intellectual properties

“The Conciliator”

speaking of the 2008 election, the New Yorker recently published a long and interesting piece on Barack Obama that i think is worth reading.

you may recall that we went to the Obama ’08 rally in Oakland a few months ago, and i was fairly unimpressed by his speech and presence. then, there was the obama v. hilary youtube video that made them both look bad, and then the obama girl thing just made me roll my eyes, and i’d more or less decided to ignore all of it for a while.

the article in the new yorker is quite a thinking piece, however, and brought to light a lot of things not only about the history and character of Obama, but about his carefully constructed image and choices of references. there is a lot of talk in this article about compromise, and how the current Administration is so entrenched in their positions that they can’t see the forest for the trees (sometimes almost literally), refusing to give even a little on positions like the War in Iraq even when the majority of americans have changed their minds. while some find any sign of compromise to be a weakness, particularly in politicians, others see it as the only way forward in a globalized world.

Obama has staked his candidacy on union—on bringing together two halves of America that are profoundly divided, and by associating himself with Lincoln—and he knows what both of those things mean. He calls America’s founding a “grand compromise”: compromise, for him, is not an eroding of principle for the sake of getting something done but a principle in itself—the certainty of uncertainty, the fundament of union. “I would save the Union,” Lincoln wrote, in a letter to Horace Greeley, the editor of the New York Tribune. “If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that.” “I like to believe that for Lincoln it was never a matter of abandoning conviction for the sake of expediency,” Obama writes. “Rather . . . that we must talk and reach for common understandings, precisely because all of us are imperfect and can never act with the certainty that God is on our side.”

i heard Hilary Clinton speaking on the radio again the other day, and her voice just grates my nerves, and i find her entirely too aggressive. she’s got quite the ego to stand on, and certainly enough experience for the job, but i just don’t empathize with her very much at all. Nader and Kucinich, while i admire their convictions, i think are sadly too ideological to play the real game, and i think are better suited to fight against corruption OUTSIDE the Oval Office, which I hope they continue to do. they’ll get more done that way.

this is not to say i’m on the Obama bandwagon just yet. i admire his honesty about his past (no “i didn’t inhale” statements coming from this guy), but i have to agree that his still-waters-run-deep MO is sort of worrisome in terms of perception. in the world of global politics, always acting like the calm inside the storm might lead to a great amount of distrust on the part of foreign counterparts, who are always going to suspect he’s hiding something, and might lead the american public to think he’s not passionate enough or paying attention. is it better for a head of state to appear charismatic and engaged, or thoughtful and reflective? the article talks about his mannerism being very medical – like a doctor who comes in a pokes and prods and listens and nods, but never gets emotional. i’m not sure how i feel about the leader of the free world being so stoic and reserved. i feel like what we need is someone who inspires us. unfortunately, i haven’t seen that candidate yet.

Filed in politics and news | Tagged with new yorker, obama | Comment (1)