Obamamania

by Geoff Ryan

T

he pressure is too great. I knew that I would have to weigh in on the American presidential race sooner or later. I live in Canada, so the US is the elephant in the room for us, to an even greater degree than for the rest of the global house. For the past week, every single day, the Democratic National Convention has made the front page of both of our national newspapers. Bearing in mind that this is a political convention of a different country, dealing with the nomination of only one of their party’s candidate, who will then still have to mount a campaign against another party’s delegate in order to possibly become elected the head of that other country. Meanwhile, our own ruling political party, is thinking of calling a general election for the highest office of our country this fall, and that news is buried on page eight.

Maybe it has just been a slow news week up here in the Great White North. Maybe it doesn’t really matter who rules Canada, in comparison to who rules America (and by extension, the rest of the known world). The comic Robin Williams characterized the relationship between Canada and the US by describing Canada as a nice, quiet loft apartment over a really great party. Maybe we just want to come to the party. I blame it on Obamamania.

I think he’ll get elected president in November. And I think the reason for this was best articulated by the British actress Joanna Lumley who once opined: “I just want to see men of kindness and vision and oratory. I long for someone to speak so that our hearts catch fire and we go, ‘Yes, I’ll do that,’ instead of just thinking, ‘You tossers.’” Obama is a great orator and he produces just that feeling in voters.

And if the purpose of the presidency is to be a reflection of the tone and direction of the American nation at any given time, then in today’s pervasive celebrity-culture where reality TV shows give everyone a shot at their 15 minutes of fame, where image trumps content and CNN and Fox news have reduced serious political discourse to 30-second sound bites and ensure that no one fat or ugly or poor will ever get elected to this office… then Obama is a shoo-in.

Oh yes, and the change thing. Americans love this - change. Or at least the concept of it. Everything new and shiny and full of promise – out with the old and in with the new. It appeals to the entrepreneurial streak in the national psyche.

Obama is making a promise to voters that is “as old as America itself: to wipe clean the slate of history and begin again from scratch.” As John B. Judis, senior editor of The New Republic wrote recently in that publication. “Looming over all of American history – but particularly the country’s formative years – is the Biblical figure of Adam, the only person, according to the West’s major religions, to have lived unburdened by what came before him.”

As a literary critic R. W. B. Lewis wrote in 1995, in his wonderful book the American Adam, early generations of Americans became captivated by the idea that they could create a future without reference to the past. The revolutionaries who fought for America’s independence saw themselves as breaking not only with the Old World, but with history itself. “The case and circumstances of America present themselves as in the beginning of a world,” Thomas Paine wrote in 1792.

Obama also evokes the spectral power of the Kennedys to come to his aid. JFK broke the religion barrier, similar to Obama who is poised to break the colour barrier. How” black” Obama is - in the classic African-American sense - is quite beside the point. His skin is black and so the symbolism works. And the president of the world is nothing if not first and foremost a symbol. JFK was all about change. “Change is the law of life. And those who look only to the past or present are certain to miss the future.”

And in Obama’s own words:

“Hope and change have been the causes of my life. Hope is the bedrock of this nation: the belief that our destiny will not be written for us, but by us; by all those men and women who are not content to settle for the world as it is, who have the courage to remake the world as it should be.”

“There is a moment in the life of every generation, if it is to make its mark of history, when its spirit has to come through, when it should choose the future over the past.”

“People want to turn the page. They want to write a new chapter in American history.”

“For eighteen long months, you have stood up, one by one, and said enough to the politics of the past. You understand that in this election, the greatest risk we can take is to try the same old politics with the same old players and expect a different result. You have shown what history teaches us - that at defining moments like this one, the change we need doesn’t come from Washington. Change comes to Washington. Change happens because the American people demand it - because they rise up and insist on new ideas and new leadership, a new politics for a new time.”

The fact that Obama has little practical experience or that as a Senator he occupied his time with writing books about himself more than he did in creating or passing legislation; that there is little evidence he holds firm opinions on anything apart from political expediency… all this is also irrelevant. For this reason presidents surround themselves with smart, competent experts. It is what every leader does. They are the ones who form policy, create legislation, make laws and all the rest. The president, well,  he mainly needs to look good on TV, give great speeches and stay out of trouble. I reckon Obama can do that.

