Politics as Transcendence
Only once in a very long time does politics become more than politics, that is something more than partisan struggle, vote bartering, or arena of ambition. In ordinary times, ordinary political leaders suffice, more or less.
But on rare occasion, old arrangements and conventional wisdom come unstuck. This happens in periods of rapid if not revolutionary change. We find ourselves now in one of those periods. The forces of globalization, information, eroding sovereignties, and transformation of war ensure that traditional leaders and conventional politics can only muddle through at best and fail badly at worst.
But periods of upheaval also offer opportunities, opportunities to change our methods, our ideas, and our leaders. The rare leader capable of transforming threat to opportunity is one who welcomes transformation and sees it as a chance to abandon tradition and convention, to transcend that which is stale, unprofitable, and ineffective.
Periods of transformation require experimentation, innovation, and daring. America is a nation much more conservative than it thinks itself to be. Thus, its default position is to resist a forward leap even while applauding itself for its creativity. Al Capone said it best: "We don't want no trouble." But transformation is trouble in the best sense of the word, trouble that causes us to adapt to new conditions and circumstances and create new ways of governing.
Through some miracle of timing, luck, and good fortune Barack Obama has seized the moment. His mantra of "change" has been largely co-opted by lesser figures. He is in fact an agent of transformation. He is not operating on the same plane as ordinary politicians, and this makes him seem elusive to the conventional press and the traditional politicians. His instinct for the moment and the times is orders of magnitude more powerful than the experience claimed by others. Experience in the old ways is irrelevant experience.
In an age of great transformation, experience of the past is worthless because it is a barrier to the breakthrough gesture, the instant response in crisis, the instinctive bold decision in the face of totally new circumstances.
Some see Barack Obama as the long awaited champion finally come to slay the awful dragon of race. And they are right. Some see him as a new start for the Democratic Party and national politics. And they are right. Some see him as the walking embodiment of internationalism, ready to restore an honorable and respected place for America in the world. And they are right.
I see Barack Obama as a leader for this transcendent moment, the agent of transformation in an age of revolution, as a figure uniquely qualified to open the door to the 21st century and to convert threat to great new opportunity.
Loading comments…
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
Aw Gary, why the same old "Monkey Business?"
Yeah, I'm that old.
Is is simply because it is more profitable to join those who lie, steal and murder? People love those who would mis-lead, and hate those who try to tell them the truth.
For example, a person tells someone how harmful it is to their body to keep smoking, and the benefits to their body to stop. Another person offers that same person another cigarette. Who does that someone really think is the friend?
Why does Hillary make a better candidate to beat McCain? McCain and Hillary both voted for the Resolutions of the Invasion of Iraq. He would have a real problem calling her a “dove” or even “soft” on National Security. Obama, a different story. It’s so damn easy for Obama to keep saying he was against the War, but he wasn’t in the US Senate at the time of the vote and he didn’t have the pressure on him the others did. Just for argument sake, let’s say Hussein still had the WMD; then just see how stupid they would have been made to look. Hussein said, before he was hanged, that he did have WMD, but got rid of them when the US was sending in the Study Group, before Clinton left office, to investigate. The White House had a most respected man, General Colin Powell, who was convinced he was given the honest information. I, who am a “dove” was almost convinced and probably would have voted likewise, but I was always suspicious of this criminal White House. The Big difference is she recognizes how flawed the evidence to go into War was, instigated by the neo-cons and Bush/Cheney. McCain is too corrupt to admit it, along with Lieberman who has had a real agenda in the War. McCain wants to say Hillary is politicizing the War, what the hell is HE doing? What is most criminal, he is OK with the Troops' deaths to make himself seem right. This surge has only been a smoke screen for the fact that the Iraqis can’t get a Government together and we’ve been training their military for the last six years and they still can’t fight their war. We train our guys in boot camp for a matter of weeks and we are sending them to their potential deaths for the enrichment of the Powerful of Iraq, Maliki, powerful of the US, Cheney and his cronies. The Press has given this White House a Pass on just about everything they have done that has constituted “High Crimes and Misdemeanors”.
