Obama's Vague Promise Of Change
This column was written by Victor Davis Hanson.
In these uncertain times, the relatively new Sen. Barack Obama has become America's "change" candidate. But how different in real terms is the Obama candidacy?
Obama's father was from Kenya, and he grew up for a time in Indonesia. But, otherwise, Obama was raised by his white mother and grandparents in a middle-class suburb in Hawaii - a unique upbringing in the 1970s but hardly so in today's multiracial and itinerant America.
At private school, he was sometimes known as Barry. Perhaps had he taken the name of his maternal family who raised him - Dunham - a Sen. Barry Dunham of mixed ancestry from Illinois would now not be causing quite the same sensation.
Indeed, a Sen. Dunham may have been viewed as a minority candidate to the same limited degree that a similar staid-sounding Gov. Bill Richardson resonated as a Mexican American.
True, many blacks may have voted for Obama because he's a gifted charismatic role model and in belief that his agenda will offer welcome change. But he apparently has far less appeal to other minority groups as a grassroots alternative. Both Hispanics and Asians have voted against him in large numbers.
Take away the exotic name and Sen. Obama's early background is not all that different from millions in an increasingly racially mixed and diverse America, in which a woman, a Latino, an Italian-American, a Mormon, a popular TV actor, and a 71-year-old all ran for president this year. Three of these candidates also survived cancer.
Obama's later Ivy-League education and political career resemble those of many elites in both parties. While Sen. and Mrs. Obama lecture, in populist fashion, about the burdens of school loans, they are really talking about paying off their two Harvard Law School tuitions, degrees that are not typical of struggling students, but instead government-guaranteed investments in the good life - as their 2006 joint income of nearly a million dollars attests.
Of course, from the little we know about his vague proposals, Obama certainly seems to offer a different choice from the current administration: quick withdrawal from Iraq, formal talks with Iran, and essentially a worldwide conference with the Muslim world to iron out our differences.
At home, Obama sometimes advocates repealing the Bush tax cuts and raising some revenue through higher taxes - all to pay for vague Great Society government programs for the middle class, students, and the poor. But few could list many key differences between Obama's platform and Hillary Clinton's views.
Where did we get the notion that Obama is the avatar of change? The answer is again not just that he is part black. (A Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton, for example, would go nowhere.) Or that he has new policies or ideas. In fact, to the extent Obama has laid out any details of a program, they aren't any more novel than those of his rivals.
Instead, he is the change candidate for two simple reasons. First, Obama is fresh, without the albatross of a long political career around his neck. We know little about him - and too much about the others. The more he sticks with generalities, the less he offends particular constituents - without having to make tough choices that day after day might keep offending 49 percent of the electorate.
Second, Obama is a stylish, inspirational speaker - a sort of elegant Adlai Stevenson of the 1950s and the hip, young Gary Hart of the 1980s all in one. He is wonderful in repartee, smart, full of good grace - and without the shrillness of Clinton, or the occasional temper of John McCain.
If anything, Obama resembles the handsome, well-spoken Robert Redford character Bill McKay, of the 1972 movie The Candidate, but updated for the new millennium: brighter, more charismatic, and multicultural.
In these divisive times of war and economic anxiety, a tired public apparently wants someone hip, upbeat, reassuring in talk, and fresh in spirit, but not too specific in prescribing any painful remedies for our various maladies.
As it turns out, there are not all that many handsome, young natural speakers, with a hint of mystery and the promise of racial harmony - at least none who speak inspirationally, respond to criticism with humor, and are genuinely nice guys.
At least in that cosmetic sense, Obama really is a rarity - a pleasant change in other words from what we're used to seeing and hearing, past and present.
If Obama can translate all that into true leadership and effective policy that would be real change. If not, we'll be asking the same question posed by Robert Redford's character Bill McKay to end The Candidate: "What do we do now?"
By Victor Davis Hanson
Reprinted with permission from National Review Online
National Review Online In these uncertain times, the relatively new Sen. Barack Obama has become America's "change" candidate. But how different in real terms is the Obama candidacy?
Obama's father was from Kenya, and he grew up for a time in Indonesia. But, otherwise, Obama was raised by his white mother and grandparents in a middle-class suburb in Hawaii - a unique upbringing in the 1970s but hardly so in today's multiracial and itinerant America.
At private school, he was sometimes known as Barry. Perhaps had he taken the name of his maternal family who raised him - Dunham - a Sen. Barry Dunham of mixed ancestry from Illinois would now not be causing quite the same sensation.