So – can we now get back to regular news?

Writer: Major Geoff Ryan is co-founder and publisher of theRubicon and co-ordinator of the 614 Network and organizes the bi-annual Urban Forum. His interests include writing, politics, coffee and his children. Geoff and his wife Sandra minister in Regent Park, a social housing project in downtown Toronto, Canada.

14 Comments to Obamamania

1. McCainamania just doesn’t have the same ring to it. Oh wait, that actually works for me. Now I don’t know who to vote for.

   But seriously, thanks for the outside insight. As a young American, I definitely feel the ad campaign target on my back. Or maybe I just missed McCain’s Rolling Stone cover? It’s all a little ridiculous considering the actual time given to discussing either candidates’ political views and plans amounts to nothing.
Jonathan taube on September 2nd, 2008

2. You understand, Geoff, that with Democrats controlling both U.S. houses of congress, and with universal health care being one of his primary policy objectives, Obama will most likely be THE first U.S. president that can deliver on the promise of first rate health care to the poor in the U.S. at zero cost to them. Healthcare to all without the HMOs and insurance companies denying them coverage due to pre-existing conditions + as is the case now.

   That’s some 40,000,000 million uninsured Americans having healthcare for the first time.

   As a leading Canadian advocate for the poor, this at least should give you pause before concluding that President’s do little more than give good speeches and stay out of trouble.
Realist on September 2nd, 2008

3. For more on Barack’s healthcare plan, you can read about it here:

   http://www.barackobama.com/issues/healthcare/

   I also note that Barack spent a good part of his early career as an advocate for the poor. He was a community organizer with a church-based group on the south side of Chicago (similar to Regent Park) seeking to improve living conditions in poor neighborhoods plagued with crime and high unemployment.

   Is this not the kind of person that the Salvation Army should champion? Are these not the same kinds of causes as those of 614?

   I urge you to look deeper into who this man is and what he stands for.

   Realist
Realist on September 2nd, 2008

4. Hi Realist,
   I’m definitely with you on this one. I live in Toronto and have always lived in Canada so I can’t vote in the American election. But if I could, and my only 2 choices were McCain or Obama, that would be such a no-brainer I would barely think twice about it.
   Bring on Obama.
   Dion
Dion Oxford on September 3rd, 2008

5. Anyone know if US Salvationists are affiliated with the Gamaliel Foundation?
Catherine W on September 3rd, 2008

6. Yep - if Obama can deliver on the healthcare thing, it would be huge. Hilary gave it a good shot when Bill was in office, but couldn’t get it through for various reasons.

   It is strange and disturbing that though the US is the leading nation in the world in pretty much every sense…it has no universal health care. The figure I saw for Americans without coverage is closer to 47 million.

   There are some other challenges for the new President, if he is truly interested in issues of justice and the poor. The US is the only major Western nation where the death penalty is still used (only China and Iran outdo the States in executions); the US has the world’s highest rate of incarceration - one person in 130 is in jail (seven times that of Canada or anywhere in Europe); only one American citizen in eight holds a passport; the US has the widest gap between wealthy and poor and the lowest direct taxation, of any western nation. So whoever ends up in charge - McCain or Obama - they will have their hands full (and I didn’t even mention Iraq or the economy!)

   If one subscribes to the “Great Man” theory of historical development, then it it is all important who the man is and what he stands for. If not, and one recognizes instead the layers of structure and administration etc that stand between the office of the President and “the street” and the various forces that impact geo-politics as well as any national interest - then a case can be made that it is not all that important who is actually at the helm.

   I’m inherently suspicious of anyone the media falls so hastily and completely in love with. “Love is blind”, they say and they may be right. Eight TIME magazine covers in less than a year? C’mon.

   And Dion - that is the point, I reckon. It doesn’t seem like many people are really thinking about it at all. There seem to be few hard questions asked of, and about, Obama. Many people are against Bush, so they are then automatically for Obama… is it the same thing? Maybe being against one thing, doesn’t necessarily mean that you are for something else (if that makes any sense?).

