The other night in a Manhattan bar, I was with a group of Democrats--smart, political but not politically active Democrats. They were all, I discovered, Obama leaners. They didn't love him but they liked him. Why, I asked. He's something new. What do you mean? I asked. He'll change things. How so? He's black. That's a good reason to support him, I said, and I meant it. He's eloquent, someone said. Definitely, I said. Two people said they felt much better about Obama because he'd been blessed by Frank Rich.
Oy.
It's been quite an achievement, convincing voters that you're an agent of bold change without proposing bold change, selling yourself as a bold truthteller without telling any bold truths. But then most voters don't do a lot of reading or research, much less deep thinking. Elections are won on impressions, feelings, vibes, and if people think Obama represents change, then he does.
Granted, Obama isn't an easy case. He gives everyone something to like. (I, for one, like what he says about our criminal justice system.) If elected he would have to make choices that disappoint either Michael Eric Dyson or Andrew Sullivan but for now he's keeping them both enraptured. And in one sense, he does represent change. It's silly to deny that with Obama at the helm, the country would, at least for a while, look and feel different to people around the world. And to Americans. For what that's worth.
But that's not merely what Obama is promising. He's promising transcendence, a magical release from partisan nastiness. Good luck! I'm sure Obama's palpable decency and empathy will lead corporate power and its political benefactors in Congress to lay down their political guns. He's selling unity and hope, yet what he's proposing to do wouldn't create much of either. It's progressive policies, not good intentions or expressed desires, that create unity and hope. Obama wouldn't even roll back Bush's tax cuts for the rich; he'd keep them in place until they expire in 2011. Very unifying. The unacceptable status quo--in which the powerful are way too powerful--will only be strengthened if it is ratified by a black "liberal" president. That's my fear.
You can argue that as a black man, he has to tell the guardians of the establishment what they want to hear. Nothing if not a skilled pol, he knows what he's doing when he stresses his Christianity, his opposition to Tom Hayden Democrats, his support for free trade, his belief in American exceptionalism. Maybe he's playing the powers-that-be for fools, attempting to smuggle a Trojan Horse of progressivism into the White House. Maybe he would emerge as the excellent progressive he used to be. I hope so. If he's a transformational progressive, surely it's not too much to ask that he run as one. There's not a single issue of importance on which he's running to the left of Edwards.
Yet Edwards, for better for worse, hasn't challenged Obama...
... Mention any of these things to Obama supporters, and they will dutifully mention Edwards's support for the war or some other bad vote he cast when he was in the Senate. Or they will point to Obama's voting record. What they want to avoid is a comparison of the positions, beliefs, and preoccupations at the heart of their campaigns--how they are choosing to run and proposing to govern. Edwards thoroughly rejects the corporate-friendly neoliberalism characterized by fealty to "free" trade and budget austerity. Obama doesn't. Edwards tips over establishment sacred cows like the so-called War on Terror and the 1996 Welfare Reform Act. Obama props them up. Edwards preaches the importance of the labor movement everywhere he goes; Obama couldn't bring himself to even mention unions in his speech to the DNC.
more...
http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/12/11/105810/17
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
