What can I say, I'm excited. But I'm nervous. Basking in the afterglow of the announcement speech, I just want it to stay this way. Can't we just hold each other and spoon forever? No. No we can't. They won't let us.By tomorrow at least two things will begin happening that remind me how hard it is to live in this world. First, the attacks, which have become de rigueur for American campaigns will begin. Second, jaded media will begin calling for less "lofty rhetoric" and more policy details from Mr. Obama.
"What's wrong with specifics?" you ask. "Don't we want our candidates to tell us what they will do if elected?" Well, first of all, this is my blog and you have no business asking me questions in the middle of a post. But, if you must know, here's what's wrong with it: It's politics as usual, and it shackles us to a cycle of despair. We line up candidates and make them lie to us so we can create lists that can be measured by whatever ideological or personal instrument we happen to be using. We are made to feel like we are voting for specific policies. Then, people are elected and proceed to do nothing they promised, either because they are liars (recall "compassionate conservative") or because the overwhelming inertia of the system simply won't allow it. In the meantime, we dismiss idealism and powerful oratory as "mere rhetoric," and exchange knowing smirks with the turn of every beautifully-crafted phrase.
Well, I'm sick of it. We have before us the best campaign speaker in forty years. We have an opportunity to move back from cynical pragmatism that asks "Where's the beef?", and settles for the inevitability of inaction and betrayal. We have a chance to consider the speech of an audaciously hopeful figure, who inspires us to change the way we communicate. That's what Obama's message is about: communication. His argument is that the WAY we do democracy is as, or more, important than WHAT we do--that, in fact, the WAY actually can become the WHAT.
So, wait for it. Tomorrow all the talk will be about the WHAT, but no one will point out that, once elected, candidates probably won't deliver on the WHAT, but the WAY is entirely in their hands.
"By ourselves, this change will not happen. Divided, we are bound to fail. But the life of a tall, gangly, self-made Springfield lawyer tells us that a different future is possible. He tells us that there is power in words. He tells us that there is power in conviction. That beneath all the differences of race and region, faith and station, we are one people. He tells us that there is power in hope."
Scoff if you wish, but there is power in words.
30 comments:
Great post, Reacher.
I'm far more interested in the man's ideas than the man.
He may well be elected and be a disappointment on any of several levels. He's only human.
However, his idealism is, for now, the best thing about any of the declared presidential candidates.
But my problem with almost any presidential candidate is the amount of hubris you've got to pack to think you've got any chance at all to win and make a difference. So far, he's done a good job of being humble, but I can't help but expect disappointment with any presidential candidate who provokes such talk from followers and supporters.
That was good. That was really good. Sounds expensive and very complicated--I think they call that idealistic--but you're right. There's a ring of truth to it.
I guess it was understood that I was referring to the speech. The blog was good too, though!
Sure you wouldn't like to do a writing stint up here? Bein' all close to the Obama vibes might make for some killer inspiration, eh? Long as you bring your long johns.
I actually cheered when the announcement was made - in my car, driving and shouting.
Maybe I should just dig myself a hole this election season and refuse to listen to anything. . . too bad I would fail at that and keep poking my head up to see the facial expressions of all walking by.
How dare you besmirch Clara's legacy by including her in a political column. What is wrong with you?
But Pokey Joe, nothing is more political than food.
Especially when it's used by a Democratic candidate (Mondale) to discredit a Democratic opponent (Gary Hart) for being all style and no substance.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,921619-4,00.html
As I recall, Gary Hart's problem (to be grammatically incorrect and possibly a smidge off color) was where his beef was...
So Reacher, back to the title of your post - the way to the what.
What is the what, to reference the title of the Autobiography of Valentino Achak Deng, a novel by Dave Eggers.
Or more specifically, are you quoting that book? I read a couple of reviews of it while sitting in the foot doctor's office yesterday.
It's nice to think that perhaps Obama would lend his moral authority as candidate or president to Darfur and conflicts in other places around the world.
Is that part of what you were talking about here?
I know I can't remember the last time I heard Bush talk about Darfur or Sudan or any other African conflict.
I'm a fan of Eggers' "Heartbreaking Work..." but I'm not familiar with the book.
I too would like to see President Obama address genocide.
