Hillary’s Trail of Decisions

In his Sunday, February 9th column, Frank Rich clarifies the divide between Clinton and Obama, not in terms of  history, race, gender, class or policy, but rather by the choices that each has made in their more recent rounds of campaigning. On this score, Rich is highly critical of Hillary (and Bill’s) tactics.

Could it be that the first woman to run for President will be defeated not by anti-women prejudices, which are mountainous, or by utopian idealism or the coolness factor of her younger and sexier opponent, but rather by her own trail of bad decisions?

Staged and obviously phony town-halls, race-baiting, both by patronizing Obama and by playing Hispanic against blacks, as well as suggestions of Obama drug use, non-disclosure of their tax returns, and even outright inaccurate accusations.

The question Rich asks is how low will the Clinton campaign go in its fight for victory and what effect will that have on the party nominee’s chances of victory in November. Years of daily battles with hateful conservative foes during Bill’s presidency has created a sort of siege mentality among the Clintons that counts “survival” as an end that justifies some highly questionable means.

Curiously enough, as I write this, there is news that Clinton’s campaign manager, Patti Solis Doyle, who has been with Hillary since 1992 will be replaced.

Taking a similar position on Hillary is the notable Lawrence Lessig, who created the following video where he outlines the long tail of Clinton errors and why he now  supports Obama.

 

The Marketing of Change

David Brooks, who gives me half a dose of the creeps (William Kristol gives me the full dose), in a February 8, 2007 NY Times opinion piece picks up on the affable idea recently circulating that Hillary is to the PC as Obama is to the Mac.

Brooks attacks the difference at a more fundamental level by dividing Democrats along education and income lines and then assigning to each strata, different retail consumer orientations. In this way, he differentiates “commodity” buyers from “experience” buyers. Commodity buyers are more concerned with the purely economic impact of their purchases, while experience buyers are more concerned with the emotional fulfillment that those purchases provide them. Commodity buyers go to Safeway; while experience buyers bicycle over to Whole Foods. Holidays Inns for the former, W Hotels for the latter. There’s Walgreens for everyday folk, and the Body Shop for that special someone.

I think there is truth in his divisions, just as there is truth in the “Two Americas” argument that John Edwards offered. In California, Hillary took non-college educated voters by 22 points in California and by 54% in her ex-home state of Arkansas, while a recent Pew Research survey found Obama holding a general 22 point lead among people with college degrees.

All right, so the numbers do expose relevant demographic breakdowns, but Brooks goes on – in his typically disdainful way, to attribute this elitist behavioral tendency among the more well-educated and better off, as a kind of sole signifier of their liberal and self-absorbed tendencies. They spend the extra money, he says, because it lends meaning to their lives. OK, there is some truth to that, as well. Obama does have the gift of offering a hopeful and attractive alternative to those with time enough to discriminate for themselves and to choose the best of possible alternatives. Besides, there is something sturdy but used with a lot of mileage about a Clinton, and that intoxicating new car smell that clings to an Obama.

But is this new found attraction to Obama based, as Brooks suggests, on “what” he is selling? Or is it, as I think (or at least “hope”) based on “who” he is?

There is no escape from the “class” argument, nor should there be. At the same time, I believe there are those occasional times in our lives when self-interest is overruled by arguments directed neither at our vanity nor at our pocketbooks, but rather at our more enduring sense of morality and justice.

When questions of morality and justice arise, any effort to resolve them must bring us back to the question of “character.” There are rights, and then there are obligations that attend to those rights. Yes, we are free to do as we please. That is after all the fabled pursuit of happiness. But that freedom without some commensurate obligation to support the rights and freedom of others, soon becomes a hollow privilege.

There is a complexity to moral choice that defies simplistic conclusions. Morality asks us not to simply say the right things, but more importantly to take particular actions – actions which might “cost” us in some way. And in the face-off between words and actions, can there be any doubt which speaks louder and which is ultimately for the greater good?

Beyond demographics and spending patterns, beyond surveys and projection, there remains this issue of character… because inspiration can never be removed from the makeup of the person for whom the inspiration is a tangible first-hand experience. Inspiration then, is a delicate and perishable commodity that can only be sold in small portions and for short periods of time. To be sustainable, inspiration must be ignited from within and so passed from one person to another. And though it can be temporarily simulated or excited by what we are told or sold, its persistent and life-altering value is dependent upon it being this constantly renewable resource. Inspiration awakens the more metaphysical aspects of our being, at the same time that it demands of us that we remain authentic and open to its presence in ourselves and in others. Only in this way, can we allow it to guide and strengthen us in bringing about effective change in the way that we co-exist as individuals, couples, families and as citizens – of both nations and the world.

