|
|
Much has recently been made in the blogosphere about Barack Obama trying to have his cake and eat it too -- "squaring quite a few circles", as the Nation put it.
According to the Nation, a fine example of this behavior is Obama's citation of men like Martin Luther King Jr. and Abraham Lincoln as exemplars of leaders who forged a new national unity.
On the contrary, as many have pointed out, despite their current street cred both Lincoln and King were viewed as highly polarizing during their times.
Allow me to take a slightly different perspective. The importance of Obama citing Lincoln, King, et al. in his announcement speech is not so much the truth of how polarizing they were at the time, but how they're understood today -- by "understood", of course, we're euphemistically talking about a rewriting of history to make it much cleaner and Made-for-TV than it actually was. As the saying goes, 'close enough for government work'.
The point is not that Lincoln and King united the country at their respective times -- the point is that history bore them out as such titanic, morally powerful figures that the only comforting recourse for our nation is to Disney-ify our past and imagine that we must have all been united behind them at the time.
We do this with every period of history - Witness Mel Gibson in The Patriot as the rich plantation owner who just so happens to only employ free blacks.
It's a comfort to think that had we been born then (with our 21st century values and socialization intact, it is unconsciously assumed), surely we would have been on the side of all that's good and right. After all, we're Good People.
My standard for Obama, should he become president, is thus more lenient than the Nation article that Josh approvingly quotes.
He doesn't have to be a uniter today - his "on the one hand, on the other hand" act will be nigh-impossible to successfully keep up should he actually win the presidency and be tasked with governing. But if history is any guide, as long as his leadership is of a high enough caliber, as a nation we'll be moved to collectively re-write him into a uniter after the fact.
Obama isn't necessarily thinking about what he'll do as President, but what he'll be as President.
Let's be honest, if either Obama or Clinton wins and manages not to get impeached they will have their own statue on the Mall in DC, and American schoolchildren will know their names hundreds of years from now. Almost regardless of what they do in office, they'd be ranked at least at JFK's level by historians.
History is going to speak kindly of a President Obama or a second President Clinton because simply getting elected while not being a white male is a monumental achievement. This is going to prove both a blessing and a curse--while historical fame is guaranteed in a way most Presidents will never come close to achieving, the spectre of "LEGACY" will haunt them from the moment of inauguration. Knowing his, watch for soaring rhetoric befitting a great leader to spout from both of them.
Just as an outside observer with a modicum of experience in the department (and stating clearly that I don't know anyone on either candidate's staff), it seems that Obama is treating this, from a rhetorical perspective, like someone who knows his words will be parsed and analyzed for centuries, and Hillary is treating this like a good ol' fashioned political street fight because you can't make history if you don't win first. Which one is the better strategy considering this unprecedented dynamic? I haven't got a fucking clue, but the nature of the campaign about to unfold is breathtaking in its potential implications for future electoral strategies.
Of course I'm not talking about staffers--they'll let slip the usual dogs of war.
I disagree pretty strongly with the Nation article. But I do see where one could deduct it as constructive criticism. The good news is that we do have a lot of time to do what we should---remain diligent.
I don't know if you happened to see the 60 Minutes interview Sunday but there are a number of conservatives who told me in confidence that they were impressed with Obama's honesty which is going to be something difficult to attach.
Perhaps by itself, this wouldn't mean too much. But given Hillary's recent comments (or lack of comments about the War in Iraq) it's becoming increasingly clear that Obama's lack of experience might be trumped by one with extensive political influence and experience.
The idea that either Obama or Clinton will have monuments crafted in their image no matter what, and be named next to JFK after winning the presidency is funny to me. We're too consumed with personalities in this country. I could careless about having the first black president and i'm an African American. I'd rather see us celebrate the day we have adequate housing, health care and public education for black people in this country for the first time. I don't think Obama's going to make it out of the primary and the media storm surrounding him feels good for white liberals some conservatives but lacks substance and any understanding of reality. Most of us in the black community are a little more skeptical about Barak Obama, and will only vote for the candidate who supports our economic and social interests not just shares our race. Much the same way we refused to support Michael Steele, a republican running in Maryland last November. Right now i'd support John Edwards because he is clearly the more progressive between the former two. He never holds his tongue and speaks his mind, even when its politically incorrect. I like Senator Obama, I met him last year and got to talk to him on the hill. He's a really kind person. I just don't believe people, specifically in the south and places in the mid-west, will ever vote for a black man in this millineum.
A few weeks ago we were talking about human rights treaties and interstital norms. I found a piece that I read a few years ago but had forgotten about that I think you'd find interesting. It's from the Yale Law Journal back in '02, called "Do Human Rights Treaties Make a Difference?" by Oona Hathaway. If you can find it and have a few minutes, it's a pretty short piece, but I think you'd enjoy it.