| ABOUT US | ARCHIVES | LINKS | RSS FEED | MONDAYS | |

3quarksdaily

An Eclectic Digest of Science, Art and Literature

« Super Tuesday Surprise: Leading Minsk Newspaper Endorses Candidates in US Presidential Race | Main | All You Need Is Hate »

February 04, 2008

Letter from an Obama supporter

Dear Friends and Family –

I am writing to share my thoughts on the Democratic Primary (the Republican Primary seems pretty sealed up!) I hope that you find something of value in my thoughts, and in the thoughts of others who have written to me and who I quote below.

In Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, the Democratic Party offers two intelligent and capable candidates. I have looked closely at their policies, and with several exceptions, they offer remarkably similar proposals. With similar positions, much has been made of experience, and of Hillary's supposed advantage. However, as a friend observed: "Any president will be surrounded by old hands and experienced politicos. If lack of credentials is coupled with poor judgment, inability to work with others, lack of intuitive intelligence, etc. then it's a problem. But I don't see any evidence that Obama lacks these things; in fact, he appears to excel in this area."

To these words I would only add that Obama has unique and valuable experience of his own.Professionally, he served as Editor of the Harvard Law Review, organized communities in Chicago, practiced as a civil rights attorney, served as an Illinois legislator and finally, as a US Senator. These are all great resume pieces. Still, I believe that the seemingly less-relevant life experiences are valuable as well. Many of our fundamental outlooks and frames of references develop during the years that Obama lived in Indonesia, that he struggled to find a place as a half-black Kenyan and half-white Kansan first at Harvard's Law School, and then again in Chicago's South Side. He has lived with the uncertainty of identity, and is attuned to these issues without being constrained by them.

It is perhaps this experience that allows him to connect to individuals from so many walks of life. As a friend who volunteered for him recounts: "In Nevada and South Carolina I saw people come together from every age, walk of life, race, religion, and party affiliation - all thrilled and united by this candidate. In a stadium at the University of South Carolina , I cheered with hundreds of people from all backgrounds and thought - what other event in history has united this type of group for a common cause? I drove with Democrats, Independents, and even Republicans from Texas , California , Pennsylvania , and South Carolina , to knock on doors and talk about the new leadership inspired by Obama."

It is this same experience, as well as physical appearance, that may allow him to connect with individuals beyond our borders too. As Andrew Sullivan of the Atlantic Monthly writes: "Consider this hypothetical. It's November 2008. A young Pakistani Muslim is watching television and sees that this man—Barack Hussein Obama—is the new face of America . In one simple image, America 's soft power has been ratcheted up not a notch, but a logarithm. A brown-skinned man whose father was an African, who grew up in Indonesia and Hawaii , who attended a majority-Muslim school as a boy, is now the alleged enemy. If you wanted the crudest but most effective weapon against the demonization of America that fuels Islamist ideology, Obama's face gets close. It proves them wrong about what America is in ways no words can."

Thus, in this primary, neither issue positions nor experience confer a material advantage in my mind. Rather, it is rival conceptions of the role of President, of politics and of possibility that swings my vote. As a friend shares: "Obama offers a centering voice around which disenchanted Americans can rally to overcome nearly three decades of vicious partisanship, to reenergize the nobler aspirations of American democracy, and to restore faith in government and civic life….Clinton's diagnosis, consistent with her conception of the kind of Presidency she wants to offer to the American people, is that what most needs to be corrected are the errors, distortions, manipulations, and inadequacies of a failed Presidency.  Obama's diagnosis is more fundamental.  The current Bush administration is the painfully unpleasant fruition of an era of American politics that has discarded civic virtue and responsibility, and has mastered the art of manipulating our fears and differences to divide us, to control us, and, most damagingly, to enfeeble us.  Obama inspires us to see beyond what is most immediately obvious in order to understand the greater task we face and to trust our capacity to meet the challenges of that hard work."

I support Obama because truthfully, no one person can "fix" our country. No politician, no President alone can realize all the policies we need enacted. Rather, fundamental change will happen when we elect a President who inspires *us* to make these changes. We as individuals, as families, as religious, ethnic, professional and larger communities decide how we treat our veterans coming home, what we ask of our schools and demand of our elected officials, and how much we are willing to contribute to the greater good.

