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
I do not think that a dog sense is enough to choose a president. Sound judgment buttressed by experience is the way to go. I think wisdom follows extensive experience, and a candidate can not be judged by a single episode. Obama's claim that he opposed war right from the start is one such. Many Americans opposed war. Were they given the same credit? Then why is Obama scoring so high? Success follows success breaking all the opposing arguments. Sheepish mentality of voters sometimes exhibits itself which could end in buyer's remorse like it happened in the case of Bush. Of course Obama is a far better candidate.
Polls at the time indicated that the invasion of Iraq was supported by a majority of the American people.
I don't believe in "transformational" candidates or political movements in the US, as long as we have the current Constitution and the Chicago-school Supreme Court interpreting it in favor of corporate power.
After I expressed my belief that the Kennedy connection for Obama would professionally staff his administration, the conspiracy theorists came out of the woodwork with bizarre ideas about the Trilateral Commission and a "New World Order". The primary goal of the Trilats and the Council on Foreign Relations is to make world economies so interdependent that it becomes self-sabotaging to start a war or attack each other. That's all it is.
I trust the motives of George Soros more than the Cheney-Bush-Saudi Royal axis of greed and incompetence. McCain has sold out to them for a chance to sit in the Oval Office. His statements about staying in Iraq for 100 years and predicting other wars are signals to the arms makers and dealers, oil services, and defense contractors that this taxpayer-funded gravy train keeps rolling along.
Either Hillary or Obama would be a vast improvement over McCain. However, it's wise to watch them carefully in their dealings with K Street and their actual deeds on behalf of rebuilding the American working and middle class.
No matter who is elected, I stay skeptical and a bit cynical, simply because of the strong and well-funded interests who never stop lobbying for corporate self-interest. Sen. Hart needs to come back down to earth.
Blah, blah, blah. You read enough pro-Obama posts, and that's what they all turn into. Enjoy taking the hope train to changeville, people. Let's hope they finished that bridge over the real world, or else it might come off its tracks.
Hope is at least more meaningful than poorly constructed metaphors
I love it when Obama haters point out a couple of his blunders when Hillary and Bill Clinton have 30 years of mistakes that they have never answered or apologized for.But because the bar is set so low every time a republican is in office, all the clintonians will salute any half assed attempts at real improvement that the Clintons raise up the flag pole.
HILLARY VOTED FOR A WAR THAT HAS KILLED MANY PEOPLE AND SHE STILL HAS NOT APOLOGIZED FOR IT!
No matter what anybody says about Obamas past, nothing shows more bad judgement and disregard for human life then not being able to apologize for a war that has destroyed so many peoples lives.
HILLARY FAILED AT GETTING US UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE!Then she accepted money from all the same corporations that stopped it.
HILLARY WANTS TO FIX OUR ECONOMY BUT SHE CANT EVEN HANDLE HER OWN CAMPAIGN ECONOMICS.
Obama might not be perfect but he is a strong candidate with many good plans for this country and everyone knows he can beat John Mcain!
The Clintons have had their chance and FAILED!
The last 8 years with Bush should make that undeniable!
How true!!
Hillary was a FIRST LADY when she was assigned by her husband to lead the taskforce for Universal Healthcare, big pharma and insurance corporations spent $300 millions in ads to kill her campaign for Universal healthcare; she was ABLE to get insurance for children that is now called SCHIP.
First, I don't have space here to go into details about the history of Iraq as an aggressor nation or the many technicalities of foreign policy. Hillary did not vote for war. She voted to give the President of the United States the tools to diplomatically achieve a goal, to get inspectors back in Iraq. You may not like the man, but as a Senator you have to respect the office. Those tools were horribly abused. And, at the eleventh hour, when the Resolution did what it was intended to do and Sadam said "let the inspectors in", we said "to late". And the media and the public, wrapped up in the American flag and riding the bandwagon to war rolled off to war. At the time, 89% of the public was riding that bandwagon. How many of you were on that bandwagon? And four years later, when we had the chance to elect Kerry and end the war, many of you were still on the bandwagon. And when we had a chance to change Congress in an off year election and get us out of the war and maybe even impeach Bush, where were you then? Did you even vote? And now I see the media, wrapping themselves in the flag of hope and encouraging you to hop on the Obama bandwagon. Don't bother to think for yourselves. We will do that for you. Their plans are the same. Trust us. Hillary doesn't need to apologize for her vote. With the information provided she felt that we needed to get inspectors back in Iraq. Providing tools to the President was the best way to accomplish this goal, and it worked. But when Sadam raised the white flag to keep the peace, he was mowed down by the bandwagon of war carrying the media and 89% of the population. So if you are looking for someone to blame, look to the political pundit who is revving up the latest bandwagon. Senator Obama says we shouldn't look to the past, but he spends a lot of time dwelling on this past.
