The Appeal of Obama: The Fresh Candidate

In a recent article in the Atlantic Monthly, Andrew Sullivan writes:

The logic behind the candidacy of Barack Obama is not, in the end, about Barack Obama. …The most persuasive case for Obama has less to do with him than with the moment he is meeting.

(Obama’s candidacy) is a potentially transformational one. Unlike any of the other candidates, he could take America—finally—past the debilitating, self-perpetuating family quarrel of the Baby Boom generation that has long engulfed all of us.

As Sullivan contends, to fully appreciate the appeal of Obama, it is essential to not only reflect on the political divisiveness of today, but to also understand how these divisions are closely linked to (and derivative of) those of the past. We see this divisiveness in Congress as political rivalry and posturing takes precedence over results, and we see this divisiveness in our communities as way too many of our friends and neighbors take their cues from the likes of Bill O’Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter and MoveOn.org.

As Americans eagerly look for leadership on the issues that impact our lives, we often come away empty-handed and completely disgusted by the over-politicization of the nation's business. On both sides of this debate, politicians take compromise for weakness and more frequently choose to score points with their electoral base than to produce meaningful results. With an eye toward the future, we have longed for a greater sense of unity but are left with a President whose lasting legacy will undoubtedly be his divisiveness – a divisiveness that was stubbornly and recklessly born from a historic time of national and international accord. Thus, as the next presidential election nears, both sides are as firmly entrenched as ever, Americans have lost confidence in their elected representatives, and international mistrust of American leadership is dangerously high. Sullivan elaborates on that point:

As the Iraq War faltered, the polarization intensified. It was and is a toxic cycle, in which the interests of the United States are supplanted by domestic agendas born of pride and ruthlessness on the one hand and bitterness and alienation on the other. This is the critical context for the election of 2008. It is an election that holds the potential not merely to intensify this cycle of division but to bequeath it to a new generation, one marked by a new war that need not be - that should not be - seen as another Vietnam.

In normal times, such division is not fatal, and can even be healthy. …But we are not talking about routine rancor. And we are not talking about normal times. We are talking about a world in which Islamist terror, combined with increasingly available destructive technology, has already murdered thousands of Americans, and tens of thousands of Muslims, and could pose an existential danger to the West.

…Of the viable national candidates, only Obama and possibly McCain have the potential to bridge this widening partisan gulf. …Perhaps because the Republicans and independents who are open to an Obama candidacy see his primary advantage in prosecuting the war on Islamist terrorism. It isn’t about his policies as such; it is about his person. They are prepared to set their own ideological preferences to one side in favor of what Obama offers America in a critical moment in our dealings with the rest of the world. The war today matters enormously. The war of the last generation? Not so much. If you are an American who yearns to finally get beyond the symbolic battles of the Boomer generation and face today’s actual problems, Obama may be your man.

To get beyond these “symbolic battles” of the past, we need someone with appropriate qualifications, but we also need someone with a certain freshness. On a slate of recycled candidates and those who employ “politics as usual”, Obama clearly stands out. Beyond the fresh face he brings to the campaign, he brings a fresh approach and good judgment to many of the issues that have long stale-mated the traditional Washington “interests.” His rhetoric is also fresh. It lacks the rancor we hear from other candidates and it better articulates what is in the hearts and minds of the average voter. It is also thoughtful, sometimes blunt, sometimes unpopular with a given audience, and sometimes flies in the face of Washington conventional wisdom.

He is among the first Democrats in a generation not to be afraid or ashamed of what they actually believe, which also gives them more freedom to move pragmatically to the right, if necessary. He does not smell, as Clinton does, of political fear.

That Hillary factor makes the appeal of a “fresh” candidate particularly strong. Her competence is appealing but, along with a good deal of experience, she brings a good deal of political baggage. Instead of putting us on a course toward greater national unity, her candidacy would further polarize the electorate and put us directly in the middle of a two-front war - confronting the challenges of today while trying to stave off the battles of the past.

The paradox is that Hillary makes far more sense if you believe that times are actually pretty good. If you believe that America’s current crisis is not a deep one, if you think that pragmatism alone will be enough to navigate a world on the verge of even more religious warfare, if you believe that today’s ideological polarization is not dangerous, and that what appears dark today is an illusion fostered by the lingering trauma of the Bush presidency, then the argument for Obama is not that strong. Clinton will do. And a Clinton-Giuliani race could be as invigorating as it is utterly predictable.

But if you sense, as I do, that greater danger lies ahead, and that our divisions and recent history have combined to make the American polity and constitutional order increasingly vulnerable, then the calculus of risk changes. Sometimes, when the world is changing rapidly, the greater risk is caution. Close-up in this election campaign, Obama is unlikely. From a distance, he is necessary. At a time when America’s estrangement from the world risks tipping into dangerous imbalance, when a country at war with lethal enemies is also increasingly at war with itself, when humankind’s spiritual yearnings veer between an excess of certainty and an inability to believe anything at all, and when sectarian and racial divides seem as intractable as ever, a man who is a bridge between these worlds may be indispensable.

Unfortunately, John Edwards is a far different candidate from the one we saw four years. He has grown too divisive. The Southern moderate who provided optimism and spoke of hope has given way to the polarizing liberal who appeals to the Democratic base by demonizing the special interests his Administration would ultimately need to enact significant reform. His charm and his story are certainly appealing but his campaign lacks the freshness of approach and the unifying potential of an Obama candidacy.

The signs are telling and the choice is clear. As Sullivan cleverly sums it up – “We may in fact have finally found that bridge to the 21st century that Bill Clinton told us about. Its name is Obama.”