   Realist - The Salvation Army doesn’t officially support any one candidate or party, we are non-partisan. Though most Salvationists I have met in the US are Republicans - not all - but most. Were I an American, I would be a Democrat, no doubt about it. I just don’t give my love away so easily:)
Geoff Ryan on September 3rd, 2008

7. As an American who is a bit tired of the two-party system, I wish there were a candidate that were thoroughly pro-life. Someone who embraces the rights of the unborn and the elderly, the orphan here in America and the orphan in Africa. Someone who promotes justice for the victims of 9/11 as well as for the child-soldier in Sudan. Someone as committed to ending human trafficking in the US and abroad as he/she is to lowering the price of gasoline.

   Instead, I have to choose which issues are more important to me, which set of lives matter to me most, when the truth is that they all matter to God. They are all equally important and we should be fighting the fight against the enemy on all fronts - not picking and choosing which battles are most expedient for us personally or nationally.

   … But even as I write this, I’m reminded that the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty in God for pulling down strongholds. I think part of that means that, yes, the candidate I vote for on November 4th matters, but not as much as making sure my heart and life are aligned with God’s purposes for November 5th and beyond.
Phil on September 3rd, 2008

8. Geoff, you have made reference to our history in the U.S. and to our national pysche. I think our history has played a far larger role than indicated in shaping what I would prefer to call our national personality. There isn’t room for exploring all of that on theRubicon, but I would just like to make a point or two.

   It seems to me that so many non-Americans compare us to every country around the world and say, why is America different? You’ve done that in your letter above. There is a national personality that has grown from our history that is not easily undone - and perhaps should not be undone. I can’t think of any other country that plays a leading role in the world that fought and won its national sovereignty. (It is early yet, something may be slipping my mind.) It was more than just the idea of our forefathers starting from scratch. It is important to consider what we did to get to the point where we could create our own government. I’m not arguing that the way our independence was won was perfectly virtuous; I’m not equipped to make such a judgment. But the war of independence is fact and it means that we began with an attitude of rebellion, perhaps, and national pride and a belief of the strength of the little guy(the war having been won by a rag-tag, untrained Army). That’s important - part of our national character informs us that the little guy should be strong, self-sufficient. The idea of depending on the state connotes weakness . Again - I’m not arguing that this is morally right.

   Another significant part of our history is our westward expansion. Again, not arguing for the morality of it! I’m well aware of the abuse of the native peoples, etc. But our pioneer days required grit, muscle, a sense of adventure, etc. Our ancestors needed guns to survive in that wilderness, and the value of the right to own a gun was passed through generations. I don’t know that people who haven’t been raised as Americans can really understand this. It’s just part of our DNA.

   We all know the downside of this history and how it has impacted the American personality in sometimes dangerous ways. BUT it has also made Americans innovative, creative, and optimistic. Americans believe in the future and I think that is good.

   I think my country needs to change. Today’s world is post-Christian, post-modern, etc. etc. I’m voting in a different direction this time because I’m ready for change. But I’ve written here because I just wish people could understand why we are who we are. Every people group is shaped by its history, but since the world seems to have its eyes on America, well, I just wish we were better understood. Brevity works against me in this inept explanation, but there you have it.

   We’re not the only great country in the world, but we certainly are one of them.
Amy Reardon on September 4th, 2008

9. I would hesitate to bring an argument forth about the historical shaping of the modern American individual and/or societal psyche, due to the fact that “history” as it is taught in America is more about propaganda than it is about truth. In actuality it is more of a tool employed for the shaping the modern psyche than it is a naturally occurring phenomenon.

   As you stated, our forefathers found themselves in a position to “start from scratch”, most importantly from a historical viewpoint. That’s why today we have the picture of “the war having been won by a rag-tag, untrained army”, and not by paid mercenaries, or with foreign troops sent to aid the Colonies in sticking it to the British Empire for once at long last.

   I think it’s dangerous to attempt to justify a mentality that has proven troublesome by looking back to the history of our nation, when that history itself was EXTREMELY subjectively collected and compiled.

   Edward Carr said, “The historian, then, is an individual human being. like other individuals, he is also a social phenomenon, both the product and conscious or unconscious spokesman of the society to which he belongs; it is in this capacity that he approaches the ‘facts’ of the historical past.”