Second, Hillary did not fail on health care, Congress did. They did not pass her plan. Senator Obama's plan creates not one, but two new bureaucracies and will likely fail to be passed. Senator Clinton's plan gives constituencies access to the same health care plan that Congress has. No congressman in his right mind would vote against it. As Senator Obama is fond of saying, "don't look to the past, look to the future." But make sure you are getting an accurate picture of what that future is.
Third, the media has jumped on the Obama bandwagon. Watching the news nowadays is like watching a 24 hour a day infomercial for Barak Obama. At any given time, somewhere in the TV schedule, you will find a pundit bashing Hillary or canonizing Obama. Even the ones that aren't bashing her are saying that there is no difference in the candidates positions.
So we are borne away by flowery rhetoric, but that's okay because they have the same plans, right? Wrong, there is a world of difference between their plans. One works one doesn't.
But he has a new way of campaigning, he's not negative. Wrong, why bother beating up the candidate when John Edwards and the media are doing it so brilliantly already. Besides, if you don't think he's not taking shots, you haven't been paying attention.
"But he is talking about the future, they're talking about the past". Wrong again, he talks about the future when it is to his advantage and talks about the past when it is to his advantage. He also tries to keep others from talking about the past or the future when it is to his disadvantage. IE We can't talk about the past if we want to use it to prove that it is possible to improve society without spending more money. He can use the past to go on, and on, and on, about Hillary's vote (discussed above) He can talk about the divisiveness of the 90s,(the result of Republican behavior not Clinton's) but we can't talk about extremely high favorability ratings.
"But he inspires me." If that's all you have left, you are officially on the bandwagon.
So his transcendence is so compelling we are giving up on universal health care and will allow him to privatize Social Security huh?
Not quite the deal I was looking for.
his vision of universal health care is more practical than hillary's- remember back in the early 90's when she broke down in tears over it at a hospital photo op? She couldn't do it then, how can she do it now? She would garnish wages and folks will freak out if that is the plan and it will be killed before it even begins. Obama does not have her baggage so his plan would be more likely to actually come to fruition. Gary Hart btw is anything but naive.
Bzzt! Wrong, but thanks for playing.
Obama does not want to privatize social security, he wants to PROTECT it.
http://www
~~~~~~~~~~
Obama is strongly opposed to privatizing Social Security.
Obama believes that the first place to look for ways to strengthen Social Security is the payroll tax system. Currently, the Social Security payroll tax applies to only the first $97,500 a worker makes. Obama supports increasing the maximum amount of earnings covered by Social Security and he will work with Congress and the American people to choose a payroll tax reform package that will keep Social Security solvent for at least the next half century.
~~~~~~~~~~
Of course, Hillary Clinton falsely claimed that Obama's proposal to raise the raise Social Security taxes on earnings over $97,500 per year would be a tax on the middle class.
http://www
~~~~~~~~~~
Obama defended his proposal by saying it would fall only on the upper class: "Understand that only 6% of Americans make more than $97,000--so 6% is not the middle class--it's the upper class."
~~~~~~~~~~
If you think Hillary is the better candidate, that's fine. But if you really think that then instead of spinning lies and distortions about Obama, simply tell us why you think she is better.
As Hillary explained in one of the debates, many if not most of those who earn $97,500 are working class persons -- like firemen, teachers, nurses -- in NY state.
Where do you come up with the false claim that Obama supports Social Security privatization. What he does support is the lifting of the cap of $97,500 so that people making above that pay a commensurate share into the Social Security system.