funny thing, in 84 hart was running as the new candidate against the charismatically challenged fritz mondale. then mondale says 'where's the beef' and suddenly it's over. we prop up the guy with no hope of winning and justify it on the grounds of 'the other guy is all rhetoric'. tell you what if we had done that in 1960 vis a vis humprhey vs kennedy we would have put up HHH and lost to nixon. think about it Hubert had the much stronger credentials than kennedy, more rexperience, more effective legislator, would he have been a better president( hard to say would he have been elected, probably not. when are the rest of you d's going to figure out that we shold nominate candidates who can actually appeal to the general public. in case I need to remind you FDR did not win in 32 becasue he had a laundry list of programs that he bore the country to death with at each whistle stop. he ran on a balanced budget. thankfully he forgot that pledge
There's a yearning, so clearly identified, embraced and voiced by Barack Obama that is resonating with so many people. Things are clearly off the track, what with the economy, the war in Iraq, the political stalemate and inaction, administration incompetence, torture of detainees, disregard for the rule of law, corruption and corporate wrongdoing, scandals involving lobbyists, the phony "war on terrorism" (and the subsequent fear mongering), that many people are yearning for change and a new national direction. The unmistakeable sense of many that they're not heard, their wishes for action going unheeded and unanswered( the Congressional election results of 2006), inducing the feeling of exasperation that Obama has clearly tapped into. This "connection" with peoples disenchantment with "business as usual" in Washington is not a new phenomena. Howard Dean tapped into it in his 2004 run. John McCain did it in his 2000 persona(that is hardly recognizable in his present 2008 reincarnation of himself. Even Ross Perot touched it in 1992.
The times change, the issues change but the publics yearning for a fresh, authentic voice that can lead them, challenge them, even get them to sacrifice and relieve them of their sense of powerlessness and discontent, is a reoccurring theme that seems to run deep in the soul of the American public. That to date it has not been realized( none of the above have been nominated for the Presidency), only strengthens that craving that Obama could be the one.
Add in that the Republican "revolution", (initiated in the Goldwater defeat of 1964, that flourished in the Reagan years and has run its course) will end with the disastrous George W.Bush years, the time is at hand for a radical political transformation.
Let’s look at transformation in second half of twentieth century. Korea led to Dwight D., Vietnam led to Nixon, Watergate led to Jimmy Carter, Iran Hostage Crisis led to Reagan, Fall of the Berlin Wall led to first Bush (riding Reagan’s coattails), boring period of the 1990’s, then 911 led to…. In thinking about it I’ll take my change in small doses.
Sorry, all you nay-sayers below. At the ripe old age of ____, I'm still an idealist and can share Mr. Hart's sentiments. Of course the greed of Wall Street has ruled over the years; of course, the congress is loaded with the same "good old boy" cronyism. The change will take place in the leadership and Bama's ability to "inspire" us to dig deeply within ourselves to bring out the best in US. It won't happen to everyone. The idea is that it is happening to enough of us to make a significant difference and that is not an insignificant movement. Remember, "we are the ones we've been waiting for." Thanks Gary, for your remarks today.
The USA and the world is in dire need of Statesmanship! And quite frankly, Senator Obama has demonstrated that he is a Statesman, fulfilling a non-political vacuum that represents the interest of All. He is leading In the same vein as the following visionaries with extraordinary Statesmanship.
* A great statesman is he who knows when to depart from traditions, as well as when to adhere to them.
- John Stuart Mill
* And statesmen at her council met Who knew the seasons when to take Occasion by the hand, and make The bounds of freedom wider yet.
- Lord Alfred Tennyson,
* Peace. commerce, and honest friendship with all nations–entangling alliances with none.
- Thomas Jefferson, in his first inaugural address
* We say that someone occupies an official position, whereas it is the official position that occupies him.
- Georg Christoph Lichtenberg
* Honest statesmanship is the wise employment of individual manners for the public good. - Abraham Lincoln
""In contemporary Amerika, any candidate running for public office at the state or national level must pander to the protestant herd (and BO, like HRC, and JM sides with protestants), yet Hart does not even bother himself to address Obama's theocratic leanings. Where are the comments of Hart the old quasi-Federalist in regards to Obama's nearly Huckabee-like pronouncements that "secularists should not expect religious people to leave their faith at the door", even in political matters? So much for the civic virtue, the Madisonian rationalism, and the rest of Hart's pop-Consti
http://ker
Whether we like it or not, change is just a fact of life.
People keep disparaging rhetoric and charisma as being hollow traits for a President, but what else is a President if they aren't a leader? And what good is a leader if no one wants to listen? Where would America be without Lincoln, Roosevelt, Kennedy or Reagan? Above all the survival of a nation's people depends on their willingness to overcome differences in order to pursue the mutually beneficial prosperity that comes with civil harmony. It takes a great leader to do that, and in times of great need America finds that great leader. Oratory is not hollow, people. Talk about policies all you want but if the people stop caring, forget about it. It won't matter who spends what where, if people stop caring, no social program or tax cut big enough in the world can save a people from what happens afterwards.
Pre-Bush, It Wasn't So Broken
How bad are our memories? Prior to Bush, people weren't saying our government doesn't work. Even with the hate-based Republican attack on one of our greatest presidents, things got done.
