Being an aging “Baby Boomer”, I’ve found it rather hard to understand the appeal of Barack Obama. But David Brooks of the NY Times did a nice job today in explaining it to those of us on the wrong side of the half-century mark.
OK, thanks Brooksie. Now I understand better. Barack is an idealist at heart, not a politician.
Obama has been trying to sell a dream to our country. As dreams go, it’s relatively modest and seemingly doable (“yes we can” being the campaign motto). It envisions an America no longer split off into waring interest groups, an America where everyone starts thinking more about the good of the whole and less about grabbing their chunk of the pie regardless of what happens to everyone else. Barack Obama is trying to sell the vision of “a different kind of politics”, a politics built around respectful negotiation of honest differences, a politics of seeking “win-win” solutions, a politics of communication, long-term thinking, and fairness. He envisions a political process where using the lowest, vilest tactics to get what you want, no matter what the consequences are for the future, is no longer the norm.
Barack obviously agrees with what I have previously written in this blog, i.e. that America is getting more and more like the Roman Empire during its last hundred years of existence, in terms of domestic infighting. Opposing Roman factions would settle their differences by raising legions and sacking the major cities; we do it less violently, but just as viciously with lobbyists and spin consultants and advertising blitzs and campaign contributions to politicians. The results are the same: the spoils go to the victor, but the nation goes down the tubes as the barbarians prepare to crash the gates.
I’ve also talked here about our culture’s regrettable over-emphasis of competition and its wanton disregard of cooperation. Barack Obama has been preaching to the nation about a change of heart, about embracing cooperation in our political, economic and social lives. And that struck a chord in a lot of people, especially young people. For various reasons (including the fact that I’m not a young person anymore), I couldn’t pick up on this. I just kept seeing him as a politician; no politician could really mean what Senator Obama was saying. It was just a ploy to win, just another competitive tactic all the more pernicious for exploiting the concept of cooperation and fairness and increased collective-thinking (i.e., “for the good of the nation more than for the good of any one of us”.) But Brooksie thinks that Barack Obama was sincere, and I’m starting to agree.
Brooksie also points out that Obama is on the edge of being co-opted and corrupted by the politics that he sought to stay above. Senator Clinton, playing by the old rules, has renewed her threat to stop the Obama movement. To win, Obama is going to have to betray his ideals. The dream is over or will soon be over, although the ghost of it will march on for a while. No wonder Obama’s people think of Hilary Clinton as a “monster”; Samantha Power was just the one who got caught saying it.
I feel kind-of bad now that I understand Senator Obama a little bit better. Not that I’m going to go out and work for him or donate to his campaign. I feel that Obama was extremely naive to think that he could beat Hilary Clinton with idealism, and even more naive to think that it could also get him past the Grand Olde Party, those masters of the darker political arts. But I now think that there actually was something positive in what he and his many followers have been doing. He struck a chord by accessing the inherent goodness within all of us. Hopefully this world will someday present more and better opportunities for those virtues to bubble up and cohere within the collective sphere of international commerce, economics, politics and culture. For now, however, virtue and foresight will remain mainly a private thing. War, economic exploitation and short-sighted ways of living (i.e., America’s energy-hogging, global warming, have-versus-have not economy and the military mega-machine necessary to support it) will go on.
The whole Barack Obama thing brings back memories of another Senator who ran for President: George McGovern. I was a very enthusiastic McGovern supporter in 1972. I totally believed in him; he represented change and betterment to me. He would stop the war and bring peace and harmony and justice. Looking back on myself, I can only laugh. Had McGovern somehow been elected, his pacifist / populist / socialist approach would have been ground down over time; at best he wouldn’t have been much different from Lyndon B. Johnson (other than LBJ’s nasty mistake in getting us deep into Vietnam). But given McGovern’s relative lack of political and leadership skills, he might have been worse than Jimmy Carter in terms of getting things done. We might have avoided Watergate but come to national stalemate, to the benefit of the Soviet Union, OPEC, Japan, China, and everyone else playing hardball with the USA.
The best thing that Obama could do for the country right now would be to stick to his preachy style and his high moral standards. That would be political suicide; if Clinton didn’t get him before August, McCain surely would do so thereafter. However, his persistence and prophecy would make a lot of people think, late at night: does it really have to be this way?
