| Opinion | Feb. 18, 2008 | 7:32 pm |
Last of the no-he-can’ts: Why I don’t believe in Barack Obama
By
Full disclosure: The author used to work for the Clinton campaign.
And then there was one.
One presumptive Democratic nominee, one inexorable Democratic movement, one dream of HopeChangeUnity, one chilling will.i.am video and, as it often seems, one Democratic Barack Obama-doubter under the age of 35.
Let me be straight: I’m far from despondent about Obama’s looming victory. I really like this guy. After all, what honest Hillary Clinton supporter couldn’t? I care about policy, and the Democratic candidates are fraternal twins on policy points: showering the uninsured with health care, creating avenues for legalizing illegal immigrants, and methodically pulling out of Iraq while expanding regional diplomacy. I could go on, and perhaps it would be a useful reminder for some Obama supporters that the woman they claim to despise is as close to an ideological doppelganger as Obama could find in Washington.
I’ve never heard so many haters in a movement that’s supposedly about reconciliatory unity. Take some Obama folks I met in New York City, who told me they’d rather vote for John McCain than Hillary Clinton. Judging by the 800,000-strong “Anyone but Hillary” Facebook group, I don’t think they’re alone.
Such charlatans clearly have no interest in universal health care, or Iraq’s future, or regional diplomacy, or egregious tax credits. They care about the voice. They lust for homeopathic orations that substantively offer little more than song lyrics.
Shake off those luscious pearls of eloquence, and you’ll see some questions. Do we really think we can “push back” a two-billion-dollar lobbying industry (much of which represents Democratic interests, by the way)? Do we think rich words will make Republicans roll over on health care like tickled puppies, or that hawkish Republicans are quivering to be lullabied into diplomacy? It bears repeating: Supply-siders are supply-siders; homophobes are homophobic; neoconservatives are neoconservative. They all have their reasons, and it’s not because they haven’t been properly instructed by true liberal eloquence.
Politics is war. Anybody who has taken a world history class knows that bipartisan unity breaks out in government about as often as tap-dancing. So I’m wary of otherwise brilliant friends who claim that Obama will not only lead political changes, but also change politics. That’s not a vision. That’s a delusion inspired by eloquence too beautiful to rationalize. I’ve heard it said, “Vote with your head, not your stomach.” Do we really think our goosebumps are any wiser than our guts?
People say they cannot trust Hillary Clinton. I believe them, even if I don’t believe their reasons. When I ask Democratic Hillary-haters to explain themselves, I often see a face that looks like it’s trying to untie a sailor’s knot with its eyes. I don’t want to parody their reasons, but I’ll offer my own: I trust Hillary because, as strange as it might sound, she promises to be what she is. She’s a politician; she’s willing to compromise; she’s moderate about being a liberal.
Those facts are wielded as accusations against her, but they’re undeniable strengths in a president. No, she doesn’t inspire my heart with yearbook-worthy quotes. And, thank goodness, that means my head can think with minimal gastric interference. And my head says: If you really want to change the world, go with the candidate who isn’t afraid to use the word “fight.”
I’ll vote for Obama with fervor and pride if he wins the nomination, because unlike those folks in New York City, I believe in the issues I say I believe in. But no words will convince me that some untapped unity exists beneath the surface of American politics. Maybe Obama can even usher in a liberal utopia as he transforms the politics that have shackled our government. That’s a future to hope for, but it’s not a change to believe in.
Scott said,
February 18, 2008 @ 10:57 pm
Hmm, that’s a pretty good straw man you have going there, but I don’t necessarily believe that you can just lump all Anti-Hillary Obama supporters as a group of “charlatans” that “clearly have no interest” in policy and only care about pretty words.
The way I see it, there are two big differences that separate Hillary supporters from Obama supporters. The first is the role of policy. Hillary supporters generally seem to think that we should only focus on the policy issues rather than issues of character, which I find to be understandable, but ultimately flawed. You said yourself, the two candidates have nearly identical policy records, so we must judge them on some other aspect. Which brings me to the second differentiation.
Hillary supporters tend to be pessimists/realists. Truth be told though, I don’t want a realist for president. I think your cynical attitude that “homophobes are homophobic” and that’s the way things have to stay is exactly what’s wrong with America. I understand that the Senate is never going to link arms and sing “Kumbaya,” but things can be a hell of a lot better than they are now. I won’t resign myself to believing that our political system can get no better than it is now. Rather than voting, Republicans congressmen stood up and walked out of the House last week. You’re right that both sides will never see eye-to-eye on every issue, and I wouldn’t want them to, but I do believe that enough positive change can be made to at least get them to start looking at each other.
