Gone is the bluebird, here comes the new bird! Redbird, sing us a song!
I am in a hotel in Valparaiso, Indiana, across the street from Kelsey's Steakhouse, which has a ten-foot tall statue of a steer (named Howie) staring balefully at you from a pedestal in front of the restaurant. I have paid for Scrivener; it is mine now. And I have Microsoft Word again, thank jebus.
Also, I have brought my two remaining bettas with me, and I am astonished that they're holding up this well. They still don't have names, really: the red-and-pearly male is just sort of companionably there, and the little yellow girl who has been "Little Girl" much longer than she ever was "Firefly" is energetic and alert and feisty, and oh my gosh, I always fall in love with the yellow ones, and I hope she lives forever and a day. Especially if lindensphinx's two kittens don't end up eating them or knocking their jars over.
A few TNR commenters have suggested that liberals start referring to "the Ann Coulter wing of the Republican party," which I think is brilliant smear tactics, and hardly new from the other end. Leon Wieseltier wrote a typically dense and meaty thought piece on Barack Obama, in which he lays out his sine wave reaction to the candidate. It's a slinky way of asking Obama to prove his doubts wrong, and be the substance everyone hopes he is. The brilliant bit, however, showed up in the reader reactions -- let me show you this defense of Obama and his experience, it's splendid:First, you simply underestimate or discount Obama's accomplishments, record, and positions. Second, you ignore other relevant factors, such as charisma, integrity, and vision. Third, you ignore the extent to which your own preferred factors are not great predicters of effectiveness in office. On the last point, you use a double standard. You're allowed to say that Obama is Carter but nobody else is allowed to say that Cheney and Rumsfeld represent your preferred factor of foreign policy experience. I say Carter's problem is that he was simple-minded (a characteristic I would not ascribe to Obama). You say, what, Cheney and Rumsfeld are unique in their stupidity and should not be used to discount foreign policy experience generally? Fine, I'll agree that foreign policy experience is not, in principle, a bad thing if you agree that Carter's ineffectiveness may be due to factors that go beyond whatever superficial similarities you have identified between him and Obama.
But back to the first point: Obama's accomplishments, record, and positions. A short summary, mostly from my recollection (as opposed to extensive research): with a degree from Columbia in political science (with, I'm informed by the Internets, a specialization in international relations), he worked a bit before going to Chicago to help the poor -- job-training activities and the like. A few years later, he went to Harvard Law, where he excelled, as you know. He went back to Chicago, where he worked as a civil rights lawyer and lecturer at U of C law. Soon after, he was elected to the Illinois State Senate, representing a South Side district, where he gained a reputation as someone who would work with the opposition. He is largely responsible for the following legislation: an ethics overhaul, including a gift ban, an earned income tax credit, a death penalty overhaul (in the wake of numerous death row acquittals) including a law requiring videotaped interrogations in death penalty cases, and the bill outlawing discrimination against gays in jobs and housing. He moved for a statewide study of racial profiling, and won police backing in his Senate bid anyway. Generally, he was on the right side of fiscal issues and health care issues, wary of tax cuts in the cash-strapped state and supportive of legislation expanding health coverage.
During the run-up to the Iraq war, he said that he opposed it, but did not oppose the use of force on principle. He advocated a focus on al Qeada and expressed serious concerns about Iran in an interview with the Chicago Tribune. He said that he advocated seeking international support for economic sanctions against Iran, thought an all-out war seemed unlikely given the commitment in Iraq, but said that missile strikes against Iran might be necessary to prevent it from acquiring nuclear weapons.
Once elected to the Senate, I recall an early advocacy on behalf of veterans -- making sure that Illinois veterans were being paid their benefits. I recall as well that he worked with Sen. Lugar on securing weapons sites in the former Soviet Union. His name is attached to associated non-proliferation legislation signed into law. He co-sponsored a bill with Sen. Coburn for transparency in federal funding. I recall too that he opposed watered-down ethics reform, seeking a total gift ban and an independent ethics body with teeth. He was instrumental in the ethics reform package passed by the Senate containing such a gift ban as well as earmark transparency. He supported immigration legislation with McCain and Lugar. He has backed and sponsored legislation increasing funding for Darfur relief and other legislation and is about as active and vocal on the issue as anyone in government (including an op-ed piece co-authored with Sam Brownback). I recall that he backed legislation on higher education financial assistance, Katrina profiteering (in the form of ballooning no-bid government contracts) with Coburn once again, chemical plant security, stem cell research, bird flu, alternaitve fuels, net-neutrality and on and on.
