Sent by Annette Altomare on 02-27-2008:
What a great article. I actually remember another time the media romanced a candidate that promised hope, trust and change--Jimmy Carter. Like many, I consider Carter to be one of the worst presidents of the past century. His IQ was also among the highest of any president. Hmmm... why does it always seem that the perceived genius wearing the knight's shining armor actually turns out to be the village idiot?
For me, Hillary Clinton is the real hope. Men might joke that she can iron their shirt, but like many strong women, Clinton won't be afraid, as she says, "to roll up" her shirt sleeves and start mopping up the mess. Obama will be too busy giving his rhetorical speeches--like Jimmy Carter--and those speeches will become very old, very quickly.
Sent by Pat on 02-26-2008:
This is a rather superficial assessment of Obama's candidacy, capacity, and competency, compared to Patrick's. If you believe that Obama is all hype about hope, you do need to sit down and think about this in a bigger context.
The substance of his candidacy is his judgment and ability to listen, learn and compromise. Obama is a community organizer in his core, and making things happen is what he is all about. He will be a president who will govern with politics as the "art of the possible," i.e., the acheivable. I am not sure that Patrick had these qualities.
Obama is not just about abstract hope. He has specifics. Remember that earlier in the campaign, summer and fall of 2007, everyone was complaining about how wonky and boring his meetings were. That was supposedly the reason why he was underperforming, and not getting any traction versus Clinton. Now, the criticism is that he is not substantive enough, just because he has found a way, through his ability with words, to communicate with large audiences and get his basic message out.
Comparing a potential Obama presidency to a Patrick governorship is fair but myopic.
Sent by Gary Wilde on 02-26-2008:
Don't underestimate Obama. He's been in politics 11 years and he is not an idiot - he topped his class at Harvard Law School. So far, Obama has run by far the most effective campaign since FDR. He will be equally brilliant, articulate, and effective as President. He will not chase Utopia.
Sent by Avital Pilpel on 02-26-2008:
While I appreciate Mr. Seigel's point, it is not at all true that the politics of hope "have been a bust since 1980." It was in 1980 when the "realistic" Carter was defeated by the "dreaming, unrealistic optimist" Reagan.
In virtually every presidential election, one candidate (usually the incumbent party's candidate) is more realistic about what the president can achieve, while the other candidate is more hopeful. When the hopeful candidate wins, and succeeds (like Reagan did) he is seen--correctly--as a great statesman. When he wins and fails, as often happens, he is seen as, er, a failure (such as G. W. Bush).
But it isn't as if "hopeful politics" is on its way out--in fact, it's built into the system.
Sent by Joy on 02-26-2008:
In case you think all black, Harvard-educated, hope-based politicians are the same, Obama is not considered in thrall to the teachersâ€™ unions. Note his July 2007 speech to the National Education Association at the Pennsylvania Convention Center, where he endorsed the idea of merit pay for teachers--a most unpopular stance among teachers.
Sent by Larry on 02-26-2008:
Another person we can compare Obama to is someone Siegel knows well--David Dinkins. As a native New Yorker, I remember when Dinkins ran for mayor and people thought he was a nice man and a "uniter." But we should have known better, since he was friendly with people like Sonny Carson. So, too, with Obama, whose spiritual mentor is an admirer of Louis Farrahkhan. Dinkins turned out to be unwilling to enforce the law and combat crime. I predict Obama, if he becomes president, will be unwilling to enforce the law and combat terrorism and crime. Obama already has a plan to release 19,000 drug dealers early.
Sent by Hunter Sloan Smith on 02-26-2008:
I think you have misunderstood Barack Obama's political musings. He is not looking for a Utopian society. He, unlike Hillary Clinton, doesn't believe all Americans should be forced to purchase health care, nor does he advocate the government fixing inner city poverty. He doesn't believe you can pour money into the public schools to make them work. Like many extremely bright people, he favors a merit-based society as the remedy for ills. He is a realist when it comes to gun control, and he has never claimed to believe universal peace was possible. You are oversimplifying his platform, as have so many who have tried to grasp his popularity. He, like Abraham Lincoln, is a great speaker, but also a realist. He also has the gift of charisma coupled with intellect.
