Peter Wallison has a piece discussing whether Senator Barack Obama's presidential campaign is really as vacuous as many contend, myself included. He concludes that there is plenty of substance to the Obama campaign, just that it's a little warmed over. But Wallison opens his piece with the following:
Plainly, something has to give. If Obama wants to govern in a spirit of public unity, he will have to set aside his policy proposals, and if he wants to see his policies enacted, he will have to retreat to the dynamic of Red vs. Blue.* Either Obama's rhetoric is empty, or his policy proposals are empty promises. That is the choice he faces, and if he tries to avoid making that choice, it may get him elected, but it will ultimately cripple his presidency.
This raises some interesting questions. Is Obama aware of the inherent contradiction between his rhetoric and his policy proposals? If he isn't, do we want someone so naive in the White House? If he is, which aspect gives way, unity or policy? Ultimately, the question, "Where's the beef?" remains a valid question, though in a different sense. Is Obama interested primarily in uniting the country, using his platform to make him appear a more substantive candidate next to Senator Hillary Clinton (who has similar issues of substance as Obama, just less obviously so)? Is his rhetoric simply a front for his policies? If it is the former, his candidacy still lacks substance, validating the original sense of "Where's the beef?" If the latter, then Wallison's characterization is correct, and Obama's rhetoric of unity is patently dishonest.**
*No, not that Red vs. Blue.
**This is not necessarily to say Obama is lying. He would only be lying if he knew his rhetoric to be dishonest.
The television images are striking. A handsome young candidate, an adoring audience, a beautifully delivered speech in which he offers to bring us together as a nation, and speaks of his "movement for change:" "I don't want to spend the next year or the next four years" he says, "re-fighting the same fights that we had in the 1990s. I don't want to pit Red America against Blue America, I want to be the President of the United States of America." Nice rhetoric. Is it real or is it theater? Relax: it's theater.This is precisely the point. There is a fundamental, even obvious disconnect between the policies Obama is proposing and his stated aim to unite the country behind his platform of hopeful change, but his actual changes are the standard Democratic policies Republicans have been fighting against since Ronald Reagan ran for president and conservatives have been fighting since the modern conservative movement cohered in the 1950's. We're not "re-fighting the same fights we had in the 1990s." These fights were never finished, and unless Obama expects Republicans in general and conservatives in particular to abandon their principles, to stop fighting for the policies they believe are best for the country for the sake of public unity is absurd. If he thinks political division is only about one faction or another gaining power for power's sake, he is sorely deluded.
A visit to Barack Obama's website reveals that this is not a candidate who is offering a new left-right synthesis—a new way of looking at our politics and bridging the old Red-Blue divide. Instead, what we see in 60 pages of policy proposals and commitments are the same old ideas of the Democratic Left. Even the rhetoric is old.
Plainly, something has to give. If Obama wants to govern in a spirit of public unity, he will have to set aside his policy proposals, and if he wants to see his policies enacted, he will have to retreat to the dynamic of Red vs. Blue.* Either Obama's rhetoric is empty, or his policy proposals are empty promises. That is the choice he faces, and if he tries to avoid making that choice, it may get him elected, but it will ultimately cripple his presidency.
This raises some interesting questions. Is Obama aware of the inherent contradiction between his rhetoric and his policy proposals? If he isn't, do we want someone so naive in the White House? If he is, which aspect gives way, unity or policy? Ultimately, the question, "Where's the beef?" remains a valid question, though in a different sense. Is Obama interested primarily in uniting the country, using his platform to make him appear a more substantive candidate next to Senator Hillary Clinton (who has similar issues of substance as Obama, just less obviously so)? Is his rhetoric simply a front for his policies? If it is the former, his candidacy still lacks substance, validating the original sense of "Where's the beef?" If the latter, then Wallison's characterization is correct, and Obama's rhetoric of unity is patently dishonest.**
*No, not that Red vs. Blue.
**This is not necessarily to say Obama is lying. He would only be lying if he knew his rhetoric to be dishonest.
No comments:
Post a Comment