He is known more widely for delivering his knock-out speech at the DNC, which became an instant classic and captured the hope of many of us that we might move beyond partisan orthodoxies and the rhetoric of us v. them to an open search for and implementation of policy solutions that work. He has invoked FDR on numerous occasions, correctly understanding his legacy as a leader who chucked ideological playbooks in favor of a tireless search for pragmatic solutions to real problems and a leader who brought the American people with him in that endeavor. Too many don't want to try that path, viewing a social conscience as naive at best and heretical and dangerous at worst. He supports universal coverage, but has not endorsed a particular way to achieve that goal yet. Hard to argue with that. It's an incredibly complicated issue. Three things we know are that he wants it done, will listen to everyone as he has throughout his political career, and will bring considered judgment to a proposed policy.
On Iraq, you asked whether anyone knows what his position is or cares. I know and care. He opposes the "surge," advocates withdrawal from Iraq beginning this year, and favors the redeployment concept favored by other Democrats, including HRC. He correctly identified the Iraq war as a strategic and moral disaster from the beginning, whereas HRC, as well as Biden (one of your wise men) and Edwards (your preferred liberal for some reason), voted to authorize it. (And your preferred foreign policy lion, Colin Powell, was instrumental in bullshitting the world about WMD in Iraq in a fit of what *I hope* was misplaced loyalty.) Obama has correctly identified Iran as one of the biggest beneficiaries of this failed policy and shares our fear of a nuclear and emboldened Iran. He has visited Iraq, Isreal, Russia, and Africa. He is regarded by those who know as pro-Israel and sincerely so. (So much for the Carter analogy!)
I'll add that Obama has written two fine books, one frankly discussing his personal struggles in his youth to find his way, a story, like it or not, which can be an inspiration to others, and the other a political book discussing in general terms his vision for a more unified politics grounded in common sense, common decency, and shared American principles.
That I think gives you a flavor of his accomplishments and positions. I do not regard it as a trivial record. More than its size, it shows me a leader on the side I want to be on, issue after issue, together with a marked desire to seek consensus and work with the opposition. On one point I will agree with the skeptics, however -- his most impressive achievements are in his future.
But there is more to the success and appeal of a politician than his "accomplishments, record, and positions." We never, ever evaluate a candidate for high office on paper alone. That would be silly. Your constant suggestion that we should do that here -- when we wouldn't do it when deciding to fill just about any other job -- is absurd and little more, I think, than an attempt to artificially exclude from consideration some areas in which Obama excels as somehow illegitimate. These areas include his speaking ability, his charisma (both up close and on a podium), his integrity (find me a real scandal, please), his sincerity, and his ability to articulate a vision that commands broad support. I don't think I need to make the case that he is a brilliant speaker. I encourage anyone to read or listen to or watch (if possible) his speeches who doubt that point. He strikes the right tone in every public appearance. He is easy to talk to, easy to listen to, and easy to like. He comes off as neither stiff nor rehearsed nor whiny. Rather, he comes across as honest, energetic, smart and attentive. He projects an easy self-confidence as well as a sharp sense of humor. In a job that is about dealing with people and presenting yourself to people, I do not regard these traits as unworthy of serious attention. I'm also reminded of a couple of recent Democrats whose presidential campaigns failed not because of their resumes but because of their job interviews. Kerry is regarded as a national joke today, which is unfair, but that harsh reality highlights the importance of these qualities. As Lewis Black put it, I started to listen to this guy speak and I needed bread crumbs to get back home. Biden is seen as a blowhard. Hillary comes across as uptight, sometimes shrill, and at other times strangely off-key. Obama is really a breath of fresh air in this regard. The great politicians we remember were great communicators; Obama is a such a politician.
More than the ability to deliver a good speech or come across as likeable is what the man says. Like Reagan, he uses his skills to promote a general outlook, a policy attitude, that we can expect will inform his actions and positions. Unlike Reagan, that attitude in Obama's case is not one that exploits popular fears and resentments to promote a conservative ideology (disguising it as upbeat optimism). Rather, it's an attitude that appeals to people's better natures and their sources of broad agreement to promote not an ideology (economic or otherwise) but rather to promote solutions to shared problems. This appeal goes beyond the "kulturkampf" or, as I call it, culture wars. (Why use a German word when English will do?!) It goes toward ordinary Americans' economic insecurity. It's not coded socialism but merely an appeal premised on the notion that your neighbor's welfare matters, and that "fuck you" is an inadequate and unattractive response from government to hardship, of the middle class, working class, or poor variety. It's an effective rebuke of Tory apathy and neo-con ideological enthusiasms. I do not mind at all that Obama grounds this appeal in Christianity, as well as American values, Democratic values, democratic values, and good old right and wrong. That's the nature of a broad appeal. He's the first popular Democrat I've seen in a long time who not only doesn't apologize for making a Cuomo-style pitch for decent government, but does it spectacularly well, making it seem (as Reagan did for his attitude) that it's what we all believe. The difference is that Reagan was appealing to our pettiness; Obama the opposite. While this agenda may be more domestic-policy-oriented than you would like, I don't regard domestic policy as a trivial matter. I don't think you do either, given your oft-repeated advocacy for universal health care.