Sent by J. Bell on 02-26-2008:
It is too soon to judge Deval Patrick's administration, and I also think it is unfair to characterize Obama as being Patrick's twin. I suspect that Obama is a more gifted administrator. Periods of history, replete with scandals, corruption, and the pandering to special interests, are often followed by a desire for "purification" on the part of the electorate. What is so terrible about that?
What Obama brings is a sense of the shared experience of bringing more transparency and justice to the system, and if he accomplishes just a tiny bit of that, we will be better off. We all know that utopia is not possible in this world--the desire for it is a misplaced longing for heaven. But heaven is in the hearts of men; the desire for justice is strong. If men had not dreamed of something better, would America exist at all? Wouldn't the dark night of medieval Europe grind on yet today? The desire to sweep away the pain and evil of a bygone era is strong, and one thing is sure: injustice will yield to peaceful change, or it will ultimately give birth to violent revolution.
Aging baby boomers see in Barack Obamas down-the-line liberal voting record the promise of a left-wing revival. The college students and twentysomethings of the Millennial Generation see in him a way of pushing the quarrelsome, narcissistic baby boomers off the stage. Someone is bound to be disappointed by this extraordinary performance artist. But what both the boomers and the Millennials share is a desire to be part of what Ralph Waldo Emerson, writing in the 1840s, called the politics of hope. Emerson wrote during a time of numerous experiments in utopian living. Obamawhose candidacy rests upon a standard utopian dichotomy between the earthly evils of poverty, injustice, war, and partisanship, and the promise of the world to come if we allow him to rescue usappeals to the same Elysian strain in American and Western political life, largely in remission since 1980, when the 1960s truly ended.
Americas founding fathers were a famously hard-headed lot; they understood that government had to be structured to remedy the defects of better motives. Since self-serving interest groupsor factions, as Federalist 10 calls themwere an unavoidable element of liberty, interest could only be checked by competing interest. But while this insight is the main stem of our political tradition, there is another, albeit punctuated, brancha utopianism that derives from the millenarianism of the sects that emerged from the Protestant Reformation and eventually populated America. Utopian . . . ideas, notes Daniel Flynn in his new history of the American Left, are as American as Plymouth Rock. This is why, as Sixties activist Bo Burlingham put it, the Left bobs up and down in American history, a battered and leaky craft which often disappears beneath the tide, but somehow never sinks.
In the wake of bloody utopian experiments in 1930s Europe, a slew of erudite authors launched compelling attacks on them. Jacob Talmon, Karl Popper, Raymond Aaron, Czeslaw Milosz, and Hannah Arendt laid waste to the historical, philosophical, sociological, and literary assumptions that supported communism and fascism. But their arguments didnt endure, despite their power. By the mid-1960s, utopianism had again taken hold, and its lure was such that even Arendt, once a vocal opponent, found herself drawn to the religion of politics. Propelled by her disdain for America in general and the Vietnam War in particular, as well as the promise, as she saw it, of worker-control experiments in Europe, she effectively reversed much of her earlier writings.
She wasnt alone. In 1949, Arthur Schlesinger had published The Vital Center, the canonical statement of disillusioned, empirical, and anti-utopian postWorld War II liberalism. Schlesinger praised the empirical temper and a realistic sense of mans limitations that recognized that freedom means conflict. Tracing the shared assumptions behind Brook Farmthe famous American utopian experiment of the 1840sand the Soviet Union, he distanced liberalism from an optimism born of eighteenth-century rationalism and a nineteenth-century romanticism about progress, which left too many unprepared for the mid-twentieth century. Democracy, he wrote, brooks no worship of great leaders because it knows that no man is that good. And Schlesinger rebuked the leftists who, admiring the USSR, couldnt believe that ugly facts underlie fair words. It was an intellectual tour de force.