   The ones who wrote the history of this nation were, more often than not through our history, writing about themselves. I find it far more important to discuss the gun control issues of today, then of some fanciful, romanticized portrayal of the Old West. We live in a political climate where Americans refuse to recognize that we are where we are at the expense of those we have trampled, stolen from, and continue to rob along the way. Let’s come to terms with that truth of our history (and present day role) and see how intact our pride remains. At least we would have a chance at seeing the true change we need.
Jonathan Taube on September 4th, 2008

10. Jonathan,

    I am neither naive enough to swallow everything I learned in history class, nor cynical enough to doubt every word of it. I am certainly not trying to give a “fanciful, romanticized protrayal of the Old West.” I do not doubt, however , that a frontiersman considered his gun an important tool and that he taught that to his son. Do we not learn values and attitudes and approaches from our parents? I come from a long line of musicians, I value classical music as informed by my father’s example, and I endeavor to teach the same value to my children. So it has been for generations in the Carr family.

    My point is simply that values - whether they are moral or not - are passed down through generations. Certainly they are reshaped, and of course they are sometimes rejected. Even a rebellion against a value suggests that the rebel’s thinking has been affected by it.

    It is certainly true that the colonists were aided by foreigners and mercenaries. But are you implying that these comprised the entire Army? If the colonists were able to assemble a complete army full of paid mercenaries and foreign forces, well then, hats off to them for ingenuity and the craftiness to save their own hides! That would have been quite a feat. If , however, the army was chock full of locals , assisted by others - to whatever degree, even if it were a large degree - then I still submit that there was a spirit of independence, rebellion, self-sufficiency, etc. that pervaded and was taught from parent to child.
Amy Reardon on September 5th, 2008

11. Well, if we can talk politics!

    I actually find myself disheartened by talk of Obamamania. I suppose now we’ll get Pretty Palin too. It’s typical for a soundbyte news culture, but distressing from a perspective of democracy. And it is a disservice to the candidates who are running for executive office. In my opinion, this is the best election choice the US has had in my cognizant memory. It almost feels like a democracy!

    The W administration has been a serious lowpoint, and the country is in a critical state. Neither candidate recommends continuing the status quo. The McCain-Palin ticket and the Obama-Biden ticket feature politicians who appear to be quite sincerely concerned about being honest civil servants and they present us with different choices on issues, not choices on personal virtue.

    McCain and Biden, who have goofed massively in their public life, has also redeemed themselves credibly from those errors over the long haul. (Keating 5; plagiarizing someone else’s life in a speech). Anyone who bothers to read their records in Congress will most certainly have to be impressed, if not in agreement. What both men have accomplished cannot fit in anyone’s soundbyte.

    Obama and Palin have been brilliant in recongnizing that the way to overcome your past is to admit it before anyone can accuse you. (cocaine use, personal debt until the book deals; teen daughter’s pregnant, I called for independent investigation about the “trooper incident”). Their records aren’t bad, just short.

    Personally, I’m pleased to have a choice that doesn’t feel like “Dumb and Dumber”. I would hope Americans enjoy voting this time around.

    To non-soundbyte it: I’d like to ramble about US health care and then about the comparitive experience of US presidents. I’m probably a selfish writer at this point, though….

    First - Health Care
    Second - Experience of US presidents

    Geoff, Hillary didn’t get her plan through in 1994 because it was a convoluted mess. Washington Post actually printed the summary and it took about 6 full newspaper pages (US size, mind you), if not more. I was in college then in DC - and students and faculty (also players in the DC scene) were aghast at how incredibly unintelligently it was laid out, making it anathema to get passed in a country where people are still afraid that they won’t get health care if it’s government-run because of waiting lists, and limited choices of specialists. If you do something radical and unpopular badly, it will fail and badly. There were a thousand ways to get improvements in health care passed, especially with a Democratic congress!!! but she didn’t try any of them.

    The problems with health care have only exacerbated in the 16 years since. Both Obama and McCain have devised plans for covering more people with insurance, but the real issue is not insurance. Yes, it’s bad to lack insurance altogether. The problem with not having insurance is that it can be hard to get a hospital to admit you, though it is technically illegal to deny you treatment for lack of insurance. And secondly, that you pay the whole bill, which 99% of the time is fraudulent. Hospitals charge about 60% more on the bill than they take from insurance companies and patients are not expected to cover the difference. The whole system is fraudulent and devoid of regulations on pricing services. Oh, and the third problem is that a gap in having insurance coverage means higher premiums when you do get it later.

