It's bad enough that Obama sounds so confident in his argument about offering better leadership for the country.
Obama Slams Clinton's 'Textbook' Calculations
It's worse, for Ms. Clinton, at least, that he's right.
Maybe, just maybe, more honest leadership might get rewarded at the polls, this time around.
Andrew Sullivan captures well why Obama appeals to me as well.
"[T]he most persuasive case for Obama has less to do with him than with the moment he is meeting. The moment has been a long time coming, and it is the result of a confluence of events, from one traumatizing war in Southeast Asia to another in the most fractious country in the Middle East. The legacy is a cultural climate that stultifies our politics and corrupts our discourse.
Obama’s candidacy in this sense 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. So much has happened in America in the past seven years, let alone the past 40, that we can be forgiven for focusing on the present and the immediate future. But it is only when you take several large steps back into the long past that the full logic of an Obama presidency stares directly—and uncomfortably—at you.
At its best, the Obama candidacy is about ending a war—not so much the war in Iraq, which now has a momentum that will propel the occupation into the next decade—but the war within America that has prevailed since Vietnam and that shows dangerous signs of intensifying, a nonviolent civil war that has crippled America at the very time the world needs it most. It is a war about war—and about culture and about religion and about race. And in that war, Obama—and Obama alone—offers the possibility of a truce...
None of this, of course, means that Obama will be the president some are dreaming of. His record in high office is sparse; his performances on the campaign trail have been patchy; his chief rival for the nomination, Senator Clinton, has bested him often with her relentless pursuit of the middle ground, her dogged attention to her own failings, and her much-improved speaking skills. At times, she has even managed to appear more inherently likable than the skinny, crabby, and sometimes morose newcomer from Chicago. Clinton’s most surprising asset has been the sense of security she instills. Her husband—and the good feelings that nostalgics retain for his presidency—have buttressed her case. In dangerous times, popular majorities often seek the conservative option, broadly understood.
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.
We may in fact have finally found that bridge to the 21st century that Bill Clinton told us about. Its name is Obama."
The war Andrew describes of polarized ideological opponents is a self-righteous war fought by hyperaggressive combatants who, like Hamas and Al Queda, seem to care more about propping up their own artificial sense of monopoly on wisdom in human and polical affairs. Obama, unlike Hillary or any of his Democratic opponents, for all of my disagreements with him - and my disagreement with him on the war is a pretty important one, to me and to him - seems to understand better the need to end this dysfunctional and senseless war of propaganda and bring some genuine thought and discussion about the most important policy issues to Washington.
That, among many reasons, is why I am so unenamoured by Ms. Clinton. Because she doesn't seem to understand or have ideas for resolving this and many other much deeper problems of politics and policy-making in Washington, right now. She is symptomatic of all of its larger problems. She thinks positioning as a winner in this self-righteous battle will effectively work at resolving this schism. And she reflects the cynicism of self-righteous liberal baby-boomers and elders, alike, yearning for the days of Franklin Roosevelt and the New Deal when progressives could just argue that they were right about every policy issue and conservatives were wrong and there was no use having the discussion or engaging more serious thought about resolving our most serious policy schisms, anyway, because those who disagreed with her were never going to fully comprehend her infinite wisdom and "experience" anyway. It's arrogance grabbing for power. And it is the reason that Hillary Clinton needs serious humbling, right now. And why Obama is a better alternative.
That is why Obama offers more real hope. Because he is genuinely committed to finding a way past all this ugliness. And what many party loyalists like in Hillary is validation of their own cynical inclination that others could never fully comprehend why they are right on every issue, anyway, no matter how much historical and empirical evidence indicates any number of serious cracks in the progressive project. And that kind of arrogance does not need validation. It needs humbling.
A country or ideology must know that its ideas are bankrupt when it relies on force rather than ideas to articulate their vision for the world. That intellectual bankruptcy cannot possibly lead anywhere, which is why real progress will only come with that more genuine and engaged discussion and debate. Because everything else will leave us stuck in the same dysfunctional, hyperaggressive, unsuccessful, stubborn mess Washington and the various party and ideological warriors have us in, today.
Obama offers some hope out of that mess, as imperfect as his and every candidate's brand of hope may be.
Whether the country chooses that kind of hope or the cynicism that is the oxygen for the arrogance and corruption that power tempts will depend on whether Americans are committed to a genuinely confident, strong, thoughtful future or whether they will pretend that the way things are going is just a-ok, if only a Democrat and a winner were in office. The latter will not lead to our ruin. But neither will it lead us forward.
And that is the uselessly sad fate that awaits an America that will not face up to the consequences of its cynicism around matters of liberal democratic policy and politics.
And like every other generation of ascendant and final authority, people will move forward even as governments fight their quite predictable loss of influence and power and as those governments who aspire for the most power suffer the biggest losses. America may not be in decline. But the power of her government is. And that is the positive development that will come out of this historical period, no matter who gets elected.
Now the key is electing leadership who can make use of the limited power that government should be afforded to use it more effectively, equitably, respectfully, and with more thought and engagement and less hubris and dominance.
