What Obama Represents
While I don't agree with everything Andrew Sullivan writes in this post, I think he does a good job of putting into words one of the reasons why Barack Obama's candidacy has stirred the imaginations of so many people (myself included):
With that in mind, I closed my eyes and imagined Obama delivering his inaugural address. And as that image began to take shape in my mind, I began to appreciate just how momentous an occasion it would be. Sullivan is absolutely right. Obama's election would, overnight, do wonders to rehabilitate America's image abroad. It might even leave the American brand stronger than it was before Bush and Cheney began their crusade to permanently tarnish it. Obama's election would, more than any other event I can think of, validate the very idea of America in the minds of people throughout the world (and many here at home).
Picturing Obama on that podium reminded me of Langston Hughes' immortal words:
This is why Obama's campaign is generating more excitement than those of his rivals. It's about much more than policy. It's about symbolism and history. For many, Obama is a living symbol of what America might yet be. His candidacy offers the tantalizing promise of an America finally liberated from the worst elements of its history and much closer to becoming the country it has always aspired to be.
I confess that there are moments when I find myself very much caught up in this symbolism. I have no doubt that if Hillary Clinton or John Edwards is sworn in as the next President of the United States, I'll feel relieved. I'll take comfort in knowing that the bleeding has stopped and that some semblance of sanity has been restored to the White House. But when I imagine Obama taking that oath, I feel more than just relieved. I feel genuinely inspired. I imagine that on that day, if it ever comes, I will feel truly proud to be an American. And that's a feeling I desperately want to feel again.
We will all have to listen and watch Obama closely these next few months in weighing his candidacy against others'. But this much we can already say: Obama brings something no one else does to this moment. By replacing one of the most globally despised and domestically divisive presidents in American history with a young leader half-Kansan and half-Kenyan, America would be saying something to the world: Bush-Cheney is not who we are. America is not what it has come to appear to be. This country is among the most culturally and racially and religiously diverse on the planet. America has long been a powerful and vital beacon for human rights - not, as recently, the avatar of torture, rendition and executive tyranny. The simple existence of Obama as a new president in a new century would in itself enhance America's soft power immeasurably, just as a clear decision to leave Iraq would provide much greater leverage for diplomacy and military force in a whole variety of new ways. Obama would mean the rebranding of America, after a disastrous eight years. His international heritage, his racial journey, his middle name: these are assets for this country, not liabilities.Exactly right. When Obama first announced that he was seriously considering running for president, I gave the idea some thought and came to the surprising conclusion (at least to me)that his odds of winning were actually pretty good. Though his success was by no means assured, he had an entirely plausible path to both the Democratic nomination and the presidency.
With that in mind, I closed my eyes and imagined Obama delivering his inaugural address. And as that image began to take shape in my mind, I began to appreciate just how momentous an occasion it would be. Sullivan is absolutely right. Obama's election would, overnight, do wonders to rehabilitate America's image abroad. It might even leave the American brand stronger than it was before Bush and Cheney began their crusade to permanently tarnish it. Obama's election would, more than any other event I can think of, validate the very idea of America in the minds of people throughout the world (and many here at home).
Picturing Obama on that podium reminded me of Langston Hughes' immortal words:
O, let America be America again--Imagine for a moment how it would feel for the millions of Americans in this country--and the many millions more abroad--who never dreamed that someone who looked like them or had a name like them could ever be elected leader of the free world. Imagine how many assumptions would be shattered, how many dreams kindled.
The land that never has been yet--
And yet must be--the land where every man is free.
The land that's mine--the poor man's, Indian's, Negro's, ME--
Who made America,
Whose sweat and blood, whose faith and pain,
Whose hand at the foundry, whose plow in the rain,
Must bring back our mighty dream again. . . .
O, yes, I say it plain,
America never was America to me,
And yet I swear this oath--America will be!
This is why Obama's campaign is generating more excitement than those of his rivals. It's about much more than policy. It's about symbolism and history. For many, Obama is a living symbol of what America might yet be. His candidacy offers the tantalizing promise of an America finally liberated from the worst elements of its history and much closer to becoming the country it has always aspired to be.
I confess that there are moments when I find myself very much caught up in this symbolism. I have no doubt that if Hillary Clinton or John Edwards is sworn in as the next President of the United States, I'll feel relieved. I'll take comfort in knowing that the bleeding has stopped and that some semblance of sanity has been restored to the White House. But when I imagine Obama taking that oath, I feel more than just relieved. I feel genuinely inspired. I imagine that on that day, if it ever comes, I will feel truly proud to be an American. And that's a feeling I desperately want to feel again.
14 Comments:
That's all very nice, but voting on symbolism alone for the leader of the free world, commander in chief of the world's most powerful military, and all else that the POTUS is should be about more than what makes you feel all warm and fuzzy inside.
Obama may very well be the best candidate on the MERITS -- but it should only be on the merits that we decide. Take the example of the election of Margaret Thatcher as Prime Minister of Great Britain. Nobody elected her because she was a woman or because her election was symbolic or anything. She came to power behind powerful ideas and stayed in power because she was an effective, transformative leader. Thatcher was a kick-ass PM first and foremost, the fact that she was female and the first female leader of a modern European state is really a secondary consideration.
