What so warmed me to Barack – and helped convince me he might actually pull off his new-politics gambit – was not the fact that he avoided poll-driven mustard choices. It was in the way he later told the story to an interviewer. In a non-self-aggrandizing manner, he simply shared a humorous tidbit about the machinations of human/political foibles. Somehow he was able to roll his eyes at mortal silliness without losing empathy for anyone in the process. He displayed, simultaneously, an awareness of the demands that the political process puts on politicians, a determination not to automatically bow to those demands, and, most importantly, a character and persona capable of constructing a disarming meta-narrative to gently teach us about the pitfalls of those demands.
While it would be hyperbolic to portray my entire support of Obama as stemming from his Grey Poupon story, it’s not an exaggeration to say that I was quite comforted by it. For starters, it helped convince me that this man would not become another, say, John Kerry. His charm – a word I’m using as shorthand for a range of personality traits – would allow him to navigate the petty attacks that tended to dominate and diminish politics. Good luck to anyone who would try to brand him as an elitist because of his choice of mustard! This man was simply too comfortable in his own skin to be thrown off balance or intimidated. From everything I had seen up to that point, I extrapolated that he probably would be able to absorb or repel future attacks – whether of the swiftboat variety or more substantive policy critiques.
And, indeed, as the campaign progressed, observers often marveled at his Teflon qualities. I remember thinking of the Reagan comparison long before Barack brought it up in Nevada. Clearly, Reagan’s personal attributes – as much as they annoyed those of us who were progressive peaceniks at the time – played a significant role in his ability to reshape the self-image of America in the 1980s. How exciting to think we could be on the verge of another national identity transformation, but this time our new identity would embrace things like diversity, mutual care, responsibility, nuanced dialogue, etc. Over time I came to believe that no meaningful political/cultural change would or could come to pass unless, with the help of our leaders, we could coalesce around new shared definitions. To me, Barack seemed like the only candidate with a real chance of providing this kind of leadership. While everyone else appeared to be predefined, pre-entrenched players in the bickering and battling of previous decades, Barack moved in another direction.
In today’s down-and-dirty stage of the campaign, most anecdotal accounts of candidates have become attacks on character. Some attacks are relevant and justified, while some are overblown. I want to invite more positive accounts of the candidate who, most fair observers would agree, is likely to win the Democratic nomination. This is also a shout-out to the ardent Clinton supporters who, as I’ve been gleaning from the blogs recently, find themselves transitioning from a mindset that previously found Obama not entirely objectionable, to one that increasingly portrays him as irresponsible and destructive. For those of us who are convinced Barack is the best thing for today’s politics and culture since sliced bread, it’s disturbing to hear more and more people claiming Barack’s ascendency is illegitimate, fraudulent, and dangerous.
Of course one may argue that his lighthearted Grey Poupon moments are past – that he’s now mired in the mud with everyone else. I disagree. While I’m not going to spend time here arguing the degree to which he helped himself with his speech on race, etc, I ask us to not forget some of his core traits that help us predict the success of his presidency. No, not everyone will love him, and his career will hit some roadbumps (don’t forget how many roadbumps Reagan encountered, ranging from personality/character/intelligence issues to scandalous actions – yet still his presidency was recognized as transformational), but I think Barack’s traits are already proving to be anchors that will reliably, repeatedly, return him to a position of leadership that unites us far more than divides us.
The passion felt by supporters of both candidates is rooted not merely in fighting for one’s "team," it’s rooted in genuinely and often profoundly differing worldviews. My hope is that we can acknowledge these differences – and continue arguing for our preferences – without concluding that the other side has no sound philosophical, strategic, or pragmatic basis for furthering a progressive agenda. What’s disturbing of late is the vehemence shared by those 20-25 percent of Dems who say they won’t vote for the other candidate if their candidate loses the nomination. I confess I’ve flirted with such vehemence myself, even experimenting in this space with a theoretical argument for a McCain presidency on the basis that the Clintons should not be rewarded for chronically destructive behavior. Since that diary, I’ve been taken aback by Hillary supporters, seemingly sincere, making precisely the same argument against Barack. The problem is our rising level of certainty that our enemy will wreck such havoc if elected that we must make it our civic duty to stop him/her at all cost. Obama supporters cite Clinton’s Machiavellian incapacity for straightforwardness and transparency, while Clinton supporters say Obama is a reckless, self-aggrandizing phony.
