November 2008 | ||||||
Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat |
1 | ||||||
2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 |
9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 |
16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 |
23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 |
30 | ||||||
Oct Dec |
Blog-Parents
Blog-Brothers
Callimachus
(Done with Mirrors)
Gelmo
(Statistical blah blah blah)
Other Blogs I Read
Regularly Often
Andrew Sullivan
(Daily Dish)
Kevin Drum
(Political Animal)
Hilzoy
(Obsidian Wings)
As promised, stray reflections on Callimachus's letter.
Cal's observation that "McCain didn't run a smear campaign, no matter what the Democrats insist," comes out of something he and I were discussing.
I think it is under-appreciated how remarkably clean this election campaign was. There was a little bit of ugliness at the end, and liberals squealed about it, but it was really tiny compared to what it might have been. Let's have some perspective here. Remember how nasty the 2004 campaign was, and remember too that during the primary season it appeared that things would only get worse.
That got turned around, and the difference, I think, was the candidates. Early in the primary season, some commentators openly wished for the exact pairing of Obama and McCain on grounds that these two alone would run a civil campaign. All things considered, I think they did. Some of the credit goes to Obama, whose great political skills include a knack for not taking the bait when taunted. Even more, I think, goes to McCain. He essentially conceded the race by choosing not to fight dirty. There was plenty of reason to believe that it was the only way for a Republican to win. McCain, unusual for a politician, cared more about his means than his ends. I don't think any other Republican nominee would have shown such restraint.
The flip side of this is that, as a result of McCain's restraint, Obama is now in a stronger position to govern, because he didn't have to run a dirty campaign. When you set out to win an election, you do what you have to do to win. Unfortunately, many of the things you can do to increase your chances of winning the election have a negative effect on your ability to govern when and if you do win — demonizing the opposition party, playing up bitterly divisive issues, making wild promises that will be hard to keep.
As a candidate, if your interest is not just being elected to the office but also to actually accomplish things once you get there, this is a trade-off you have to make. Obama was fortunate to be in a position where he could afford to dial it back a bit. During the campaign I saw articles and blog posts where various political consultant wannabes urged that the Obama campaign needed to do or say such-and-such, always some dirty hardball political move that would really knock down the Republicans. The logic, from the anxious armchair adviser's point of view, is that we really really have to win this election and therefore we must pull out all the stops. Obama had a cooler head. He did occasionally push hard, and I'm sure he was ready to do it more if it became necessary. But it didn't become necessary, so he ran a mostly positive campaign and played only just enough hardball to secure a comfortable but not overwhelming victory. He's now enjoying the fruit of that strategy, which is a lot of goodwill, a nation that isn't nearly as polarized as it might have been, and a minority party ready to work with him some rather than be bitterly obstructionist.
As was obvious to anyone who read Benzene in August and September, I too was anti-anti-Palin, for reasons similar to Cal's. I am often repulsed by the cultural bigotry of my fellow liberals, even though it's directed at a group I have little connection to. As an urban West-Coaster I have no tie to Pennsyltucky nor any other -tucky. This time there was an added personal dimension in that it was occasionally directed quite literally against Alaskans.
Though I shouldn't be surprised by it, I too am rueful that the first Republicans to fall to the Democratic surge are some of the Republicans I like most. I was especially sorry to see Jim Leach turned out in 2006. My taste in moderate Republicans isn't quite the same as Cal's, but I do like senators like Smith, Chafee, and Sununu Jr better than most of the Republicans who were easily re-elected.
Like Cal, I am pleased that the Obama movement has somehow succeeded in making liberals openly patriotic, shouting "U.S.A., U.S.A" at rallies and waving flags rather than burning them. For me this is a two-sided pleasure, because I really agree with both sides, contradictory though it may seem.
On the one hand, I've long disliked the liberal tendency toward hatred of America, which to me always feels more like a class-wide psychological need to call ourselves evil and flagellate ourselves as some sort of political purification ritual. So I'm really happy to see that stop.
On the other hand, I can very easily sympathize with those who are excited to be — as Michelle Obama notoriously misspoke herself — proud of America for the first time in their life. America is a paradoxical country. In some ways it's the greatest nation on earth bar none; at the same time it's the global bully. During the Bush administration (and so a lesser extent the Clinton administration before it), we've tilted toward the latter. It really is embarrassing to have to acknowledge that, yes, we're the asshole country that pushes everyone around, consumes most of the resources, bombs or invades countries we don't like, and generally lords it over the rest of the world culturally, as if anyone who doesn't want to be just like us is stupid and wrong.
We will continue to be this two-faced country, of course, but I celebrate the tilt back to the inspirational side. No, I don't think Obama is going to renounce American imperialism. Twelve presidents before him have embraced it, including two who were more reluctant about exercising global power than he seems to be. Nor do I think he's some demigod who magically transform our culture and redeem our soul. But I do think that very quickly we will stop being the country that tortures people without trial, which is a very good start. I also think that the next time we feel a need to launch missiles at another country we'll be less reckless and unilateral about it than we were under Clinton or Bush. At the same time, Obama's story reminds the world of the good things about America: our extraordinary class mobility in which anyone can succeed, the multiculturalism of a nation where national identity is based on something other than race or tribe.
To use a metaphor that my opera buddies will appreciate, being the United States of America is like being the diva in a production. Yes, you really are the main focus of the show, and yes you really do have more talent than anyone else in the cast. The question is what you're going to do with it. Will you be good diva or bad diva? Will you be gracious and radiant and inspire everyone else in the production to want to improve themselves so as to be more like you? Or will you be a bitch and make everyone cater to your selfish whims no matter how much it inconveniences others, because you know you can get away with it.
It feels good when America is more Frederica von Stade and less Kathleen Battle.
11:44:34 PM [permalink] comment []