Finally, the last point again, briefly, as it's getting late: You overrate experience. Some politicians throughout history do well with little experience and some with a great deal of experience do not. Experience, I do not believe, is a great predicter of success. We have likewise had presidents not possessed of great intelligence do well, and we've seen smartypants fail (and vice versa). It's hard to know based on one or both of those criteria how someone will do in this unique role. I'll suggest this: To the extent you are worried that Obama would not understand a foreign policy issue, would not deal well with foreign leaders, or would not have the resolve, say, to use military force when necessary, I think your concerns are probably not well-founded. Also, I'll suggest again that I fail to see how a few more years in the Senate (which would probably put the experience questions to rest) would significantly address any of those concerns in your mind.
I understand that you want a candidate who is an expert on foreign policy and who has spent some large portion of his/her career in that field. I want a candidate who shows potential as being a great leader for our party and our country. I think your references to Biden or Richardson show your preoccupation to be somewhat narrow and ideosyncratic. I don't think they have a shot, though I'll give them a listen. Powell is not running. McCain I think is too conservative, and I'm not wild about his current Iraq position. (Or his Iraq position at any point for that matter. Your wise men, for the most part, all supported a huge mistake. Doesn't that give you pause, even given your fixations?) I'll once again ask that you keep an open mind about Obama at this early stage (although last time I did that you started calling him Sen. J. Crew!), or at least avoid going into hysterics every time the guy's name is mentioned. I think he deserves serious attention and may end up earning a lot of skeptics' support.
The rest of the comments, from skeptics and believers alike, are more than worth reading as well, something I always appreciate about The New Republic.
I still can't figure out what the hell Leon means when he tells us that he is "not un-suave," though. I hope that's tongue-in-cheek, because when I think of suavity, having taken a class with him, Leon Wieseltier does not come immediately to mind.
Also, I have brought my two remaining bettas with me, and I am astonished that they're holding up this well. They still don't have names, really: the red-and-pearly male is just sort of companionably there, and the little yellow girl who has been "Little Girl" much longer than she ever was "Firefly" is energetic and alert and feisty, and oh my gosh, I always fall in love with the yellow ones, and I hope she lives forever and a day. Especially if lindensphinx's two kittens don't end up eating them or knocking their jars over.
A few TNR commenters have suggested that liberals start referring to "the Ann Coulter wing of the Republican party," which I think is brilliant smear tactics, and hardly new from the other end. Leon Wieseltier wrote a typically dense and meaty thought piece on Barack Obama, in which he lays out his sine wave reaction to the candidate. It's a slinky way of asking Obama to prove his doubts wrong, and be the substance everyone hopes he is. The brilliant bit, however, showed up in the reader reactions -- let me show you this defense of Obama and his experience, it's splendid:First, you simply underestimate or discount Obama's accomplishments, record, and positions. Second, you ignore other relevant factors, such as charisma, integrity, and vision. Third, you ignore the extent to which your own preferred factors are not great predicters of effectiveness in office. On the last point, you use a double standard. You're allowed to say that Obama is Carter but nobody else is allowed to say that Cheney and Rumsfeld represent your preferred factor of foreign policy experience. I say Carter's problem is that he was simple-minded (a characteristic I would not ascribe to Obama). You say, what, Cheney and Rumsfeld are unique in their stupidity and should not be used to discount foreign policy experience generally? Fine, I'll agree that foreign policy experience is not, in principle, a bad thing if you agree that Carter's ineffectiveness may be due to factors that go beyond whatever superficial similarities you have identified between him and Obama.