Barack Obama would be the best pick among Democrats for that kind of future, I think. Hillary Clinton would only stall that future. Ron Paul represents the need for limits on that power without an appreciation for the positive uses for that power. Rudy Giuliani understands those positive uses with some but still not enough appreciation for the limits that power needs.
Perhaps someone like Barack Obama might best lead a discussion about how to lead with all of America's and the world's best qualities and ideas getting a voice in the discussion.
The Economist publishes a great synopsis of findings of the World Cancer Research Fund about avoiding cancer.
To avoid the Big C, stay small
I calculated my Body Mass Index at 27 tonight. The best cancer risk is an ideal BMI of 21 to 23. I have exercise to do (I love exercise; I just need to build it into my schedule over more petty work concerns).
A nice check-up for me, of what I need to do to get healthier. I eat well - lowfat and vegitariant. But I need to exercise regularly and wear sunscreen regularly when I'm out in the sun. And I need to schedule a physical and a dental visit soon and regular each year.
But it's a nice reality check on what I need to do to live a long life.
Enjoy.
If you have not seen the Michael Winterbottom/Angelina Jolie/Dan Futterman film depiction of Mariane Pearl's recounting of her husband's brutal murder by Pakistani terrorists, I highly recommend it.
I rented this movie wondering whether any kind of public service work mattered when the prevailing conventional wisdom has centered around the heart of illiberalism - force - as some kind of governing philosophy befitting liberal societies.
Judea Pearl, Daniel's father, has something to say about that at Daniel's memorial service on March 10, 2002.
"Thrity eight years ago, Ruth and I had the great fortune of observing a unique biological phenomenon. The child that we brought home had a peculiar syndrome: he had not one shred of malice in his bones.
This child grew into a young man who filled our lives with joy, humor, love, and meaning. We feel fortunate to have been influenced by him so profoundly, and we are lucky to have beautiful memories to guide us into the future...
Kids sought his company not because he was outgoing - he wasn't - but because he was secure, unassuming, and unintimdated. He was not intimidated by bullies, or by rules, or by teachers - not even by his parents.
He was not intimidated even when one teacher stuck a swastika in his face and said, "You are wearing a Star of David, Danny. Look at what I am wearing!" As Israelis, we were terribly upset. This was our first exposure to Anti-Semitism, and we were sure that Danny would be scarred for life. We even called experts from the Anti-Defamation League to assess the damage.
But Danny just narrated this incident in a matter-of-fact way, as if to say, "Upset? Why would I get upset if a teacher make a fool of himself?"
One day, Danny came home from school with a booklet full of new safety instructions. Among them, we found one popular rule of the 1970's:
"Don't talk to strangers."
After some discussion, we decided that we would not press the rule too seriously with Danny.
Little did we know then that "talking to strangers" would become Danny's hobby, then his profession, and, eventually, his mission and ideology...
We know now that the last strangers Danny talked to were strangers of a different breed, from a different planet. They were strangers who knew no talking.
They have silenced Danny's voice, but not his spirit. The legacy of Danny's lifelong "talking with strangers" will be forever in our heart."
In April of 2002, Mariane Pearl, Danny's wife, had this to say in the forward to the book of his collected writings, At Home in the World:
"It was in London that I first stepped into one of Danny's offices.
The office floor was divided into little cubicles. Danny wore a stylish suit topped with a splashy tie pulled from his trademark crazy collection. He introduced me to his cramped space, inviting me to lounge in a beach chair that sat beside him, a totally inappropriate piece of office furniture filling most of his cubicle. I sat in that beach chair and took a good hard look at the man of my life as he spun out a tale from another of his reporting adventures in the Middle East, quickly sweeping his fingers over the keyboard without looking at the keys, surrounded by mountains of papers and books. Touchstones from his travels surrounded him. He had spread a big black tapestry that said "Allahu Akbar" -- "God is great" -- in scrolling red Arabic letters. He had propped a larger-than-life-sized picture of Iranian revolutionary leader Ayatollah Khomeini, brought back from one of his countless trips to Iran. He also had the most amazing collection of little monster figurines perched on a shelf.
I could tell he was a fast thinker, constantly synthesizing new ideas. He was a man who was going to illuminate my life. Sharing his existence would be like turning the pages of a comic book packed with lots of fun, unexpected turns of events and plenty of plane rides. Most important, I felt I had met the man who shared my approach toward the world and stood committed to change the world for the better. Lying in his beach chair, an exotic spot in London's gray, I felt great respect and trust in him.
As a journalist and sojourner of the world, Danny held no prejudices about the people we interviewed and met. He first and foremost considered the human being in front of him, regardless of religion, race or social status. Very suspicious of groups and organizations, he had a natural tendency to trust individuals. Once he started to work on an article, he would literally throw himself at it, working days and nights, tracking facts for weeks and experiencing pure delight when he found the littlest detail that would make the story livelier. He liked to walk on beaten paths and discover tales of the unexpected. He was a hunter of human contradictions, as well as of the small and immense absurdities of existence. In reporting from mosques and villages, deserts and world capitals, he was witness to the difficulties of communication between humans. He was like a tightrope walker, a funamble, happily linking worlds with his writings.