Indeed, a Sen. Dunham may have been viewed as a minority candidate to the same limited degree that a similar staid-sounding Gov. Bill Richardson resonated as a Mexican American.
True, many blacks may have voted for Obama because he's a gifted charismatic role model and in belief that his agenda will offer welcome change. But he apparently has far less appeal to other minority groups as a grassroots alternative. Both Hispanics and Asians have voted against him in large numbers.
Take away the exotic name and Sen. Obama's early background is not all that different from millions in an increasingly racially mixed and diverse America, in which a woman, a Latino, an Italian-American, a Mormon, a popular TV actor, and a 71-year-old all ran for president this year. Three of these candidates also survived cancer.
Obama's later Ivy-League education and political career resemble those of many elites in both parties. While Sen. and Mrs. Obama lecture, in populist fashion, about the burdens of school loans, they are really talking about paying off their two Harvard Law School tuitions, degrees that are not typical of struggling students, but instead government-guaranteed investments in the good life - as their 2006 joint income of nearly a million dollars attests.
Of course, from the little we know about his vague proposals, Obama certainly seems to offer a different choice from the current administration: quick withdrawal from Iraq, formal talks with Iran, and essentially a worldwide conference with the Muslim world to iron out our differences.
At home, Obama sometimes advocates repealing the Bush tax cuts and raising some revenue through higher taxes - all to pay for vague Great Society government programs for the middle class, students, and the poor. But few could list many key differences between Obama's platform and Hillary Clinton's views.
Where did we get the notion that Obama is the avatar of change? The answer is again not just that he is part black. (A Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton, for example, would go nowhere.) Or that he has new policies or ideas. In fact, to the extent Obama has laid out any details of a program, they aren't any more novel than those of his rivals.
Instead, he is the change candidate for two simple reasons. First, Obama is fresh, without the albatross of a long political career around his neck. We know little about him - and too much about the others. The more he sticks with generalities, the less he offends particular constituents - without having to make tough choices that day after day might keep offending 49 percent of the electorate.
Second, Obama is a stylish, inspirational speaker - a sort of elegant Adlai Stevenson of the 1950s and the hip, young Gary Hart of the 1980s all in one. He is wonderful in repartee, smart, full of good grace - and without the shrillness of Clinton, or the occasional temper of John McCain.
If anything, Obama resembles the handsome, well-spoken Robert Redford character Bill McKay, of the 1972 movie The Candidate, but updated for the new millennium: brighter, more charismatic, and multicultural.
In these divisive times of war and economic anxiety, a tired public apparently wants someone hip, upbeat, reassuring in talk, and fresh in spirit, but not too specific in prescribing any painful remedies for our various maladies.
As it turns out, there are not all that many handsome, young natural speakers, with a hint of mystery and the promise of racial harmony - at least none who speak inspirationally, respond to criticism with humor, and are genuinely nice guys.
At least in that cosmetic sense, Obama really is a rarity - a pleasant change in other words from what we're used to seeing and hearing, past and present.
If Obama can translate all that into true leadership and effective policy that would be real change. If not, we'll be asking the same question posed by Robert Redford's character Bill McKay to end The Candidate: "What do we do now?"
By Victor Davis Hanson
Reprinted with permission from National Review Online
The Dems have a choice between a skilled, experienced political infighter (Hillary), and a somewhat new and idealistic visionary (Obama).
I think Hillary is too contentious to break away from "partisan politics as usual". She''s not a unifying personality.
Obama is a charismatic natural leader. He paints ideas with a broad brush, and then energizes people to believe in them, and work hard to achieve them.
Obama reminds me of JFK, who''s "Ask not..." style bridged partisan boundaries, and whose accomplishments were not heralded as Democratic victories, but as national accomplishments that all Americans could take great pride in.
Obama has that same innate motivational skill, and the vision to give it meaningful direction. This is a natural gift; it can''t be taught. You''re either born with it, or you''re not, and he''s got it.
We don''t need a skilled infighter right now, we need an inspired visionary to unite us in a common purpose and lead us out of this Dark Age of Divisiveness.
I don''t want the most "experienced" candidate; that just leads to continuing gridlock. I want one who''s not afraid to think big, and to think "outside the box". One who dares to have great ideals, and who trusts in the greatness of the American people to recognize his vision and make it a reality that we can all be proud of.
When Bill Clinton trash his presidency with scandal, putting self-gratification ahead of family, society, country, and the world, he was preaching self-love, narcissism, and self-seeking. That is setting the worst example any leader could to harm a world of youths and their tomorrows.