The fears from the two camps are not the same. Since Obama will very likely be our nominee, I think it’s important to address some of the fears more specific to the Clinton camp. Not that I’m so naïve as to believe that such a discussion will cause Clinton supporters to change the qualities they value and expect in a candidate, but I have noticed some minds seem to ease a bit when reminded that not every Barack fan is simply jumping onto a popular bandwagon – that much of the passion for this candidate arises from a rational belief in his abilities, character, and, yes, experience. No, he doesn’t appeal to everyone, but Obama’s candidacy is hardly an arbitrary fluke of popular culture. I get the sense that diehard Clinton supporters have convinced themselves that electing him will be akin to partying on the Titanic with a charming but clueless Captain Obama looking on. They fear some sort of nutty crapshoot leading to an almost certain freefall away from tangible progress -- even though there’s historical precedence for visionary styles leading to greater practical results.
Writing in Slate today about Barack’s economic address yesterday, Andrew Leonard talks about Obama’s tendency to approach issues in sweeping, philosophical ways, comparing this to Clinton’s emphasis on details, which Leonard says constitutes a sort of "gift basket" approach to policy making:
Back in 1980, Ronald Reagan announced a series of broad, vague principles, and then proceeded to drastically change the direction of American politics and economics. If we take both Clinton and Obama at their word, we have Clinton promising a boatload of quick fixes, and Obama promising a profound change of course.
I know it's easy to ridicule promises, words, and speechifying. I know it's easy to ridicule this diary for privileging anecdotal evidence: "That’s the problem with you Obama kool-aid drinkers – being swayed by Grey Poupon instead of by experience and policy proposals!" Well, I’ve engaged in plenty of arguments about policy proposals and experience. Right now, however, I’m asking you to consider the possibility, regardless of whether or not he turns out to be the best president of a generation, that we are on the verge of choosing someone to lead us who is, at his core, solid and well defined.
I also recognize that people will disagree over readings of anecdotal behavior. I decided, for example, that cultural differences must have been in play after seeing how profoundly many critics disagreed with my take on Barack’s "You’re likable enough, Hillary" moment. To my eyes he was clearly behaving as a gentleman, treating her, albeit with a touch of light sparring, as a worthy opponent who didn’t need some guy falling all over himself to shower her with compliments. Anything more would have been patronizing. And then, later, in Las Vegas, when asked whether he regretted the remark, instead of defending himself or over-explaining the moment, he simply said of course he regretted it because it clearly didn’t come across the way he intended. All very classy – to my eyes. But my purpose here is not to persuade you to see it my way. Since you are using an altogether different yardstick, he will not measure up to your preferred qualifications. What I hope is that we somehow regain enough trust in each other that you will at least believe me when I say my perceptions are genuine and reasonably thoughtful, and not merely reflexive spin. This is an important step in healing our party. As long as we’re convinced those we disagree with belong in the loony bin we will continue to fight as though civilization itself depended on it.
I’m pretty sure the division between Hillary and Barack supporters reflects a real and meaningful division of our own priorities and sensibilities. At least in a political sense, some of us are currently drawn to "a fighter and hard worker" while others are drawn to "a unifier and visionary communicator" (or however one chooses to bracket these two politicians). I had intended to share a greater number of character-revealing anecdotes here, but I’ve taken far too much space already. I was, however, hoping others would add to my idiosyncratic Grey Poupon moment for the purpose of remembering that Barack just conceivably might not be a careless megalomaniac steering us toward a cold and deadly iceberg.
Comments are closed on this story.