Buck already covered Obama's speech and voiced a pretty much identical opinion to my own. But I just wanted to note this: at this point, we have seen Obama give probably the best speech on the confluence of race and politics, as well as the best speech on the confluence of religion and politics, that we have seen in at least a generation, not to mention one of the greatest speeches at a party convention, which itself might be described as one of the best speeches on the confluence of partisanship and politics. He's also written one of the few political books by politicians that people seem to actually like.
Yes, those are all just words. But they're also ideas - ideas of great substance that possess a power and a depth and a level of nuance that most politicians dare not express. Obama's presidency would make history in a number of obvious ways, but I'm beginning to suspect that its greatest contribution might just be that it creates a successful model for other politicians to treat Americans as though they are actually intelligent human beings. Or maybe this will just be unique to him. Either way, this is a moment to savor.
Yes, those are all just words. But they're also ideas - ideas of great substance that possess a power and a depth and a level of nuance that most politicians dare not express. Obama's presidency would make history in a number of obvious ways, but I'm beginning to suspect that its greatest contribution might just be that it creates a successful model for other politicians to treat Americans as though they are actually intelligent human beings. Or maybe this will just be unique to him. Either way, this is a moment to savor.
Sometimes when you talk about Him, you make me want to vomit. Your affection borders on the genuinely pathetic and callow.
Andf if Marc Ambinder is to be believed, he wrote most of it himself, with little to no outside editing.
Billy, dont say such ugly things. There is nothing pathetic about finding inspiration in a public figure. You find it in McCain. Where is your legendary optimism
Buck - it reads like he wrote much of it himself - i think i noted this in a comment on your earlier post
This has to be one of the most over the top, under thought, overrated, over exaggerated posts I have read on Obama in some time on this site, and thats saying something.
Obama's speech on race wasn't the best I have read this week, let alone in "a generation." You find in it something to savor? I find in it something to despair. At no point during that speech did Barack Obama provide any new insight nor suggest any novel way of addressing the problem. These are the lessons and the statistics that I have heard in every social science class I have taken since I was five. It is an article in every newspaper I have ever read. It is at least one post a month in every political blog I visit. No one in America should be surprise that there is a racial inequity in this country, and we talk about it plenty, as we should. But lets not give Obama credit for alerting us to a problem that we already know we have.
Obama sees the solution as understanding, raising awareness, and more personal responsibility. I am sorry, but I thought these ideas were already out there? That these "powerful ideas" had already been voiced by people like Bill Cosby, who was mocked mercilessly for it. Yet the masses that cling to Obama applaud it as new and powerful merely because it dribbled forth from his mouth. Obama may be treating Americans as intelligent, but most of his rabid followers are not acting that way.
I have held my tongue and my posts because if so many people adored the man, there must be something more to him. I have read every speech that was posted on his website, I have read every policy paper that he has extended searching for this golden truth. I have found that Obama the candidate is not bad. I disagree with most of his policies, but I see where they come from and I do not doubt that he has good intentions for his country. In the man himself I find no fault...I just can't vote for him because I think his policies are attrocious.
But the sheer adulation his supporters have is not based on the rational, but is fanatical. I know that I will receive all sort of insults and name calling. I will be called "the worst kind of conservative" and bitter and angry and small minded. I will be accused of not seeing what is good and pure. I will be accused of being mired in the politics of despair and not having the audacity to hope. So be it.
But I will be the one who will continute to ask how Obama can square his economic policy which calls for the forced renegotiation of international economic treaties with Obama's foreign policy which is to improve the US's standing in the world. I will continue to ask how providing possible mortgage lendees more paperwork to read that they will not understand will improve transparency. I will ask why Obama feels free to mock McCain's lack of economic background, when his own dearth of experience dwarfs McCain's. And Obama will probably reply, as he has up to this point, with a repackaged, rephrased political platitude thats says nothing, but gee whiz, it makes everyone feel good.
And to briefly address Augur's point, there is no reason to be ashamed of finding inspiration from a public figure, I guess. But at some point, that adoration must yield perspective. It is the lack of perspective and constant barrage of "Barack can do no wrong" and the sense of infallibility that annoys me, and to a certain extent, I feel stifles honest exchange on the post. When the starting point is "Obama, Superstar" who can do no wrong, it is hard to have an honest conversation when the other guy is constantly trying to make you feel like a wet blanket for not agreeing that there is no rational way to hold any other opinion.
Cheers Prescott, cheers. Well said.
Prescott,
A lot of my response to this would just be predictable, but can I ask this: would you at least concede that, while Obama's speech does contain ideas that do already exist in the intellectual discourse, are rarely if ever heard in mainstream political discourse from the mouths of politicians, and that Obama was pushing working class people (of all races) in a way they are not normally pushed by their political leaders?