I hope that Obama remains pure, but like Brooksie I strongly suspect that he won’t.
And as to George McGovern, who did in fact go down to crushing defeat in an idealistic fashion, I was a bit saddened to read an article that he wrote in today’s Wall Street Journal. He talks about how government regulations intended to protect disadvantaged people from economic exploitation often backfire and make things worse for them; his case-in-point regards various state regulations against high-interest “payday lending” by sleazy loan companies. “I’ve come to realize that protecting freedom of choice in our everyday lives is essential to maintaining a healthy civil society.”
(And don’t forget that McGovern endorsed Hilary Clinton early on! You’d think he would at least have started with John Edwards . . . )
What the former Senator says make much sense; but it’s just not the message that I wanted to hear from him. Instead of a pragmatic McGovern, I’d rather see him out there with Senator Obama, preaching a new day for Washington and for our world. Although they were both destined for political tragedy one way or another, their noble persistence might inspire future generations to take up the torch and seek something more than security, warmth, reproduction and ego-gratification during our all-too-short lives. C’mon, George, say it, for old time sake: YES WE CAN.
Jim,
I can’t say I share your thoughts about McGovern. Those early 1970s were years when all my energy was required to simply cope with life situations. Politics never really became any kind of blip on my radar that I recognized.
HOWEVER! The years of the Kennedys–the 60s–seem to ring about the same in my life as the McGovern years do in your life. In the early 60s I was teaching at a high school in Milwaukee where JFK spoke. Frankly, I don’t remember a thing about the speech he gave. But I do remember that we had the entire school (some 3000 students) in the gym and spent over an hour waiting for the man to appear. Picture to yourself keeping 3000 teenagers in some semblance of order for over an hour while they sat and twiddled their thumbs waiting for a politician who was just beginning to become known! That’s the part of Kennedy’s speech I remember. And then the part about the relief when it was all over, and we could all get out of the gym!!
And I remember the adulation for JFK–similar to Obama today. I was young(er) then and had a real conviction that the Kennedys would practically save the world. Talk about idealism! (And think about it: Kennedy brought us so close to the brink of war with Russia/Cuba that it was inconceivable when he was running for president. Man, did the U.S. dodge a bullet–well, rocket–then!)
Now the latest on JFK is that his supposed “love child” is speaking out. If the media back then were the media today, what would they have done with JFK in the 1960s? What kind of scandals would have been on the front page of ever paper?)
I also wonder if the Kennedys (and for that matter Martin Luther King) had lived, just exactly how much they would have changed the world. But I do think that even in death MLK has changed the world. But he wasn’t a politician. Just what would history be saying about the Kennedys if they had lived.
And then (back to the theme I’ve mentioned before, almost ad infinitum): I’m suspicious of what may be lying under the whole Rezko affair and Obama. Having spent most of my life in Illinois, Chicago, and the Chicago area, I have seen too much Illinois/Chicago politics to believe that Obama is squeeky clean in the Rezko affair. In this state, politically, where there is even the smallest whiff of smoke, there is a raging inferno deep somewhere. As proof: George Ryan (our previous Governor) is now in Federal prison for exactly the same thing that Rezko is on trial for. Hanky panky with the raising of money for politican campaigns. First it started with the “little guys” in the Ryan affair, then it proceeded up the line; and here we are several years later with Ryan in Federal prison in Terra Haute. And yes, Ryan has done some wonderful things for this state. In fact, he was a far better governor than the one we have now. (Who by the way may have his own impending similar problems still a couple of years away yet–again tied to Rezko.) The man (Rezko) could really get around.
Obama at the time he did business with Rezko was a hope-to-be state senator. It may be that all that is to be said about Obama-Rezko has been said. But that’s what was said about Ryan; and is currently being said about Blagojovich (sp?).
How I’d love to have that same enthusiasm and idealism back again that I had in the 60s. I really meant it! But sadly life teaches one.
