Letters to the Editor
-
I agree with AJCalhoun…
“Barack Obama has made his policies and platform clear enough if anyone wants to bother to listen or to read. What he does which is different from the others is to set fire to minds once mired in circular thinking, minds trapped in a political "Groundhog Day." …… Hope. It's not a bad starting point.”-
And with Pillbeam:
“The truth is, the people who get elected to presidential office always convey a sense of hope along with a message of change, and Obama is smart to focus on that during his limited time to speak during campaign stops. "Hope" is part of what gives Obama a charisma lacking in every other candidate, Democrat or Republican.”
Anybody remember the campaign theme of Reagan? “The shining city on a hill”
Or Bush 41? “A thousand points of light”
Or Clinton? “The MAN from Hope”
How about the Chimp? “compassionate conservatism” and/or his “bipartisan cooperation as governor of Texas”
I’m not sure I got all those thematic references exactly correct. But none of these people were truly outstanding successes once elected. And no one remembered much about those “VAGUE” campaign themes after they were elected. It seems also, that no one remembers much about their “concrete policy” positions prior to their elections, or how those positions were ultimately fulfilled or abandoned. The fact remains that their usage of such messages of ethereal national ambition certainly did not cause their election campaigns to falter or fail. I'm convinced that Americans, at some level, remain hopeful and optimistic about the future. Most assuredly, the track record of the past seven years has done serious damage to any residual core of hope for REAL change in America. If ever there was a time for a glimmer of hope in this nation it is now.
What is the message of hope articulated by any of the other candidates? More importantly, it is unthinkable that any candidate expecting to have a successful presidency, as things now stand, would not speak to that “vague” ambition. Otherwise, Dante’s warning should be a part of the swearing-in ceremony for anyone elected to the White House in 2008:
“Abandon HOPE, all ye who enter here”
-
@ brightstar65
Ron Paul is a conservative. He doesn't even believe in evolution.
-
"But none of these people were truly outstanding successes once elected."
Exactly.
That should tell you something.
-
@AKA Smith
Yes, it does. It tells me that their usage of such terminology did not harm their election campaigns.
What they did, or did not do, after election is a separate issue. I don’t think you can logically conclude that usage of such terminology implies they will eventually be failures or successes as president. I referenced their mixed record of successes and failures only to suggest that the “hope” terminology seems to assist in getting elected regardless of policy stances or policy actions. What they do, once in office, is a more complicated matter subject to the vagaries of world events, their core convictions, and too many other variables to predict.
-
Nouvelle Vague......funny...
Okay, Shapiro's article touched on something I had been worried about, namely to me, the "name brand" quality that all of the democratics this election season seem to have....the teflon coating that presumably is to protect them from GOP attacks...but which also makes it difficult for voters to get the real mesasge.
However, looking at the article more closely it seems like Shapiro is only critiquing Obama's speeches....I'm not sure it's nouvelle to be vague in speeches. But here is the meat of the issues on the candidates' websites:
Hillary's website speaks about what she WILL do for America on "the issues"
http://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/
Edwards ditto. The "Issues" and what he WILL do:
http://www.johnedwards.com/issues/
And Obama....
http://www.ontheissues.org/Barack_Obama.htm
Obama is the ONLY candidate with his issues section filled with his voting record (!), clips from speeches and factchecks. Sometimes a phrase like "nouvelle vague" will catch on not because it's true, but because it's convenient for pundits to dismiss someone with.
Looking at the evidence online though, Obama is very transparent and gives exactly what he has already done and said as evidence of what he will do and will say.
A key question for Hillary supporters is, if Hillary is running her campaign on experience, why isn't she showing her voting record with as much transparency as Obama?
I haven't myself listened to any of Obama's speeches except the clips they show on t.v. or the one at the democratic convention four years ago, so I don't know if Shapiro's criticisms of his speeches are true. But I see the least potential for unmet promises on Obama's website. The fact that Obama just states his voting record and stands by it is not vague, it's more like nouvelle honest.
And as for Hillary, I worry that the new 100 million in funds that she has just raised according to new reports does come from the big money status quo people....Bill Clinton was and is a likeable and intelligent man, but he was (is?) completely unafraid to "wag the dog." Or to create policy based on self-interest and narcissism. And to voters like myself, the three most important issues, not necessarily in this order are the war, the environment, and health care. Judging from his website as well as the clips of speeches I've heard, Obama has been more consistent and more transparent on his stance on all three of these issues than the other leading candidates.
I also wonder if Iowa voters are thinking as I am....two for the price of one with Michelle Obama. She also comes across as compassionate, intelligent with a sense of humor and dedicated.
-
consensus vs triangulation
I think the elusive "substance" behind Obama's call for a new politics derives largely from his interest in consensus building which, in turn, stems from his work as a community organizer. Often, New-Dem/Clinton-style "triangulation" and consensus building will end up in roughly equivalent places, but Obama is as interested in process as results.
The sometimes less-than-specific policy proposals are a result of this process-oriented idealism. The policy grows out of the process. Obama used to say fairly often in town hall meetings that there had been no shortage of solid plans to address our various woes, including health care. What had been lacking was "political will" and consensus. If there aren't enough people who feel like they've been part of the process, part of the conversation that leads to policy, those people won't be as willing to resist when entrenched powers resist the new policies.
This is related to the spat between Clinton and Obama during which Clinton said that a candidate for president should avoid saying certain things, even if they are true. She was referring, if I remember correctly, to Obama's (admittedly imperfectly stated) suggestion that we should consider going into Northern Pakistan if that's where we think/know bin Laden is. She said "think it but keep it to yourself." He said "the people deserve to be part of the conversation." There have been similar exchanges throughout the campaign (including the debate about whether the President should engage in one-on-one negotiations with leaders of hostile or "rogue" nations.)
The Bush administration has made a spectacle of secrecy, allowing classified documents and institutionalized paranoia to stand as a signifier of security... and proven to be astonishingly incompetent when the smoke is cleared away. a candidate seeking a more candid, transparent, consensus building, process-oriented approach to policy might be a welcome change indeed.