Barack Obama’s Draw
The United States, unlike the United Kingdom, vests the powers of its Head of State and Head of Government in one single position: the President. Whereas the Head of Government concerns himself or herself with policy and government management, the Head of State is the chief public representative of a government, both on foreign and domestic fronts. As Charles de Gaulle put it, the Head of State should embody “the spirit of the nation” for the nation itself and the world.
As a libertarian-minded conservative, I agree with almost nothing of Barack Obama’s actual policy positions. Whether it is with education, health care, or fiscal matters, Obama is a liberal in the truest sense of the word. He fails to respect federalism and his policies can often border on socialism. Indeed, I have trouble identifying any policy positions of Obama’s that appeal to me. In short, I think Barack Obama would make a terrible Head of Government.
Yet, as David Kopel has deftly noted, the Head of State is an entirely different role altogether, and regardless of your ideological perspective, there is something tremendously appealing about Obama. Indeed, several of his recent speeches – his Iowa victory, a speech on MLK Jr. Day, and the South Carolina victory – have given me goosebumps and caused me to swell with pride at being an American. Caroline Kennedy, reflecting on her father JFK, offered this in her endorsement:
I have never had a president who inspired me the way people tell me that my father inspired them. But for the first time, I believe I have found the man who could be that president – not just for me, but for a new generation of Americans.
As a twenty-something, I lack the historical perspective of being alive during Kennedy’s presidency, but the analogy seems apt.
It’s hard to identify all of the intangibles that make Obama so appealing. But, for me, I think it’s that he ultimately speaks to the America we all love. The America we all want to believe in again. Heads of Government will come and go, but iconic Heads of State are a rare breed: Roosevelt (both), Kennedy, Reagan, etc. One must acknowledge Barack Obama’s undeniable ability to act as Head of State; to represent the “spirit of the nation.”
14 Responses to “Barack Obama’s Draw”
Again I support Edwards, but would happily pull the lever for either Obama or Clinton in the general election.
But here’s why I’m a little leery of Obama. The media is in love with the guy. They’ve been in love since his big ‘04 speech. He’s an inspiration. To them and independants and even to conservatives like Josh. But as we should all know by now, the media builds ‘em up so’s they can tear ‘em down.
On the other hand, I’ve seen the Clintons successfully withstand a 10+ year media assault, and to the GOP attack machine. So far I’m only just beginning to see Obama hit back at the Clinton campaign (in SC), and he’s largely untested negative media-wise.
I wish I could count on inspiration to get the job done, but I can’t, and this election is crucially important. If I may be allowed to quote Steve Clemons regarding inspiration, at the Washington Note: “Mysticism and gut will not assure our allies, deter our foes, restore confidence among our citizens, or make America regain its unique national and international character again.”
But inspiration and a nation-wide groundswelling can actually get a lot done: especially in those first 100 days. Clinton won’t get that if she is elected, she carries too much baggage from the 90s.
Republican moderates would perhaps be willing to cross aisles for the right causes and popular ideas from Obama. For Hillary? No way. She is just more of the same divided country and unless there is a 60%+ Dem Majority in Congress our nation would remain just as divided, stalled, and gridlocked as it was under Bush’s second term. It’s time to let that Baby Boomer Culture War baggage go, for the good of the country.
Hillary would/should remain an important voice in the Senate, but she would be a terrible Head of State. Half the country loathes her and won’t listen to anything she says: no matter which persona of the week she is wearing.
Seems to me that, for Democrats, voting for Obama is playing to win – voting for Clinton is playing not to lose.
We’ll see if Democrats have been whipped so badly by the Republicans in the past 30 years that they cast their vote, not on their own preferences, but out of fear of what the Republicans might do.
If you truly like Hillary Clinton better, by all means, you should vote for her. Obama’s proven he’s credible. If folks like him better, they should vote for him. It’s that simple.
It’s not just that he is inspiring – he’s actually also making the effort, putting in the work, to reach out to all Americans. In last Monday’s debate, he raised the idea that Democrats should reach out to church-goers, those who have supported Bush. In South Carolina, he ended up winning among regular church-goers.
I also find it interesting that there are those who say he has no policies just fluffy ideas and at the same time there are those who say they disagree with him because of his liberal policies. The fact that there are those who disagree with his policies means that he has policies. More importantly, he has posted many of his policies on his website, so anyone with internet and who really wants to know his policies need only google Obama.
Republican moderates would perhaps be willing to cross aisles for the right causes and popular ideas from Obama. For Hillary? She is just more of the same divided country and unless there is a 60%+ Dem Majority in Congress our nation would remain just as divided, stalled, and gridlocked as it was under Bush’s second term. It’s time to let that Baby Boomer Culture War baggage go, for the good of the country.
Who exactly are these “Republican moderates” who will cross the aisle to help out Obama? Who’s left, Arlen Specter? Atwater, Rove, Norquist, Delay et al managed to just about completely purge the GOP in congress of ANY moderates. What we’re left with are the descendants of Dick “bi-partisanship is another name for date rape” Armey.
As for letting the “Baby Boomer Culture War baggage” go: I don’t think Bill O’Reilly and Ann Coulter will allow it.
If you truly like Hillary Clinton better, by all means, you should vote for her. Obama’s proven he’s credible. If folks like him better, they should vote for him. It’s that simple.
Well said, Doug. But I believe that is the game plan, despite exhortations (or is that a threat?) from guys like Jason that a vote for Clinton will return us to the days of mentally unhinged rabid Clinton-hating by the likes of Maureen Dowd and Chris Matthews and “half the country.”