While I obviously think you go way overboard in your criticism, I would be perfectly willing to concede that while I do think Obama is a smart man with solid policies, not many of his policy proposals are particularly revelatory. And obviously there is room for disagreement and I don't expect you to suddenly convert to liberalism. But what my post was mainly about, and the root of the appeal that makes Obama special, is a matter of political leadership: he speaks to ordinary people in a way that most politicians don't, and in a way that pushes the American experience forward. Say what you want about his policies and his "fanatical" supporters, but I think that's hard to deny.
Geraldine Ferraro improperly said Barack wouldn't be where he is if he wasn't black. Would his speech today 'rare political discourse' have worked if he wasn't black? Could any white man have made the same speech and receive praise? Or could any Republican, of any color or gender, have made the same speech and not been buried alive by liberals and their media? Maybe the liberals are the reason we haven't this rhetoric hasn't been introduced to the main stream political discussion. Maybe Barack isn't special because he's so intelligent, or so well spoken, or so black; maybe he's special because he's loved by the left and so he's permitted to say these things.
Thank God for Prescott.
Prescott,
Please point me to one of these speeches on race, I would love to read it. In fact, find me a single speech by a national political leader over the last twenty years that talks about race in the way Obama did.
It's not we don't know there's a problem with racial inequality in this country. You're right, social science classes and library shelves runneth over with evidence of this. But that does not mean that we have accepted it as a national problem that requires a national solution. The plight of the urban poor is, and always has been, someone else's problem.
Of course ideas like "understanding, raising awareness, and more personal responsibility" are out there. But I think you underestimate the importance and power of the bully pulpit. When a president says something, it carries more weight than political blogs, or even Bill Cosby.
From the Smithsonian on the leadership role of the president:
Americans ask their presidents to do more than govern; they expect them to lead. No aspect of the chief executive's job is more important than articulating the nation's principles, taking on new challenges, providing comfort and inspiration in times of crisis, and, in Abraham Lincoln's words, appealing to "the better angels of our nature."
Presidential leadership has often been met with contentious political debate. But when Americans look back in history, this is the main quality they use to judge a president's tenure in office.
This is what I am looking for in a president, almost to the exclusion of all else. After George W. Bush, I simply cannot view policy platforms as any real guide to presidential candidates. How many of the disastrous decisions of the Bush administration, both foreign and domestic, are found in the 2000 or 2004 Republican platforms?
Barack Obama has a public record that stretches back far enough for us to get a measure of the man. From all accounts, Barack Obama would be one of the most mentally agile men to ever occupy the White House. More than that, he brings with him an intellectual curiosity and desire to hear dissenting opinions, the lack of which may have been the greatest failing of the current administration. From everything I have read, Obama is more interested in finding workable solutions than in sticking with his preconceived notions of what will or should work.
Jay, what you hear as a speech of pablum, of "ideas already out there", I hear as the beginnings of a conversation I have not heard before. A conversation that is not really about racism and class and how we are different, but about how we are the same. A conversation the ultimate goal of which is not to convince blacks that they need to take more responsibility, or whites that they need to blithely accept affirmative action or welfare, but to remind us that investing in our fellow Americans, white or black, benefits us all.
I'm sure that sounds like political platitudes to you as well. But I believe, and Brian believes, that the problems facing us — global climate change, the rise of radical Islam, dependence on foreign oil, the coming recession — are so large that they can only be met with the kind of national unity and shared sacrifice we have not seen since the early years of the Cold War.
I do not know what the solution to these dilemmas are. Nor, I believe he would tell you, does Senator Obama. But I think he is our best hope to lead the nation to a true consensus on what must be done. There is not another figure on the national scene I can say that about, nor has there been in my generation.
My adulation is pretty simple, when you get down to it. I believe the crises we face are so great that only a great man can solve them. I believe Barack Obama is that great man, one in the mold of Lincoln, F.D.R. and, yes, Reagan.
I could certainly be wrong about him. But if so, I have so deeply misjudged this man and this nation that I will have to start from scratch with some of my most basic assumptions about the world. Viewed in that context, I have no choice but to pour my hopes and dreams into the candidacy of Sen. Obama. Being wrong is worth the chance that I'm right.
P.S.
The ill-will engendered by America's foreign policy blunders so far outweigh any created by its economic actions that it's laughable. The rest of the world won't care how many economic treaties we want to re-negotiate if we get the fuck out of Iraq and generally stop acting like international douchebags. (By, like, ratifying the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty or paying our freaking U.N. dues.) Besides, with what our economy is likely to go through over the next few years, we have no idea what treaties we'll even be capable of maintaining.
