Can Obama Pull Off a Historic Presidential Double Play?

''On or about December 1910," Virginia Woolf wrote, "human character changed.'' We can be much more specific: "On November 4, 2008, just after 11 pm Eastern, America changed" (human character remains rather intransigent).

The change was driven by two things: our country's remarkable capacity for regeneration, and Barack Obama's remarkable ability to tap into the better angels of our nature.

You know something extraordinary is happening when even Michele Bachmann, Sarah Palin, and Joe Lieberman trip over themselves -- and their hastily discarded invective -- to say nice things about Obama and the "tremendous signal" sent by his election.

Sure, it's easy to see their encomiums as purely tactical attempts not to be on the wrong side of history, but they are more than that. They also demonstrate how certain moments and certain individuals are able to bring the best out in people -- even people who have shown us some of the worst aspects of human character. Because, hard though it may be to accept, the best and the worst reside in each of us, side-by-side.

As Alexander Solzhenitsyn put it: "The line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either -- but right through every human heart." And the greatest leaders are those who inspire us to reside on the good side of Solzhenitsyn's line.

Obama does more. As David Brooks wrote recently, Obama's fractured childhood "is supposed to produce a politician with gaping personal needs and hidden wounds. But over the past two years, Obama has never shown evidence of that."

Here is someone whose childhood could have easily led to a life in shambles. But Obama has somehow -- and without, as far as we know, thousands of hours of therapy --succeeded in not letting circumstances dictate his life and reactions.

During the campaign, Obama was an object lesson in equanimity. Insinuate he's Muslim or sympathizes with terrorists, and he brushes off the mud. Hammer him with trumped up charges -- "sexist," "socialist," un-American" -- and he rolls with the punches. He simply doesn't let it in. He demonstrates that we have the ability to master whether we allow setbacks and attacks to throw us off course.

A lot has been written about Obama's calm in the face of adversity over the course of the last 21 months. Less noted has been how he displays that same centeredness in the face of triumph.

On Tuesday night, he could have waxed transcendent, he could have wrung every last tear and every last cheer out of the adoring crowd at Grant Park. But he chose not to. Instead, his speech gracefully touched the clouds a few times then soberly came back to earth, focused, as always with Obama, on moving forward.

To their great credit, the American people have responded to Obama's example by remaining remarkably focused as well. Despite the seemingly endless parade of meaningless sideshows trotted out during both the primaries and the general campaign, the public refused to be distracted. These kinds of tactics had worked well in 2004 -- but not in 2008. Obama's focus, his sense of purpose cleared a path through the carnival of clownish attacks and chamber of horror scares. And voters followed.

After eight years in which it has felt like the very foundation of our country was under assault, it is a testament to our democracy's inherent capacity for regeneration -- our ability to course-correct -- that Americans responded the way they did to a campaign so premised on an appeal to our greater selves.

A country can change only to the extent that the individuals within it change (and some changes come slower than others, as evidenced by Prop 8 and the other gay marriage bans that passed on Tuesday).

So it's back to Solzhenitsyn: "If you wanted to change the world, who should you begin with: yourself or others?"

Our president-elect is obsessed with Lincoln, who changed the country both by changing government policy and by using the bully pulpit to help us change ourselves. And our president-elect is endlessly being compared to FDR, who gave us both the New Deal and one of the most famous life lessons in history: "The only thing we have to fear, is fear itself."

Now it's Obama's turn to pull off this rare presidential double play.

Follow Arianna Huffington on Twitter: www.twitter.com/ariannahuff

Comments

[MrsHaskell]

There aren't many people who have the smarts and the wit to do a credible turn as a Rachel (or Olbermann) stand-in, but Arianna's certainly one of them. I can't wait! As for suggested topics:

1. The need for a South Africa-style truth and reconciliation commission to thoroughly investigate the Bush years;

2. Fair, transparent national elections as a legislative priority;

3. Whether Obama, having won with record funding, should close the barn door on big money elections, or

4. The role of media reform in restoring (what passes for) American democracy.

[KA9Q]

I would like to see how the Obama administration will handle science policy. Bush and the Republicans are the most anti-science (and anti-reason) administration in modern times that led to some terrible policy decisions. Obama's stated science policy is a breath of fresh air, but I'd like to know specifics.

Science policy goes well beyond specific issues such as embryonic stem cell research. Many, if not most important public policy questions have significant scientific aspects. Global warming is just one of many. Others include alternative energy, the environment, wildlife preservation, education, health, space exploration, basic research, intellectual property and communications. There are many more.

The administration must seek out the best scientific information available and allow it to inform (but not dictate) policy. The National Academies of science and engineering are excellent resources, but we need more. What are the Obama administration's plans in this area?

[winnie47]

Topic for the Rachel Maddow show: Talk about President-elect Obama's plan to close Guantanimo Bay. How do we legalize Bush's "black hole"? Would anyone be released? To where? Where would the detainees be sent? How would they be tried and punished?