I'm talking about a shift from viewing the WHAT as your Iraq policy or your education policy--while accepting the WAY of politics as the same old methods that have been ineffective for decades--to a new WAY of doing government. Instead of dichotomizing policy and method, the new method can become the WHAT. For instance in religion we often become obsessed with issues like inerrancy, abortion, homosexuality, worship styles, etc. while neglecting the fact that we are not living with grace and treating people as means to ends. If we focus on our way of living (grace, listening, serving, etc.) instead of our issues, the WAY can become the new WHAT.
Does that make sense, or WHAT?
I'm posting this anonymously because I'm a little scared.
Is the Reacher OK? Have Hillary Clinton's thugs silenced the Reacher? Is he not to post another word about Obama for fear his awesome rhetorical skills will erase any doubt of who the best presidential candidate is?
Has something else untoward happened?
Reacher, where are you?
Perhaps we should send out a search team?
Ocho,
Help me out here...
We're supposed to leave Iraq because it's a quagmire, by God, "It's a civil war!"
Yet, we're to rush headlong into a civil war in Darfur? That's either blatant hypocricy or I'm just plain dull.
Surely, one wouldn't support or oppose a military action based solely on their opinion of the Commander in Chief. Why, that would make one a hack willing to spend lives to further their political agenda. That's not friendly.
On a lighter note...as a conservative, I couldn't vote for a lefty like Obamma. But, he is interesting and is giving Hillary fits. Her camp has already tried the, "He prayed in a mosque..." routine. It will be fun to watch the fireworks.
Hello my anonymous friend. I wasn't aware anything had been posted here.
You ask about the wisdom of rushing headlong into a civil war in the Sudan.
I do believe the civil war in Iraq would not have happened if not for our presence.
If we can get into Sudan and get out without becoming an arrogant occupying force, I think there's hope.
Guess the city wanted the FEMA money more than a happy constituency. Bummer to hear about your tree.
i will totally say hi for you if we get to meet him! that's so random. speaking of random are you guys going to the family reunion in july? i would rather stick a fork in my eye than show up...but we promised mom we would come...
Don't apologize President Carter. Don't apologize.
You sir have called President Bush's administration the worst in history and I salute you for it.
President Carter, allow me to quote myself in a letter I composed to Bush after one of his speeches:
Justifying the war by detailing all the things you've done since you invaded illegally is not a legitimate argument. You act like the defender of freedom, when you violate international law with your reckless violence.
Do not use the blood of the 9/11 victims to defend your misguided aims. "Your watch" has been wasted. You do not defend freedom. You defend the ideology of the rich and powerful. You defend yourself and your family. You do not defend me.
Don't get me wrong, this is not a partisan issue for me. All you "liberals" out there (Ms. Clinton, Mr. Kerry, and your ilk) that supported this mess from the beginning are equally to blame. Blood is on your hands.
Well that was one of my more hot-headed moments, but I believe it was called for. The right loves to smear you President Carter, but I say you should fight back and speak your mind.
No, don't apologize sir. You spoke the truth, and the truth will set us all free.
The truth and Barack Obama that is. That Barack Obama guy is good, let me tell you.
Folks, we've got a chance to follow the worst president in American history with the best. A man for his time. A man who will heal the wounds caused by the heel.
I have news for you, dude. Jimmy Carter is a freakin' idiot. Worst president in history, moron, and loser.
yeah anonymous. sure. Carter is the worst president ever.
So where does Bush fall in this mix?
Second worst.
Whoo-hoo. Big whup.
And somehow his approval rating keeps dropping. I wonder how bad he'll be ranked in 20 years.
What's wrong with specifics?...
How about, um, they show us who'll that person is/is willing to become to obtain power.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070525/ap_on_el_pr/candidates_iraq_4
Sigh.
In the absence of the Reacher we have descended into an abyss of anonymity.
It's so hard to follow. Are all these snarky conservative anonymous posts from the same person?
Is it Karl Rove? Fred Thompson? the ghost of Jerry Falwell? a bitter old rival debate coach? Dr. Funkenstein? Perhaps it's the Bizarro world reacher playing games with time and space to remind us how much we miss reasoned rational debate and discourse.