Like 3.7% growth vs. 2.4% (and headed downward)under Bush, surpluses versus infinite deficits, pay-as-you
I heard a commentator talk about the "Clinton baggage" being a problem for Hillary. This is a measure of the failure of her campaign. Her experience is relevant because and only because it was integral to a great presidency.
We don't need to discard what Democrats have delivered before. We need to throw out the Republicans.
Barack is great, but he wants to throw out the baby with the bathwater - and Gary Hart can't tell the difference.
Semi and sardonically, a GBO/LOL at assuming that Hillary is to be considered well experienced as she was partnered with Bill and mmm, uh, NOT all was ALL good with Bil running things..he had the luck that things did improve during HIS TERMS BUT NOT ALL DUE TO HIS EXPERTISE AND LOTS IN SPITE OF HIS FLUBS..Cut the rosified NOSTALGIC factoring and take an HONEST review !!! WHile at it, make a request for ALL RECORDS to be released for an HONEST EVALUATION, presently selectively released with many DELIBERATELY STALLED and SEALED BY REQUEST of C's !!!!
TIred of the smaltz aspect that is accepted by some of the C-supporters , plz be aware, there are MANY MORE that do NOT really want the TEAM and frankly, women should be more leery, for there is the undercurrent, "break the barrier but have Bill there to SHADOW/coP
IF had wanted TRUE experience, folks WOULD/SHOULD have sought the likes of Biden or Richardson, so TRUE / REAL EXPERIENCE is NOT the REAL CRITERIA, some prefer the ROCKSTAR CLINTONS, others are preferring to roll the di and try a NEW FORMULAE, and will go with Obama !!!
Bozwellian says:
"Cut the rosified NOSTALGIC factoring and take an HONEST review !!! "
Lets see, Is is nostalgic to recognize thtat 3.7% growth is greater than 2.4%? That pay-as-you-go is fiscally responsible? That every year the deficit decreased and finally turned to a surplus.
No it's just accurate. An you think it was all luck? Over a sustained 8 years. You are the one who shoulld consider an honest review.
You've fallen into the Republican trap that Democrats should be embarrassed by the Clinton presidency because he got a bj in the White House. And that Kerry wasn't a 5-times purple heart winner because the swift boaters said so.
If you can't recognize what good government is, you shouldn't say you are the pro at creating one.
It is imperative to understand the ANGLE at which this article is generated from: a philosophical and collective overview. Obama does represent change. He is unlike any of the standard of which he is running against. There is nothing like him. Racially,or otherwise. Obama's popularity is not happenstance as it may appear, but rather a direct reflection of the overwhelming adversities we face as a nation: He is the end result of a strong desire for a unique perspective for meaningful change in policy and politics itself.
What Gary has tapped into is the fact that there is a deep need for progression: Barack represents the best of that possibility, at a time when we are in serious trouble in all facets of our cultural and national being. We're in a bad way, and there is no more looking the other direction to ease its impact anymore. That's done. This is not the Clinton Era, and it is an unfair assessment to make such quantitative comparisons, as Clinton himself never faced in his term of office with what we are positioned in currently.
What Hillary has come to represent is the elder politicos mentality, in which I agree with Gary, has no application (transparent, or otherwise) to the relevance of our present tense: She is outmoded and outdated in all the fundamental areas in which she needs to be the polar opposite. Hillary Rodham Clinton is a corporate manifestation. A product of more of the same dating back to the Eisenhauer years. More concerned with legacy and senior custodianship then the genuine insight to resolve many concrete issues that affect everyone of us that isn't an affluent law-making politician.
The question is, how REAL is Obama. Will he end up being a servant to corporate lobbying like all those before him? Or will he have the courage to 'stay outside' of that favoritism
That question has not been answered.
Yet.
PNG says:
it is an unfair assessment to make such quantitative comparisons, as Clinton himself never faced in his term of office with what we are positioned in currently.
Financially, Clinton faced exactly the same facts that our next president will face. In 12 years of voodoo economics, Reagan and Bush I had more than tripled the national debt, and deficits loomed as far as the eye can see. He turned it around.
He made things better in the middle east. He got North Korea's nukes put under lock and key (and they stayed there until Bush).
Yep, there was no Iraq war, but we all know how to address that.
Again, the disaster of the Bush II years has made us forget that things did work. And people who weren't poitically present during that period need that reminder.
Understand, I am more than happy to vote for Barack - I think he's great.
Mr. Hart,
Regardless of what Senator Obama would like to do, he would have to face the same old Congress and the same old Supreme Court that our sitting President has had to face. For any of the programs he is proposing to materialize, he would have to do the impossible, convince the establishment to go along with him. All of the rhetoric in the world won't move some of them to do anything that is inovative and futuristic. Old habits die hard and a move towards socialism is one move that too many are already arming themselves to fight should a Democrat be elected President. All of the rhetoric in the world will never convince a starving person that he or she is not hungry and is doing extremely well. Intellectual hunger can be even more devastating than physical hunger will ever be. Our Party seems to be clutching at straws and dreams rather than the harsh reality that is all around us.
