I'm mad. Why do ordinary people like me have to be subjected to the condescension of politicians, their handlers and advisors, who regularly expect to dupe us into voting based on their unfaithfulness to the truth rather than honest talk that helps us think about substantial issues. I was proud of Jim Wallis on The Daily Show the other night. Talking about his new book, The Great Awakening, he said that many faithful people--both those who are religious and those who are nonreligious but deeply moral, care deeply about real issues--poverty and inequality, the health care crisis, the climate crisis, and more. But worried about short term election results and the grasp for power, too many politicians take the turn into unfaithful actions, actions that are harmful to our public life and reflect badly on the individual in question.
I don't mean here unfaithful as in "don't believe in God" just as I don't exactly mean by faithful someone who is religious. I mean something more like the trust, respect and truthfulness that fidelity requires. Americans, especially young ones (which I admit I'm almost unable to claim at 41), have grown up in an era of government deception from Watergate to Iran-Contra to the meaning of "is" to Iraq's WMDs. We don't trust leaders to speak the truth, let alone tell us what they really think and what might be right rather than merely popular. It has something to do with authenticity, the claim to act and speak in good faith, trusting that the person is keeping it real.
Part of the reason Barack Obama has struck such a chord with me, and with many young people, is our sense that for once we have a visionary political leader who seems MOSTLY to keep it real. That matters a lot. It starts with his honesty about his own story--all of it, including taking drugs as a youth, which he regrets, and having doubts despite his active Christian faith, which he thinks is valuable. For a long while in this campaign, it didn't look good for Obama. Polls had Hillary Clinton ahead by significant margins. She was kind and complementary about the Senator from Illinois. Bill Clinton focused on running his admirable new Global Initiative. But when Obama came storming out of the summer doldrums into a hot fall and a victory in Iowa, something ugly began to happen. Unfaithful campaign tactics damage our democracy, miring us in negativity, and turning off those of us who simply what an honest exchange of ideas to drive the debates.
What is it that set me off? Oh, it has been building for a while, but I about went apoplectic when I read about the new Clinton ad in South Carolina. Writing in today's New York Times, Katharine Q. Seelye says this:
___________
At about the same time, the Clinton campaign began running a radio commercial about Mr. Obama, which replayed Mr. Obama’s words from a recent interview with The Reno Gazette-Journal: “The Republicans were the party of ideas for a pretty long chunk of time there over the last 10, 15 years.”
“Really?” a voice-over in the Clinton commercial says. “Aren’t those the ideas that got us into the economic mess we’re in today?”
In his interview, Mr. Obama did not specify any particular idea and did not say he supported any of them, though Mrs. Clinton’s commercial strongly implies that he did.
The Obama campaign called Mrs. Clinton’s commercial “dishonest,” and Mr. Obama broadly implied at campaign appearances that the Clintons were misleading voters, though he did not mention the Clintons by name.
Mr. Obama further responded with his own radio advertisement, saying that it was Mrs. Clinton who had frequently sided with the Republicans on issues like the Iraq war and the North American Free Trade Agreement. “She’ll say anything, and change nothing,” the commercial said. “It’s time to turn the page.”
___________
I can't find a full transcript to this interview which was hosted by the Reno Nevada Gazette-Journal's editorial board. However, you can watch a video of it here, and it is totally worth it--all 49 minutes. You can see what a thoughtful guy Obama is, and the whole interview puts his comments about Ronald Regan and the Republican Party in context. In the course of a long and reflection conversation about many things, Obama notes that the wave he's riding is not simply because of him--it is also that people are ready for the message he's bringing regarding hope for our future. This, he argues, was the case in 1980 with Regan's election and in 1960 with Kennedy's election. He goes on to say, well, the Republicans and their ideas have dominated the last 10-15 years, which seems to me dead-on (even Clinton passed bills that made me very unhappy, that seemed like giving in to the Republicans, such as NAFTA and Welfare Reform). But Obama goes on to say the Republican ideas --like tax cuts as an answer to economic woes--just don't cut it any more and people know it. This kind of sophisticated analysis, reflective and vulnerable in its honesty, is exactly what America needs today. Do I have to agree with everything a leader I support says? I don't even agree with everything I say! But do I want clear, careful, and honest deliberation that is open to public scrutiny? Yes! Obama said he'd gather health care leaders and members of congress together with his cabinet for conversations around a table---and put it on CNN. Why? For the twin purposes of 1) education and 2) transparency. He actually believes that if the American people learn more about issues, they'll make pretty good decisions. And I'd like to see government try. Some might debate the fact, but as a case in point, both in and out of office, Al Gore's efforts have had a dramatic impact on the general public understanding the threats we face because of climate change and why it matters to act now in response.
Anyway. So what does Hillary Clinton's team do with Obama's reflections on social change and the dominance of Republican ideas? She takes his comments out of context, distorts them, and then attacks. Obama will have to take the heat, and he said it, because on principle he is trying to run on a positive message, a style of telling Americans what he really thinks, dreams, and believes. So opponents will try to drag him into the mud. Try to get him into a fight and then he just looks like every other politician. Like Obama, I don't believe in purity--everyone is caught in lies and distortion to some extent. But the difference between striving to avoid it to the extent possible and embracing it for the sake of one's own advantage are mark the difference between faithful and unfaithful politics. Which do you think we're better served by?
Anon,
Chris
Recent Comments