From the Obama speeches I’ve heard,(let’s give him the benefit of the doubt and say there is no subterranean fire in the Rezko situation) Obama might have a serious problem dealing with the system in Washington. I have seen before a president come into office and say: “This is the way I want things done” only to be told that his “want” was impossible because the system just doesn’t work that way, because if he did this or that, he’d meet terrible retribution down the line from some politician whose toes he’d be stepping on, etc. (Terrible retribution translates into: I’ll block every single thing you need a vote on; and
Comment by Anonymous — March 8, 2008 @ 11:47 am
Jim,
I can’t say I share your thoughts about McGovern. Those early 1970s were years when all my energy was required to simply cope with life situations. Politics never really became any kind of blip on my radar that I recognized.
HOWEVER! The years of the Kennedys–the 60s–seem to ring about the same in my life as the McGovern years do in your life. In the early 60s I was teaching at a high school in Milwaukee where JFK spoke. Frankly, I don’t remember a thing about the speech he gave. But I do remember that we had the entire school (some 3000 students) in the gym and spent over an hour waiting for the man to appear. Picture to yourself keeping 3000 teenagers in some semblance of order for over an hour while they sat and twiddled their thumbs waiting for a politician who was just beginning to become known! That’s the part of Kennedy’s speech I remember. And then the part about the relief when it was all over, and we could all get out of the gym!!
And I remember the adulation for JFK–similar to Obama today. I was young(er) then and had a real conviction that the Kennedys would practically save the world. Talk about idealism! (And think about it: Kennedy brought us so close to the brink of war with Russia/Cuba that it was inconceivable when he was running for president. Man, did the U.S. dodge a bullet–well, rocket–then!)
Now the latest on JFK is that his supposed “love child” is speaking out. If the media back then were the media today, what would they have done with JFK in the 1960s? What kind of scandals would have been on the front page of ever paper?)
I also wonder if the Kennedys (and for that matter Martin Luther King) had lived, just exactly how much they would have changed the world. But I do think that even in death MLK has changed the world. But he wasn’t a politician. Just what would history be saying about the Kennedys if they had lived.
And then (back to the theme I’ve mentioned before, almost ad infinitum): I’m suspicious of what may be lying under the whole Rezko affair and Obama. Having spent most of my life in Illinois, Chicago, and the Chicago area, I have seen too much Illinois/Chicago politics to believe that Obama is squeeky clean in the Rezko affair. In this state, politically, where there is even the smallest whiff of smoke, there is a raging inferno deep somewhere. As proof: George Ryan (our previous Governor) is now in Federal prison for exactly the same thing that Rezko is on trial for. Hanky panky with the raising of money for politican campaigns. First it started with the “little guys” in the Ryan affair, then it proceeded up the line; and here we are several years later with Ryan in Federal prison in Terra Haute. And yes, Ryan has done some wonderful things for this state. In fact, he was a far better governor than the one we have now. (Who by the way may have his own impending similar problems still a couple of years away yet–again tied to Rezko.) The man (Rezko) could really get around.
Obama at the time he did business with Rezko was a hope-to-be state senator. It may be that all that is to be said about Obama-Rezko has been said. But that’s what was said about Ryan; and is currently being said about Blagojovich (sp?).
How I’d love to have that same enthusiasm and idealism back again that I had in the 60s. I really meant it! But sadly life teaches one.
From the Obama speeches I’ve heard,(let’s give him the benefit of the doubt and say there is no subterranean fire in the Rezko situation) Obama might have a serious problem dealing with the system in Washington. I have seen before a president come into office and say: “This is the way I want things done” only to be told that his “want” was impossible because the system just doesn’t work that way, because if he did this or that, he’d meet terrible retribution down the line from some politician whose toes he’d be stepping on, etc. (Terrible retribution translates into: I’ll block every single thing you need a vote on; and I’ll get all my friends to do the same; and you will definitely be able to get absolutely nothing of what you want, ever!)
And I say that anyone who has ever held any administrative or executive position of even the slightest authority in any institution soon finds out that the “King” may say “do this” but the implementation of his “command” still must go thru the hands of others who may not WANT what he wants. Anyone who has ever had any kind of position of even the smallest amount of authority knows that there lies the rub. People simply won’t do what the “King” may say. In Henry VIII’s time he lopped off the heads of anyone who didn’t do what he wanted; we don’t have that system nowadays. (Well, maybe in such places as China or Russia that method may be more functional than it is in the U.S.)
