Obama as the Head of State
Unlike some other conservatives, I’m not mesmerized by the idea of Barack Obama as Head of State because I’m less invested in the idea of that office in the first place. Sure, we need someone to shake hands and hold dinners when the foreigners come to visit, but I reject this idea that a government figure can embody “the spirit of the nation” (seriously, why are we taking cues from Charles de Gaulle?). This sentimental rhetoric about personifying our common values strays too far from the Constitutionally enumerated duties of our Executive. That branch of government is already too powerful, both in absolute terms and relative to its other “co-equal” branches. We don’t need to further pervert it by giving the President some mystic quality.
Unfortunately, the concerns of our Founders over the monarchic tendencies of the Executive strike us as paranoid or quaint. If you think that’s not relevant today, remember that Rudy Giuliani based his campaign on his presumptive role as Head of State. Horribly, his vision of the “spirit of the nation” was fear, force, and obedience, and he was to be the Strong Man who would carry us through the crises. Thankfully, he is now safely out of the race, but it is sobering that for the vast majority of the previous year, he was the outstanding frontrunner for the nomination and a serious contender for the office. He presented a role for the President that was personality-driven, and it was popular. Much too popular.
One could object that Obama’s campaign is more benign because he is not offering us Giuliani’s dystopic vision. Sure, Obama isn’t trying to scare us, but he still wants to leads us, just to a different place. Most are comfortable so long as the destination is full of optimism and good feelings, but the point is that we should object to anyone trying to lead us in the first place. That is not the President’s job. It’s not only inappropriate, it’s dangerous.
Even still, what does Obama offer us as Head of State? Looking through his major speeches, we find lofty words about “hope” and “change.” It’s nice, though not particularly audacious, to be in favor of hope, but there must be something for which one is hopeful. And to what, exactly, are we changing? In themselves, neither sentiment represents something conservatives could mistake for national values. And even as he scorns those who mock this rhetoric, Obama defends it with tautology. As Monsieur IOZ explains, “… the Obama campaign proposes that there is content to belief. They believe in change. And what is change? It’s what they believe in.” Since he can say these things with charisma, I guess this vacuity doesn’t matter.
We can search his speeches further for something substantial. Directly in the Gaullic definition of Head of State, in his South Carolina victory speech, Obama defines the spirit of the American people as, “Yes, we can!” Can what? Savvy listeners will recognize this as a labour union slogan (Si se pueda in the original), and it’s obviously a reference to the Obama agenda as Head of Government. Elsewhere, he talks about leading us to our “higher purpose” and America’s “empathy deficit.” Fine-sounding talk, but not the sort of thing I want to hear from a politician considering it smacks of statism. John Derbyshire, ever useful as a skeptical crank and immune to misguided romanticism, takes down more of Obama’s “obnoxious” and “flatulent” speech here, concluding, “We are a republic of free people, not the tools of some ‘leader’ pursuing a historical ‘purpose’ . . . Cynicism towards the kind of vaporous flapdoodle Obama trades in is fully justified, and ought to be encouraged.” The deeper one looks into the charm, the less one sees as desirable in a Head of State.
What is there in Obama that redeems him for conservatives? Certainly not his rhetoric. One way, it points to the liberal policies they say they disdain. Another way, more vacuous, it appeals to a desire to be led, to look upon a politician for unique spiritual guidance. My guess is that the words are too lofty and the delivery too smooth; lacking coherence, he begs not to be listened to critically, and conservatives oblige. I’m sorry Senator, but your Jedi mind tricks won’t work on me.
8 Responses to “Obama as the Head of State”
I think we should just leave the nomination to the Kennedy family. I’m sure I’m not updated with the list, but so far for Hillary I have Robert F. Kennedy children Kathleen Kennedy Townsend, Joe Kennedy III, and Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. For Barack, I have Caroline Kennedy, Edward Kennedy,Patrick Kennedy, RFK’s daughter Rory Kennedy, and RFK’s widow Ethel.
Wait, except for the names, this sounds just like my family. And the ITA family, except on the Republican side.
His only redeeming quality in my mind is that his last name is not Clinton.
I certainly wouldn’t vote for him, but I prefer him over the Clinton dynasty (even if he has been blessed as a continuation of the Kennedy dynasty).
All of this talk of dynasty makes me wish for the ideal of General Cincinnatus. Isn’t that what George Washington was trying to embody by only serving two terms? Why do we have to have four terms of Clinton? Why do the American people vote for the incumbent no matter what?
More importantly, why are modern politicians so reluctant to let go of the reigns of power?
The disdain for the office of Head of State notwithstanding, I think there’s little mystery about what Barack means when he talks about “change”. The current administration has come to stand for many things, and Barack represents the antithesis of nearly all of it. Whether such change is desirable, or would even be brought about, is a debate worth having. But I do think this “change” has a clear meaning and is more than mere vacuity.
I certainly agree with Zach about picking a leader based on his or her ability to embody “the state of the nation,” but I also think Josh kind of nails our national zeitgeist in his above comment. Whereas I might look for a degree of wonkiness in my candidate, I can understand how many people might, in a time like this, be looking for a Moses-like figure to lead them to the promised land. That’s how we wound up with President Reagan, if I recall correctly.
The sentiment that a president can or should embody the nation the way that the Queen embodies her Commonwealth realms is, I agree, counter to the republican spirit. We ought to fight against the tendency of presidents to imagine they reign over us. However, lofty rhetoric and idealistic schmaltz are one thing. Allowing two families to carve decades between themselves in power: that’s something else. And during those decades we’ve seen and will continue to see the rise of a presidency with more awesome powers than the framers dreamed in their darkest nightmares. They will continue to expand and jealously guard “executive privilege”, will continue to make unconstitutional signing statements, will continue to reserve the right to lock up suspected terrorists without trial, and will continue to style themselves as the Commanders-in-Chief not of the armed forces but of the nation itself. Once the Clinton restoration moves back to the White House, they will surely thank George Bush for expanding the powers of the executive so much – and they will use those powers. I’ll take Obama reign over Clinton rule any day. I doubt he could possibly be more ambitious in his desire to reduce us to the status of subjects as either the Clintons or the Bushes. The nationalist McCain might even look better from the perspective of me, a liberal, if the nakedly power-hungry Clinton is nominated.
Thank you for this reality check. The idea of Obama, divorced of his policy, is an appealing one. The man is eloquent, intelligent, and seemingly well-intentioned. In addition, the sheer magnitude of the statement we could make about the current state of race relations in the United States by electing an African-American is in itselfcompelling. But some of his policies — on free trade, Iraq, healthcare, and other topics — are alarmingly left-wing, particularly when you realize he’ll have the backing of an all Democratic legislature. Great post.
How the economy does and which nations (often our own) cause trouble around the world can depend as much on the people’s sense of hope or lackthereof regarding their leader as much as anything else. John F. Kennedy was not in office long enough or with allies in Congress to accomplish that much with respect to legislation, but his high approval ratings did greatly translate into the country having confidence in the future.
Aside from the different economic and budget realities between 1962 and today, Bush’s proposed tax cuts may not work not just because they are too little, or poorly targeted, but that if the population stays convinced that the economy is a mess, it will be a mess even if the tax cuts should theoretically improve matters.