Oliver Stone's "Obama"

At the end of Oliver Stone's biopic, just before Nixon resigns in disgrace, he delivers a powerful line.

Standing in front of the White House portrait of John Kennedy, he says: "When they look at you, they see what they want to be. When they look at me, they see what they are."

We're at that summing up moment of the 2008 Presidential election, before we know the outcome, but probably most of it has already happened, and that seems to be the choice we have made in the last two elections, and the choice facing us in the next one. Vote for who we are or who we want to be?

I probably would enjoy having a coffee with either of the two candidates, but the conversation with Obama would be more interesting. I got an idea of what that would be like last night when he sat down for an extensive interview with Rachel Maddow on MSNBC. She's singularly intelligent and thoughtful and earnest, and it was clear that Obama knew that and spoke to her intelligence, saying more than candidates usually say in interviews, I thought.

And the things he said were true, they weren't pandering. About deficits, he said the terrible thing about the Bush deficit is that we're not getting anything in return. No new industries, no updated roads, it hasn't been used to retrain the workforce for the 21st century, or convert our gasoline-based economy, or pay for health care.

There's no doubt we're going to be running a big deficit during the next four years, either way, but it's good to know that if Obama is elected, the money we borrow will be spent to upgrade the US economy and workforce. He's focused on the right things for the coming years. Whether it will work or not is another thing, but with Obama at least we have a chance.

During the Bush years the American traveler in Europe would hear that they don't understand why we elected and then re-elected Bush. I think it's because very few Europeans when they visit the US, go to the countryside of say Missouri or Ohio or Pennsylvania or rural Florida. The people who live here, as you now know, often choose our Presidents. To these people, we in the American cities seem foreign and its easy for Republican politicians to get them to blame us for their difficulties. I think this has happened in Europe too, btw. It's not a new thing or an American thing.

That's also why Obama, if he's elected, deserves a chance to try to heal the wounds between these two Americas.

Of course we're seeing more and more how interdependent our economies and societies are. The biggest problems facing each country actually face all countries equally. And like it or not, the American economy is still very important to the rest of the world. This is the saving grace for our country, and it's why it's in everyone's interest, I think, to see us get back on track. One way or another, that must happen.

Going back to the Nixon soliloquy -- when the people in rural America see Obama, they see who scares them, they see the future that one way or another, is coming. In that way Obama is like Nixon; when they look at him they see who they really are. When they look at McCain they see who they want to be. In urban America, it's exactly the opposite. We look at Obama and see who we want to be and look at McCain and worry that's who we really are.

Comments

[BobQueuePublic]

I don't know how this story got past me for a few days before I found it, but I'm glad it did. This is one of the more thoughtful pieces I've read here lately. Even better, the comments are as thoughtful. I suppose in posting this flattery I might simply want to be in this good company. Thanks to Dave Winer and all commenters to date.

[paragrafH]

Excellent. It's occurred to me that, while the news has been full of world market/economy news, there really hasn't been a discussion of how interconnected we really are. That's what so frightening about the Scared Americans like Palin and her ilk. As Europe learned the hard way, we can no longer afford our arrogant insularity, either globally or nationally. We never really could, but now the situation is more dire than it would have been had we bitten the bullet earlier on. It's like hiding the bills under the rug till they form a mountain/elephant you really can't ignore any longer. I find it so heartening the degree to which an Obama presidency is longed for by the rest of the world as much as it is by so many of us.

[OttoMann]

No, we look at Obama and see who we want to be; we look at McCain and know that's who we absolutely don't want to be. Who are we really? Neither. (As usual, arguments are simplified down to a binary choice, when in actuality, there are usually more than two options.) Like Gerry Rafferty, we're stuck in the middle -- aspiring upward, while fighting off being dragged down.

[BLinCincinnati]

"There's no doubt we're going to be running a big deficit during the next four years, either way, but it's good to know that if Obama is elected, the money we borrow will be spent to upgrade the US economy and workforce."

This is the issue I can't seem to understand with the Republicans. The party of "big business" rails against this type of infrastructure spending... but any good company spends like crazy on making sure it has the best equipment, training, and infrastructure. It's an investment in future productivity.

Some of the biggest improvements to this country came after heavy spending in infrastructure. After both World Wars our manufacturing ability was drastically improved because of war time spending on infrastructure. Our spending billions on the national highway system in the 60's and 70's led to rapid growth as transporting goods across the country became far easier.

A massive spending bill to fix our infrastructure (roads, bridges, etc that desperately need it both in structural and capacity aspects) and our utility grid, will lead to a revolution in growth in new industries.

[fairwitness]

"We look at Obama and see who we want to be and look at McCain and worry that's who we really are."

I don't think there IS a "who we really are". We are 300 million-worth of extreme individual diversity, so to characterize us in any concrete way is sure to be wrong. Pundits do it all day every day and they are all wrong. You can't reduce us to "who we really are"--we are a social organism in constant flux.

That said, it's not altogether useless to attempt to create images and characterizations of either "who we are" nor "who we want to be"--our collective self-descriptions have power and consequences. I just think we should always include a transitive aspect: we are a society in the midst of massive change, accelerating change which will only become greater and faster. Whomever can imagine and describe the arc of that movement will do us a great service. We should think of us as a "work in progress".

And we are very near to a grand moment of progress this Tuesday.

[9090]

We don't have "Wounds" between "These Two Americas."
We just have a difference of opinion. It is ok for some people to disagree with the Democratic Party and its candidates. This is not a wound or a problem. It's simply called sanity.

[alenaspoppa]

Give me a break. If you don't think there are "wounds" or "two Americas," you really haven't been paying attention.

I could use your sarcastic lines and substitute Republican for Democrat without missing a beat. The difference would be, the leadership of the Republican Party really doesn't believe in dissension. But they are very disagreeable.

[9090]

You could easily switch Republican and Democrat around in my post. The thing is it's not Republicans constantly droning on and on about wounds. The only wound is that the Dems lost in 2000 and 2004. ACORN is ensuring that that will not happen again. Luckily we are expected to have long lines at the polls on Nov. 4th so those that registered 73 times will only be able to vote 6 or 7 times. Of course that doesn't help with the early voting or mail in ballots but at least some of the fraud will be kept down.