There’s no going back now.
The state of Oregon holds its elections on a Vote By Mail system, a tidy and effective – if anticlimactic – approach to representational democracy. Since Sam and I just relocated to the state, we weren’t certain we’d be registered in time; but, miracle of miracles, our registration cards were shoved into our mailbox two weeks ago, and our ballots followed soon after. As much as I wanted to, I couldn’t support Vermin Supreme’s travel-back-in-time-and-kill-Hitler-before-he-was-born plank. How can we be certain that will change the course of history for the better, or that key people will even come into being? Instead, I cast my vote for the kind of politician that comes along once in a lifetime, offering Change, or something like it: Barack Obama.
I’m a registered Independent, one of the treasured demographic that may just propel the Democratic Senator from Illinois to the highest office in the land. It’s not that I don’t support third parties. I do. I’d love to see one or more of them wielding increased political power, forcing a wedge between the duopoly of America’s confining two-party system. The core of the problem third parties face is that the system has been modified, when necessary (and to the entrenched establishment parties, it’s always necessary) to marginalize them. Whenever they grab any statistically significant margin of votes, they’re at best accused to being spoilers, and at worst demonized. Even the terminology used to describe their status limits them in ways I’m not even sure they’re fully aware. To be a “third” party indicates a choice made only if the first two are hardscrabble. The name, too, demands intense competition for a single slot that might be on the political table. Why not “independent parties”? It circumvents the negative connotations and widens the playing field.
Seeing Ralph Nader speak in late October solidified my notions about attempting to elect candidacies outside of the mainstream. Unlike some, I don’t believe voting for a third party candidate is a wasted vote. It’s important to move, though popular support, one or more organizations towards increased prominence in politics. I do think, with their often poor organization, pointless squabbling and limited viability, voting for a third party candidate for president may be the wrong way to go. Until they wield formidable power at the local and congressional levels can any third party hope to have anything beyond negligible impact countrywide.
Similar to Jessica’s line of reasoning in “Why I’ll Be Rocking the Third Party Vote,” I see the virtue in voting my conscience. Where we differ is in the details. My conscience is an extremely pragmatic political animal that is inclined towards the incremental advancement of society if it views it as the only viable option. It’s the antithesis to argument KK4 advanced in “Why I will be rocking the McCain Vote in 2008,” in which he supposes that by electing John McCain, America can be put in a holding pattern for four years. There are flaws to that plan. Wasn’t George W. Bush initially a lame duck president? How did that end up again? I forget.
Despite a penchant for snark and all-consuming ironism, I’ve made no secret of my support for Barack Obama. But while I voted for him, I have not deified him. No politician is perfect, and if anyone tells you otherwise, they’re so in the throes of hero-worship that their political judgment is suspect. Obama is a man of commanding intellect. He’s surrounded himself with intelligent people and run an intelligent campaign. That is, the way it has been run. It has required a well-executed strategy that showcases his even temperament while rope-a-doping his opponent. He isn’t beyond calculated moves if he believes they’ll bring him, and his party, to victory.
Obama and his message makers have made the election about change. And in ways both superficial and not, should he succeed change will come, though not in the form many might except. Mark Schmitt on the theory of change, which, consciously or not, Obama adheres to:
But let’s take a slightly different angle on the charge that Obama is “naïve” about power and partisanship. Suppose you were as non-naïve about it as I am — but your job wasn’t writing about politics, it was running for president? What should you do? In that case, your responsibility is not merely to describe the situation exactly, but to find a way to subvert it. In other words, perhaps we are being too literal in believing that “hope” and bipartisanship are things that Obama naively believes are present and possible, when in fact they are a tactic, a method of subverting and breaking the unified conservative power structure. Claiming the mantle of bipartisanship and national unity, and defining the problem to be solved (e.g. universal health care) puts one in a position of strength, and Republicans would defect from that position at their own risk. The public, and younger voters in particular, seem to want an end to partisanship and conflictual politics, and an administration that came in with that premise … would have a tremendous advantage, at least for a moment.