But back to the first point: Obama's accomplishments, record, and positions. A short summary, mostly from my recollection (as opposed to extensive research): with a degree from Columbia in political science (with, I'm informed by the Internets, a specialization in international relations), he worked a bit before going to Chicago to help the poor -- job-training activities and the like. A few years later, he went to Harvard Law, where he excelled, as you know. He went back to Chicago, where he worked as a civil rights lawyer and lecturer at U of C law. Soon after, he was elected to the Illinois State Senate, representing a South Side district, where he gained a reputation as someone who would work with the opposition. He is largely responsible for the following legislation: an ethics overhaul, including a gift ban, an earned income tax credit, a death penalty overhaul (in the wake of numerous death row acquittals) including a law requiring videotaped interrogations in death penalty cases, and the bill outlawing discrimination against gays in jobs and housing. He moved for a statewide study of racial profiling, and won police backing in his Senate bid anyway. Generally, he was on the right side of fiscal issues and health care issues, wary of tax cuts in the cash-strapped state and supportive of legislation expanding health coverage.
During the run-up to the Iraq war, he said that he opposed it, but did not oppose the use of force on principle. He advocated a focus on al Qeada and expressed serious concerns about Iran in an interview with the Chicago Tribune. He said that he advocated seeking international support for economic sanctions against Iran, thought an all-out war seemed unlikely given the commitment in Iraq, but said that missile strikes against Iran might be necessary to prevent it from acquiring nuclear weapons.
Once elected to the Senate, I recall an early advocacy on behalf of veterans -- making sure that Illinois veterans were being paid their benefits. I recall as well that he worked with Sen. Lugar on securing weapons sites in the former Soviet Union. His name is attached to associated non-proliferation legislation signed into law. He co-sponsored a bill with Sen. Coburn for transparency in federal funding. I recall too that he opposed watered-down ethics reform, seeking a total gift ban and an independent ethics body with teeth. He was instrumental in the ethics reform package passed by the Senate containing such a gift ban as well as earmark transparency. He supported immigration legislation with McCain and Lugar. He has backed and sponsored legislation increasing funding for Darfur relief and other legislation and is about as active and vocal on the issue as anyone in government (including an op-ed piece co-authored with Sam Brownback). I recall that he backed legislation on higher education financial assistance, Katrina profiteering (in the form of ballooning no-bid government contracts) with Coburn once again, chemical plant security, stem cell research, bird flu, alternaitve fuels, net-neutrality and on and on.
He is known more widely for delivering his knock-out speech at the DNC, which became an instant classic and captured the hope of many of us that we might move beyond partisan orthodoxies and the rhetoric of us v. them to an open search for and implementation of policy solutions that work. He has invoked FDR on numerous occasions, correctly understanding his legacy as a leader who chucked ideological playbooks in favor of a tireless search for pragmatic solutions to real problems and a leader who brought the American people with him in that endeavor. Too many don't want to try that path, viewing a social conscience as naive at best and heretical and dangerous at worst. He supports universal coverage, but has not endorsed a particular way to achieve that goal yet. Hard to argue with that. It's an incredibly complicated issue. Three things we know are that he wants it done, will listen to everyone as he has throughout his political career, and will bring considered judgment to a proposed policy.
On Iraq, you asked whether anyone knows what his position is or cares. I know and care. He opposes the "surge," advocates withdrawal from Iraq beginning this year, and favors the redeployment concept favored by other Democrats, including HRC. He correctly identified the Iraq war as a strategic and moral disaster from the beginning, whereas HRC, as well as Biden (one of your wise men) and Edwards (your preferred liberal for some reason), voted to authorize it. (And your preferred foreign policy lion, Colin Powell, was instrumental in bullshitting the world about WMD in Iraq in a fit of what *I hope* was misplaced loyalty.) Obama has correctly identified Iran as one of the biggest beneficiaries of this failed policy and shares our fear of a nuclear and emboldened Iran. He has visited Iraq, Isreal, Russia, and Africa. He is regarded by those who know as pro-Israel and sincerely so. (So much for the Carter analogy!)
I'll add that Obama has written two fine books, one frankly discussing his personal struggles in his youth to find his way, a story, like it or not, which can be an inspiration to others, and the other a political book discussing in general terms his vision for a more unified politics grounded in common sense, common decency, and shared American principles.
That I think gives you a flavor of his accomplishments and positions. I do not regard it as a trivial record. More than its size, it shows me a leader on the side I want to be on, issue after issue, together with a marked desire to seek consensus and work with the opposition. On one point I will agree with the skeptics, however -- his most impressive achievements are in his future.
