Is Obama the New Eugene McCarthy?
Andrew Sullivan has lobbed a grenade into the presidential campaign tent with “Good Bye to All That,” his provocative and instantly famous essay on what for me is emerging as a central issue in the 2008 presidential race: Which candidates are capable of bringing new thinking to old problems, as well as dealing with all the new ones.
Sullivan writes that:
“A Giuliani-Clinton matchup, favored by the media elite, is a classic intragenerational struggle—with two deeply divisive and ruthless personalities ready to go to the brink. Giuliani represents that Nixonian disgust with anyone asking questions about, let alone actively protesting, a war. Clinton will always be, in the minds of so many, the young woman who gave the commencement address at Wellesley, who sat in on the Nixon implosion and who once disdained baking cookies. For some, her husband will always be the draft dodger who smoked pot and wouldn’t admit it. And however hard she tries, there is nothing Hillary Clinton can do about it. She and Giuliani are conscripts in their generation’s war. To their respective sides, they are war heroes . . .
“The war today matters enormously. The war of the last generation? Not so much. If you are an American who yearns to finally get beyond the symbolic battles of the Boomer generation and face today’s actual problems, Obama may be your man.”
With the exception of Ron Paul, the Republican wannabes are a sorry bunch in this regard, ranging from somnambulant (Thompson) to predictable (Romney) to frightening (Giuliani).
The Democratic field is only marginally better, and I have trouble escaping the feeling that Clinton is capable of being a Bush with skirts. So I keep sliding back into Obama’s embrace even though I believe he could use some more seasoning.
Until I read Sullivan’s essay, I couldn’t quite put my finger on why Obama was so attractive, but Andrew nails it: My generation has had its chance and blew it. It’s time to give the next generation a shot.
But is Barack Obama the Eugene McCarthy of the 2008 campaign?
McCarthy was not exactly young at 52 when he challenged Lyndon Johnson for the Democratic presidential nomination in 1968. (Obama is 46.) But McCarthy spoke for a younger generation in basing his campaign on his fierce opposition to the Vietnam War.
The senator from Minnesota was to give the Democratic establishment fits, and although he was viewed by the news media as a novelty, he won the New Hampshire primary. This galvanized many college students, some of whom cut their long hair and shaved off their beards when they became McCarthy campaign volunteers, which led to the slogan “Get clean for Gene.”
In just one of a number of shocking events in 1968, the Vietnam War took yet another casuality when LBJ announced in March of 1968 that he would not run for re-election.
Vice President Hubert Humphrey, another Minnesotan, went on to get the nomination at the stormy Democratic National Convention in Chicago and was beaten that fall by Richard Nixon in a match-up of two Old School politicians. Nixon promised to end the war, but of course did not.
Obama’s stand on the Iraq war is similar to McCarthy’s on Vietnam, which is to say that they were early opponents of the conflicts who had little company in Congress.
And a central theme of both their campaigns is that it is time to shake up the Old School political establishment — which in McCarthy’s case was a shot at Johnson and later Humphrey, and in Obama’s a shot at Mrs. Clinton.
In the end, whether Obama gets the nomination will have less to do with his ability to move beyond those symbolic Boomer battles than the reality that the mainstream media manipulates campaign coverage because of its willingness to be manipulated by the campaigns.
Along with the deeply corrosive influence of big money on politics, the incestuous relationship between the MSM and Old School politicians and the ability of both groups to create the illusion that presidential politics are by and for the people, by golly, are the most screwed up aspects of this quadrennial ritual.
So, will Barack Obama do any better than Eugene McCarthy did? My instincts tell me that the answer is a resounding “no.”
14 Responses to “Is Obama the New Eugene McCarthy?”
Shaun:
Senator Obama has unquestionably done more that any other Democrat to reach out to evangelicals who care about issues like global warming and AIDS. A good example of this effort is his meetings with Pastor Rick Warren of Saddleback church in California and author of the wildly popular The Purpose Driven Life.
The same evangelicals, however, who are drawn by his recent gestures scratch their heads when they see him refuse to say the pledge of allegiance or wear an American flag on his lapel. (If every commentator on NFL broadcasts can wear one, why can’t Senator Obama?) Some evangelicals – like Dr. Gregory Boyd – have criticized the U.S. conservative Christian tendency to juxtapose flag and cross, but most see no conflict.
Has Mr. Obama given a good explanation of his refusal to do these things? It does seem like an error on par with Governor Dukakis’ refusal to say the pledge of allegiance in the ’88 campaign, and we all know what President Bush – 41 did with that. What a gift!
Any insights?
