It's been another long hiatus. But, I have finally had a few minutes of free high-speed online time, so I thought I'd put up a new post.
For this post, I want to forward a recent editorial, "The Two Obamas," by David Brooks (on Barack Obama). I don't always agree with Brooks, but I always find his columns well-written and thought-provoking. In this editorial, I think Brooks has hit the nail on the head regarding Barack Obama and recent developments in the election campaign.
I've been really interested in Obama ever since his 2004 speech at the Democratic National Convention. His fresh perspective on religion and politics perked my interest yet again back in 2006. I was excited in 2007 when he announced his candidacy for president, and I was pleased when he won the nomination a few weeks ago.
However, the weeks following the end of the nomination fight have shown that a politician is a politician is a politician. Especially a politician from Chicago. Obama has, thus far, turned down two definite opportunities to run his campaign in a more populist manner and in a way that reflects his slogan of "change." The recent announcement that he will not participate in public campaign finance is, I think, a little more open to debate than Brooks would have it -- the Obama campaign makes a strong argument about the source of its fundraising (93% from small donations of $200 or less).
Obama's refusal of McCain's offer of ten town hall-style debates was a bigger disappointment to me. Rather than give us a campaign interested in an in-depth discussion on the very real problems currently facing the country, Obama has (so far) given us a presidential campaign-as-usual. Rather than give us a campaign that encourages education and elucidation on the issues and the candidates' differing positions, we will get (it seems) more sound bytes, more scripted talking points directed at cameras, more of the same old, same old.
But what can we justifiably expect from politicians? Especially politicians from Chicago (or New York)? No candidate is perfect, and "change" only comes by piecemeal. But at the same time, I can't help but wish Obama's opening moves were a little more reflective of a politician who was genuinely interested in exploring new possibilities for voter involvement and candidate accountability in presidential campaigns. So far, Obama has apparently been content to cede that image to McCain.
Whatever you might think about recent campaign developments, Brooks' editorial is worth a read.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Good post, Hatch. I enjoyed reading your response here and the Brooks editorial.
While I share your disappointment in Obama's recent actions, I would also like to point you to this post by Lawrence Lessig (one of my scholarly heroes) that picks up on your chess metaphor and offers a slightly different perspective.
Myself, I'm not sure what to think anymore. I try to remain hopeful, which, I guess, is what we do.
Aye, aye, JB. I think hopeful is what we have to do these days.
The Lessig post is good, though too partisan for my taste. Try as I might, I can't get myself to assume the Democrats truly are the party of "progress." I guess, if anything, these last few weeks have shown me once again that when it comes down to brass tacks, there is no real opposition party in this country.
In one way, that fits in with our good British heritage. In another, though, it is strikingly different than the politics of contemporary Britain and the Continent...at least over there, malcontents such as ourselves can get behind a boisterous minority party (e.g., the Liberal Democrats) that we actually agree with most of the time.
Post a Comment