A different future
I was filled with pride at Barack Obama's speech in Philadelphia. I put the full text up yesterday.
The immediate media and internet reactions have been a mixture of awe and confusion. This speech broke new ground, and the media is still grappling with it, because the habitual tools of political analysis are inadequate to measure its impact. But I thought the New York Times editorial is closest to what will be the judgment of history: "he raised the discussion to a higher plane". That's the 50 year view, whose perspective will be driven by the fact that the ideological landscape and paradigms of our era are far in the background.
The immediate 6 month, election view is that Reverend Wright's words, despite his being an honorable man, will continue to be used, as Michael Gerson of the Washington Post did, as ammunition by Obama's opponents. I don't expect Reverend Wright to retract his own words, but that would be the only thing, and not yesterday's speech, that would make an immediate difference for Obama amongst the moderate-conservative and fearful parts of the American electorate like working class whites. These are the people who will willfully confuse the negative caricature of Trinity United with who Barack Obama is. It's a tragedy that the true nature[1] of Trinity United Church will not likely get an airing.
For reassurance about Obama's prospects in the face of this onslaught, the historical precedent to look back on would be John F. Kennedy's election against Richard Nixon. Kennedy had out-performed Nixon by double digits in the month after his own nomination, and by only 6 points at Nixon's nomination. But when it came down to election night, he eked out a win of 0.2% of the popular vote. People were inexorably drawn back into their prejudices about his Catholic religion. They were only momentarily able to set aside their fears[2]. To focus on changing habits that are that stuck in as short a time-period as a Presidential campaign is counter-productive. I made the claim in this post right after the Ohio contest that edification and enlightenment aren't the desired outcome of the moment; winning the Presidency is, because that's the only role that our society collectively invests with the moral legitimacy required by a leader to drive change.
Evidence still points to an Obama win of the nomination and the Presidency. The slow accumulation of evidence of his decency will make a difference in the next few months. A Barack Obama Presidency will have characteristics novel to power, such as honesty, reflection and tolerance. I speculate it will be a very close win because of the unsettling nature of race in our national discourse, and the conditioned expectations we have of a traditional Presidency. But, as we know, our country doesn't change overnight. A close win is still a win. After that comes a long effort towards a different future hinted at in yesterday's speech when Barack Obama stated that "seared into my genetic makeup [is] the idea that this nation is more than the sum of its parts – that out of many, we are truly one."
[1] "Chicago's Trinity UCC is 'great gift to wider church family'" [United Church of Christ News, March 14, 2008] and "Congregation Defends Obama's Ex-Pastor" [Washington Post, March 18, 2008]]
The immediate media and internet reactions have been a mixture of awe and confusion. This speech broke new ground, and the media is still grappling with it, because the habitual tools of political analysis are inadequate to measure its impact. But I thought the New York Times editorial is closest to what will be the judgment of history: "he raised the discussion to a higher plane". That's the 50 year view, whose perspective will be driven by the fact that the ideological landscape and paradigms of our era are far in the background.
The immediate 6 month, election view is that Reverend Wright's words, despite his being an honorable man, will continue to be used, as Michael Gerson of the Washington Post did, as ammunition by Obama's opponents. I don't expect Reverend Wright to retract his own words, but that would be the only thing, and not yesterday's speech, that would make an immediate difference for Obama amongst the moderate-conservative and fearful parts of the American electorate like working class whites. These are the people who will willfully confuse the negative caricature of Trinity United with who Barack Obama is. It's a tragedy that the true nature[1] of Trinity United Church will not likely get an airing.
For reassurance about Obama's prospects in the face of this onslaught, the historical precedent to look back on would be John F. Kennedy's election against Richard Nixon. Kennedy had out-performed Nixon by double digits in the month after his own nomination, and by only 6 points at Nixon's nomination. But when it came down to election night, he eked out a win of 0.2% of the popular vote. People were inexorably drawn back into their prejudices about his Catholic religion. They were only momentarily able to set aside their fears[2]. To focus on changing habits that are that stuck in as short a time-period as a Presidential campaign is counter-productive. I made the claim in this post right after the Ohio contest that edification and enlightenment aren't the desired outcome of the moment; winning the Presidency is, because that's the only role that our society collectively invests with the moral legitimacy required by a leader to drive change.
Evidence still points to an Obama win of the nomination and the Presidency. The slow accumulation of evidence of his decency will make a difference in the next few months. A Barack Obama Presidency will have characteristics novel to power, such as honesty, reflection and tolerance. I speculate it will be a very close win because of the unsettling nature of race in our national discourse, and the conditioned expectations we have of a traditional Presidency. But, as we know, our country doesn't change overnight. A close win is still a win. After that comes a long effort towards a different future hinted at in yesterday's speech when Barack Obama stated that "seared into my genetic makeup [is] the idea that this nation is more than the sum of its parts – that out of many, we are truly one."
************************
[1] "Chicago's Trinity UCC is 'great gift to wider church family'" [United Church of Christ News, March 14, 2008] and "Congregation Defends Obama's Ex-Pastor" [Washington Post, March 18, 2008]]
[2] "Although about 46 percent of Protestants voted for Kennedy, millions of them in Ohio, Wisconsin, and across the South made his religion a decisive consideration. It was the first time a candidate had won the presidency with a minority of Protestant voters." [An Unfinished Life: John F. Kennedy, 1917-1963, Robert Dallek, p. 296]
Comments
Post a Comment