Barack Obama believes in our ability to contribute to the greater good. As he remarked after his loss in New Hampshire: "For when we have faced down impossible odds, when we've been told we're not ready or that we shouldn't try or that we can't, generations of Americans have responded with a simple creed that sums up the spirit of a people: Yes, we can. Yes, we can. Yes, we can." (For those inspired by music, check out his message here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jjXyqcx-mYY)

I am tired of being told by the media, by friends, by myself, of how flawed we are as a country and as Americans. True as it may be, a focus on our shortcomings is worth only so much. I want a new focus. For the next four years, I want my television to broadcast not fear, but the vision of a President who trusts that I am a part of a country and a world that is profoundly flawed but fundamentally good. That it is ok to believe in my fellow human beings and our potential to make things better – never perfect, but better. That I may carry myself with both pride and humility as an American traveling abroad. That I can reject the labels of "Republican" or "Democrat" and the associated demonization of the other side.

And during this nomination, I do not want to play to labels of "first black man" or "first woman." This is not to say that such identify is irrelevant. Both the Democratic candidates have undoubtedly experienced the cruelty of low expectations, of misguided assumptions, of undue skepticism, of outright bigotry. As a white woman and biracial man, both have been told what is and is not possible, for themselves and by extension for others. However, more important than choosing either candidate based on identity is choosing the candidate who has demonstrated the most integrity and courage in responding to its challenges.

They have responded differently. Hillary chooses to confront her tormentors by pushing back with a tenacity bordering on vengeance – as she has argues lately, she has been attacked by the Republican Machine for years and knows how to fight back. So now, her world view is that of opposition, of a need to hold on, to not give up all that she has worked so hard to accomplish. It is a view that lends itself to suspicion, aggression and conflict – partisan conflict and conflict more generally. It is not the mindset that I want my next President to hold.

Obama seems to have chosen another path. He does not talk about fighting his critics nor obsess about those who oppose him. He does not seem to harbor grudges and distrust as Hillary does. Rather, he evokes a confidence borne of overcoming personal challenge.

He is not naïve to hope, he is courageous to do so. It is easier to hate your enemies than to love them. It is easier to hold grudges than to let them go. It is easier to believe the worst of others than to see their failings time and time again and maintain a deep faith in their fundamental goodness. Obama chooses the harder path.

His campaign of unity and hope and faith in a better America works because he believes that his message will resonate. He has placed his faith in us, and in return asks that we hold faith not only in him but also in our individual abilities to rise above partisanship and above voting for a person because of race or gender. He is asking a lot of us, because choosing a new, bold way is frightening.

Obama is giving us a gift – the chance to hope and to begin to make change. Let's seize this opportunity.

All my best,

Jesse Last

Jesse Last grew up in Massachusetts, attended Pomona College in California, and lives and works in Santa Fe, New Mexico. As a Truman Scholar, he is passionate about public service and interested in energy, sustainability and finance.

Posted by S. Abbas Raza at 11:32 PM | Permalink

Comments

APPLAUSE! APPLAUSE!! APLAUSE!!!

Posted by: Felix E. F. Larocca MD | Feb 5, 2008 6:22:19 AM

Good points made clearer.

Posted by: beajerry | Feb 5, 2008 9:26:35 AM

Thanks, Abbas -- this is good.

Posted by: Elatia Harris | Feb 5, 2008 10:13:55 AM

Abbas,

I've voted already, but just sent this off to my entire email list of family and friends. It perfectly sums up the reasons I filled out my ballot as I did.

Thanks.

Posted by: Jim | Feb 5, 2008 10:30:56 AM

And thanks to Jesse Last!

Posted by: Jim | Feb 5, 2008 10:33:52 AM

I understand and appreciate the desire for change, but I find it stunning that people are not examining the content of the "change" that Obama represents. As Noam Chomsky said in a speech the other day about Obama's comments on Reagan, sure Reagan brought about change, he changed a million people into corpses.

Fundamental change is urgently needed, but it will not be found by putting a different face on this imperialist monster and masking its ongoing crimes (which Obama supports).

