You know, I wish Hillary Clinton would just step aside. I’ve kept pretty quiet about this, but it’s becoming annoying. The presidential primary has been the classic political mess. There are tight races, a screwed-up election process that no one understands, and a hilarious cast of characters ranging from Rudy “9/11” Giuliani to Mike “Stuck in the Race” Huckabee.
Going into the race, though, there were certain assumptions made about it that would for sure be manifested into reality. Clinton was sure to be the Democratic candidate; the Republican base was almost certain to be upset with whomever they nominated, lacking the good, solid conservative candidate with party establishment backing a la George W. Bush. Today, only one of these seems to remain true.
The unlikely but still predictable rise of Barack Obama (a candidate whom, by virtue of his name alone, was considered by many to be without a chance) has largely defied our expectations.
Most candidates willing to criticize the establishment usually follow a pattern. Ralph Nader, Dennis Kucinich and other candidates of their ilk often complained, legitimately, about the things going wrong in this country. But their purported hopelessness as candidates also carried with it hopelessness for their message, and the assumption the problems we face can’t realistically be fixed. Then, given the lack of support there is for hopelessness, they tend to lose miserably, and the hopelessness is confirmed. Obama has staked nearly his entire campaign on hope – rather than hopelessness – that something might actually happen.
Most candidates lay out an ambitious policy platform, which will face scrutiny from Congress, pressure from lobbyists and constitutional questions from the courts, that they promise they’ll be able to achieve if we – the voters – give them the White House. When we think about Obama’s message, there’s very little he’s actually committed to do.
Most cite this as a serious problem with his campaign, and to some extent they’re right. Sure, he sounds inspiring and gives us hope, but what is he actually going to do? While he does actually have a sophisticated policy agenda, it’s clear that his candidacy is not selling itself and doing well based on the list of promises he hopes to follow through on during his years in office; it’s selling itself on something infinitely more interesting: the things we are going to achieve for ourselves.
The strange thing about good leadership is that it has almost nothing to do with the leader at all. Nearly every great leader in history has simply been a person who takes credit for the achievements he or she is able to inspire the people to accomplish.
And thus, the ability to inspire instantly becomes more important than the ability to accomplish. The reasoning is pretty simple, because the ability to inspire is the ability to accomplish. Most of his oft-ignored policy agenda is not really that different from many candidates who have come before him. They also are virtually identical to those of his primary opponent, Clinton. There are distinctions, but most of them are too pedantic and technical for anyone to actually vote on. Despite all the importance placed by pundits on the specific details of someone’s policies, I know that I hardly ever vote on that. I don’t really care too much exactly how the candidate plans to deal with the war or with the healthcare crisis. Frankly, I’m not that educated about the federal budget or foreign policy – that is why, theoretically, we elect people to take care of that for us. I believe that, like most Americans, I care more that the candidate shares my basic values on how to approach these problems and that they’re able to communicate these values effectively enough that they translate into policy.
Ronald Reagan likely could be held responsible for making the country as conservative as it now is – for “moving the center,” supposedly. His policies themselves, however, were not outstandingly conservative, especially compared to those of our current president. To some extent a Democratic Congress held him back, but he managed to change the way Americans think about politics, and their basic concept of “what’s realistic to accomplish.”
Clinton, as I understand, is really good at specifics. She may not communicate her values as clearly as Obama does, but the pedantic and technical is her forte – apparently. The thing is, I don’t know enough of the pedantic and technical to tell for myself. Yet I do know there’s something better on the other side, something her campaign itself seems to recognize: the ability to inspire the American people to change the world. And to me, at least, that’s simply more important.
[email protected]