Reacher, come back.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070801/ap_on_el_pr/obama_terrorism_7
That's rich. What a naive buffoon. Reacher, you rant on G.W. for pre-imptive strikes against unecessary targets and then the boob you support says we should alienante our ally with a 39 million-man army and nukes. What an ass!!!!
Really? I'm going to seriously engage a moron who uses the words "pre-imptive" and "unecessary?"
Phonics, get hooked on them. At least cozy up with spell check.
Hope you and the 12 people in Utah who still think like you can stay warm together this winter. It's gonna be a cold one.
Say it with me, "President Obama."
What's with all the anonymous commenters on your blog all the time, Reach?! Are you really that intimidating?
I'm not a fan of B.O., and that's nothing to be ashamed of. I'd tell you why in my own words and even try to spell it correctly. I'd much rather attach my name to it in case you had to urge to engage in name-calling with another anonymous commenter.
I do hope another candidate will strike your fancy sometime over the next fifteen months. :)
I'm interested in your objections to Barack. So far, the only critiques I've heard from conservatives is that, basically, he's a Democrat. Or, just the same old stock objections which indicate they would never vote for anything other than a Republican, which makes their objections to Obama kind of a moot point to begin with. The only serious issue is the experience topic, even though there are scores of answers to that. So, seriously, I would like to hear your thoughts. I promise I won't call you names. I probably got a little out of hand above, but I have little patience for the mindless divide and conquer mentality fostered by this administration and its minions.
haha. thank you for the committment. i'm not very thick-skinned. i'm at work right now but i'll collect my rampant thoughts and share them later.
i would vote for a democrat. i give most people a chance right off the bat. i like to think that's one of my strengths, and i try to be that way more and more as i mature and become a more balanced individual. i'm not sure what you consider "stock objections" but i guess maybe i do have objections to certain ideals that tend to be the ideals of a greater number of democrats than republicans (as i'm sure the opposite is true for you:). those aren't my only objections, but if they were, i think they would be legitimate, and i hope you could recognize that, if i presented my case using hard logic and facts.
i may not be able to muster up point after point about obama's offenses but i will answer your "how obama makes me feel" with my own "how obama makes me feel & why." (still haven't exactly heard the "why" for your support of him).
i'm interested to hear your scores of answers to the "experience topic." and i understand how you could be tired of what you perceive to be a divide and conquer mentality. perhaps you can understand how other people get tired of naieveity being defended as idealism. if you're idealistic, what good does it do you if you aren't also somewhat realistic? how far will it get our country to elect someone to the presidency who doesn't seem to have a plan to enact policy that is actually viable. these aren't my objections.. i'm getting there.
one thing that quickly became apparent is barack's fondness for publicly making comments that would embarrass and/our anger our nation & other nation's leaders if they were to ever be said by a U.S. president.
-he made a comment that he considers it a compliment to be criticized by foreign leaders who are "friends" of president bush. just plain immature.
-he has stated that troops' lives lost in the Iraq war were "wasted." (regardless of your position on the war, or whether you are republican or democrat, sentiments like this by a potential leader of our country should trouble you). he later retracted the statement.
-he was against the war in iraq, even back when everyone supported it. they (including rival democrat hillary) supported it because the intelligence we had at the time indicated saddam was a threat, but he called it a "dumb war." that's okay. i don't have much of a problem with that. but isn't it hypocritical to now say that he intends to withdraw troops from iraq, where we are engaging terrorist targets all the time, and instead invade pakistan? and when he's criticized for being reckless and/or potentially provoking an ally, he automatically tries to shift the focus back to george bush's mistakes.
if he really were such a foreign policy guru, wouldn't he realize the importance of not needlessly insulting friendly nations? it's also somewhat shocking to consider that a person could use the fact that they've "lived a lot of places" as support for their understanding of global politics. just because i lived in scotland for a few months doesn't mean i would make a good foreign ambassador to the united kingdom.
Induced Infant Liability Act/Born-Alive Infants Protection act-(this is less about the "way" and the "what" and more about the "who") :)
Obama voted against mandating that babies born alive after failed abortions to be given medical care. you want to talk about feelings; this whole discussion is heartbreaking. i believe i can safely say that even most democrats believe "a life becomes a life" when it is capable of surviving outside the womb. let alone when a child actually IS surviving outside the womb. i know you have compassion, and if you were to read more about this, you would not be able to stomach it. the bill also made it clear that it applied to babies already born and outside the mother. living, breathing, moving babies. you can accuse all you want about "one issue" voting, but somewhere deep inside of you this type of calloused thinking & lack of compassion has to make you wonder about a person's heart. if they don't make you wonder, then you simply don't want to.