I don’t want somebody who just accepts a broken system, who says “this is the way things are, and I’ll just have to work with it.” I want somebody who believes that things not only can be better, but need to be better. Judging by the response we’ve been seeing for a first-term black senator with a “funny name,” I don’t think I’m alone. I don’t think anybody realistically believes that Obama is going to walk into the White House and things will magically get better. He won’t change Washington single-handily as the savior of our political system. However, I do believe that he can take a step in the right direction, which is something I’m willing to support.
And, no, I don’t believe Hillary would make that step. Sure, I love her policies, like you said, they’re basically the same as Barack’s. The difference is in the approach. The Clinton name is one of the most divisive in politics. Even if Obama couldn’t unite the country like he says he can (and I do think he’ll do a pretty go job at it), Hillary would be a continuation for the bitterly partisan politics of the past 8 years. This doesn’t work. This isn’t how progress is created. Sure, she might pass the bills and policy changes that she supports, but is that really progress? What’s going to happen if a Democrat wins this November? Iraq War? Over. No Child Left Behind? Gone. Patriot Act? Severely modified. Habeas Corpus? Back. Tax cuts for the wealthy? Gone. Most of the “progress” made over the past 8 years will be taken away. So after 8 years of Hillary pushing the country to the far left, what do you think we happen? A Republican will probably get nominated, he’ll wipe out Hillary’s policy, and no progress will be made again.
So, I don’t believe Hillary’s “Democrat no matter what/fuck Republicans” attitude is going to get us the progress we need. Obama may have the same policies, but he also realizes that it takes both parties to create lasting change.
Finally, I can see why Dems would prefer McCain over Hillary. He does seem more honest and less politically calculating than Hillary (although, he probably is just as calculating). However, I think many people think that if we vote Hillary, we’ll have 8 years of a President we don’t like, followed by 8 years of a Republican president we don’t like. If we vote for McCain, we’ll have another shot to get Obama (or someone else we like) in 4 years because McCain will be old, and most likely unpopular.
Personally, I’d vote for her simply because I don’t want McCain making Supreme Court justice nominations, but I can understand why people are wary of a potential 28 years of Bushs and Clintons in the White House.
All I really wanted to say is that I don’t find your representation of Obama supporters as naive cattle that blindly following pretty words without reason to be accurate. As I’ve stated, I think there are plenty of legitimate reasons to not like Hillary Clinton, even if you like her policies. Maybe some of the people you talk to can’t give you the same answers when you put them on the spot and ask, but I’d be surprised if the didn’t feel similarly.
P.S. I think Hillary would get beat by McCain in the general election, but that’s another topic entirely.
Curt said,
February 18, 2008 @ 11:51 pm
You say that since their policies are the same, that we should follow the realist and that there is no real reason for wanting to follow Obama in that case. Also, you never give a reason as to why we shouldn’t like Obama other than he is hopeful. Why did you choose Hillary over Obama? Because you want someone who isn’t afraid to go along with how Washington has been run for years? Because you want someone who isn’t afraid to take money from lobbyists and PACs? The only reason you really lay down is that she isn’t afraid to use the word “fight.” What does that help? How is more divisiveness in Washington going to help anything? Shouldn’t we want a candidate who is at least willing to try to change the way things are run? Basically, it comes down to the fact that you are afraid that someone could actually do something to straighten this country out. You are afraid of having a candidate that truly wants to change the way things are done in Washington AND will agree with your policy stances. Once you get over this, I assure you, there is plenty of room over here in the Obama camp.
Kaitlyn said,
February 19, 2008 @ 12:59 pm
Someone’s been reading a little too much Paul Krugman and Stanley Fish. They tried this arguement too, paint the opposition as haters. Too bad I do support Barack Obama on policy and do not hate Hillary Clinton at all. I disagree with many things she has said, but you know what, I am a Democrat, she is a Democrat, I don’t hate her. You become the hypocrite and do exactly what you despise when you paint all Obama supporters as mindless, rhetoric-hungry, Hillary-bashing, drones. It’s intellectually dishonest, and frankly I expected better.