But there is more to the success and appeal of a politician than his "accomplishments, record, and positions." We never, ever evaluate a candidate for high office on paper alone. That would be silly. Your constant suggestion that we should do that here -- when we wouldn't do it when deciding to fill just about any other job -- is absurd and little more, I think, than an attempt to artificially exclude from consideration some areas in which Obama excels as somehow illegitimate. These areas include his speaking ability, his charisma (both up close and on a podium), his integrity (find me a real scandal, please), his sincerity, and his ability to articulate a vision that commands broad support. I don't think I need to make the case that he is a brilliant speaker. I encourage anyone to read or listen to or watch (if possible) his speeches who doubt that point. He strikes the right tone in every public appearance. He is easy to talk to, easy to listen to, and easy to like. He comes off as neither stiff nor rehearsed nor whiny. Rather, he comes across as honest, energetic, smart and attentive. He projects an easy self-confidence as well as a sharp sense of humor. In a job that is about dealing with people and presenting yourself to people, I do not regard these traits as unworthy of serious attention. I'm also reminded of a couple of recent Democrats whose presidential campaigns failed not because of their resumes but because of their job interviews. Kerry is regarded as a national joke today, which is unfair, but that harsh reality highlights the importance of these qualities. As Lewis Black put it, I started to listen to this guy speak and I needed bread crumbs to get back home. Biden is seen as a blowhard. Hillary comes across as uptight, sometimes shrill, and at other times strangely off-key. Obama is really a breath of fresh air in this regard. The great politicians we remember were great communicators; Obama is a such a politician.
More than the ability to deliver a good speech or come across as likeable is what the man says. Like Reagan, he uses his skills to promote a general outlook, a policy attitude, that we can expect will inform his actions and positions. Unlike Reagan, that attitude in Obama's case is not one that exploits popular fears and resentments to promote a conservative ideology (disguising it as upbeat optimism). Rather, it's an attitude that appeals to people's better natures and their sources of broad agreement to promote not an ideology (economic or otherwise) but rather to promote solutions to shared problems. This appeal goes beyond the "kulturkampf" or, as I call it, culture wars. (Why use a German word when English will do?!) It goes toward ordinary Americans' economic insecurity. It's not coded socialism but merely an appeal premised on the notion that your neighbor's welfare matters, and that "fuck you" is an inadequate and unattractive response from government to hardship, of the middle class, working class, or poor variety. It's an effective rebuke of Tory apathy and neo-con ideological enthusiasms. I do not mind at all that Obama grounds this appeal in Christianity, as well as American values, Democratic values, democratic values, and good old right and wrong. That's the nature of a broad appeal. He's the first popular Democrat I've seen in a long time who not only doesn't apologize for making a Cuomo-style pitch for decent government, but does it spectacularly well, making it seem (as Reagan did for his attitude) that it's what we all believe. The difference is that Reagan was appealing to our pettiness; Obama the opposite. While this agenda may be more domestic-policy-oriented than you would like, I don't regard domestic policy as a trivial matter. I don't think you do either, given your oft-repeated advocacy for universal health care.
Finally, the last point again, briefly, as it's getting late: You overrate experience. Some politicians throughout history do well with little experience and some with a great deal of experience do not. Experience, I do not believe, is a great predicter of success. We have likewise had presidents not possessed of great intelligence do well, and we've seen smartypants fail (and vice versa). It's hard to know based on one or both of those criteria how someone will do in this unique role. I'll suggest this: To the extent you are worried that Obama would not understand a foreign policy issue, would not deal well with foreign leaders, or would not have the resolve, say, to use military force when necessary, I think your concerns are probably not well-founded. Also, I'll suggest again that I fail to see how a few more years in the Senate (which would probably put the experience questions to rest) would significantly address any of those concerns in your mind.
I understand that you want a candidate who is an expert on foreign policy and who has spent some large portion of his/her career in that field. I want a candidate who shows potential as being a great leader for our party and our country. I think your references to Biden or Richardson show your preoccupation to be somewhat narrow and ideosyncratic. I don't think they have a shot, though I'll give them a listen. Powell is not running. McCain I think is too conservative, and I'm not wild about his current Iraq position. (Or his Iraq position at any point for that matter. Your wise men, for the most part, all supported a huge mistake. Doesn't that give you pause, even given your fixations?) I'll once again ask that you keep an open mind about Obama at this early stage (although last time I did that you started calling him Sen. J. Crew!), or at least avoid going into hysterics every time the guy's name is mentioned. I think he deserves serious attention and may end up earning a lot of skeptics' support.
The rest of the comments, from skeptics and believers alike, are more than worth reading as well, something I always appreciate about The New Republic.
I still can't figure out what the hell Leon means when he tells us that he is "not un-suave," though. I hope that's tongue-in-cheek, because when I think of suavity, having taken a class with him, Leon Wieseltier does not come immediately to mind.