    The problem for the majority of Americans - who do have insurance, is getting insurance to pay for your health care treatments. Getting insurance to not charge you higher premiums, if you have ever been sick before (after 30 you will have some diagnosis on your chart if you visit a doctor). Getting insurance to pay for treatments of the things that you have already been diagnosed with. And after that it’s figuring out what percentage - if any - they’ll pay.

    Obama has talked about the problems of getting health care insurance companies to pay for services in a personal way (using his mother an example), but I haven’t seen how his plan would actually manage to regulate the health care industry.

    Frankly, I see both candidates as missing the mark on this. Neither has talked about how health care insurance works - or fails to work - in this country. The system has failed because a) companies are less loyal to workers b) workers change jobs more often c) health care insurance is tied to full-time employment in most cases and d) health care insurance companies and providers are not restrained in their greed.

    Each time a person switches a job (which is now a normal thing to do), they run the risk of not getting health care insurance that will cover their pre-existing conditions, or simply getting a worse package. This is a problem across economic groups. (I have a friend with asthma, her husband has chroyn’s, and their daughter has a serious disability. She’s a high-powered NYC lawyer but she has turned down every new job offer because the health insurance of those jobs never offered chronic illness coverage and it would leave her family broke, even with her six-figure income.)

    Private health care insurance worked for a short period of history in the US and that period is over.

    Secondly,

    What are the resumes of recent elected US presidents?:

    George W. Bush was a governor of Texas from 1995-2000, during which time it became known for having the highest rate of executions in the country (131 prisoners during his 5 years in office - with gross violations in more than 30% of them: like defense lawyers falling asleep, being drunk or high on trial, 30% being previously or subsequently disbarred and in 22% of trials accepting psychiatrist testimony of people who had never examined the defendant to predict future violence -Chicago Tribune, 2000). Prior, he was an extraordinarily unsuccessful businessman.

    Bill Clinton was attorney general (1976-78) and then governor of Arkansas (1978-1980,1982-1992). In 1990, the population of Arkansas was 2.3 million. Only 66% of adults over 25 had achieved at least a HS diploma. (They’ve raised that to 75% in 2006 census.) There was an official poverty rate of 20% (as of 2006 it dropped to 15%). The official poverty standards are quite low amounts of income.

    George Bush served two terms as a Representative to Congress from Texas. Twice he ran unsuccessfully for the Senate. Then he was appointed to be: Ambassador to the UN, Chairman of the Republican National Committee, Chief of the U. S. Liaison Office in the People’s Republic of China, and Director of the CIA. He was Reagan’s vice-president for 8 years. Official documents of the discussions of Iran-contra issue demonstrate that he was the one to point out the illegality of the actions as a concern, but he went along with it.

    Ronald Reagan was governor of California from 1967-75. Prior to that he had been a major player in assisting McCarthy end the careers of numerous people in the performing arts professions as president of the Screen Actors Guild.

    Jimmy Carter graduated from the Naval Academy and served on a nuclear submarine for 6 years. From 1953-63, he ran the family peanut farm and expanded into several other businesses. In 1955 he was elected to the local Board of Education. Integration issues prompted his run for the State senate. A court challenge of the results led to their being overturned; he won and served in Georgia state Senate for 2 terms, and as governor from 1971-5.

    Richard Nixon served as a Navy lieutenant commander in the Pacific during WWII. He then served in the House (1947-50)and the Senate (1950-2), before becoming vice-president (1952-60). He lost the presidential election (1960) and the California governor’s election (1962). Between 1960 and his election to presidency in 1968, he practiced corporate law and wrote a biography.

    So Geoff -
    The Presidents who were governors all had executive experience, but none in foreign policy. Of them, only Carter also had legislative and local politics experience. (”Local politics is the hardest politics”).

    Only 2 Presidents had been successful as businessmen; neither was elected for a second term.