What I find most interesting about Obama’s approach to bipartisanship is how seriously he takes conservatism. As Michael Tomasky describes it in his review of The Audacity of Hope, “The chapters boil down to a pattern: here’s what the right believes about subject X, and here’s what the left believes; and while I basically side with the left, I think the right has a point or two that we should consider, and the left can sometimes get a little carried away.” What I find fascinating about his language about unity and cross-partisanship is that it is not premised on finding Republicans who agree with him, but on taking in good faith the language and positions of actual conservatism — people who don’t agree with him. That’s very different from the longed-for consensus of the Washington Post editorial page.
The reason the conservative power structure has been so dangerous, and is especially dangerous in opposition, is that it can operate almost entirely on bad faith. It thrives on protest, complaint, fear: higher taxes, you won’t be able to choose your doctor, liberals coddle terrorists, etc. One way to deal with that kind of bad-faith opposition is to draw the person in, treat them as if they were operating in good faith, and draw them into a conversation about how they actually would solve the problem. If they have nothing, it shows. And that’s not a tactic of bipartisan Washington idealists — it’s a hard-nosed tactic of community organizers, who are acutely aware of power and conflict. It’s how you deal with people with intractable demands — put ‘em on a committee. Then define the committee’s mission your way.
The downside to that approach, as Brian Buetler points out, is
The thing is, the theory doesn’t really allow Obama to ever take a bold position on culture war issues in America. Yes, he’s acutely aware of the congressional math that “change” requires, and I think his silence on prop 8 can be traced directly to that: Why risk a Senate seat in a red state–a vote on a progressive health care bill, perhaps–to cut a controversial ad of marginal impact in a state that’s already voting for him? But once Obama wins, after he’s maximized his base of support in the House and the Senate, he’ll be presiding over a divided country–not just a ballot measure in California–and he’ll be just as hamstrung as he is right now.
But while Barack Obama can only steer the nation towards clement change, he can do so through the function of responsible governance that has been absent in this country for far too long. I cannot say with absolute certainty, but judging by the candidate’s accumulated rhetoric and keeping in line with the above theory of change, a president Obama would not be governing 51% of the country, or by whatever margin he won, and American politics will change for the better because of it.
There would, I think, also be intangible advantages to an Obama presidency. The first, and most often cited, would be the inroads it would make for the beginnings of a post-racial America (not that racism can ever be truly abolished, but it is conceivable that its impact on the public discourse could be greatly diminished) and a post-identity-politics-driven left. We’ve already seen victories on that front, with the whole of “black leadership” no longer considered the Reverends Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. Note, too, how younger generations of African-Americans are responding to Obama’s success and his example. They’re seeing for the first time in their lives that it really is possible for a black man to be president. It’s the Cosby effect writ large.
Then, there is the outside world’s goodwill towards America, which the last administration comprehensively (and some say gleefully!) depleted. The global community sees hope for a new America with Obama is head of state, and therefore a new way of relating to a hitherto arrogant, bullying superpower. It should be pointed out they are to a great degree projecting. Obama is generally a conventional politician, to the left, it is certain, of the moderate Bill Clinton, though not by great degree. But as a symbol of A.B. (After Bush) America, we could hardly hope to do better. If we are to we are to have a sensible and moral foreign policy, much is dependent on the greater use of soft power.
Soft power, including the multilateral cooperation of other countries with America in international endeavors, as well as strengthened diplomatic relations, will be key ingredients to correcting our course the Middle East. Obama’s plan for troop withdrawal from Iraq to contain the unrest in Afghanistan will finally deal with a long-festering problem… if he doesn’t go back on his word. At least he hasn’t made mention of a “secret plan” to win the war. There may be no perfect solution to Iraq; indeed, no perfect solution to fighting an unending war against a tactic used throughout the ages. Obama may wage the war more efficiently, but until the root causes of Fundamentalist Islam’s terror campaign can be address and its worldwide support squelched can America hope to near what might be termed a victory.
