Tuesday, January 22, 2008

Another argument for Obama

The Clintons are good at both gaining and maintaining power. There are other things to like about the couple (Bill’s brave refusal to trim away affirmative action comes to mind, as does, of course, Hillary’s failed attempt at national health care reform). But it is the Clintons’ power that Democrats miss most.

Hillary Clinton could probably win the general election this fall. And then after four or eight years we’d have another grand Republican resurgence. Then some mediocre Bush Sr.-style Republican. Then a centrist Democrat. And around and around.

Obama wouldn’t change everything. But I do think he has the best chance of resetting the default temperature of American politics, of keeping the left-right-left-right pendulum from not swinging back quite as hard to the right in the future, of making liberalism (yes, just liberalism, sigh, not leftism) “American” again.

I must confess to a less straightforward reason for supporting Obama, too, though. Please bear with me, as I might not explain this as exactly as I would like.

For China, America’s racism has always been a reason to discount its democracy and, as the U.S. is seen by many there as the archetypal democracy—rightly or wrongly—America’s problems are taken as an excuse for writing off the concept of democracy as a whole. An America that can move beyond its racism, not totally, clearly, but at least in a very symbolic way by electing a black president, can present a real challenge to authoritarianism.

An America that elects Obama and not Clinton II, says, moreover, that mistakes count against a politician, that the people can keep score. The Clintons’ support for the Iraq War was a major mistake, a mistake not diminished by the fact that the couple shared it with much of the U.S. political elite. China is something of a meritocracy still—bad marks on an official’s record hold him back, good marks mean a promotion—but imagine if a mistake, an unnecessary dam, say, or mine deaths that ran to the thousands in a year, or just rampant inflation really put a question mark on someone at Zhongnanhai?

Or think if being a community organizer and state senator who introduced taped police interrogations meant more to the U.S. electorate in terms of “experience” than an extra, wasted Senate term and a half?

This is silly, of course. Only a very conceited nation would think of its election in terms of the example it sets for the world. But still…

3 comments:

jkd said...

"Only a very conceited nation would think of its election in terms of the example it sets for the world."

You're being a little flip here, but I don't think there's any need. It's not silly. That's actually a lot of Obama's appeal to me. For better or worse, America is and will remain the center of things for a while longer - China's breakneck growth just wouldn't be possible in the same way if they weren't also financing massive debt among American consumers. Whatever we do ramifies around the world but also increasingly, we need to look at the rest of the world to see what we can (and should) do. And Obama would allow us (and be inclined) to do more - you only need to look at his foreign policy team (chief adviser: Samantha Power) to see that it would be a different ballgame, in a good way.

Manfred said...

Samantha Power vs. Condoleeza Rice. Yes, some decent things could happen.

Dan said...

Oddly, I think this is another good argument for Obama -- not the most imporant for us, but of huge importance to people who don't follow the nuances of american politics, and just see its face (like most of the rest of the world).

Good job in VA, there!