But a little more than a decade later, Schlesingerromanced by John F. Kennedywalked away from these arguments. His admiration for the liberalism of a moderate pessimism about man was replaced by hero-worship and a sense of the dashing, aristocratic, articulate Kennedy as someone who could transcend standard political categories. Kennedys untimely death canonized the hard-nosed Massachusetts polwith a mixed record at best as our first celebrity presidentas JFK, a Lincoln-like martyr to civil rights, the King of Camelot who, if he had lived, would have made all right with the world. This Kennedy passed into Democratic Party legend and still inspires some today: remember Bill Clintons 1992 campaign ads, featuring a picture of the young Clinton visiting the White House with a group of young student leaders and shaking hands with Kennedy. Kennedy, the ads implied, was passing the torch.
Obama, the celebrity-like candidate drawing on his generational appeal and noble bearing, fits better into Kennedys robes than Clinton did. Unlike Kennedy, who didnt think of himself in messianic terms, Obama seems short on irony. Still, for lovelorn boomers and for youngsters whove known only the failures of the Bush years, Obama promises a Camelot-like reenchantment with politics. Ive been following politics since I was about five, says TV host Chris Mathews. Ive never seen anything like this. This is bigger than Kennedy. [Obama] comes along, and he seems to have the answers, hes the New Testament. In this view, just as Kennedys victory in 1960 brought the country out of its Eisenhower-era stupor and put the Catholic question to bed for good, so an Obama victory will reenergize our politics and bring an end to poverty and racial division.
Hillary Clinton has searched in vain for a way to combat Obamas appeal. In the recent Austin debate, she criticized Obama for borrowing generously from the speeches of his good friend and coeval Deval Patrick, the first African-American governor of Massachusetts. Lifting whole passages from someone elses speeches, she challenged in the debates one charged moment, is not change you can believe in, its change you can Xerox. Clintons arrow here was not aimed so much at plagiarismall candidates borrow heavily from each other and from past campaignsas at Obamas claim to authenticity. But with the press, on both left and right, all but openly rooting for Obama, little came of her attack; more important, the press missed the true importance of the Patrick comparison.
Bay State journalist Rick Holmes describes Obama and Patrick, fellow Harvard Law School graduates, as peas in a pod. Patrick is the Obama campaigns national cochair. Obamas presidential campaign has modeled itself on Patricks gubernatorial campaign. Patricks 2006 campaign slogan was Together we can, while Obamas is Yes we can. The brilliant Chicago political operative David Axelrod has managed both mens campaigns. Both candidates have made persistent appeals to the politics of hope.
So Clintons criticism seems an opportune moment to ask how Patricks inspirational rhetoric has translated into governing a state where Democrats control both houses of the legislaturethe likely scenario for Obama, too, should he take office. Patricks governorship is the closest thing we have to a preview of the politics of hopeand that governorship has been a failure to date. As Joan Vennochi observes in the Boston Globe, Democrats who control the Legislature ignored virtually every major budget and policy initiative presented by a fellow Democrat. Patricks record in office, Vennochi concludes, shows that it can be hard to get beyond being the face of change, to actually changing politics. His stock has sunk so markedly that Hillary Clinton carried the state handily against Obama in the Democratic primary despite, or perhaps because of, Patricks support for his political doppelgänger.
In one area, however, Patrick has achieved some of his goals. In thrall to the states teachers unions, he has partly rolled back the most successful educational reforms in the country. Most states gamed the federal testing requirements that were part of President Bushs No Child Left Behind Act. But Massachusetts, thanks to Republican governors William Weld and Mitt Romney, created the Office of Educational Quality and Accountability to ensure that the states testing methods conformed closely to the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP)federal tests that are the gold standard for measuring educational outcomes. In 2007, Massachusetts became the first state to achieve top marks in all four categories of student achievement. One of Patricks first efforts as governor was to eliminate the Office of Educational Quality and Accountability.
Patrick hasnt delivered reform, much less the transformation that both he and Obama promise. This should come as no surprise. Obamas utopian vision of transcending the interests that make up the fabric of our democracy is unlikely to fare any better than the politics of hope did in Emersons time. The key question at hand is whether Obamas Edenic bubble bursts before or after the election.