Saturday, February 2, 2008

Obamania and its Discontent (Me)

Out of all the arguments I've heard for Barack Obama, only one resonates with me at all:

"Consider this hypothetical. It’s November 2008. A young Pakistani Muslim is watching television and sees that this man—Barack Hussein Obama—is the new face of America. In one simple image, America’s soft power has been ratcheted up not a notch, but a logarithm. A brown-skinned man whose father was an African, who grew up in Indonesia and Hawaii, who attended a majority-Muslim school as a boy, is now the alleged enemy. If you wanted the crudest but most effective weapon against the demonization of America that fuels Islamist ideology, Obama’s face gets close. It proves them wrong about what America is in ways no words can." - Andrew Sullivan

This is a logical argument with which I struggle. His point is sound. My problem is, it defies everything I believe in about judging candidates on their merits and policy positions.

But more practically, political scientists love to talk about "symbolic representation" as a core element of what can and should define Congress. I feel like Obama would have that sort of global presence as a symbolic figure. I suppose I could give him a few points on a random scale for this sort of "symbolic" power. It's not ideal, but it's practical.

Still, the rest of the record just infuriates me.

The AP's "centrist" had the most liberal voting record in the Senate in 2007, according to the non-partisan National Journal. Yet he advocates what he deems "practical, common-sense solution[s]" without giving any specifics (he used this terminology in the debate about immigration reform and drivers' licenses). It has been at the very core of his campaign to avoid giving specifics on issues. My assumption, based on his voting record, is that he would pursue liberal solutions to problems. He has shown no effort or capacity to actually reach across the aisle, practically, to enact change. I think Obama's vision is one of using his rhetoric to push his own liberal worldview on people who don't really share it. He is a strong speaker; he might be able to get enough support that way.

Mostly, though, this is what really gets me about Obama:

"We want change from George Bush but we also have to have change that brings the country together..."

"And part of the reason I think that they have failed is we have not been able to bring Democrats, Republicans together to get it done."

"That's what I will do in bringing all parties together, not negotiating behind closed doors but bringing all parties together, and broadcasting those negotiations on C-SPAN so that the American people can see what the choices are, because part of what we have to do is enlist -- (applause) -- the American people in this process, and overcoming the special interests and the lobbyists who are -- Senator Clinton is right; they will resist anything that we try to do."

"Instead we should pull the country together to get this economy back on track."

"And in each instance, what I have found is is that the leadership that's needed is the ability to bring people together who otherwise don't see anything in common; the ability to overcome the special interests -- and I passed both in Washington and in Illinois comprehensive ethics reform that opened up government so that the American people could be involved; and talking straight to the American people about how we're going to solve these problems, and putting in the hard work of negotiations to get stuff done."

See, this was all from one two-hour debate. He is a broken record on the "bringing people together" thing. But really, what about him can bring people together? Can Obama solve the extreme polarization caused by abortion? Certainly not with his ardent pro-choice stance. He's also strongly pro-affirmative action. Will that help bridge the divide between spiteful, resentful whites and the minority "beneficiaries" of affirmative action? He voted against John Roberts, who had an utterly impeccable record. Does he really believe in coming together, if he voted against such a qualified jurist? And it wasn't even like he was trying to achieve balance on the Court; Roberts was nominated to replace arch-conservative William Rehnquist as Chief Justice, by the time the vote had come around.

Obama has a particular vision for the country. Political philosophers would deem that he strongly believes in "positive liberty" (freedom to do things) and leans towards the "equal outcomes" end of the "equal processes"/"equal outcomes" debate. I am on the exact other end of that. I believe in "negative liberty" (freedom from government restrictions) and strongly lean towards the "equal processes" end of that debate.

I believe that bringing people together requires more than just good speaking skills, political sex appeal, and an interesting personal story. It requires, in essence, a more balanced vision of politics than Barack Obama can possibly bring to the table as a hard-core Chicago liberal. Obama is an excellent speaker, a strong politician, and an extremely intelligent person. But he's no centrist, and I can't vote for him in good conscience.

So, on Obama: I think he's genuine, and I think he legitimately believes that he could bring people together. But I don't believe it works that way, and I'd rather it not work that way.

No comments: