| Why am I voting for Obama?
The country’s in need of change - that much should be clear. We’ve dropped our military resources in the morass of Iraq war, and it’s going to take some delicacy to get them out. The nation is divided along virtually any line that can be drawn. The Bush administration has been wracked with scandal; carefully-selected yes-men and useless cronies have been appointed to essential government positions in lieu of many more experienced options, leaving us with a distrusted Attorney General and an incompetent Katrina response, to name only a couple of examples. Similar disgraces can undoubtedly be found in the Clinton years as well. The American public has become accustomed to its elections being limited to choosing the lesser of two evils, or essentially no candidate at all.
No more.
We’re being given a chance to select a candidate whose success can reshape the political landscape. A candidate whose positions and issues are not being dictated by lobbyists. A candidate whose campaign strategy extends beyond the traditional “50%+1” tactic. His presidency will not only change the way the country is run, but also the standard to which our future prospective leaders must raise themselves.
I’m talking about Senator Barack Obama - a Christian candidate not looking to dictate his Christian principles on the entire populace, a fiery proponent of ethical reform that lets his actions meets his words every step of the way. The guy who dared to bring inspiration back into that traditionally most cynical of enterprises: politics. His success as a candidate will become a direct precedent for the politics of hope succeeding over the politics of cynicism, and the politics of inclusion over the politics of division.
Now, within the Democratic primary, one of the more commonplace arguments against Obama’s candidacy is of his supposed lack of experience; his “thin record” as a politician. Many look dismissively at his established state Senate resume, ignoring the successes he had there, reaching across the aisle to get things done. It would likely surprise a lot of Democrats to hear that his record in elected office is actually longer than Clinton’s – the self-described “experienced’ politician in the running. He’s served as a civil rights attorney representing community organizers, discrimination claims and voting rights cases; he lectured on constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School. While serving his state from within the Illinois state legislature, he worked to pass complex legislature on difficult topics, in particular leading the passage of bills reinforcing ethics reform and addressing police corruption and bias. In Washington, Obama has been able to collaborate with Republicans on issues of global warming and nuclear proliferation. Bill Clinton once said, “The truth is, you can have the right kind of experience and the wrong kind of experience. Mine is rooted in the real lives of real people, and it will bring real results if we have the courage to change.” Such a sentiment is wholly appropriate to answer the question of Obama’s experience.
Greater than any perceived lack of experience, Obama’s success story has never been in the number of years he’s sat in a U.S. Senate chair. It’s been in how he gets things done. While the Republican Party lies more or less in shambles after GWB’s presidency, he has recognized that now is not the time to adopt the traditional Democratic modus operandi of discarding Republican interests and sensibilities. Now is hardly the time to begin alienating people sitting on the other side of a metaphorical “line” dividing red and blue. And now is certainly not the time to continue dividing people into left and right. Obama recognizes these truths, and more, he’s recognized them since he was elected to the Illinois Senate. That’s why he’s been able to pass bill after bill with excellent support coming from those that would typically align themselves against his positions as well as those who mostly agree with him. As he writes in The Audacity of Hope, “not only did my encounters with voters confirm the fundamental decency of the American people, they also reminded me that at the core of the American experience are a set of ideals that continue to stir our collective conscience; a common set of values that bind us together despite our differences; a running thread of hope that makes our improbable experiment in democracy work.” In chapter two he elects to consider “those common values that might serve as the foundation for a new political consensus.”
And in the light of Obama’s ideas on consensus, I offer a quote by George Lakoff outlining one of the differences between Obama and Clinton: how each defines bipartisanship. Clinton seems to view it as “moving to the right -- adopting right-wing positions -- to get more votes.” But Obama means something else entirely when considering the term. “For him, bipartisanship means finding people who call themselves ‘conservatives’ or ‘independents,’ but who share those central American values with progressives. Obama thus doesn't have to surrender or dilute his principles for the sake of ‘bipartisanship.’”
Now for the people not typically in agreement with the Democrats, it can be expected that you’re seeking a different set of reasons to vote for Obama. Indeed, his political stances may often be at odds with your own. But in my talks with Republicans who have hopped on the Obama Express, I believe I’ve begun to nail down a few reasons that have transcended the parties and the platforms.