I encourage critical readers to check out this article in Revolution which discusses the Sullivan piece on Obama: http://www.revcom.us/a/118/obama-en.html

Another world is possible, but we must not proceed from seeking to preserve anything about "the good of America." Instead, let us proceed from the interests of our planet and the potential good of the billions on it. Including in the power of the very needed independent political resistance and revolutionary change.

Posted by: anon | Feb 5, 2008 11:20:21 AM

As Anon suggests, it may not be possible to effect change through the instruments of existing political systems, especially those of America. Revolutionary change by "independent political resistance" may be the only way to do it. But if that means bloody revolution it might be a good idea to visualize such revolution in graphic terms, complete with IEDs and suicide bombers.

I (polyanna that I am) hope this will not be the case.

What I heard Obama say about Reagan was not a compliment to his program, but to his ability to sell it --to make his odious program happen. What I heard Obama say in those remarks was that if a politician, in the interests of self-serving entities, can make bad things happen, a politician, in the interests of justice, may be able to make good things happen.

I'm more in line with the following view by Ezra Klien at the American Prospect. Klien is rebutting a statemnent by Matt Stoller.

Klien says:

"Additionally, Stoller makes an interpretive move that's probably unnecessary. Obama says, 'I think [Americans] felt like with all the excesses of the 1960s and 1970s and government had grown and grown but there wasn't much sense of accountability in terms of how it was operating. I think people, [Reagan] tapped into what people were already feeling, which was we want clarity, we want optimism, we want a return to that sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing.' Stoller takes this and (assuming) writes, 'Those excesses, of course, were feminism, the consumer rights movement, the civil rights movement, the environmental movement, and the antiwar movement...Masking Reagan's true political underpinning principles is a central goal of the conservative movement, with someone as powerful as Grover Norquist seeking to put Reagan's name on as many monuments as possible and the Republican candidates themselves using Reagan's name instead of George Bush's in GOP debates as a mark of greatness.'"

And Klien responds:

"But what Obama is doing is what Norquist most wants to avoid: He's homogenizing Reagan's political legacy. He's reconstructing it as accountability in government rather than smallness of government, clarity of purpose rather than conservatism of purpose, dynamism and entrepreneurship rather than backlash and upward redistribution."

Spin? Possibly, but I hope not.


Posted by: Jim | Feb 5, 2008 1:01:58 PM

Anon, I don't know what Chomsky said recently about Obama's Reagan comments, but from your comment you seem to believe that Obama praised Reagan's ideas.

Obama's statements on Reagan were not an endorsement of his ideas but a reference to the truism that Reagan motivated people, including the opposition. He has said in one of the debates recently that he disagreed with many/most of Reagan's policies, seeing first hand the poverty and hardship some of them caused in Chicago. That doesn't mean he can't admire certain aspects of Reagan's presidency.

Posted by: Robert | Feb 5, 2008 1:07:18 PM

.....what Jim said. You beat me to it.

Posted by: Robert | Feb 5, 2008 1:10:34 PM

Thanks Jesse Last - very well said. I am impressed by the heartfelt support.

Posted by: Holden K Groves | Feb 5, 2008 1:24:00 PM

I'm with anon on this. I prefer Obama to HRC myself, largely because he seems less hawkish, and because 8 years of Clintonism was plenty. But I think lefties need to be careful to separate the packaging from the product. Whatever may separate Obama and Clinton from a character point of view, the main differences in their presentation seem to fall along a continuum of Hip versus Square, where dedicated politicos favor Hillary's vanilla wonkiness, and cynics go for Barack's millenarian cult of personality.

We can parse Obama's Reagan comments to understand them as an appeal to "unity" w/o regard to actual Reagan policies, but I hope none of us are naive enough to deny that Obama was trading on Reagan's popularity (though the truth is that Reagan the president was never as popular as Reagan the myth.) What people loved about Reagan (at least in hindsight) was that he seemed to overcome obstacles with the sheer force of his optimism and personality. But this belief has no substance. In Reality, Reagan either swept problems under the rug (firing the striking Air traffic controllers), took credit for things that had little to do with him ("ending" the cold war), or, in the end, failed to enact his agenda. In terms of policy he was not a very effective president, but he is remembered fondly for making people feel good, which is remarkable for its resemblance to what Obama is running on.