As for letting the “Baby Boomer Culture War baggage” go: I don’t think Bill O’Reilly and Ann Coulter will allow it.
Yes, but following an Obama landslide in November they will look (and sound) even more moronic than they do today.
“Who exactly are these “Republican moderates” who will cross the aisle to help out Obama? Who’s left, Arlen Specter?” Oh, the usual suspects: Snowe, Collins, Smith… though we’ll see what happens in the downticket races in ‘08. And there are also a lot of Republicans in both houses that would like to have the right kind of leadership and political cover to get behind ending the war in Iraq. But overall, at this stage & with the congress we can expect to have next year, really it’s more a matter of keeping the conservative democrats from defecting during close fights.
I absolutely agree with Lisa’s point w.r.t. Obama’s many, many policy proposals — especially if you contrast him not with his fellow dems, but with the more or less complete absence of non-silly policy proposals from the GOP candidates.
The words of JohnS sort of remind me of what Lyndon Johnson said about JFK. One could claim that Johnson was tested in the Senate, as well as earlier life, had some big legislative successes, but left office with the country in a political “civil war.”
I liked Jimmy Carter, but besides his failure to engage Congress, he had a hard time conveying a sense of hope. Look at all the Old Testament prophets who warned, criticized, and exhorted yet would end with a message of hope. True, such hope was often only for the “remnant” but it promised better days ahead. I disagreed with perhaps 3/5 of Reagan’s policies, but recognize that much of his success was in encouraging the country to look forward. I mostly agreed with Carter’s call to sacrifice during the energy shortage, but he could have been more uplifting (though terming his talk the “malaise speech” seems an overreach as someone who both listened in and has read the text).
Obama has some rough waters ahead, judging from the number of people who have forwarded the Obama “urban legend” emails to me, which I won’t legitimize by even sharing, with those that don’t already know, the viciousness, lies and distortions contained within them.
“Hope” is not a policy, but it helps to unite in common purpose those who disagree on how to get there. Barack, then “cause he’s got high hopes….”
Good post, Josh. I support Obama myself; as a libertarian-leaning liberal, I actually disagree with some of his policy stances as well, but as Andrew Sullivan and others have documented, Obama has a temperament well-suited to dealing with conservatives and has displayed a history of taking smart conservative ideas seriously. This points to a man who would work through pragmatism to make his lofty rhetoric on unity actually come to pass.
Clintonio delenda est
Words, in themselves, do not constitute an assault, we learned early on. Words is words. Are there any State Senators in Indiana whose record would make him worthy of being President? Most of Obama’s record is in the State Senate just West of Indiana. And, it is a sorry tale. Those are not urban legends-they will be mainstream facts a s soon as the lazy media get off their duffs and look.
Philosopher
“Who exactly are these “Republican moderates” who will cross the aisle to help out Obama? Who’s left, Arlen Specter?” Oh, the usual suspects: Snowe, Collins, Smith… though we’ll see what happens in the downticket races in ‘08. And there are also a lot of Republicans in both houses that would like to have the right kind of leadership and political cover to get behind ending the war in Iraq. But overall, at this stage & with the congress we can expect to have next year, really it’s more a matter of keeping the conservative democrats from defecting during close fights.
Moderates Snowe, Collins and Smith stuck with the pack yesterday during the vote on cloture motion on the perfectly horrible Bush-Rockefeller Sen Intel Committee FISA bill. That’s where they most always are — under the iron fist of Mitch McConnell — together with the rest of the hard right members of their party. Of course on the other side of the aisle, Blue Dogs in the Senate (Nelson, Lincoln, Pryor and Landrieu) had no difficulty flipping in that fight. (Well, maybe Landrieu a little.) Basing a campaign on the hope that Obama can magically provide the cover for these few remaining, cowering GOP moderates to break with the herd does not sound to me like a recipe for success. And your last sentence above makes it sound more like you anticipate more of the same, which I think is a much more likely scenario, judging by history and experience.
But I guess we have to hope. From what I can see, Clinton has been very effective in the Senate, and has successfully worked both sides of the aisle. Despite my differences with my senator on a number of her votes, I would be as happy to see her as my nominee as I would be to see Obama, because I think she has about as much of a shot at working with the other side as he does.
Anonymous,
None of the “urban legend” emails forwarded to me have anything to do with Obama’s record in the state legislature. Such matters are always fair game in a political contest. Instead, the emails are simply lies about his upbringing, his faith, his loyalty to country. They origninate from nut-wing conspiracy folks, even if they end up being forwarded by someone’s kind neighbor or relative.
Joel,
I’ve read about a viral anti-Obama email campaign online thats been targeted at Jews by a number of Jewish bloggers who have received them (apparently from hard-right Jewish groups). “Liberal” WaPo pundit Richard Cohen even mainstreamed one of the smears in one of his columns. If you’re getting them too, I guess the virus is spreading. Sad.
First off,a turf declaration;I’ve never (going back to 1976) voted for the Democratic PResidential candidate and can’t imagine I ever will.
While I think Mrs. CLinton is competent enough she and her Y-partner have proven their capacity for extreme nastiness in the apst, and they have grudges to settle. Plus she’s already widely hated. That doesn’t appeal to me.
The simple fact is I can’t see Obama provoking that kind of dislike. And his message is an appealing one. And there are a lot of reasons for Republican legislators to either support a Republican Administration or at least oppose Democratic moves designed actively to weaken same. Likewise bipartisanshipr equires more than just awilligness to cross a line, but also someone on the other side advocating what you see as a responsible choice.