As journalists, Danny and I traveled so much that we began to live without acknowledging borders. We were truly citizens of the globe. We were beyond cosmopolitan. Danny was Jewish; I am Buddhist. Danny was born in Princeton, New Jersey; I was born in Paris, France. Danny's father was born in Israel, his mother in Baghdad, Iraq; my mother was born in Havana, Cuba, my father in Amsterdam, the Netherlands. We last lived together in Bombay, India, and last traveled together in Pakistan.
Our commitment to journalism as our means of changing the world deepened every day. The world often seemed to be a mess, but it was our world and somehow our mess. It became clear to us that we enjoyed a privileged position. That enabled us to expose corruption, injustice and ignorance. It empowered us to question vested interests, fundamentalism and untruths. For us -- for Danny -- journalism epitomized the path for charting a better world future. Danny cherished truth more than anything. He called it his religion. He had undertaken a lifelong struggle against conventional wisdom. In all those respects, Danny was a hero -- an ordinary hero.
We were legitimate citizens of the 21st century.
I can only hope that more individuals will think independently, give voice to their thoughts and take responsible action so that this world starts belonging to its people. It is our task to educate, inform and provide keys to people so that they will not be held hostage to the ignorance bred in every corner of the world. It takes courage.
Danny's kidnappers tried to behead freedom. The absurdity of his death belied the life we lived together. We were journalists. We were free. We met people and told their tales to the world. Nobody could harm us. Why would they? We were open-minded and respectful. We were not corrupt. We were not running after power or fame. We were not political or militants. We needn't hide anything. We were ambitious. We believed ordinary people like us could change the world by changing the way people think about each other. We believed you only had to be a journalist armed with intellectual courage, curiosity, a writing talent, a solid sense of humor and a genuine willingness to fight your own limits.
The terrorists who killed Danny stood at the other extreme of what Danny represents. They could only wield their knife and cowardice against Danny's intellectual courage and bold spirit. Danny died holding only a pen. They stole his life but were unable to seize his soul. By killing Danny, terrorists took my life as well but could not lay claim to my spirit. Dead and alive we will never let them win."
That is the kind of spirit that animates what is best in a liberal democracy. If only the world had a thousand more Daniel Pearls.
The movie reminded me why public service work is important, even when bad ideas dominate the public discourse and democratic politics. Because without the Daniel Pearls of the world, the only alternative people would have would be the cynicism that is the source of terrorist thinking as much as more cynical democratic politics. And there would be no honest reality check for how ugly that thinking can be without people like Daniel Pearl to stand for something better.
Love,
Ben
If Barak Obama keeps thinking in these more deeply-considered ways and in directions that could move us out of our foreign policy ruts, I may vote for him.
This is an excellent article on Obama's foreign policy thinking and the campaign by James Traub in the International Herald Tribune today.
Obama's guide to leading a "post-post-9/11" America
I need to hear him say that he'll stick with the war until the Iraqis say they are ready for us to leave. But the debate is shifting in that direction, anyway, I believe, so this may become a mute point.
And can I say that I have grown increasingly disappointed with Joe Nye over the course of this war. He says he didn't support the war up front. The New York Times says different. I'm less concerned with that than I am with the fact that everything I've ever heard him say on behalf of Hillary Clinton has lacked much real substance. Which wouldn't bother me so much if Hillary Clinton, herself, had something more substantive to say about foreign policy.
But both of them seem to be tacking cautiously with more attention to a Democratic victory than to a more effective and thoughtful international policy. And that is a sure sign that you are going to fuck up. Because you're more focussed on your own ambitions than you are on doing a good job. And that is what bugs me about Hillary Clinton.
And anytime that you have a leader who prioritizes power over knowing better what to do with that power, you know you're in trouble.
It's not a good sign for an international policy thinker when a political candidate, like Obama, is thinking more out loud and more substantively than you are. And it's a good sign for Obama that so many international policy thinkers in and outside of America are favorable to what I have to say are, generally - with exception for this thinking on the war, which has not impressed me - refreshingly open-minded and thoughtful.
And his skepticism about the use of force articulated in this article is exactly the kind of thing I need to hear from an American head of state, right now, given the American propensity to bully the world on whatever issues Americans face, right now.
None of the candidates are thinking as broadly and with as much willingness to question and rethink their own conventional wisdom as well as the conventional wisdom of others as I want. But I do have to say that Obama is doing so more than the other candidates, even as I'm disappointed with his shortsightedness on the war, and moving in the right directions, generally.
We'll see.
Can I just say that I am impressed with almost everything that Michael Gerson writes, these days. Another great column today.
A Second Home for Religious Voters?
And David Brooks has this hilarious, if imaginary, dialogue between the would be Democratic candidates.
Feel the Love
At a time when liberal columnists seem to never cease to get on my nerves, it is refreshing to read something thoughtful. Perhaps when liberal columnists get over their fetish with force and their self-righteous notions on the war, they might write something that might have something to say, again.
In the meantime, I'm reminded that thoughtful commentary is hardly a commodity where anyone has a monopoly.
| I'm loaded. It's official. I'm the 359,597,702 richest person on earth!  How rich are you? >> |
