Candor and Unity: THESE ARE "ISSUES"
Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 06:48:46 PM PDT
In numerous diaries and comments, I've read the assertion that Obama doesn't talk about "issues" enough. I've read that his rhetoric about change, unity, and honesty sounds good but doesn't really mean anything. I've read that it's just a bunch of feel-good nonsense, and that he isn't the right candidate because he's not talking about issues in enough depth.
Certainly, a number of people have responded to that assertion, and I have no interest in repeating things that have already been said by people more eloquent than I. To the extent I have something original to add to what has already been said, it is that America's departure from its national character IS AN ISSUE facing the country -- in fact, it's one of the most important ones. For my vote, a candidate's ability to restore our national character by speaking to us honestly and helping us become a nation of citizens who focus on their similarities more than their differences is one of the determinative factors.
Consider our current President. When one takes stock of all the damage he has done, his decisions on "issues" is only part of the problem. His dishonesty is also part of the problem, and so is his fundamentally corrosive belief that getting 51% of the people to agree with him is an end that justifies all means. I believe that when historians look back on his tenure, the destruction he did to our national character by both purposely demonizing those who disagree with him, and also by blurring the line between spin and fact will be the one of the most shameful parts of his legacy. We need our next President to not only take different positions on the "issues" than Bush took, but we also need our next President to have a fundamentally different approach to the way he talks to and treats the American people.
Theoretically, Hillary can make the case that she will approach the Presidency in a fundamentally different way than Bush did. Theoretically, she can make the case that she will be straight with the American people, and that she will seek to unite us rather than divide us. But, history suggests otherwise, and so do her actions on the campaign trail.
Whether Democrats like to admit it or not, a significant portion of America (at least 40% by anyone's estimate) had the same types of problems with Bill Clinton that we now have with Bush. People who hated Bill Clinton hated him for reasons that went beyond just his positions on the "issues." They hated him partially because of his lack of candor -- he is, after all, the guy who tried to parse the meaning of the word "is." And, they resented the highly-partisan, divisive tenor in Washington during his term in office. Remember, Democrats, that when Clinton's VP ran for President against a candidate who promised to “restore dignity and honor to the Oval Office,” Clinton's VP got no more than 50 percent of the vote (however you count the ballots). Blame it on the Republicans all you want, for they surely deserve most of the blame. At the end of the day, the Clintons showed no ability to move the country beyond such corrosive fighting. Even to this day, the Clintons remain polarizing, and are viewed unfavorably by at least 40% of the electorate. To vote the Clintons back into office is to submit to the belief that America will always be a place where at least 40% of the electorate has a passionate dislike for its President. Maybe that is our destiny, but I'm hoping for more.
Some may say that it's unfair to blame Bill's previous problems on Hillary. I say she doesn't get to make that argument, because she keeps talking about how her "experience" makes her more qualifed. Clearly, she's referring primarily to the time she spent in the White House. If she wants to take the credit for what was good during those years, she can't walk away from what was bad. She can't walk away from the fact that, when she moved out of the White House, a large portion of the American public had come to distrust its government, and the electorate was divided between two groups that had trouble engaging in a civil conversation.
Am I saying that Hillary spins as much as Bush? No. Am I saying that she seeks to divide us and exploit that division to the same extent that Bush has? No. But the differences are differences of degree, not of kind. In this campaign, she has demonstrated her dishonesty by distorting numerous facts about Obama to score political points, and has demonstrated her divisiveness by attempting to highlight her purported ability to effectively battle Republicans. Seen in a vacuum, her statements during the campaign might not be such a big deal. But, when considered against the backdrop of all that happened during the first Clinton term in the White House, I think they give significant reason for concern.
All of that being said, there are numerous important "issues" to be addressed by our next President, issues that won't be fixed by mere honesty and civility. A candidate who agrees with Bush on "issues" like Iraq, taxes, healthcare, and judicial appointees won't have my vote, regardless of how "honest" or "unifying" that candidate may be. But, so long as the candidate has positions that are obviously the positions of a Progressive Democrat, the "issues" of restoring credibility to our government and civility to our discourse rank high on my list of which ones are important. Thankfully, each of our candidates is a Progressive Democrat. This, in my mind, means that questions about their ability to restore Americans' faith in their leaders and to lead us in a civil discourse take on primary importance.
To those of you who look at the candidates' positions on healthcare, foreign policy, or anything else, and see monumental differences that you deem to be determinative, I obviously respect your right to feel that way. Nobody has the right to insist that someone else make their decision based on a particular reason or combination of reasons.
Me? I'm glad to get to choose between 3 Progressive Democrats, and I'm choosing the guy who is almost the exact opposite of George Bush -- both in the positions he takes on the "issues" AND ALSO in the way he views the job of the President.
Obama '08
Permalink | 3 comments