Barack Obama's halo has slipped, and I, for one, hope it just falls off. He's no longer Saint Barack, but a charismatic, inspiring politician, who can dodge and feint when he needs to, and that's all to the good.
But that fact has made some on the left very unhappy. We Americans love our heroes cast in white marble, their noble gazes seeing far into the future, their words uplifting, their hearts as pure as Galahad. We forget that the founding fathers, noble words and brave deeds notwithstanding, could do down-and dirty-politics when they had to.
The election of 1800, was one of the dirtiest in American history, notes historian Joseph Cummins, (Anything for a Vote: Dirty Tricks, Cheap Shots, and October Surprises). Thomas Jefferson, author of perhaps the most eloquent statement of democracy in history, the Declaration of Independence, was no stranger to less noble words. He covertly hired one of the era's poison pen writers, James Callendar to smear president John Adams as a "repulsive pedant" and "a hideous hermaphroditical character."
And John Adams, who heroically defended the British soldiers who fired on a mob in what came to be known as the Boston Massacre (and got them acquitted in the face of popular anger) was not always so noble either. He signed the notorious Alien and Sedition acts in 1798, which were designed in large part to protect his Federalists from the politics of the opposition party, the Republicans. A number of Republican writers and editors were targeted under this anti-free speech legislation . (The laws were later repealed by Jefferson when he became president.)
And of course, Aaron Burr actually killed Alexander Hamilton in a duel after a long and bitter rivalry, perhaps the ultimate political Cheap Shot. Unfortunately, little of this gets taught in the average American history course in our public schools.
Politics is, in fact, the art of the possible, based on compromise, and actually getting things done more often requires grubby little deals than Profiles in Courage. The latter do exist, and are to be commended, but the day-to-day governing of the republic is like the making of sausage, best not examined up close.
Some on the left are upset that Barack Obama today seems more like a politician than like Arthur brandishing his Excalibur of Hope and Dreams, an earlier incarnation. Yes, we are all tired of the venomous politics of recent years, and long for more across-the-aisle co-operation. Obama says he will reach out to Republicans. And perhaps he will, but the structure of today's political world will make that difficult.
First of all, the parties have become more partisan. When I started covering national politics, the Democrats had a large cadre of conservative Southern senators, while the Republicans had powerful moderate lawmakers, largely from the Northeast. Coalitions often came together over specific legislation. It was a time before term limits and the perpetual campaign, and long careers were the norm. Jet travel was not as common, and most legislators and their families lived in Washington, and across-the-aisle personal friendships were not unusual.
The politics of personal destruction were not as intense. In fact, one Democratic trickster, Dick Tuck, became famous when he unfurled a banner in Chinese in a Nixon rally in LA's Chinatown in 1962 that read "What about the Hughes loan?" (The sign referred to a controversial $205,000 loan that Howard Hughes had made to Nixon's brother, Donald) Later, the Republicans would up the ante on dirty campaigning with Willie Horton and The Swift Boat attacks on john Kerry, among others. Dick Tuck seems like a rank amateur in this company.
Today, I'd argue, it would be nice if Obama could at times reach across the aisle to like-minded Republicans, but the fact is, if he wants to really get anything done, he should push hard to see that the Democrats get a majority in the house and senate. In the U.S., divided government is most often stalemated government. The most far-reaching progressive legislation gets passed under large Democratic majorities -- New Deal legislation under FDR, and far-reaching civil rights laws under LBJ are prime examples.
At the risk of sounding like a broken record, I want to say, yes I'm for Hope, but Hope needs some help, in the form of practical politics. So Obama is tacking to the center? Fine by me. Is he a canny pol, sniffing the wind to get elected? Great. My years of covering politics have convinced me that unelected purists get nothing done. I remember George McGovern delivering his convention address at 3 am because the various factions on the left just couldn't get their act together. They gave us Richard Nixon. "The Art of the Possible" is not a line that will ever be carved in marble, but I think it should be.
