The Case for Obama

A few years ago, I was speaking to an acquaintance who had recently moved to Austin, Texas. I asked her how she was liking it. She explained that Austin is tolerable because it’s “blue,” while everywhere outside of it in Texas is “totally red.” While I suppose there’s some kernel of truth in this description, it also struck me as one of the dumbest things I’d ever heard an otherwise intelligent person say. For a long time, I had found many of the divisions in this country to be exaggerated in their substance, overheated in their tone, and counterproductive in their results. But in that moment, I realized just how deeply nonsensical they are. Having lived in Texas for 12 years (entirely in those “red” areas), I had met many people who were politically conservative in ways I found distasteful. I also met many liberals, and several people who leaned conservative and remain among the smartest people I know. To hear them (not to mention some of the largest cities in the country) dismissed as “totally red” was offensive politically, personally, and intellectually.

I consider Barack Obama to have many strengths, but perhaps chief among them in 2008 is the fact that he seems temperamentally allergic to specious reductions. I’m not sure I can think of a more important baseline qualification for someone who will be governing 300 million people. And I don’t mean to imply that no other candidate has some amount of this quality, but it strikes me that Obama possesses it to the bone in a way that no one else does.

Some people claim that this quality -- along with his superlative rhetorical style and preternatural poise -- isn’t enough to be a deciding factor when his substantive policy ideas are not so different from his fellow Democrats, and especially Hillary Clinton. I disagree completely. William James wrote that, “There can be no difference anywhere that doesn’t make a difference elsewhere – no difference in abstract truth that doesn’t express itself in a difference in concrete fact and in conduct consequent upon that fact, imposed on somebody, somehow, somewhere, and somewhen.” I believe that the difference in the way Obama carries himself, and in the way he approaches his opponents, would lead to tremendous concrete differences. Yes, on one level these differences would be in tone -- an elevation of the country’s political discourse from the ad hominem pit in which it currently resides to some plateau of logical, grown-up engagement -- but there may also be progress on a tangible level that has been stymied by the lack of a levelheaded, widely respected president who can talk to those who disagree in ways that they find palatable.

As for Obama's other qualifications, I find it truly baffling that media coverage has taken a turn toward portraying him, in the words of the New York Times, as “incandescent if still undefined.” Here’s some definition: He went to Harvard Law School, where he was the first African-American president of the Harvard Law Review. He took that prestigious degree and went to work in poverty-stricken areas of south Chicago. He taught Constitutional law at the University of Chicago. He served in the Illinois senate, where he gained a reputation for working well (and productively) with Republicans. He’s the fifth African-American in history to be a U.S. Senator. He’s written a book (Dreams from My Father) that one of my smartest friends called not just a good book by politicians’ standards but “a great memoir.”

I’d give anything to be that undefined.

He also delivered (and wrote), at the 2004 Democratic National Convention, maybe the most inspiring political speech of my lifetime. In that speech, he rousingly and convincingly argued:

The pundits like to slice and dice our country into red states and blue states; red states for Republicans, blue states for Democrats. But I've got news for them, too. We worship an awesome God in the blue states, and we don't like federal agents poking around in our libraries in the red states. We coach Little League in the blue states and, yes, we’ve got some gay friends in the red states. There are patriots who opposed the war in Iraq and there are patriots who supported the war in Iraq. We are one people, all of us pledging allegiance to the stars and stripes, all of us defending the United States of America.

I think this country deserves -- and needs -- a president who thinks like that. The fact that Barack Obama thinks like that would be enough to get me excited about him. The fact that he possesses so many other admirable qualities besides earns him my unwavering support.

If this post didn't focus a lot on policy, it's for two reasons: 1. Obama doesn't seem to hope for any policies that I think are deal-breakers. This isn't to say I agree with him on everything. 2. In the absence of deal-breakers (like Huckabee's desire to rewrite the Constitution as a sequel to The Bible), what I want in a president is someone who seems reasonable and trustworthy. A president is not going to enter the White House and micromanage every detail of American life. That's not how the office works (thankfully). He or she is going to have to set a course and rally colleagues on the details. He or she, as well as the country itself, is also going to suffer inevitable trials and setbacks, and during those times it would be ideal if the president had political courage, believed in the transparency of American government, and addressed the people as adults. I trust Obama to do those things. I'm eager -- no, desperate -- for him to do them.