Inspiration Has Its Particular Pitfalls

There is no doubt that Barack Obama is inspiring. His primary victory in South Carolina was inspiring in itself, and his speech later that evening was more so. His vision of an America less divided and better able to tolerate differences while we search for common ground is exhilarating. To paraphrase Sigmund Freud, we are all more human (read "American") than otherwise.

There are risks to Obama's vision, however, and what follows is only one: the risk of losing specificity in the service of focusing exclusively on what we have in common. This can lead to lumping things together. In her passionate support of Obama's message of hope, Caroline Kennedy writes that Obama reminds her of what inspired people about her father, that he helps "our children believe in themselves and in their power to shape their future" (NYT Op Ed p18, January 27).

What gets lost in her hopeful essay is the possibility that important policy differences exist among Obama, Clinton, and Edwards. In writing that the candidates' goals are "similar", Kennedy risks having us overlook or discount these differences. At its worst, I'm reminded of 2000 when Nader supporters said there are no differences between the major political parties, that George W. Bush and Al Gore are pretty much alike. We have all suffered from the results of that kind of dangerous thinking.

The differences among Democrats are far less than those between Bush and Gore -- at least in hindsight. But to pick just one policy, universal health care, we can see what could be major differences. All three Democrats favor national health insurance -- but the ways in which each would implement his/her ideas are remarkably distinct. For example, Clinton and Edwards want mandatory participation; Obama does not. Edwards opposes big pharma; Clinton and Obama both take money from health insurance and pharmaceutical companies.

There are many other differences among the Democratic candidates that require our attention. And because they are all far preferable to the current White House occupant, hope can be applied to any one of them. To differentiate among them based merely on how much hope each inspires can lead to lumping - and that could prove a big mistake. There are many things to think about, for each of us about each of them.