Does Bill care about anyone?
When Hillary dismissed the scandal as if it were no big deal, She was protecting HER candidacy and both of their images. Were she to be concern about today''s youth and their (moral) education, she would have dismissed Bill instead.
Where is her (Hillary) sincerity?
Bill and Hillary, if only you would hold children close to your hearts, you should have no room for lies, wrongdoing, and self-gratification. And only then would you see wisdom, compassion, and courage!
Bill and Hillary, you cannot fool all of the people all of the time. Our nation''s youth is smarter than you think. By voting WISDOM, COMPASSION, and COURAGE in OBAMA, they have thus dismissed the self-seeking-dead-end-street of such cheap, narcissistic, and calculating Clintons.
So be it that the nation''s youth sees HOPE and UNIVERSAL TRUTH in OBAMA:
"Love each other or perish."
"From caring comes courage."
"LIVE THE CHANGE YOU WANT TO SEE IN THE WORLD."
When Bill Clinton trash his presidency with scandal, putting self-gratification ahead of family, society, country, and the world, he was preaching self-love, narcissism, and self-seeking. That is setting the worst example any leader could to harm a world of youths and their tomorrows.
Does Bill care about anyone?
When Hillary dismissed the scandal as if it were no big deal, She was protecting HER candidacy and both of their images. Were she to be concern about today''s youth and their (moral) education, she would have dismissed Bill instead.
Where is her (Hillary) sincerity?
Bill and Hillary, if only you would hold children close to your hearts, you should have no room for lies, wrongdoing, and self-gratification. And only then would you see wisdom, compassion, and courage!
Bill and Hillary, you cannot fool all of the people all of the time. Our nation''s youth is smarter than you think. By voting WISDOM, COMPASSION, and COURAGE in OBAMA, they have thus dismissed the self-seeking-dead-end-street of such cheap, narcissistic, and calculating Clintons.
So be it that the nation''s youth sees HOPE and UNIVERSAL TRUTH in OBAMA:
"Love each other or perish."
"From caring comes courage."
"LIVE THE CHANGE YOU WANT TO SEE IN THE WORLD."
Obama: lover of wisdom
McCain: lover of honor
Clinton: lover of gain
Obama appears to have greater appeal to highly educated Americans. WHY?
Highly educated people are those who have acquired imparting of knowledge, positive judgment and well-developed WISDOM - consisting of ideals and principles that govern all actions and decisions to maximize the LONG-TERM COMMON GOOD, and so are the highly educated Americans.
It is for LONG-TERM COMMON GOOD we EDUCATE our YOUTH, and so be it that the highly educated seek PURPOSE in LONG-TERM COMMON GOOD. This is called COMMON SENSE.
So be it that the highly educated seek WISDOM and its TRUTH in their choice of a president!
If you seek not WISDOM in a leader, what then, do you seek? If you hold not TRUTH, FAITHFULNESS, and SINCERITY as your first principles, what then, do you hold?
If you are A PARENT, AN EDUCATOR, OR A COMMUNITY LEADER, and if you seek not such LONG-TERM COMMON GOOD, you care not about the children, family, community, society, country, or THE COMMON WORLD.
How can we let our CHILDREN follow such self-gratifying Clintons??
"LIVE THE CHANGE YOU WANT TO SEE IN THE WORLD."
This is what the highly educated are going for.
I see Obama, as having the audacity to hope, the audacity to mention the things that are wrong and what needs to be done in order to reunite this country. To bring back the esteem this nation used to have and to lift it to the heights it deserves. To try to mediate the destructive partisan politics that only divides and harms our country.
Sounds good to me.
All the candidates make promises that they may sincerely want to make but which, when the reality of taking office happens, may not be as easy to implement as first promised, but that does not diminish the hope for favorable changes. Like any other president in history, one of the very first things they do is surround themselves with capable, select advisers and cabinet members (except Bush) who most match their beliefs and hopes for the future.
Certainly, it would be naive to think that a president walks into the White House, waves a magic wand, and thus makes all his wishes come true.
It will be the same for whomever becomes president, Democrat or Republican.
You''ve got a real smart dog there. Is her name Sparky? She doesn''t believe in balancing the budget, eh? Is she speaking to you right now?
That''s right! This is his modus operandi. He NEVER takes a stance. He doesn''t have a stance! He just wants to be the first black in the White House! That''s all he''s got. When it comes to moving and shaking the legislative process for the good of the people he is clueless!
Keep up the good work Hillary! Fight like a tiger! We need competence in the White House.