Barack Obama has made a point of showing a certain hawkishness, yes, but neoconservatism has made all but the most radical warmongers look rational by comparison. It’s probably too much to hope America won’t get involved in military conflicts outside of the ones we’re already engaged in sometime in the next four years, but preemptive, unilateral invasions without a thorough understanding of the challenges our forces face are at an end. It’s not ideal. I wonder about the effects, for example, of a surgical strike into Pakistan to extract Osama bin Laden. But running against John McCain, a man whose very existence is defined by the honor of war, this will have to be an acceptable compromise.
In another era, the idea of a fiscally responsible Democrat would have been risible. Now, it is merely questionable. The national debt continues its record high trajectory ($500 billion has been added to the nation debt in less than a month), and billions of dollars that could be spent elsewhere, or not at all, disappear without a trace. I don’t expect the size of our governmental infrastructure to shrink during Obama’s time in office. He may, however, hold to his promise to increase the funding of programs that need it, and cut those that don’t. He’s been purposefully vague of which those are and how much would be reallocated. Given that he wants the government to provide health care to many of those who don’t have it, it may be too much to expect cutbacks to bear out. I find myself at odds over governmental spending and the prospect of giving health care to millions of uninsured Americans. On this matter, at least, I side with Barack Obama’s not-quite-universal health care plan. Perhaps our national debt will increase at a less dizzying rate?
America is wading through the muck of a recession, with the specter of a full-blown depression looming on the horizon. The idea of a New New Deal, as some have terms it, appeals to Americans feeling the effects of the economic downturn. Still, we need to remember market forces won’t magically and permanently stabilize if Obama is elected. Green jobs won’t materialize overnight. The process won’t be easy, and there may be further losses down the line that can’t be blamed on George W. Bush. But it is telling that a publication like The Economist puts stock in Obama’s potential to steer the country away from total disaster.
A bad choice can make a good one easier to make. The alternative to Barack Obama and Joe Biden, the Republican ticket of Sen. John McCain and Gov. Sarah Palin, is undesirable for numerable reasons. McCain’s attitude towards “women’s health” is vile. His foreign policy would be disastrous. His support of gay rights doesn’t extend beyond his hiring process. He’s admitted his knowledge of economics is tenuous. If he had any substantive ideas to offer, we might be able to judge them on their own merits, but the few he was proffered range from haphazard to impossible. His leadership style is erratic and unfocused, and the depths which his campaign has plumbed in their increasing desperation to win show McCain to be a candidate of poor character. The Senator’s age, coupled with his history of cancer, makes the ill-informed, unvetted and by all accounts impulsive selection of Palin not just a matter of bad judgment (which it most certainly was), but could set the country down a path worse than the one we’re trying to get off of if McCain dies in office.
I am not beyond the effects of artfully executed propaganda. We all have our ideological biases, and unconscious hopes and desires. Skilled politicians capitalize on that, sometimes becoming the focus and a symbol of the zeitgeist of a moment and a place. I understand that, and try to guard myself against being swept away by these odd feelings of hope and patriotism, but it would be intellectually dishonest not to admit I, and many others like me, respond to Barack Obama is a way we’ve never responded to a politician before. For me, that’s a starting point. I continue on through the demonstrably transformative potential of his campaign, making my way through the through planks of his platform that resonate with me. Obama’s strong selling points are then weighed against actions I think he’ll take that I might disagree with, the promises he makes that seem insubstantial, my take on the political situation in both major political parties and my understanding that he won’t make any sudden moves. I thought long and hard about all of this before I marked his name down on the ballot, but having done so, I do not regret my decision. I sincerely hope enough Americans make the same choice to make Sen. Barack Hussein “Steve” Obama of Illinois the nation’s next commander-in-chief.