Republicrat:
I don’t think Obama “owes” anyone an explanation about his not wearing an American flag on his lapel. He has said why that is so and I have no problem with his reasoning. In fact, the lapel “issue” is far and away the most bogus of the campaign to date.
I just came in from putting out my American flag for Veterans Day weekend. No other houses in my neighborhood are displaying American flags. Does this make my neighbors unpatriotic?
We need to focus on real issues.
“My generation has had its chance and blew it. It’s time to give the next generation a shot.”
Now that’s ironic.
I think the issue isn’t whether Obama owes anyone an explanation, but rather that during a presidential campaign everything he does is fair game for the opposition.
The GOP usually tries to present Democrats as less
patriotic, enablers of our enemies. They have already insinuated that Obama is not quite a true-blue American by mixing him up with Osama, or emphasizing his middle name (Hussein). A lot of voters think he’s a Muslim and attended a madrassa, thanks to Fox News. Were he to overcome Hillary’s lead, he would become their main target. Wouldn’t this be a likely tactic for Republican strategists, who are getting a little desperate over their chances of holding onto the White House? Why give them ammunition unnecessarily? Just remember the swift boating of John Kerry and Max Clelland, if you have any doubts that not wearing a flag pin or saying the pledge would be magnified into not swearing allegiance to the US during the heat of the campaign. Mitt Romney already confused Obama and Osama in speeches. The GOP base eats that stuff up.
I agree with Krit. If Obama gets the nomination, he’ll suddenly become worse than Shillary or that guy who shot himself that the Democrats nominated last time.
I mean, his name rhymes with Osama.
George Will made this same point on ABC’s This Week last Sunday. His point was that Obama is staking out much the same territory as Gene McCarthy, John Edwards as Robert Kennedy, and Hillary Clinton as Hubert Humphrey (although if Hillary Clinton had Hubert Humphrey’s relentless optimism she’d be a better candidate).
But isn’t George W. Bush this year’s LBJ?
And aren’t all the Republicans trying to be Humphrey?
And aren’t all the Republicans trying to be Humphrey?
Except Ron Paul,lol. He’s this election’s Pat Buchanan.
I do not think Obama is the next McCarty, his voting record is plenty of fair game instead of his Muslim name.
Obama supports or is against the following.
1) Is for allowing Violent Illegal Alien Felons to become citizens.
Voted – No
To – S Amdt 1184 to S Amdt 1150 to S 1348: To establish a permanent bar for gang members, terrorists, and other criminals.
“Vote to pass an amendment that would prohibit undocumented immigrants convicted of aggravated felonies, domestic violence, stalking, violation of protection orders, crimes against children, or crimes relating to the illegal purchase or sale of firearms, from gaining legal status. ”
2) Is for allowing any organization to prevent parents from exercising their rights when it comes to their children and abortion.
Voted – No
To – S 403: A bill to amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit taking minors across State lines in circumvention of laws requiring the involvement of parents in abortion decisions.
3) This protecting the US Flag from Desecration in the US Constitution is wrong.
Voted – No
To – S J Res 12: A joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States authorizing Congress to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States.
4) And has missed by 20+ votes in the senate this year because he would rather run for POTUS than fulfill his obligations to the people of Illinois.
I do not think McCarty would have missed so many votes in 2007 (1 – year before the 2008 races even start) and voted like the votes listed above. It appears to me he has deliberately missed several controversial votes.
Shaun,
To the extent you are accurate about the MSM problem, I think you miss a point. Their viewpoints are either those of Boomers (esp. the Suits) or are greatly influenced by Boomer thought (such as it is). That, I think, could be a problem, for Barack.
Interesting that you reference 1968. Fitting really, though not in the way you might have anticipated. What Obama, Sullivan, and I would argue is that we need to, FINALLY, move beyond 1968. In truth, our politics has been stuck in that period since that yr. itself. That’s no way to govern in 2007-08.
BTW: Republicrat, I want to correct something. Obama has said he DOES say the pledge. The issue was proper HAND PLACEMENT for the Anthem
PS: I wrote about this here:
Huh, my link didn’t work. Let’s see.
Or http://themoderatevoice.com/politics/13532/guest-voice-obamas-and-americas-generation-problem/
KevinA:
You have articulated a core aspect of the issue better than I, and for that matter Sullivan.
I am a student of the year 1968 and it was a turning point in so many extraordinary ways. I plan to blog about that at some length on the 30th anniversary of that year next year. But you’re right. It’s time to move.
I keep meaning to write more on it too, but somehow, it never quite happens.
Kevin A:
Thanks for the correction. For those interested, here’s a good story on the pledge vs. national anthem question:
http://www.buffalonews.com/nationalworld/national/story/202025.html