I wonder about Clinton: If anybody knows the ins and outs and the ropes of how Washington works, she does. I sometimes wonder if she might be a better candidate just for that reason–except for the fact that she may not be electable.
And think of the irony of this situation: A time when the Dems might have almost a shoo-in situation for the presidency, and so much energy is taken up with who the nominee will be. I find myself wondering if in the end what seems an impossibility–McCain winning the election–may not eventually come to pass. And I shudder to think of McCain’s idea of Iraq becoming another Korea coming to pass.
Once again, I come at your thoughts from a tangential angle.
MCS
Comment by Anonymous — March 8, 2008 @ 11:47 am
Jim,
I can’t say I share your thoughts about McGovern. Those early 1970s were years when all my energy was required to simply cope with life situations. Politics never really became any kind of blip on my radar that I recognized.
HOWEVER! The years of the Kennedys–the 60s–seem to ring about the same in my life as the McGovern years do in your life. In the early 60s I was teaching at a high school in Milwaukee where JFK spoke. Frankly, I don’t remember a thing about the speech he gave. But I do remember that we had the entire school (some 3000 students) in the gym and spent over an hour waiting for the man to appear. Picture to yourself keeping 3000 teenagers in some semblance of order for over an hour while they sat and twiddled their thumbs waiting for a politician who was just beginning to become known! That’s the part of Kennedy’s speech I remember. And then the part about the relief when it was all over, and we could all get out of the gym!!
And I remember the adulation for JFK–similar to Obama today. I was young(er) then and had a real conviction that the Kennedys would practically save the world. Talk about idealism! (And think about it: Kennedy brought us so close to the brink of war with Russia/Cuba that it was inconceivable when he was running for president. Man, did the U.S. dodge a bullet–well, rocket–then!)
Now the latest on JFK is that his supposed “love child” is speaking out. If the media back then were the media today, what would they have done with JFK in the 1960s? What kind of scandals would have been on the front page of ever paper?)
I also wonder if the Kennedys (and for that matter Martin Luther King) had lived, just exactly how much they would have changed the world. But I do think that even in death MLK has changed the world. But he wasn’t a politician. Just what would history be saying about the Kennedys if they had lived.
And then (back to the theme I’ve mentioned before, almost ad infinitum): I’m suspicious of what may be lying under the whole Rezko affair and Obama. Having spent most of my life in Illinois, Chicago, and the Chicago area, I have seen too much Illinois/Chicago politics to believe that Obama is squeeky clean in the Rezko affair. In this state, politically, where there is even the smallest whiff of smoke, there is a raging inferno deep somewhere. As proof: George Ryan (our previous Governor) is now in Federal prison for exactly the same thing that Rezko is on trial for. Hanky panky with the raising of money for politican campaigns. First it started with the “little guys” in the Ryan affair, then it proceeded up the line; and here we are several years later with Ryan in Federal prison in Terra Haute. And yes, Ryan has done some wonderful things for this state. In fact, he was a far better governor than the one we have now. (Who by the way may have his own impending similar problems still a couple of years away yet–again tied to Rezko.) The man (Rezko) could really get around.
Obama at the time he did business with Rezko was a hope-to-be state senator. It may be that all that is to be said about Obama-Rezko has been said. But that’s what was said about Ryan; and is currently being said about Blagojovich (sp?).
How I’d love to have that same enthusiasm and idealism back again that I had in the 60s. I really meant it! But sadly life teaches one.
From the Obama speeches I’ve heard,(let’s give him the benefit of the doubt and say there is no subterranean fire in the Rezko situation) Obama might have a serious problem dealing with the system in Washington. I have seen before a president come into office and say: “This is the way I want things done” only to be told that his “want” was impossible because the system just doesn’t work that way, because if he did this or that, he’d meet terrible retribution down the line from some politician whose toes he’d be stepping on, etc. (Terrible retribution translates into: I’ll block every single thing you need a vote on; and
Comment by Anonymous — March 8, 2008 @ 11:47 am