The goal is not to provide home buyers with more paperwork, it is to make that paperwork clear, concise and understandable at a glance. Every time you receive a credit card offer, by law it must include a particular sheet of paper that clearly lists all fees, charges and the real APR you will be paying. The same kind of simple fact sheet should be mandatory for mortgages.
For all that I've disparaged the importance of policy positions, I would be glad to debate Obama's "atrocious" policies any time.
Prescott, I accidentally called you "Jay" somewhere in there. My apologies to you both.
Buck,
Wow. That was fantastic. One of the best articulations of Obama's appeal I've read.
It seems to me that the intensity of animosity and resentment not just of Obama, but in particular of his supporters, is a reflection of two things:
(1) How rare it is that people actually get excited about a political leader, rather than just reluctantly choose to support him/her. It seems that for people who are not Obama's supporters, they look at the enthusiasm expressed by Obama's supporters as indication that there MUST be something wrong with those people - they are wild-eyed fanatics who have lost their critical thinking skills. Nevermind that no supporters are actually arguing that Obama is the messiah and can do no wrong - that must be what they're thinking if they actually find him likable.
(2) The fact that a lot of Obama's opponents are long-time supporters of John McCain. These are people, like Billy, who have been avid fans of McCain for years and have in many ways envisioned him as long having the potential to be a unifying and historic political leader. And then comes Obama and to some extent overshadows Obama, and poses a genuine threat to McCain such that the smart money probably leans in favor of Obama winning in the general. This, I imagine, must be incredibly frustrating, such that McCain's supporters might become a little unhinged as they try to cry out, "NO! This is what MCCAIN was supposed to do, not this new guy who's a liberal Democrat!"
Anyway. I should start paying attention to the class that I'm in right now.
"I believe Barack Obama is that great man, one in the mold of Lincoln, F.D.R. and, yes, Reagan. "
Looks like "he's the only intelligent one around here" is right.
Oops. To some extent overshadows "McCain."
Two birds, one stone, lets try it.
I think the fact that you say that for a thing to have significant weight it must be uttered by a politician borders on the ludicrous and ignores the past fifty years of American Political History. The most recent great social movements of our time were not carried out by politicians, but people in the street. Further, in the entire history of the United States I would say that not one of the social causes has ever originated in the marbled halls of Congress, or have even been truly “won” there. They have been thought of and fought for in bars, churches, and schools across the country. Washington has almost always lagged behind the political will of the people, so Barack Obama being among the first to “catch up,” if you think that is what he did, is not worthy of the adoration he so publicly obtains.
Second of all, this wasn’t I Have A Dream. This speech wasn’t a choice, it was a political necessity. By claiming that this is the important speech of our generation is to subconsciously suggest it is comparable to other great speeches of other generations. This doesn’t come anywhere close.
Third, Brian’s “those people just don’t understand why he is so great, and thus worthy of our adoration,” idea. If you would like to know where our distrust comes from, I quote Buck’s response: “My adulation is pretty simple, when you get down to it. I believe the crises we face are so great that only a great man can solve them. I believe Barack Obama is that great man, one in the mold of Lincoln, F.D.R. and, yes, Reagan.” Considering that Obama is receiving, gratis, what the three people who Buck cites rarely received during their life from the majority of people is staggering. Lincoln kept a Union together, FDR beat the Nazis, and Reagan the Commies. Thus far, Obama has walked across a stage. There is nothing he has done, there is nothing that he could have done, to justify that type of adoration. So to suggest that we just aren’t getting it is a slap in the face and vastly overplays a weak hand.
Fourth, bully pulpit. Its funny that you use that term, because while I know that bully was originally used to mean “good,” I define it based on its modern meaning. The content of men’s hearts can not be changed by beating them about the head with a club, which is what government does in its basest form. Government swings the club to ensure that everyone within its borders adhere to a basic outward displays of civility and rules. Obama was seeking to explain, based on how I read it, that we need to change our perspective on racial relations within ourselves. Government can’t do that for us, and no matter what Obama says, he can’t do it for us either. And despite what you might say, inspiration doesn’t do it either. The government has mandated equal opportunity and prohibited racial segregation, which by the way we did in fifty years which is pretty impressive. The government should have done these things, and I am in no way implying that we are “there.” But I think the remainder of the heavy lifting can’t be done in state houses and in DC. And to suggest that they can takes the weight of responsibility off the shoulder’s of the individual and consigns it to an entity that is ineffective in curing it. Save the bully pulpit for buying war bonds, saving trees, and things that the government can actually positively affect.