If the people follow and demand change, change that has been designed to engage the people and not the plutocracy, then their representatives in the house and senat can either go along, or get out of the way. That's the thing about leadership. It isn't about decreeing what will be, it is about leading a populace who are engaged in change and have found common solutions.
You've got to start somewhere. We'll need strong coattails to elect more Dem senators, congressmen, judges and local government officials to accomplish anything. President Obama is a good first step...
Why does Hillary make a better candidate to beat McCain? McCain and Hillary both voted for the Resolutions of the Invasion of Iraq. He would have a real problem calling her a “dove” or even “soft” on National Security. Obama, a different story. It’s so damn easy for Obama to keep saying he was against the War, but he wasn’t in the US Senate at the time of the vote and he didn’t have the pressure on him the others did. Just for argument sake, let’s say Hussein still had the WMD; then just see how stupid they would have been made to look. Hussein said, before he was hanged, that he did have WMD, but got rid of them when the US was sending in the Study Group, before Clinton left office, to investigate. The White House had a most respected man, General Colin Powell, who was convinced he was given the honest information. I, who am a “dove” was almost convinced and probably would have voted likewise, but I was always suspicious of this criminal White House. The Big difference is she recognizes how flawed the evidence to go into War was, instigated by the neo-cons and Bush/Cheney. McCain is too corrupt to admit it, along with Lieberman who has had a real agenda in the War. ( don’t you get it? ) McCain wants to say Hillary is politicizing the War, what the hell is HE doing? What is most criminal is he is OK with the deaths of thousands of Troops to make himself seem right. This surge has only been a smoke screen for the fact that the Iraqis can’t get a Government together and we’ve been training their military for the last six years and they still can’t fight their war. We train our guys in boot camp for a matter of weeks and we are sending them to their potential deaths for the enrichment of the Powerful of Iraq, Maliki, and the powerful of the US, Cheney and his cronies. MONEY corrupts, and it’s proven that the Iraqi Powerful are corrupted.
Bill Clinton stole welfare reform from the Republicans and was forced to balance the budget by Ross Perot's effective campaign for that and the inclusion of that plank in the Contract for America, led by that twit, Newt Gingrich.
#
Did Clinton give any credit to them? Of course not.
#
Barack Obama may have adopted some of the same policies as Hillary, but she should be pleased that he agrees with her on those points.
#
The truth is that they are both good liberal Democrats and share many policies.
#
What is also true is that Barack Obama has the capacity to build the winning coalition necessary to achieve their goals!!!
#
It may be painful to Hillary fans but her outreach and appeal is limited and her negatives are high.
#
By the way, she has only herself to blame for her high negatives as she is the one that:
#
-- said she would never be one of those women who stay at home and bake cookies
#
-- said she would never be one of those women who stood by their man no matter what
#
Since then, she has flip-flopped on both points.
#
She also used "right-wing" conspiracy
#
Beyond that, her campaign has blamed tough questioning on the fact that she is a woman, instead of her early lead.
#
She has cried to get sympathy for her failing campaign.
#
And, most importantly, she has not articulated an over-arching campaign theme that inspires people. Instead, she offers legislative planks.
#
Essentially, she's a top down, I'll do it for you candidate and he's a grassroots, bottom up, candidate who says we will do this together!
Way to go, Gary.
Now, how do we win the general?
I propose that all progressive citizens agree to donate half of their budgeted political contributions in the presidential race to Obama's campaign, and the other half to the meanest, dirtiest, slimiest motherf'in' 527 they can find. I think we should swiftboat the living bejeesus out of McCain and give the Republican Party the biggest payback ever administered in American history.
I think Hillary caves to pressure and does what is expedient. No love there.
Barack -- good orator, charismatic. A basically good guy. Under other circumstances, I would call him "the man to watch" to see what he'll do in the future.
Still, at this point in time, he seems to me like an empty suit. I want to know what he is and what he will do, not just vague platitudes. I have a strange feeling that there just isn't any there, there. If you know what I mean
His policy positions are located at:
http://www
I hope this is helpful.
You know, the answer to people's apprehensions about who this guy is, isn't a url with a list of policies. He just hasn't been around long enough for us to FEEL we know him and to trust him our whole damned country! Would you let a neighbor who just moved in next door watch your kids for a week just because he let you read his CV and a personal statement on where he stands on child-rearing? Of course not! This is pretty much the same thing. So save your policy positions.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
