http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3869309964639699713&hl=en
He is a great public servant, and I pray that he will continue his service to the people of Arizona and the United States of America. I am particularly thankful--in light of a previous post--for his defense of life's sanctity.
Below is a revision of a Facebook note that I sent to an old friend shortly after the last 2008 presidential debate. Since I believe "process" issues are important I offer it to my friends and readers...
I was a McCain guy in 2000. I'm one of those social and fiscal conservatives who opposed the conduct of the war and never thought Gov. Bush had the gravitas for the job. He had a great record in TX of working across the aisle, so I thought in 2000 that he was a fine VP pick, but that's not what happened. I think the world would be a far different place today if the 2000 Republican ticket had been McCain-Bush.
There are parts of me that are thrilled the Obama candidacy. For one, wouldn't it be great to have the race stuff behind us and just be human beings? The man is bright and articulate and in terms of personality seems to actually value differences of opinion. Though I will disagree with President Obama on many issues (some to these gravely), he may be a great president.
However, campaigns matter. Here's the reality as I see it for these two men, and for an Obama presidency.
I had great hopes that these two fine men would finally allow us to have a substantive, real, honest campaign. However, these men made what I believe are fateful decisions. For one, President-elect Obama knew (even before the financial meltdown) that the Democrats would have to really screw up to lose the presidency in 2008. The Republicans governed terribly (though the Dem congress hasn't done very well either) and deserved some sort of chastisement. President-elect Obama knew the mood, but he also knew what most people knew: John McCain is a very different sort. I think Sen. Obama knew that if he decided to do a Lincoln-Douglas style campaign it was a risk. I think his advisors said something like, "Take public funding and do the Lincoln- Douglas thing and you may lose. Go private funding and we can almost guarantee a win." McCain did something similar. He sensed early on that he wasn't the "it" guy any more, and rather be true to himself and do the "straight talk express" he and his people decided to try and take Obama down. I think both men violated their principles.
A lot of people are talking about how the campaigns were conducted, but with all the excitement I do not believe there has been sufficient discussion of the Obama decision to forego public funding. Many on the left call up the Kerry 2004 funding situation, saying, "turnabout is fair play." That is, "Now it's the Republicans' turn to feel the sting." Thing is, it's not fair play, because it poisons they other side and impacts governance.
I'm not as versed in all this as I once was, but I do know that campaigns make a difference for governance. President-elect Obama has promised a new kind of politics (and I for one, would welcome it), but I think the decision to go private (Obama) and negative (McCain) was old-school hardball, and I think it will have unfortunate consequences for the Obama presidency.
I believe that if these two men had done a debate every week that over the course of the campaign Sen. Obama would have shown himself more articulate, more able to convey complex issues to the average citizen, more level-headed. . . in many respects, more presidential. Obama won, but the decision to pummel the Republican rather than debate him will have some consequences. Because of how he campaigned, in truth, because he violated his own principles, President-elect Obama will find it more than difficult to usher in the "new kind of politics" that he and so many of us long for.
I ask myself, "Why didn't they just do a simple debate every week and have it out over the issues?" The answer it appears is that there's too much at stake for too many people and interest groups, too much at stake to trust the men and the individual voter. That would've been a great campaign . . .
The above being said, I also thought President-elect Obama's speech was powerful and moving.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3477482826040622447&hl=en
I know that words make a difference. The current President was greatly impaired by his inability to articulate himself well and convey complex issues in terms and tenor that people would understand and assimilate.
And President-elect Obama has shown himself a quick study, capable of nuance, of speaking the truth about the past, and even of changing his opinion. I am especially hopeful that he will come to understand the following paragraph from our Declaration of Independence applies to human life from conception to death:
We hold these truths to be self-evident,
that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
2 comments:
I think the Pres-elect has knack for using language to make people feel inspired. His speech projects his persona. His words communicate very little substance. My 7 year old heard Obama's bit about "we may not get there right away, or even in 4 years...but we will get there" and said, "Get where?". I confess to asking myself the same thing last night.
Change and hope are emotive words. He's not defined them. That's why I don't buy that this election reprsented the end of conservatism.
I'm viewing the election both on the "process" side as a former campaign and legislative staffer, and from the more personal standpoint as a social and fiscal conservative.
I think the claim that President-elect Obama's victory is the "end of conservatism" is foolish. Some have suggested that. It will be quite the opposite. How far the pendulum swings will have a lot to do, I believe, with how Pres.-elect Obama governs, what sort of substance forms underneath the rhetoric.
I don't think that the President-elect's language is totally amorphous, however. He has been pretty clear about a more expansive role of government in the managing of the economy and social policy, for example, from the financial markets to health care to industrial production to the normalization of homosexual behavior and the expansion of abortion rights. There is nothing new about this Keynesian vision.
What IS new is his post-Boomer tone and, truthfully, his epistemology. I haven't read the full text of "The Audacity of Hope" yet, but I've read and heard clips that suggest his epistemology is thoroughly post-modern. That will make him a moving target. We will see how this plays out.
Post a Comment