Fifth, “conversation you have not heard before.” You cite that you have not heard this conversation before in schools and libraries. So…huh? As you conceded, this has constantly been talked about in schools and media, so the grass roots can discuss it, which is also where you build your consensus. You don’t build a movement from the top down, you build it from the bottom up. Just because it dribbles forth from a politician’s mouth, does not give any idea more weight or credibility on its merits. If that does lend more credibility, its speaks more about the party listening to the idea than the idea itself.
Sixth, “mentally agile.” Calvin Coolidge and Herbert Hoover called. They were ecstatic to find out that intelligence and curiosity was all you needed to be considered a great president.
Seventh, “how we are the same.” This is my favorite part, so I saved it for last. Obama tried to “unify America” not based on race, but on its grievances. He did not call the people to an idea, he summoned it against a common enemy; a corporate class that he knows it is safe to attack because no one understands what they do and caricatures abound. He started the speech talking about ending stereotypes and ended the speech by perpetuating them. Obama started by talking by ending racial conflict and crouched it in class conflict. “The real problem is not that someone who doesn’t look like you might take your job; it’s that the corporation you work for will ship it overseas for nothing more than a profit.” He made his audience victims looking for damages as opposed to Americans looking for answers. And on that point, among a score of others, I don’t agree with him.
Now maybe this dislike of the seventh point stems from me being a Caucasian, heterosexual male who is well educated. I don’t fit in the group from which he is seeking support. I don’t feel slighted, and while I try to figure out how to best support those that aren’t so advantaged, I don’t feel that government intervention as the knee jerk reaction is the way to resolve this. Therefore, I am the odd man out.
As for policy arguments, they are coming on a separate post. As for Buck’s argument that “people won’t care if we break our economic agreements so long as we get out of Iraq,” I actually laughed out loud. Not only would they care, the other nations of the world would be able to put a more substantial hurt on us economically then you could imagine if we back out of these deals. I know this, because as I am studying International Trade law this semester, I read through all these cases where there are minor contained infractions by the US that are met with comparably significant punishments by the other side. These countries won’t acquiesce to this. And I am also pretty sure that no matter how bad it gets, we’ll be able to comply with the economic rules, considering that they are based on what we can’t do as opposed to what we must do. But don’t worry. I’ll get to that later.
Thank you, Prescott. It's good to see that our reactions to Obama are based on deeply different views of the place of government in society and the sources of social change. That makes sense.
I will give you and Mr. Anon one point: I didn't really mean that Obama is already a great man. Clearly, he hasn't yet done anything to deserve mention with those names. Rather, I believe Obama has the potential to become a great president, certainly more-so than any other candidate I can remember.
Also, as a fellow Caucasian, well-educated heterosexual male, I feel Obama has done a pretty good job seeking my support. I know many other people in the tribe who'd agree.
Well the impact of the "best speech on the confluence of race and politics" is now known:
Among those who knew about the Wright controversey and who knew about his speech, 52% are less likely to support Barack. Among independent voters who knew about the controversey and the, speech 56% are less likely to support him.
I'd say Prescott misses or, at best, undervalues the obvious. Obama has succeeded to energize the democratic party (and a good proportion of the world) in a way that noone has ever done before in our lifetimes. France, for instance, is going Obama-crazy, as well as Nigerians, the Spanish, Muslims, the English - these are at least the groups I read about or met during my travels that's going Obamania. In Spain and France, people were throwing grandiose Obama parties! (no joke!)
A good voter does not just take into consideration only a man's political accomplishments but tries to gauge the effect a politician could potentially have. If he is capable of engaging the world the way he has, what kind of headway could he generate while in office? It's that potential to engage that Obama has already proven.
A great presidency relies on two things: sound policies and sound execution of that policy. What limits President Bush's influence is that the world is steaming with anti-American fever, and sometimes it's almost irrational (Korea with its US beef riots, India with its US-nuclear deal opposition, Chavez/Iran/Zimbabwe who just feed off anti-US sentiment to garner votes). If a president is actually, for once, viewed favorably by the citizens of the world, there's a profound potential of the things that he could possibly get accomplished - or at least make strong headway - resurrect peace talks, secure economic trade deals, potentially help ebb terrorist recruitment influence.
This blog had moments of insight but it's undervaluing or ill-consideration of the effect of emerging expansive engaged support of a US politician shows a gross short-sightedness. I think a smart Warren Buffet-like voter would try to assess the indicators already in place, and make a good gauge as to the potential a future candidate could have. And that was the big elephant in the room that wasn't effectively addressed.