Your post and Sullivan's post seem to put the specialness of Obama the symbol way above any potential qualification he has for the office. This is dangerous. We should be colorblind and consider Obama on the basis of his qualifications -- as the Brits did with Thatcher. If he passes that test and has the potential to be a great leader, then maybe he will be the next Thatcher. If we go on symbolism and feeling all good about ourselves we could end up with another David Dinkins -- someone who symbolically felt great, but governed NYC into the ground.
Your post and Sullivan's post seem to put the specialness of Obama the symbol way above any potential qualification he has for the office.
You're missing the point. Obama's heritage and personal story are a qualification. Certainly they're not the only qualitifications that should be looked at in determining who to vote for, but symbolism matters. Symbols have concrete effects on the world we live in. My point (and Sullivan's) is that Obama's election would have a real impact on America's ability to assert its soft power abroad. The standing of the American brand is important, particularly as we try to fight the spread of certain ideologies.
And domestically, his election could go along way to toward healing old wounds. It's not about feeling good inside, it's about real world impact.
Now obviously symbolism isn't enough to compensate for other qualifications. We don't want to elect some bozo just because of how that might be perceived. But in terms of evaluating the overall package, symbolism matters. The fact is, in his personal story, Obama brings something to the table that his rivals do not. Is it enough to warrant voting for him over Clinton or Edwards? That's your call, but it would be silly to intentionally turn a blind eye to the impact Obama's election could have here at home and abroad. That's a factor that needs to be thrown into the mix.
to the first comment - and in particular to the phrase 'on the basis of his qualifications' - I would say that Bush has set the bar so low, the very idea that Obama lacks the proper qualifications...Please. It is borderline I-won't-even-say-it to suggest that a man of his OBVIOUS substance is coasting on symbolism. What does a man have to achieve in his life, how demonstrably correct must his predictions and warnings be, with how much dignity must he present himself, for us to acknowledge that he is more than a mere symbol?
That said, I do agree with A.L.'s post and feel much the same, that Obama's symbolic strength is overwhelming. After watching the two Selma speeches, it became clear to me that with regard to the last seven years, another Clinton presidency would play out like an act of revenge; Obama is the antidote.
Brux you are an idiot. Are you saying its racist to consider Obama on the basis of his qualifications? Why?
You are a racist -- and not just borderline -- for suggesting otherwise.
This just reinforces my point. You all want to vote Obama on the basis of the idea of Obama and other mushy points like how his election will reinforce our "soft-power."
I think Obama would make a better president than Edwards and Clinton, but that has nothing to do with what I think of him as the SYMBOL. It has to do with factors like his qualifications, background, and judgment.
I don't think, however, that he is the best candidate out there. But if I was focusing on the radiant glow of all of his symbolism I might not reach that conclusion. That is what I am cautioning against.
Brux you are an idiot. Are you saying its racist to consider Obama on the basis of his qualifications? Why?
You are a racist -- and not just borderline -- for suggesting otherwise.
??? Where was Brux calling anyone racist? I thought his point was that, compared to our current leader, Obama is exceedingly qualified for the job.
As for your other point, I'm not suggesting that anyone should vote on symbolism alone. I too prefer Obama to Clinton and Edwards based solely on traditional criteria (i.e. positions on issues, general personality-assessment, etc.). But I don't understand why it is in any way a useful exercise to pretend that Obama's election wouldn't have an enormous historical and symbolic impact. This isn't a job interview. It's not somehow unfair to Clinton and Edwards to consider what impact Obama's heritage would have on this country and it relationship with the world. The only thing that matters is what's in the best interests of the country. And to make that assessment, you have to consider all factors.
AL, Brux wrote: "it is borderline I-won't-even-say-it to suggest that a man of his OBVIOUS substance is coasting on symbolism."
How do you interpret "borderline I-won't-even-say-it"?
it's funny, because i'm actually not an idiot, and no, I wasn't suggesting it was racist to consider Obama on the basis of his qualification. I was pointing out that it was borderline racist to suggest that OBAMA HIMSELF lacks the qualifications to be president, given the standard which has recently been set, and given everything that Obama has said and done and accomplished in his life, which is all pretty much on record for anyone who wants to go take a look.
My apologies for the confusion. I might, however, suggest that you read things twice before reaching for that dueling pistol.
But Brux, I did not suggest that Obama lacked the qualifications, I merely said that we should judge him on the basis of those qualifications. And it is not "borderline racist" -- whatever that means, how is one a BORDERLINE racist -- to suggest that Obama lacks the qualifications. To say that Bush has done a crap job does not mean that he has set the bar low -- unless you want all of your presidents to be as crappy as you think Bush is. Is that what you want?
well, I appreciate your point, though as A.L. has pointed out, Obama's symbolic appeal is a legitimate part of what qualifies him. I'm not sure how - given the fact that there is no real 'qualification' or preparation to be president anyway, as everyone who has ever been president openly concedes - one could hope to parse the substantive qualifications from the symbolic ones. What are we looking for? More foreign policy experience? And M.A. in comparitive religion? Without casting any aspersion your way, my fear is that this notion of whether a candidate is "qualified" is just an excuse to dismiss him or her for other more personal (or political) reasons, whatever they may be -- and especially in the case of Obama, whose manner, biography, voting record, and public commentary all testify to the fact that he is clearly a man of insight, intelligence, and great personal accomplishment. In short, it strikes me as odd - and okay i'll admit it, a little suspicious - that someone could look at Obama, listen to him, read what he has written, or review his CV and worry that we might have another David Dinkins on our hands.