-his arguments for the above are ridiculous.(i really wish i had more time/space to discuss this with you & understand your thoughts).
-obama supports tax funding of abortions (wrong).
-obama supports partial birth abortions which are rarely to never necessary to save a woman's life. he maintained this stance even after being shown pictures of living premature babies in a senate hearing.
be pro-choice. fine. but he takes it WAY too far. there is no limit to his support of abortion, and reach, you have to have limitations & moderation in all things or else you're a machine or a monster.
he either:
a) has trouble understanding basic reason or
b) is pandering to the far left by just trying to be more extreme and different than everyone else <----
neither of which is very appealing in a presidental candidate. this isn't a republican vs. democrat issue, as even most democrats believe partial-birth abortion is unethical. his absolutist positions on this and other issues show his inability to differentiate between talking points and reasonable stands on important issues. instead he picks a position that differentiates him from others, no matter how absurd, and plays his cards as an idealist, presumably in order to appear better than other candidates because of it.
-all this is in addition to my stock objections :) but i'd be happy to argue with you about those, too.
i'm going to assume (and hope) that you have found more reasons to support him than just that he's "the best campaign speaker in 40 years." i believe history has proven many times that being a great orator doesn't make you a great man.
sorry for the lack of organization/punctuation. :p
My support for Obama is admittedly idealistic, but that's the way to the what.
We have limited ourselves to multiple versions of the same thing for so long we think that's all we should choose. Millions of people don't vote because they believe it doesn't matter: we will get pretty much the same thing no matter who we vote for. And they are right. Witness the current flap over comments about engaging terrorism and the war. Strip away the partisan framework and the things coming from Clinton, Dodd, Biden, etc. are precisely the same brand of thinking that comes from the Administration. Operate with caution and skepticism. Assume we are right and all others are wrong. Make communication conditional on concessions. Etc., etc. Hogwash. We need a new way of talking and being in the world.
Obama represents a bold (read as naive by the DC insiders) perspective: let's use communication, dialogue, our common human condition as common ground for progress. It's not just talk. There is a great piece in the NYer about how Obama has demonstrated an uncanny ability to bring disparate views to the table in a meaningful, collaborative fashion. Read it here: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/05/07/070507fa_fact_macfarquhar.
I guess my support for Obama is precisely for the same general reason you can't get behind him. It's how he makes me feel. You feel suspicion and skepticism. I feel hope and opportunity.
You speak of realism over idealism. Do you mean the realism that has landed us in the worst military quagmire in modern history and has worked to divide our country worse than it has been in my lifetime? Is Obama unrealistic, or is he actually the only candidate engaging reality? The politics of aggression and suspicion practiced by all the other candidates seems to be exactly the kind of rhetoric that provoked terrorists in the first place and has done nothing by continue to build resistance to the US.
You suggest Obama doesn't have a viable plan (presumably for Iraq). You mean like the plan our president has ("winning the war on terrorism")? No one has a plan. Never have. Obama is, in fact, the only candidate who has actually given a specific policy description of how to draw down, then target all of our resources on terrorists, not states.
As for the recent Clinto-Obama spats that supposedly reveal the experience gap, what they really reveal is the hope vs. business-as-usual gap. Furthermore, the differences have been hyped beyond belief by a media who has lots of time before an election, so they have to make conflagrations out of minor scrapes. Again, see the NYer on this: http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2007/08/20/070820taco_talk_hertzberg
Your comment about Obama being complimented by criticisms from Bush's friends. That was actually a response to Australia's John Howard. Obama was specifically noting that it was flattering to be singled out when he had only the day before announced his candidacy. He followed that up with a brilliant critique of the Aussie PM when he said if Howard is "ginned up to fight the good fight in Iraq, he needs to send another 20,000 Australians to the war. Otherwise, it's just empty rhetoric." Sounds pretty strong and leader-like to me.
The "wasted lives" comment was admittedly a gaffe, which he corrected, even though it's true.
