There is no denying the appeal of Barack Obama. He has charisma, integrity, youth and a message of hope: hope that we can finally get past deeply partisan politics, hope that we will restore America’s standing as a moral leader as well as a financial leader on the world stage, hope that we will finally tackle domestic issues that have become almost impossible for Republicans to address. Add to that the zeitgeist of American weariness with the issue of race (on all sides) and you have the potential for a truly historic wave of support for the first viable black presidential candidate.
There is a subconscious undercurrent in our society that is almost pleading for us to get past the era where we have to ask the question about whether a person of color can be elected president. It is as though the country is, at some level, holding its breath until we have proven, at last, that we have have finally moved past the issue of race and can focus on… hair styles.
But is it really time for Obama? We have made an art of electing presidents based on our emotional connections. We elected the eminently likable Jimmy Carter in 1976. He was the picture of integrity with a genteel southern manner that welcomed all comers. He was also widely seen as one of the least effective presidents of the 20th century. A pundit once quipped that we need to elect “one-handed” presidents. Carter was famous for looking at all sides of an issue to the point that he found it very difficult to decide on a course of action. I like Jimmy Carter. He has been a much finer ex-president where his desire for everybody to just get along has resulted in Habitat for Humanity, the Carter Center and grand, but symbolic, peacemaking gestures on the world stage. But his presidency may have revitalized a Republican party that was still reeling from Watergate and may have been a major catalyst in ushering in the Reagan era (not necessarily a bad thing in the end but not great for Dems).
We also elected a very likable fellow from Texas in 2000. Perhaps he does not have quite the charisma of Obama, but he certainly wasn’t elected on the basis of his vast experience. George W. Bush had some aces up his sleeve, though. Though he himself was a Washington outsider, he had connections to highly experienced (and powerful) Washington insiders who eventually formed a tight circle around him with battle tested experience. The collective experience of Colin Powell, Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld was thought to be more than enough to offset Bush’s lack of experience.
I think one of the worst case scenarios for Democrats is the installation of a very popular president who is not yet fully equipped to be the leader of the free world. If he is indecisive, if the ecomony fails, if a terrorist attack occurs on his watch — in short, if anything bad happens and he fails in any way, the power of Obama and the Democrats would quite likely have a very short shelf life. It is hard to imagine the American people having anything like the patience they showed in 2004 with Bush (which probably had a lot more to do with 9/11 than with Bush himself).
Many of those who voted for Bush in 2000 were looking for someone outside the beltway, who would not be influenced by lobbyists, who represented change — change from the increasingly poisonous partisan divisions and change from the seemingly constant buzz of scandals. Bush promised compassionate conservatism and a willingness to reach across the aisle. He sounded some of the same themes we are hearing from Obama. That didn’t turn out so well.
Much of America believes that Barack Obama is more sincere in his message. And he has an excellent shot at bringing that message to the table with much greater emphasis in four or even eight years. There are risks. If Clinton becomes president she could steer power away from Obama. But the party has already thrown a lot of weight in his direction. He may be the only one that can screw that up in the long term. In fact, perhaps the best thing that could happen to Obama is to get very close to winning the nomination with Hillary Clinton winning by a whisker. That way he proves that he is electable, having only lost because of the powerful Clinton juggernaut. He then has time to develop the full regalia and repertoire of a statesman who inspires as much confidence as he does hope.