Call me a cynic, but I want universal health care, a careful withdrawal from Iraq, the security of Roe v, Wade, S chip, better family leave policies, funding for stem cell research and true diplomacy, not cowboy macho. The guy (and in this case, it is a guy) who can get those will have to be a very good pol. And I think Obama is turning into one -- so cut him some slack, lefty bloggers. You won't get all you want, but three quarters of a loaf is a hell of a lot better than none.
Boston University journalism professor Caryl Rivers is the author of Selling Anxiety: How the News Media Scare Women (University Press of New England).
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Don't try to sugar coat it. If it's a dog call it a dog. If it's a liar call it a liar.
Why settle for three-quarters of a loaf, you had the whole loaf with Hillary!!! You only have to settle because the DNC made it so. We want a vote in August at the convention, and we will have it. Hillary Clinton will be our nominee if the DNC and the supers pull their collective heads out of their asses. Obama is the presumptive nominee, understand? That means that the delegates and supers can change their minds at any time and vote for Hillary. We need only 175 supers to do just that, nothing is impossible.
See you in Denver!
Puma Democrat
blog.pumapac.org
I Love this article ... Full Of Truth ... Memorize it People and let us WIN in November ...
President Obama '09
First, he might try to get himself elected. Seems to be a certain group on the left hell bent on blowing that chance for him.
First, this isn't about his "sainthood" which is a much bigger concept amoung those who attack his supporters than it is among his supporters.
Second, the FISA move is a major sell out. It's a sign that he hasn't got a clue what to "compromise" on and when to fight.
In short, the problem with Obama this reveals is he's more of the same.
It is one thing to be a "charismatic, inspiring politician, who can dodge and feint when he needs to..." and quite another to do a 180 on two of the very important issue that brought many of us to his camp in the first place - Ending the occupation in Iraq asap (16 months or less), and restoring the Constitution, (the HR 6304 FISA capitulation).
Like many other voters, I am stuck, because I will not vote for McCain under any circumstance, but I will be less happy voting for Obama then I was, and will no doubt regret not voting for Clinton in the primaries.
Please do inform everyone when Obama changed his position on withdrawal from Iraq? He still has the same 16 month phased withdrawal plan he's had all along, where's the 180?
He who is without fault may cast the first negative post - for this article.
Obama has been called weak and naive. Then it turns out he knows what he's doing and how the game is played - so now he is a typical pol- Please!
I am an Obama supporter and I have seen all along that people hold him up to an impossible standard even as he tells you over and over that he is not perfect, will make mistakes and that you will disagree with him. Since no person is perfect, then a pol -who is also a person- will also not be perfect. Now I see all these articles about people crying - literally, their heart is broken, they've been betrayed ---- they all sound like lovesick teenagers.
Allonfla--Oh my goodness!!! Alas, a sane person!!!
I couldn't agree with you more!!!
I have not been a supporter, and have been forced into a position where I now have to vote for hima sthe lesser of 2 evils.
And I'll tell you this, most people I know who were supporters from the beginning are disgusted with him - he has turned out to be just another flip flopping pol - and those of you who say read his books.....we have. They are nicely written tomes about political philosophy for the elitist and the rich.
He remains what he has always been - an elitist, ambitous, good speaker who is nothing but an empty vessel, supporting a cult of personality, which many folks still apparently belong to.
Which means you support the government spying on you (FISA) no public financing for campaigns, no gun control, no prochoice, lets see whats next.
Lesser of 2 evils - we'll still vote for him
But the "lesser" factor is getting smaller and smaller
Obama isn't tacking towards the center,.... he has been there all along.
Anybody that didn't know that wasn't paying attention, and didn't read his book.
Get over it,... he will still be a great President. AND not just because President Chimpy has lowered the bar for achievement as President so low even I couldn't do a worse job.
A great President that protects the telecoms who let us be wiretapped? A great President who allows the crimes of Bush and Cheney to go unpunished? A great President who allows the Iraq occupation to continue because he's afraid of what the war criminals will say if he ends it?
Sounds like "greatness" has new criteria.
Are you serious? Are you a one-issue voter?
Man must evolve for all human conflict a method which rejects...
Loading comments…
Posted July 9, 2008 | 11:22 AM (EST)