Run, Barack, Run

If I was a Democratic Senator, or if I was Obama, pasta-forbid, I would not take any advice from Republican activists like David Brooks. Especially when the reasons are so weakly argued.

David Brooks: Run, Barack, Run Whether you're liberal or conservative, you should hope Senator Barack Obama runs for president.

Well, I'm liberal (a godless liberal at that, as well as a card carrying member of the ACLU), and I don't lay awake nights wishing Obama would run for president. Do we really need yet another mealy-mouthed Nixonian Democrat? (ie, a politician who would have been right at home as a member of Nixon's party, sometimes known as a Rockefeller Republican. The political climate has shifted so far to the right these are interchangeable terms in my mind). Obama has been in only one election campaign, and it was against an Illinois Republican party in disarray, in a very Democratic state. In other words, Obama has yet to be tested by a real campaign.

Tags: , /, /

He should run first for the good of his party. It would demoralize the Democrats to go through a long primary season with the most exciting figure in the party looming off in the distance like some unapproachable dream. The next Democratic nominee should either be Barack Obama or should have the stature that would come from defeating Barack Obama.

Second, he should run because of his age. Obama’s inexperience is his most obvious shortcoming. Over the next four years, the world could face a genocidal civil war in Iraq, a wave of nuclear proliferation, more Islamic extremism and a demagogues’ revolt against globalization. Do we really want a forty-something in the White House?

And yet in his new book, “The Audacity of Hope,” Obama makes a strong counterargument. He notes that it’s time to move beyond the political style of the baby boom generation. This is a style, he said in an interview late Tuesday, that is highly moralistic and personal, dividing people between who is good and who is bad.

Obama himself has a mentality formed by globalization, not the S.D.S. With his multiethnic family and his globe-spanning childhood, there is a little piece of everything in Obama. He is perpetually engaged in an internal discussion between different pieces of his hybrid self — Kenya with Harvard, Kansas with the South Side of Chicago — and he takes that conversation outward into the world.

“Politics, like science, depends on our ability to persuade each other of common aims based on a common reality,” he writes in his book. He distrusts righteous anger and zeal. He does not demonize his opponents and tells audiences that he does not think George Bush is a bad man.


These bullet points, scribbled on crayon, in David Brook's mom's house, do not convince me of anything, in fact, they are pretty much all arguing against Obama. To me, these mean milk toast, lack of conviction, lack of fire. I don't want Joe Lieberman or Harry Reid as my President either.

He has a compulsive tendency to see both sides of any issue. Joe Klein of Time counted 50 instances of extremely judicious on-the-one-hand-on the-other-hand formulations in the book. He seems like the guy who spends his first 15 minutes at a restaurant debating the relative merits of fish versus meat.
Oh yes, if John Kerry, a decorated war hero, could be filleted by the Republicans over this same trait, why would Barack Obama be immune?
...The third reason Obama should run for president is his worldview. At least in the way he conceptualizes the world, he is not an orthodox liberal. In the book, he harks back to a Hamiltonian tradition that calls not for big government, but for limited yet energetic government to enhance social mobility. The contemporary guru he cites most is Warren Buffett.

He has interesting things to say about the way culture and economics intertwine to create urban poverty. He, conceptually, welcomes free trade and thinks the U.S. may have no choice but to improvise and slog it out in Iraq.

The chief problem in his book is that after launching off on some interesting description of a problem, he will settle back, when it comes time to make a policy suggestion, into a familiar and small-bore Democratic proposal. I’d give him an A for conception but a B-minus for policy creativity. [Brooks is too generous in his grading, I'd say B- and D]

Obama, who is nothing if not honest about himself, is aware of the problem, and has various explanations for it. And what matters at this point is not his platform, but the play of his mind. He is one of those progressives, like Gordon Brown in Britain, who is thinking about the challenges of globalization outside the normal clichés.

More yimmer yammer, which makes me like Obama even less. Bleh.

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Seth A. published on October 19, 2006 9:35 AM.

Cannabis for all of us was the previous entry in this blog.

Elmhurst sucks is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Pages

Powered by Movable Type 4.37