Author said,
February 19, 2008 @ 1:46 pm
Thanks for your comments, guys. Quick clarification: I don’t think, and I have never said, that all Obama supporters are mindless drones (After all, “I really like this guy” and I’ll vote for him “with fervor and pride”). I only mentioned “some” people (in New York, in the Anti-Hillary Facebook group I mentioned, etc - let’s not pretend they’re imaginary) whose love of Obama and reflexive hatred of Hillary suggests a cult of personality rather than an interest in political change, which rubs me the wrong way. Sorry for the confusion. Carry on…
Lester said,
February 19, 2008 @ 2:33 pm
OH man, I totally support what you are saying. This is dead on.
What Collage age students don’t realize is that Obama is not the first to make the country feel so inspired.
Carter and JFK were the same way. Did either of them fundamentally change the country? (I know JFK was assassinated, but if he hadn’t been he probably wouldn’t have changed the country either.)
Clinton is the right candidate.
Kaitlyn said,
February 19, 2008 @ 7:12 pm
Shake off those luscious pearls of eloquence, and you’ll see some questions. Do we really think we can “push back” a two-billion-dollar lobbying industry (much of which represents Democratic interests, by the way)? Do we think rich words will make Republicans roll over on health care like tickled puppies, or that hawkish Republicans are quivering to be lullabied into diplomacy? It bears repeating: Supply-siders are supply-siders; homophobes are homophobic; neoconservatives are neoconservative. They all have their reasons, and it’s not because they haven’t been properly instructed by true liberal eloquence.
—-
On these points, I will ask why we should send someone into office that is so bent on terms of practicality and some might say jaded by experience, that they aren’t even willing to confront issues like lobbyist influence and a greater diplomatic role. Yes, it is extremely important to embrace the reality of current situations, but that is no reason to throw up the white flag and cuddle up to the status-quo without a fight.
On your comments, I agree. I hate Hillary-bashing as much as anyone. It’s baseless, often times sexist, and represents the most idiotic kind of group-think. However, in my view, most of that is coming from the Republicans (I saw a piece on the news the other night about how much money Republicans are making selling anti-Hillary ware, tshirts, mugs, etc.). I can’t say that no Obama supporter is guilty of bashing Senator Clinton, but I will say that these occasions are not as frequent as many Hillary supporters would have everyone believe. In my experience (and I have been around a lot of Obama supporters, volunteering, in discussions, etc.), they are very positive people with a bright vision for America’s future and a fairly progressive agenda. Hate doesn’t come up much.
Overall, I would have to agree the words of Deval Patrick (governor of Massachusetts) and now Barack Obama when he (they) asked “Just words?” Underestimating the power and importance of language to inspire and move the country would be the real mistake. Hope is not trite. Change is not cliche. As you said, Obama has the policy to back those words up. And after 8 years of disasterous foreign policy, hope for change is all we have left.
Megan Friedman said,
February 19, 2008 @ 8:20 pm
I think it’s really refreshing to hear a Northwestern student with a perspective that isn’t pro-Obama or even pro-Ron Paul. People out there obviously must be voting for Hillary, and I’m really glad to hear your perspective. Great article.
Melissa said,
February 21, 2008 @ 9:57 pm
Read this:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/19/AR2008021902336.html
The Obama Delusion by Robert J. Samuelson. It’s really reminiscent of your work, with a little Washington Post push with it. ;)
Completely agree with your article. But what the Samuelson article touched on that I think is also relevant is wondering what change will Obama really enact. He talks big and eloquent, but where’s his practicality and his experience? What makes him different from Hillary other than he is pushing far more platforms that are improbable? How can platforms for “change” be meaningful if they’re the same as what Hillary is putting out and, in reality, just maintaining the status quo, such as in social security? He says he’s different, but he’s not. He just lies more convincingly.
My favorite quote from the Samuelson article:
“By Obama’s own moral standards, Obama fails. Americans ‘are tired of hearing promises made and 10-point plans proposed in the heat of a campaign only to have nothing change,’ he recently said. Shortly thereafter he outlined an economic plan of at least 12 points[[.]”
I am ambivalent about Hillary, but I do find it ridiculous how so many people hate her for little to no reason (if you have reasons to back it up, you’re cool, but hating her just because is far more commonplace, from what I’ve heard).
Bravo for writing this article. It needed to be said.