An Internet hub for moderates, centrists, and independents, with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, and right

A Big Bowl of Symbolism Just Won’t Do It

01astew.jpg

I was all fired up to write a deep-thinking post on Barack Obama’s continuing indifference (or inability) to put meat on the bones of his otherwise captivating hope-and-change mantra after Daniel Larison cited this terrific quote from Joshua Foa Dienstag, a deep thinker whose specialty is the study of pessimism, which certainly would seem to be a growth industry in America:

“Since, unlike the present, tomorrow is always imaginary, such idolatry can be manipulated in many ways. On the one hand, of course, the Stalins of the world can demand the death of millions in the name of a future paradise. This is an especial concern of Camus, who complains of those who ‘glorify a future state of happiness, about which no one knows anything, so that the future authorizes every kind of humbug. . . . ‘

“Given the ironic character of history, we should, at the very least, make sure that our actions have some value in the present. The future that we imagine is unlikely to come about, if it does come about it will not last, and when it does come about we will probably despise it.”

Alas, I am not the same intellectual ballpark as Dienstag, let alone Larison, so I’ll merely belabor the obvious: While Obama excites the heck out of me and other voters in the abstract, how do we know whether he can deliver on his message since it is so lacking in substance beyond a welcome pledge to end the Iraq war?

The answer, of course, is that we don’t know and just like George Bush’s infamous “trust me” line, we’ll probably just have to trust him, although I’m far from comfortable with that.

Can Obama succeed without having a political philosophy? Ronald Reagan, John F. Kennedy, Franklin D. Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson, to name several notable presidents of the century past, all had philosophies that were their lodestars.

Rick Moran is among the best right-of-center bloggers because he actually uses his brain like a precision instrument and not as a cudgel, but he is in full sour-grapes mode because Fred Thompson, his inexplicable darling for the Republican nomination, left the scene with an embarrassing whimper.

Rick, who seems to be taking his pique out on Obama, asks:

“Just what exactly does he stand for besides the vague platitudes about ‘hope’ and ‘change’ that pepper his speeches like little dollops of whipped cream? Where is the rock to which he tethers his beliefs?

“I don’t think this is a question of intellectual laziness but rather it is a matter of not having spent enough time confronting, questioning, strengthening, and ultimately adopting in his own mind the bedrock foundation of a political philosophy.”

So Rick believes that Obama has not burned sufficient shoe leather compared to say, Reagan, whose political philosophy the conservatives who bankrolled his candidacy cut, pasted and handed to him on a silver platter. Yes, I’m being facetious, but it is a good question nevertheless.

This is because when the proverbial hits the fan, which is bound to do sooner rather than later in an Obama or any other presidency, what does the guy have to fall back on? A big bowl of symbolism just won’t do it.

What does somewhat help my comfort level is the impressive roster of senior legislators who have endorsed Obama. To date these inlude Pat Leahy, Kent Conrad, John Kerry and Ted Kennedy. (Diane Feinstein, of course, has thrown in her lot with Billary. Darn!)

As has been remarked, endorsements seem like a hangover from an earlier era, but these guys have an extraordinary amount of experience and none would seem to be naturals to endorse Clinton. So do they know something or do they merely smell change in their air?

Avedon Carol, a transplanted American who blogs from London, riffs on a not dissimilar situation at The Sideshow:

“I can’t help remembering that beautiful spring day in 1997, walking through Piccadilly and feeling such enormous relief at having kicked out the Conservatives, even though I knew that Blair’s virtues were pure projection by his idealistic supporters and that he was much more likely to continue what the Tories had been doing. But they were all so sure that he’d bring . . . Change. I had hoped that the rest of the Labour Party could rein him in, and they didn’t. Someone tried to tell me last night that America isn’t England, but that’s no solace – I’ve already seen how well the Democrats fight against conservatives; they’ve been much better at fighting against their own supporters. I . . . dread what will happen if Obama does break your hearts.”

I do too, and my heart is frail when it comes to promises made and not kept, but I’m willing to take a chance and will vote for Barack Obama next Tuesday.

  • Rudi
    Shaun - You didn't link to Larison's site, here's a link to the site: Real thinking conservative. On my PC the site has a bandwith problem.
  • flyerhawk
    Shaun,

    I have read this argument that Obama offers no substance to his campaign other than Hope and other vague notions.

    I don't believe this to be particularly accurate. It is NOT that Obama has avoided outlining his policy ideas. He most certainly has. To name a few.