It is obviously true that less educated people with lower incomes are bound to be less optimistic about their lives – and for obvious reasons. Life has taught them hard lessons. Hillary, as did Bill before her, hits at their “blue-collar” concerns by promising to be tough and to fight hard for “them,”  To this same demographic, Obama softens his punches with the suggestion that he’ll work “around” those old conflicts, as well as out-maneuver the old and dark “retailers” who perpetuate them, and by so doing, create a new ground of commonality – where one day we will all (rich and poor, educated and uneducated, alike) be better off for the “difficult” work that we have accomplished together.

So, is this Obama thing just another pipe dream, and are all these optimistic self-fullfillers who are currently inflating the Obama bubble, just collectively toking the bong of inevitable disappointment?

I will admit to there being a little more messianic hoopla around the Obama phenomenon than my comfort level will allow. The “Yes We Can” video comes off like wide-eyed puppy-love to me, and listening to Stevie Wonder stretch out Barack Obama’s name into at least ten distinctly sung notes is five notes too many for me.

I think my fear is that the high-end retail “hope” experience machine may need somebody like Obama as much as the defense industry needed Iraq. Retailers, of both the commodity and experience varieties – irrespective of their politics, stood by George Bush for his single-minded belief that as Americans, we have a civic duty to shop. I expect those same retailers are asking themselves, who between Hillary and Obama, will help them ring up bigger sales in the next four years.

I will grant that many of us are deliriously desperate for hope, having spent the last eight years being regularly tormented and exasperated by the ineptitude, corruption and immorality of our own government – and that under such depressing conditions, any inspiration or glimmer of hope might be forgiven as preferable to none. Yet, at the same time, it does seem that the time has come for us all to take a good and questioning look at who we are and what we do, and at who benefits and who suffers in the course of the choices we make in response to the daily force-feed of options that an opportunistic retail spin industry would have us believe are vital to both our survival and our fulfillment.

 

Innocence & Experience

The much discussed issue of “experience” as it applies to our current presidential candidates is one that intrigues me.

We want to take comfort in leaders with experience… wise elders if you will – who make decisions that though perhaps personally difficult for them, are in the end made for the good of the majority of folks – because that’s what leadership in a democracy is asked to do.

I know the good of the majority is a mostly painful burden. But like it or not, imperfect democracy came into existence as the best sustainable defense against the abuses brought on that majority by centuries of kings and dictators and tyranny.

At the same time, as Bush’s continued survival in the big chair and Huckabee’s evangelical hogcalls illustrate, with high-sounding catch phrases and chocolate icing, authoritarianism can be made almost appealing.

After 8 years of GWB, America has been plundered – both financially and morally. Resources that could have gone towards rebuilding our infrastructure or New Orleans or education or keeping poor kids healthy or actually securing us against terror attacks has been poured into the leaky bucket of Iraq and into the lead-lined pockets of big corporate contractors. And as to good will and respect among nations? Fuggedaboudit – And for what reasons? What were those again? “Freedom?” “Liberty?” “Democracy?”

John McCain’s not a bad guy, I suppose .. Compared to the rest of the Republican field he looks like Abe Lincoln hosting Saturday Night Live… but having him take over the country is a little too much like asking Bart Starr to come out of retirement to take over the Packers.

We have a deeper problem here – and it goes by a lot of names; apathy, mistrust, but mostly it’s just plain fear – stoked by those (including sponsor-driven media) who know that fear is a requirement of control and as such, also a natural suppressant of all things good for the soul of a people, i.e. love, altruism, compassion, etc.

Hillary has the experience. She also has more money from defense contractors than any other candidate. But considering the alternatives… she’s all-right – though the anti-Clinton artillery of 1998 is all ready to go again – and that won’t be much fun to watch in re-runs. If there weren’t a more interesting options, I’d be fine with HER excellency. But I think there is a more interesting option.

Generational change, attitudinal change… throw the boomer rascals out (Oops! – there goes me!) – and bring in some new post-boomer rascals; sounds good to me.

I don’t think that Hillary – as forceful as she is, has the same ability to awaken the spirit of people as Obama does.

I ACTUALLY believe that HE believes he can serve as a leader who makes decisions that are good for the majority of folks.

Maybe I’ll be disappointed. Wouldn’t be the tenth time. We’ll have to wait and see.

I like what Robert DeNiro said before Super Tuesday.. “It’s clear Barack Obama does not have the experience to let the special interests run the government. That’s the kind of inexperience I can get used to.”

I like even more what the father of pundits, H.L Mencken said in 1920 – long before television!

“The larger the mob, the harder the test. In small areas, before small electorates, a first-rate man occasionally fights his way through, carrying even the mob with him by force of his personality. But when the field is nationwide, and the fight must be waged chiefly at second and third hand, and the force of personality cannot so readily make itself felt, then all the odds are on the man who is, intrinsically, the most devious and mediocre — the man who can most easily and adeptly disperse the notion that his mind is a virtual vacuum.

The Presidency tends, year by year, to go to such men. As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart’s desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.”

The challenge of the election and the moment, as I see it, is to awaken the inner soul of the American people, and for that task, I think Obama’s our brightest hope – just because we don’t know where his lack of experience will lead him.