YES! That's you and Zogby so far who seem to actually GET it.
With Hillary it would be all about Hillary: About Hillary; or Bill; or who could get what passed how via what machinations and tradeoffs and party politics as usual. That's one way to get things done.
With Obama, it's not so much about Obama. It's about the idea of him, the symbol of him. It's about the movement behind him. It's about the people again having their voice. Obama himself is just the hood ornament. It's no more about him than say, the civil rights movement was about MLK or the end of the Raj was about Ghandi. They however represent another way of getting things done.
The 'Cult of Personality' critiques are from those who can't see past the first way. I ask that they open their minds.
What a hopelessly naive article. Please do name a "lesser" presidential candidate than Barack Obama, with his whopping two years of national experience.
Please do tell us how he will ease racial tensions, seeing that his own heralded minister gave Lois Farrakhan an award for good works.
And please, tell us how Obama's deals with Rezko, and that nice plot of land he got at the song of $104,000, makes him an "agent of transforma
While we're at it, what about addressing the specific plans Obama has included in his copycat "I Have a Dream" speeches? Well, they may be short on practicality and specificity, but they sure do sound pretty.
It's not like he has been given a pass or waiver. Apparently all the democratic voters know it and don't care. A general election would be a different breed of cat and not pretty.
What was they thinking?
Article. II. - The Executive Branch
Section 1 - The President
No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
The supporters of Senator Obama are elevating him to such a point that - should he become President - it will be almost impossible for him to live up to their expectations.
After all we have been through, I hope we don't get our hearts broken by putting so much stock in this one man!
You know?
Let's really be sure.
We still have time.
Weigh everything.
...as opposed to putting our stock in...anoth
Since the Clinton's are short on funds they need some free air time . DEBATES . Obama's manager should air the fact that the Clinton's have mismanaged their money and want to use Obama to get some free air time . We have seen enough DEBATES between these two .
He is The One. He is Keanu Reeves.
Is it racist to say that Obama is the Tiger Woods of politics?
No, because Tiger Woods is amazing
We had better ALL hope you're correct, Senator Hart, and that the answers we NEED for change are indeed embodied in this candidate, because OUR Government is currently sending citizens the clear message there's NO longer a 'Rule of Law' in OUR country.
For instance, in today's ex-post-facto pardons for the telecoms that have KNOWINGLY helped criminal elements in OUR Government to violate OUR Constitution, many democrapic 'one-party' corporate sell-outs joined the republiscums in asking citizens to STILL respect THEIR authority, while they blatantly break laws with impunity ...and THEN vote themselves immunity.
EVERY member of CONgress that voted for immunity today is a TRAITOR to their oath AND OUR country, and should somehow themselves also be prosecuted as willing conspirators in these CRIMES.
As an example to 'the people', Senator, what members of CONgress helped this criminal preznutz do today is arguably FAR MORE damaging to the foundations of OUR Country, the values and future of OUR civilization, and the survival of the Constitutional 'Rule of Law', than ANYTHING that Al Qaeda has EVER accomplished. It's sure seems as if that 'one-party corporate system', that lives on BOTH sides of the isle, is completely determined to push OUR citizens to craziness, thereby creating another perpetual 'enemy' to WAR against, while providing excuse to employ those deadly private armies HERE at home,...
JUST as they have in Iraq.
Can't we just write a "signing statement"? It could say that their immunity means nothing and as soon as we get enough true Patriots seated in congress we will prosecute and punish to our hearts content.
And, we know that new CONgresses have tried to prosecute a previous government's legislative and executive criminals, ...like almost NEVER!
Even back in the criminal 'ray-gun's' time, CONgress tried to ignore his Iran-Contra water under the bridge, thereby setting the stage for the current criminal preznutz to get away with murdering a country.
And, as soon as ANYONE else tries to write a 'signing statement', they will suddenly be found Unconstitutional.
Hey, maybe you're on to something.
Thanks, Mr. Hart, for this article.
I disagree with Obama on several critical issues. He's bought and sold by the corporations, for one. For another, his position on global warming is, to put it generously, weak. But he is in a unique position to transcend politics and thus to take us as a nation forward.
Well put, well written.
SMdM
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
