s “pragmatic” happen to go hand in hand, since right now to be “liberal” means wanting a War on Terror that doesn’t involve needlessly occuping Iraq, a health insurance system that covers everyone without spending tons more money than any other wealthy nation, and “fiscal responsibility”. In a way what he wants is a return to ’90s politics, when Perot forced the debate to be about issues, and Clinton was an earnest wonk who wanted to engage the citizenry. Obviously team Bush wants to engage the religious right on their issues (and does on radio), but isn’t really interested in wonkery. Witness the handpicked audiences for Bush, versus the demographically accurate audiences Clinton sought for Social Security reform forums.
If you look at the debates from ’92 to ’04, it’s remarkable. The ’92 debates were all chockful of super technical questions — Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation, questioners using phrases “what specific plans do you have …” — and even the reporter moderated debates were pretty good. The ’96 debates, a little less so. The ’00 debates, a little less (the major issue was “lockbox” versus “tax cut”). And the ’04 debates are just painful. What’s most interesting though, is that the townhall debates have remained issues-oriented, while the reporter moderated debates have become more about style. And objectively, the percentage of ads that are positive has gone down. A lot of people, I think, are tired of being treated like they’re idiots by the political system.
Now, this is a bit of revisionist history. After all, Clinton and his allies attacked George HW Bush for not knowing the price of milk, for not knowing what a grocery store scanner was, made fun of Dan Quayle’s “potatoe” incident, ran ads pointing out that Bush was “from Texas” only for tax purposes and really lived in Kennebunkport, while Bush yelled about the Draft, Gennifer Flowers, etc. But, the tone of the debates was much more issue-based than it is today, probably due to the presence of Perot, and the lack of any big issues that put everything else in small relief (as Iraq does today). And I think that the white liberal base, which is Obama’s primary well of support, is really into changing politics in that way.
So I think Obama’s goal would be to force campaigning to be more about issues and what you want the country to do, and less about gotcha politics. I’m not sure that can happen. And I think the proof is in the immediate descent into he-said, she-said, we’re-clueless coverage during the 2000 elections, despite eight years of a wonkish presidency from Clinton and a Gore political machine that kept pointing out e.g. how bogus Bush’s tax promises were. Now, perhaps that’s the DC press corps’s inane “Clinton fatigue”, but perhaps not.
there is alot of information on the legislation he has been involved in since he came to the senate. the record is impresseive and long. He has been very very busy.
I think the people were ready to believe and the need to be one with our government with 9-11. People ached for it.
They turned to Bush and they got burned badly. Some of us saw his true self before that but, still wished for someone like a Kennedy to be there. Heck, I’d even have settled for a Reagan and I’m a democrat. I felt they would have brought the country back and made us feel proud and strong again.
Instead, Bush took that and used the public crassly and evily. He pushed fear and hate.
Now people are more desparate for someone.
I do believe Obama is that person but, I also know he is a hard worker and someone who understand policy alot more than most of his colleagues. I think he can bring this country pride and strength and a sense of community.
I am not starry eyed. I’m too old for that. But, people sense something. It’s not just his speeches or nice smile. They sense something alot more and alot deeper.
Thanks to everybody for the useful comments.
One thing I think I should clarify, in response to comments on both posts: when I say “transformational leader,” I don’t mean that he should be a panacea for everything that’s wrong, or that we as citizens don’t have tremendous responsibilities of our own. I mean that the political system as it’s currently set up has the effect of dissuading regular people from fulfilling their civic duties. While a single person can’t change everything (and shouldn’t strive to), a single person can change the systemic and cultural forces that make it so hard for the rest of us to change everything (and the President must strive to do this).
Just some more follow-up, on the policy front I think you would see some massive expansion of things like Americorps, and perhaps the devolution of certain services to NGOs, all under the rubric of “less bureaucracy”. If Obama got really adventerous, he’d reorganize the US military to separate out warfighting from nation building. But I think that would take too much political capital for unclear gains.
Welcome Daniel – and yes I’d like to grab a cup of coffee with you sometime (I’ll contact you).
I’m really pressed for time (sleep beckons) but wanted to respond a bit to what you’ve asked. I’ve written a little about Barack Obama and religion (see the Call to Renewal Keynote Address and, to a lesser extent, the World AIDS Day Speech). What I think you get from Obama is a communitarian-like appeal – and I think it really fits the mood (and needs) of our nation now. Technology, for all its promise, has a way of alienating people from people, and depriving them of the dignity of self-worth. In the industrial age people were “cogs” in the machine – today perhaps the more transient and less memorable “bit” is a more apt metaphor of where we stand as individuals. This might not be felt as acutely if things were going well for Americans – but they aren’t. Wages are stagnant and for many declining. Good paying jobs are replaced by poor paying ones. Risk has increased. Upward mobility seems a thing of the past for most people (with the best predictor of your future income being your parents). As for social support – more people are “bowling alone” with, as Obama points out, Americans having “fewer close friends and confidants than ever before.” Our commute to work takes longer, we work more hours and we have less family and leisure time, symbolized by the decline of the family sharing dinner together.
Into this bleak picture of a world that trumpets and advertises mastery (where winners take all), and offers most people incredible insecurity and isolation, comes a man called Barack who offers “the Audacity of Hope” by calling forth what sounds an awful lot like the “alternative tradition” in American politics – a recognition of our vulnerability as individuals and the need to strengthen the bonds of community at a time when it is incredibly weakened. It’s not, as Obama points out, just about religion (although that can be a part of it). It is a call to community involvement, to acting together to be bigger than the sum of our individual, self-maximizing and self-interested parts. It is a call to dignity.
John Edwards also seems to recognize this important challenge to American life (e.g. his “One America Committee”) but while I’m no expert on Edwards, I don’t get the sense he has done as good a job articulating the problem as Barack Obama. I also don’t get the sense that he is as capable a defender of the solution – and that to me is in large part an answer to your question.
You write: “how exactly do you think he’ll be able to transform our politics?”
Obama seems to have found a way to engage people of opposing views while not having his own views belittled. That doesn’t sound like much – but it’s a lot. It’s not just about tone, it’s also about setting the terms of the debate, and marginalizing those who will not engage in it.
You ask what “will the transformation look like? How will things be different?”
If Barack Obama succeeds, and is true to the hopes invested in him (no small item), he will help create an atmosphere (and a reality) where government will catch up to the needs of modern Americans (e.g. national health care and investment in public education), will demonstrate competence and will recognize that there is a need and space too for private initiatives to support the public good. Those on the far right who believe government is evil will be disappointed with President Obama. Those on the far left who believe government is a cure-all will be disappointed with President Obama. But there is a very large middle ground that recognizes that government competence and success can free Americans to pursue better public and private lives, providing some of the conditions necessary for success. So, to answer your question, if he succeeds I believe we’ll see a society with greater social and economic opportunity and more hope and decency. After the last six years that’s saying quite a bit.
Sorry if I rambled – it’s gotten quite late.
Best to you.