Brux,
There you go again with your "little" suspicions. I said that evaluating a candidate on the basis of that candidates inspirational or symbolic value, you run the risk of ending up with David Dinkins. If, however, you look past that to the merits of the candidate you are more likely to end up with Margaret Thatcher. Is it "suspicious" for me to compare Obama to Thatcher? Less suspicious than comparing him to Dinkins?
Furthermore, Brux, while I do not share this view, I think it would be very easy for one to, as you put it, "listen to [Obama], read what he has written, or review his CV" and determine that he would not make a good president. For example, I would think that most libertarians, fiscal conservatives, and hawks would not believe that based on those factors Obama would make a good president.
Thank you for the quote from Langston Hughes. I think explains well the loyalty this country inspires, even from the people it has treated most shabbily. The promise is still there, no matter how poorly we may live up to it.
Our greatest president, Lincoln, was largely elected on his character, "honest Abe," and life story (not very true, tho),"rail splitter".
whatever your handle is,
i think we're both saying some pretty obvious things here, so let's just get it out in the open. If your point is simply to say that, notwithstanding the particular test-case of Barack Obama, voters should as a rule avoid casting ballots for purely symbolical reasons, but rather assess candidates on the more substantive grounds, whatever those may be (past voting record, ability to inspire, or how much his or her stated platform coheres with one's own politics) - then, yes, fine, you win. You are not a racist. I'm sorry for suggesting such a thing.
The word in your original post that sent up the red flags was "qualifications." Setting aside your own views, which are based on common sense and principle, my suspicion is that once the conservative wing of the republican party and its media adherents come to realize that their efforts to portray Obama as a radical muslim love-child of Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein has failed, they are going to fall back on the position that his appeal is entirely symbolic, the implication being that on merit he is "unqualified." In terms that will craftily (and deliberately) echo those used in the affirmative-action debate that occasionaly riles their base so effectively, they will portray Obama as soothing to the consciences of liberals - a good symbol of progress, and an act of political atonement (like race-based quotas for law schools) - despite the fact that none of these tree-hugging f*gg*ts seem to have checked to see if Obama is actually "qualified" (read, "has test scores as good as the white kids who didn't get in"). This will be the subtext of much that is said about him, and it it seems to have political traction, it will be the subtext of EVERYTHING that is said about him.
My point is simply to say that this right-wing framing of the Obama candidacy, should it come to pass, will be particulalry galling inasmuch as it is based on two false premises: first, that such a thing as qualifications for the Presidency exists. Certainly (as you point out) merit exists, issues exist, platforms exist, but qualifications? (Aren't the qualifications that you're born here, over 35, and a non-felon who manages to get the most electoral votes?) Second, if "qualifications" do exist for the presidency (and no administration has argued that case more eloquently than the present one), can it honestly be said that Barack Obama doesn't have enough of them, or has less of them than, say, Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani, or John McCain? Or than Geore W. Bush was when he took office? Give me a break. Again, one can find Obama not to one's taste for any number of good and substantive reasons. I just don't think it can be reasonably contended, given everything that we know about him, that "a lack of qualification" is one of them. And it may sound like a semantic game to you, but I'm afraid I would continue to suspect anyone who cited that phrase as their major cause for concern in assessing Obama's candidacy, just because it's so patently absurd. So my advice to you, if you will have it, and if in the future you wish to avoid hysterical and accusatory responses such as my own, is to avoid that particular word. Stick with "merit," I'm with you "Politics," sure. Even "character," if that's your thing. But questioning Obama's "qualifications" makes you sound way too much like right-wing radio is going to sound in, oh, six or seven months, God-willing.
I think A.L. is spot-on: If B.O won the presidency, international observers would see that as a HUGE change. We would see it as a big shift as well (aside from the move to the Left), but would be aware of a lot more of the particulars.
But if he won, just the fact that he could win at all says a lot about how far America has gotten in recent decades, and how little the current Admin represents what America is really about.
I think those are valid reasons to include in support of B.O. Not the only reasons of course - after all he is a real candidate not a symbolic one.
That said, I find his verbiage a little amorphous; "hope" is not a concrete policy statement for me.
My current choice has Edwards first, Obama close second, Clinton not-too-distant third (I find her nuanced spinning very irritating, especially about the war). Clinton, btw, also has symbolic value, but that doesn't elevate her worth unreasonably.
If ANY of them won the primary I'd be behind them 100%. They are all infinitely better than Bush, who has set the bar so low an ant could waltz over it.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home