Your spin on Obama's opposition to the war and Pakistan comment is pretty incredible. He opposed the war when it was evident to anyone who was willing to be critical that there was insufficient evidence to invade Iraq. Colin Powell says there wasn't, and countless other insiders. The only reason weaklings like Clinton voted for it was because they were scared to death of the fundamentalist patriotism that was running wild in our country. Obama's courage in the face of such opposition sounds, again, like the strength of a leader who has the courage to be honest. By the way, if you believe for a minute that all the intelligence pointed to a 9/11 connection and WMDs, you've drunk the Kool-Aid, or watched too much Fox News. Don't have time and space here to demonstrate the absolute falsehood fo that presumption.
I'm not sure what your evidence is for him insulting friendly nations. Unless it's the HOward thing.
Agreed, living around the world does not make one a foreign policy expert. It does suggest that as a president he may talk and consider the perspectives of others, rather than assuming the point of view crafted in Texas is superior to all other global perspectives. You may not be an expert on Scotland, but I bet you are less likely to make broad assumptions about the Scots or Brits that you might have made years before.
That to me is the central issue: Do we conduct ourselves with arrogance and suspicion that inevitably sparks conflict and hierarchical relationships, or do we seek to bring everyone to the table and dare to hope that there are solutions for our problems that do not originate in the barrel of a gun?
I'm with you on the abortion issue. I have a difficult time defending his position. As a campaign issue, though, it is a wash for me. I have shown elsewhere that pro-life presidents have done nothing (in some cases even less than pro-choice presidents) to reduce the number of abortions. When you consider that the leading Republican candidates are either pro-choice, or very suspect in their pro-life commitments, it doesn't seem like an important campaign issue. Illegalizing abortion will not save lives, it will only make pro-lifers feel better about their fight.
I do think Obama is pandering a bit on that topic, and it does trouble me. Okay, one problem with the guy. Hmm.
Your comment about oratory is consistent with how rhetoric has been treated in the last few centuries. Being a great speaker to me is not just form, it is content and character. Reagan and Clinton were both considered incredible communicators. Neither measures up to Obama, because in both cases there was clear duplicity and insincerity.
So far anyway Obama has remained consistent and willing to be honest. Something that has been absent from politics for far too long.
Oh, and how about my previous post about faith. Show me a president since Carter who has been as articulate and sincere in their description of their connection to Christ.
Saying Jesus is your favorite philosopher doesn't count.
Wow. Does any of this make sense? It's 6 AM. Forgive me.
Hmmm.. You misunderstood me just a little. From your original post, I guess I (mistakenly?) inferred that you didn't require substance for a leader, only a strong presence. Some of what I said wasn't an accusation that Obama has no substance, but only a response to what I perceived to be your position. I wasn't talking about Iraq. I don't exactly know or care to know his specific "plan" for Iraq, as he has no chance at the presidency thanks to his record.
Thanks for responding to my points. I'll address the rest later. Just for now -
"The "wasted lives" comment was admittedly a gaffe, which he corrected, even though it's true."
No human being is in a position to judge whether another human being's life was "wasted," regardless of the circumstances leading to their death. I presume you see it as a tragedy that troops' lives have been lost in an unjust war. But I feel that saying their lives were wasted is a statement that undermines the intrinsic respect all human beings equally deserve. That's just how I feel, and it has nothing to do with agreeing or disagreeing with, or even understanding entirely, the reasons behind going to war.
So, who's plan for Iraq are you interested in hearing, since you know who has a chance at the presidency!? The polls I've seen have only Hillary standing in Obama's way. When you consider his campaign is being supported by more individual contributors, with bigger crowds than any other candidate...seems kinda possible he might be president.
You're right about my wasted lives comment. Good insight. Although, I must say, if my daughter was one who had been sent there and died for this damned fool of a war, I'd be tempted to feel like someone had wasted her life for sure. I know we're dealing in semantics here, but we're also coming at this from two different levels of emotional intensity. I hate this war. Have from before it began. And I have to fight to not hate those in the shadows who've made it happen. It is a waste, when so many better things could have been done with the billions of dollars and tens of thousands of precious lives.
I think the fact that you can still presume some sort of dispassionate status quo-ism about the war, giving our elected officials the benefit of the doubt, makes it easier for you to find fault with the term "waste."
Post a Comment