[oscartucker]

Re: Arriana on The Rachel Maddow Show

With President-Elect Obama organizing his cabinet and filling other positions, the topic of lobbyist keeps coming up. Can you get someone from the Obama camp to clear up the hiring of lobbyist, as well as explain the positions held by some who have been hired already.

[JerseyBob]

Suggest Ralph Reed and Christopher Hitchens.

[mostlybluedot]

I realize Obama may not be able to refuse the proposed bail out for the auto makers but---- . Those guys and the Unions have been living high on the hog for years and I would like to see a lively discussion on the merits or not of bailing them out. specifically will the union take a pay cut, will the management reduce the bonuses? Will all this be subject to an independent audit that the money is used as stipulated.

[jacqmac]

Excuse me! The UNIONS, which you claim have been 'living high on the hog for years' sold themselves to the BIG THREE in 1982 and have NOT been the same since. The UNIONS are the SAME people that brought YOU the weekend, BENEFITS, FAIR PAY, and the FORTY HOUR WORK WEEK......­.

TOPICS for Discussion on Rachel Maddow Show: "Free Trade" v. Global Economy
"State of the UNIONS (labor)"
"Main Street to Wall Street: DROP DEAD! The Continuing Economic Crisis in the Middle Class" Suggested guests: Andy Stern, Jesse Jackson, Sr. , David Bonoir, Jennifer Granholm, etc., etc.

I ALWAYS WATCH Rachel's show! Glad to know she's got an excellent standin!!

[roofrain]

I think it would be great if the implications of a Hillary Clinton Secretary of State appointment were discussed. For example what does it mean for the possibility of Hillary Clinton running for president again? Has a secretary of state ever made that transition? What if Barack wants to run again in 2012? What if he's in office for 8 years? Would the country accept her as a candidate in 2016, after eight years of whatever it turns out to be?

[SgtHudson]

Hillary cant run in 2012 if Obama is doing a good job. Biden wont run in 2016 - but would Hillary want to wait that long?

[wiseapple]

Maybe you coould talk with either Fannie or Freddie ex-CEO along with Barney Frank. I would like to hear their views on what happened to those agencies, as well as, what they think of the present bailout and if it is progressing the way it should be.

[TRYKER]

Talk about having the full House and Senate read the CONSTITUTION on their first day -- out loud -- in their faces.
Maybe then they will understand what their duties are and will quit crapping on everything lawful and just.
Don't talk too much about holding Bushco to account, until AFTER the inauguration.

[progressiveDJ]

For possible discussion on The Maddow show when you guest host: how to in some way hold Bush and his administration accountable for their many actions that have damaged the nation.

[CountryBeforeParty]

health care, health care, and universal health care.

An issue that is about helping the economy as well as quality of life

[Fred68]

Re: Monday's Rachael Maddow Show

I'd love to see discussion about the GA Senate seat runoff.

The Chambliss campaign's main tactic so far is churning up fear about the Democrats reaching that magic number of "60" in the Senate. If this is still a possibility when the election rolls around, that argument could be very potent in bringing out his base to vote.

It is important for us to negate this argument. How? Lieberman needs to leave the Democratic caucus. Even if he remains, he won't be a dependable vote. He is on the record stating he wants the Republicans to retain the ability to filibuster.

Fortunately, there is a very good reason for him to go that has nothing to do with political advantage or revenge, neither of which are, in my opinion, reasonable or sufficient justifications. His policy positions on issues under his committees purview are contrary to those of both the President-Elect and the Democratic party as a whole. If his position as Chair of Homeland Security is taken, he will probably leave the caucus on his own.

The GA runoff is the only election we can still influence. A Martin win would be considered an upset, and would send another message repudiating the politics of destruction, fear-mongering and character assassination (eg. Chambliss's 2002 campaign against Max Cleland).

[ShoreCam]

Isn't the beginning of the Senate session the only time the rules can be changed without a filibuster? If that is so, do the Dems have the backbone to change the votes needed for a filibuster to say 55 or 56? If the Republicans can use the "nuclear" option why can't the Dems?

[JackNasty]

Rachael Maddow conducted a lively conversation with Arianna Huffington some time within the past few days. What interested me the most about the interview were a few comments that were shared about Arianna's Republican past and her reaction to recent Republican losses. I would enjoy seeing the theme expanded with more interviews with politicians who have changed parties. This should include both sincere converts and obvious opportunists: Joe Lieberman would no doubt love to talk.

[lindastrawberry]

As an ex-mormon who knows some of the top contributors to the passing of prop h8te... will you PLEASE discuss the human rights aspect of this. I believe it is a EQUAL RIGHTS issue and not one religions should be able to buy.

[TRYKER]

AMEN !!

[sdlefty]

i think we need a cabinet for the enviroment. I believe that the man to head it would be Al Gore. We have so many problems but as President elect Obama said working with the enviroment will bring about new jobs and protect the earth for our children and grandchildren.

[victoriajubilee]

I believe Al Gore stated he was not interested in the position,however there is talk about offering it to Robert Kennedy jr.

[sdlefty]

Now I did hear that. He would be wonderful. After being without any policies for the last eight years it will be great to have some movement on enviromental issues. Thanks!