As I’ve written above, Senator Obama’s history of voting, campaigning, and legislative action has proven him to be overwhelmingly in support of ethical politics. This last expression has no doubt already caused numerous people reading this to scoff, openly or inwardly. I can’t fault you. Under other circumstances I’d surely have responded in the same manner. But what’s changed for me is this – Obama actually sells it! It can be done! I swear it to you, it really can. And perhaps the best part is to follow. You see, it’s much more likely for ethical politics to continue if it has a proven successful precedent - namely, an honest and sincere candidate being elected to serve as our President. Like it or not, presidential hopefuls will continue to take notes on the actions, and on the subsequent successes or failures, of previous candidates; thus, a vote for an honest candidate is a vote for honest candidates to follow.
It bears noting that his promises of transparency and honesty in his administrative actions have no match in any other 2008 mainstream presidential candidates’ positions. In cooperation with Oklahoma Republican Senator Tom Coburn he introduced an act into the U.S. Senate that requires the full disclosure of all entities or organizations receiving federal funds. The act has also stipulated the creation a publicly-accessible website cataloguing federal spending, allowing citizens to follow the path their tax dollars are taking. You see, in order to allow the American people their warranted chance to be heard clearly, Obama is looking to sweep lobbyists’ feet out from under them.
A prominent challenge also has to do with the rumors of his being a covert Muslim attempting to overthrow the government. Though this particular claim is nothing more than a load of hogwash, the fact remains that this country is overwhelmingly religious, and the topic is thus something that cannot simply be ignored. A few years ago, when I still considered myself a Republican, I first began to admire Obama when I heard his ideas on the interplay between religion and politics. Though a Christian, I had nevertheless always felt that in a society of differing worldviews and beliefs, our laws needed to be based on the collective good (i.e. utilitarianism) and not on the unproven good that religious statutes attempt to supply. Particularly I felt that people ought not to be held to the laws of a religion to which they do not subscribe. From his own words, it’s clear that he feels the same way. “Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. It requires that their proposals be subject to argument, and amenable to reason. I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God's will. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all.”
While you consider the idea of Obama as President, consider also the immediate, automatic effect his victory would have on our foreign policy. Andrew Sullivan wisely calls it a highly effective “re-branding of the United States”.
Consider this hypothetical. It’s November 2008. A young Pakistani Muslim is watching television and sees that this man—Barack Hussein Obama—is the new face of America. In one simple image, America’s soft power has been ratcheted up not a notch, but a logarithm. A brown-skinned man whose father was an African, who grew up in Indonesia and Hawaii, who attended a majority-Muslim school as a boy, is now the alleged enemy. If you wanted the crudest but most effective weapon against the demonization of America that fuels Islamist ideology, Obama’s face gets close. It proves them wrong about what America is in ways no words can.
Beyond this, I’ve already noted his eagerness to bring people from both sides of the political spectrum into the conversation of governance. His message is designed to invite the realization that we are one people, regardless of disagreements over issues, and our combined livelihood is what defines America. “There’s another ingredient in the American saga, a belief that we’re all connected as one people. If there is a child on the south side of Chicago who can’t read, that matters to me, even if it’s not my child. If there is a senior citizen somewhere who can’t pay for their prescription drugs, and having to choose between medicine and the rent, that makes my life poorer, even if it’s not my grandparent. If there’s an Arab American family being rounded up without benefit of an attorney or due process that threatens my civil liberties.”
Ultimately, he knows that our greatest success as a country will only come through a united effort, not a national mindset that’s composed of two parts bickering and stonewalling and a third apathetic and cynical. But though we’re expected to step away from a party feud reminiscent of the Hatfields and the McCoys, the return simply couldn’t be any higher. In coming together and working in tandem, in getting genuinely excited about our governance, in expecting more from our leadership, we won’t just “succeed”. We're going to soar.
So as you find me wrapping up, you may wonder why I chose those words to title this piece, and not reference them at any point in the bulk of the message. I don’t feel I have had to. Optimism. Unity. Realism. Change. They run as an undercurrent to everything Obama's candidacy represents. They are the four corners of the soapbox from which Senator Obama plans not to harangue the multitudes, but to inspire them. To deliver an old message in a new and authentic way. To transform “the audacity of hope” into “the standard of hope”, and then hand it over to us so that we can wave it proudly.
Vote for Barack Obama. America needs, and, though the cynics may find it hard to accept, truly deserves the kind of change he will bring.
I'm listening to will.I.Am's Yes We Can music video - http://www.dipdive.com. |