    On paper Nixon and Bush look the most experienced, but their legislative experience was extremely limited in both cases. I believe neither distinguished themselves with writing landbreaking laws. There were good moments in both presidencies, but both ended dramatically on quite sour notes - impeachment and recession/loss of election.

    This election features stellar legislators (in alphabetical order):

    Sen. Joe Biden (35 years in the Senate) - chair of the Council on Foreign Affairs. Two pieces of his legislation that passed in the past few months:

    Global AIDS Bill - $48B for HIV,malaria and TB over the next 5 years. Co-author Republican Richard Lugar.

    Second Chance Act - rehabilitation for ex-convicts (substance abuse treatment, mental health services, job training, etc.) Co-authors Arlen Specter (R-PA), Sam Brownback (R-KS) and Patrick J. Leahy (D-VT).

    For a full listing, see Joe Biden’s website/Legislation (6 pages worth of titles)

    On Senator McCain’s website (for senate not presidency), you’ll immediately find a list of
    38 bills (2007-8) that he sponsors/authors listed on the current legislation.

    Some relatively recent justice-related legislation that McCain has co-authored:

    Pharmaceutical Market Access and Drug Safety Act of 2004 to approve importing generic, affordable drugs (with Democrat Tom Daschle among others)

    Improvement of health care services along US-Mexico border(2003) (with D-Jeff Bingman)

    Rail Security ammendment (with Joe Biden)

    COMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION REFORM ACT OF 2006 (with D- Ted Kennedy)

    and, of course, writing laws for campaign finance reform with D-Feingold, twice. The first passed after several years. The new proposed law is the Federal Election Administration Act of 2007.
Maureen Diffley on September 5th, 2008

12. Amy, I didn’t mean to accuse you personally of being naive, but rather to point out danger in putting some much faith in unsound history. And cynicism is something I need to guard myself against, point taken.

    Neither did I mean to make it sound as though the colonists did not fight for their freedom, but again, rather to show that there was much more to the story than “They sat down and ate turkey with their new Native American friends and then fought for their freedom!”

    And I understand the value of owning a gun, and what that means to many Americans. However, that is in no way what the issue is about. I don’t know of many people who want to make it illegal to own any sort of firearm. But what sort of freedom do automatic weapons protect? There’s a big difference between piano lessons and AK-47s. Guns as tools (hunting, etc.) are not the issue (at least in my mind).
Jonathan Taube on September 5th, 2008

13. It is interesting, Geoff, that you point out that our Canadian Newpapers are devoting the front page to the U.S. Democratic and Republican candidates and their conventions. You’d think our upcoming election would be on the front page and this information on page eight. Anyway, I was wondering if you had seen the Republican convention speeches yet when you wrote about how promising Obama seems. I actually don’t think he will be elected this coming November…although it will be close. I think Sarah Palin was an amazing choice by John McCain. Although she has at least the same experience as Obama, it’s worth noting that she is only running for the Vice-Presidency. As you say, experience isn’t everything but she has already demonstrated that she can go up against the establishment and fight for the people…and win. I was wondering if you were aware of the controversy a while back between Obama and his minister’s opinions (Rev. Wright). It is interesting that Oprah left that Church on her own account when she didn’t like what she was hearing, whereas Obama left (many years later) only after much political pressure. While having a Black or a Woman President would be equally history-making, what really matters is their character and their positions on the important issues. I also agree that the media could talk a lot more about the issues! I would urge that people (especially Americans who can actually vote) get to know the candidates much better before just getting hung up on the word ‘change’. Although the following is Obama’s quote, I think John McCain and Sarah Palin will be the team most likely to deliver on it: “At defining moments like this one, the change we need doesn’t come from Washington. Change comes to Washington. Change happens because the American people demand it - because they rise up and insist on new ideas and new leadership…” Yes, Obama talks about bipartisanship and change, but it is McCain who has actually bucked his own party for the sake of reform! Regardless, I think it will be an extremely interesting election as well…fresh ideas and diversity. Go Democracy (in Canada too)!
Sharon Watkin on September 7th, 2008

14. Sarah Palin changes the debate from “change vs. experience” — a replay of the campaign Obama just won against Hilary Clinton — to “what is change?” I agree it was a brilliant choice, although I still can’t say how it will go in Nov.
Catherine W on September 8th, 2008

Leave a comment