Obama: Some Hopes and Concerns

Last week’s meme: if the economy is in such a mess, how come we aren’t doing so badly (link)? New meme: if Obama is so popular, how come he is up less than ten points in the polls?

The Wall Street Journal offered a characteristically thorough and fair-minded review of the evidence on this topic this morning, but I would like to add a nuance (“Voter Unease with Obama…” (link)).

First: the executive summary du jour seems to be that the voters are still waiting to be sold on Obama—more than waiting to be sold, they are still skeptical, suspicious. It is easy to paint this as sheer racism: “Doesn’t share our values--What kind of name is ‘Obama’ anyway?” Fair enough: I haven’t the slightest doubt that there is indeed a vital undertone of racism in the exercise.

But I wouldn’t dismiss these reservations so quickly. Let me spin a thread out of my own gizzard. Were the election today, I would vote for Obama, for at least two very good reasons. One, the country so needs to be free of the grip of corrupt Republicanism. And two, McCain has turned out to be such an awful candidate—a lot worse, I’d have to say, than I ever expected.

But I’d have my fingers crossed, and I don’t think the simplistic explanations get you far enough. On the one hand, I’m deeply unmoved by the rhetoric about America’s “first black president”—didn’t Bill Clinton already fill that role? And is Obama black? Equally, I think he it is laughable to say that he is some kind of secret Muslim.

And yet, and yet. And yet two things. First, let’s quit kidding ourselves, folks: this guy is untried. Aside from his campaign (of which more in a moment), the biggest thing he’s run is the Harvard Law Review. If we were picking presidents on seasoning and track record, Obama wouldn’t even get to suit up (which is what drives Bill Richardson so crazy, I suppose, not to mention Hillary Clinton).

I can think of two answers to the “experience” argument. One, Obama doesn’t seem to put a foot wrong in the campaign. Well: he’s had some slipups, but they’ve been minor, and he seems to recover quite nicely. My friend Ron offers a telling insight. Remember Dave Axelrod, Obama’s chief campaign honcho? Ron points out that Axelrod, for all his notoriety, has never had a winning presidential candidate before. If (if!) he is on a winning streak this year, then it may just be the candidate who deserves the credit.

A second objection to no experience: just as with “brain power,” “experience” is not always a defining criterion for success in the Presidency. Think of perhaps our two most successful presidents: Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt. Each vastly less experienced than his opponent and each (particularly Lincoln) wildly inexperienced by any measure. And think of JFK: not our most successful President, but not a bad one; a sort of a greenhorn who seemed to display a set of fully matured instincts from the moment he hit the front door. (in all three cases, I should say that the vanquished should have been the winner on grounds of experience alone).

There’s another reason for concern about Obama that may seem less “substantive,” but still needs to be taken seriously. That is: Obama is one more in the (almost) unbroken procession of candidates who seem to betray this apparently insurmountable inability to connect. God in heaven, what is it with this party? We’re looking for fun and excitement and they give us—John Kerry. Al Gore. Michael Dukakis. Jimmy Carter. And, of course, Adlai Stevenson. Are you ready to holler “uncle” yet? The voters are: fairly or unfairly, they just do not trust candidates who are (strike that: who appear to be) so emotionally remote. No wonder it is so easy to dismiss them all as a bunch of chardonnay-drinking pansies. Is Obama going to join this long procession? Boy, I hope not. But I remarked to Mrs.B that I was expecting to see Obama someday soon in a Wilkes-Barre diner with some off-duty firemen. “He’d make a mess of it,” she said. I’m not sure she’s right but it’s plausible enough that I don’t want to find out. Just once, can’t we nominate somebody like this guy?

Ah well, that’s dreaming. Meanwhile, we have Obama who, as Walter Lippman said in a similar context, might be described as a pleasant young man who, without any particular qualifications, wants very much to be President. And Lippman said that about who? Now, let me see… (link).

Update: A voice in my head says: does Obama tell the truth about the Federal budget? No, of course he doesn't tell the truth about the Federal budget. No candidate ever does. The best thing to be said about Obama is that he probably knows he is lying through his teeth. McCain, to all appearances, doesn't even suspect.