    1. He has stated that he wants the Federal government to become more involved in our national health care specifically by offering insurance to those who currently cannot afford it. Here is a link to his plan.

    2. He has given several detailed discussion on his foreign policy views. He gives a fairly detailed and nuanced look at his foreign policy views here

    3. He has stated on numerous occasion that he is supportive of immigrant rights and opposing politically popular but counter-productive policies such as banning driver's licenses for illegals.

    In truth he has spoken, on many occasions, about just about every policy issue there is.

    The problem isn't that he is weak on issues. The problem is that his campaign doesn't focus on issues. Issues based campaigns are for losers, as Fred Thompson sorely learned. So his critics like to point to his campaign speeches which are big on inspiration but rarely delve into boring policy wonk stuff that most people don't care about.

    I also disagree that FDR had a core set of principles that guided him. He was, if nothing else, the master of pragmatic politics. He didn't really care what the solution was as long as it worked. He would have pushed for Lochner-style Laissez-Faire if he thought that would fix the problem. He was not dogmatic at all.
  • shaun
    Rudy:

    I've been trying to link to Larison every which way but keep encountering bandwidth problem. Guess the guy's really popular. I know he's really good.
  • shaun
    Flyerhawk:

    I think that you're mostly on the money in general and spot on about FDR's political philosophy being pragmatism.

    Maybe I have become addicted to pat terms like "populism" and "neoconservatism," but Obama -- if he survives the primary season -- is gonna have to move beyond generalities.
  • flyerhawk
    Oh I agree, Shaun. What works in the primaries doesn't necessarily work in the general. He will have to sharpen his edges more and start speaking about specific issues which play well to Democrats and Independents.

    The truth is that Hillary and Obama are generally aligned politically. Sure there are differences. But if Obama, the underdog, wants to beat Hillary, the heir apparent, the last thing he wants to do is get into a argument/agreement over how little their policies differentiate.

    If he makes it to the General against McCain he needs to flesh out his Iraq plan and leverage that against McCain's "100 years" plan. He needs to focus on health care. Those are winning arguments for both Hillary and Obama.
  • I agree with flyerhawk -- there's quite a lot of policy discussion out there. And I also agree that his campaign is not focused there. There is a great deal of symbolism, and for many of us (like me), that's not a problem.

    IMHO -- part of the disconnect for many folks stems from his not being particularly easy to "pigeonhole" into a political category. The views of him as a far-left liberal, in particular, strike me as pretty far off. Since we're in the middle of the primary campaign, I'm not surprised at the light focus there, but as I wrote at my own blog this morning -- with Edwards out, Obama's positions on a number of issues are likely to get rather a lot more airtime.
  • Rudi
    Shaun - I don't think he's all that popular. My guess is that his site was hacked or the service provider has a problem. I read him quite a bit, he's linked to by quite a few independent minded Republicans. However, he has an issue with his ties to the VDare and Steve Sailer crowd. I don't think he's in the white supremist (sp)camp.

    For the "geek squad", he's using a really old version of Apache. This could also be a reason for the technical difficulties.
    Apache:
    The Apache HTTP Server Project is proud to announce the release of version 2.2.8 of the Apache HTTP Server ("Apache"). This version is principally a security and bugfix release.

    The message from the site say:
    Bandwidth Limit Exceeded
    The server is temporarily unable to service your request due to the site owner reaching his/her bandwidth limit. Please try again later.
    Apache/1.3.37 Server at www.larison.org Port 80
  • shaun
    Rudi:

    Sigh.
  • Slamfu
    Whenever I hear someone mention that a candidate hasn't outlined how they would deal with problems I wonder if thats even possible? For one I think Obama answers questions far more thoroughly than any other candidate. But I guess what I'm wondering is what kind of answer do you expect? How does Obama not state what he's planning and another candidate has? And can you give me an example?

    Basically candidates get these monumental questions like how do you plan to fix healthcare, control the budget, and keep recession at bay. Questions that would essentially require a doctoral thesis worth of explanation just to identify and communicate the causes, let alone the solutions. And they are expected to respond to this question with a nice 15 or 30 second sound bite that wraps it up. I say any meaningful answer to these questions is outside the scope of debates or interviews. But Obama consistently comes the closest in my opinion.

    Basically can someone show me what you mean by "putting meat on the bones" of a response to critical issues. Who does it successfully and what makes a satisfactory arguement as opposed to the fluff Obama is said to lay out there.
blog comments powered by Disqus
© 2005-2009 The Moderate Voice | Site design by Elegant Themes | Site customization, hosting, and security by Enxit Group, LLC