Look at what Obama said in that interview:

I think Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. He put us on a fundamentally different path because the country was ready for it. I think they felt like with all the excesses of the 1960s and 1970s and government had grown and grown but there wasn't much sense of accountability in terms of how it was operating.

That's some serious framing, as the kids say. Lumping (Bill) Clinton and Nixon together as agents of unaccountable growth (the subtext of course is that Nixon and Clinton were incredibly divisive, and therefore non-Reaganesque). It's brilliant politicking, in essence: "I resemble the most popular prez of modern times, my opponent resembles the scummiest." And what is that crap about the 1960s and 1970s? Most of what Reagan accomplished was the dismantling of the paltry safety net that TR, FDR, and LBJ slowly had pieced together.

The last thing we need from our politicians is more "optimism," since we seem bent on interpreting it as an endorsement of the present way of doing business. A better model might be someone like FDR, or Lincoln, each of whom had no small success in inspiring the populace with the courage to make some difficult sacrifices.

Posted by: Chris Schoen | Feb 5, 2008 1:52:48 PM

Excited about Obama? Excited about Hillary? As usual, the plutocracy dangles puppets in front of the people and they salivate on cue like Pavlov's dogs. Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.

Posted by: Jared | Feb 5, 2008 2:07:18 PM

My guru, Roshi Bob, says

Some dogs hear the bell and automatically salivate.
Some dogs hear the bell and automatically expectorate.
Is there really a difference in discernment between them?

Posted by: Jim | Feb 5, 2008 3:16:13 PM

Post a comment






Subscribe to this blog's feed  

PayAnywhere with iphone credit card swiper

Android Tablet

Bluetooth Headset

2013 New Style Dresses

Compare Car Rental Prices

DHgate.com Wholesale

3QD on Facebook

3QD on Kindle

3QD by Daily Email

Receive all blogposts at the same time every day.

Enter your Email:


Preview 3QD Email

3QD on Twitter

Miscellany

Lijit Search

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Add to Google

Recent Comments

JonJ on The Beautiful German Language

cpfaff on Passionate About The Actor's Art: an interview with Michael Howard

Sumiran on Sunday Poem

Ethan on Getting Smarter

Pacificklaus on NORTH KOREA’S NERVE WAR

Félix E. F. Larocca, MD on POETRY IN TRANSLATION: CORDOBA

Shane on That's not music – that's just noise!

seth edenbaum on Habermas, Adorno, Politics

Raza Husain on If Only We Had A Leader Like Chavez, Who Solved Real Problems -- Instead Of Debating Fake Ones Like The Deficit

Raza Husain on Think About Nature

Raza Husain on Getting Smarter

johnnyred on Getting Smarter

Lou on Throwing away ancient wisdom, painting with sound and staying awake: a conversation with radio dramatist and ZBS Foundation president Thomas Lopez

Sundar on If Only We Had A Leader Like Chavez, Who Solved Real Problems -- Instead Of Debating Fake Ones Like The Deficit

flowers rainbows on Lift up your voices: The century-long battle for women's freedom

mr.ed on wagner in new york?

mirel on Here’s how to change the world

mirel on If Only We Had A Leader Like Chavez, Who Solved Real Problems -- Instead Of Debating Fake Ones Like The Deficit

X on Getting Smarter

Ross Williams on Getting Smarter

oroboe on Lennon's "Imagine" and McCartney/Wings' "Band on the Run" overlaid: One way of reuniting (some of) the Beatles

Richard H. Randall on Obama must Make Fighting Climate Change National Project, or Die the death of a thousand Scandals

waqnis on Thursday Poem

seth edenbaum on The First New Atheist? Kierkegaard

waqnis on Mortify Our Wolves

Acclaim For 3QD


"I couldn't tear myself away from 3 Quarks Daily, to the point of neglecting my work. Congratulations on this superb site."—Steven Pinker, Johnstone Professor of Psychology, Harvard University.

"I have placed 3 Quarks Daily at the head of my list of web bookmarks."—Richard Dawkins, Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University.

"Just wanted you to know I’m one of many who reads and enjoys 3 Quarks....almost daily."—David Byrne, musician, former lead-singer of the Talking Heads, artist, intellectual.

Read more here.

The 3QD Prizes

Subscribe to this blog's feed