Barack Obama: A Response to Critics
This post is intended as a response to Jake Barnes’ post “Change (OR - What a Republican Taught Me About Barack Obama)” below.
To disclose my own political preferences, I (at the moment) support Obama in his bid for the Democratic nomination. I’m as tired of candidates throwing around the c-word as everyone else seems to be, but what frustrates me is the even more cliché stance that Obama “has no substance behind his rhetoric.” It seems a favorite among people who have already made up their mind about the election, driven more by laziness than critical thinking.
Is it difficult to sum up Obama’s platform in a handful of words? Yes, it certainly is. Jake illustrates that point splendidly by comparing Obama’s message to those trumpeted by other candidates. Hillary is about health care (I, the American voter, get that), and Obama is about… “Change”? What in the world does that mean?
Jake, in the paragraph after claiming, “…all Obama is saying is ‘I’m not Bush. I’ll be different’,” admits that Obama indeed has outlined his position on the issues. Isn’t that the ’substance’ that we’re looking for? As far as I remember, he was the first Democratic candidate to take a strong stand on Pakistan—one, I’ll point out, that the other candidates seem to have adopted (after earlier, along with this website, decrying it as “hawkish”). He departs from the status-quo in promising to talk to leaders of Iran and other less-than-friendly countries without first making demands. You might disagree with these positions, but how are they not substance? How are they not change?
The problem, I think, is that Obama’s message doesn’t fit easily into soundbites, drastically hurting his ability to respond to everyone’s favorite criticism. And so those too lazy to do their homework fall back on the same argument they’ve heard their smart Republican friends (or Hillary supporters) use: that Obama simply has been ‘too vague’ or ‘hollow’ in his description of just what he means by ‘change’.
This is, I think, part of what Obama feels is broken about our political dialogue. People want arguments made in ten-second clips, in thirty words or less. The truth is, politics are messy. Oversimplification is friendly, but it’s ultimately misleading.
It’s not as simple as asking, “Yes, but what does he mean by ‘change’?” and then expecting a concise response. That’s not an argument. After all, the response can’t be concise; most liberals (and, I hope, conservatives) recognize that much about our country needs reform. Yet because it can’t be printed on a bumper sticker, the apathetic American voter thinks that Obama’s message lacks substance.
Maybe what needs to change is us: our expectation that politics be spoon-fed, our quickness to jump all over the other guy because it helps us score points. Outlining how to change these things is difficult. Historically, pulling huge numbers of people together from disparate groups has required strength of character, near-genius, and powerful rhetoric.
Aren’t these the areas where Obama shines?
I recognize that I’m taking a risk with Obama. He doesn’t have the long political track-record that Richardson does. He hasn’t penned foreign policy decisions. He’s never been married to Bill Clinton (jab!). But what presidential vote doesn’t carry some risk? For that matter, what call for systemic change doesn’t threaten failure?
Perhaps I am naïve in thinking that the American people can change. Perhaps I’m foolhardy for supporting a candidate that shares my hope. But at this juncture, when our populace is manipulated by misinformation, distracted and disillusioned into apathy, and taken advantage of by the powers that be, I feel that the new, fresh-faced political phenomenon deserves my vote more than the candidate who perpetuates the Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton refrain. These problems stem not merely from our current administration, and I worry that fixing them will take more than replacing red with blue.
on January 8th, 2008 at
Hey Ben. Maybe it was simply some unclear writing on my part but, I wasn’t trying to attack Obama. All I was pointing out (and perhaps this thesis should have been better stated) was that Obama has taken a different approach to campaigning in that he’s not running “on issues” in a traditional sense.
As I said in the post, I don’t agree with the claim that Obama doesn’t have policy goals or ideas. All I’m saying is that he is choosing not to make them the centerpiece of his campaign, rather he’s running on Change. In the end I think it’s an interesting strategy and my post was intended more to comment on the strategy (which is clearly working) rather than Obama the candidate.
on January 8th, 2008 at
I’m sympathetic to that, Jake. I just worry that, in fact, Obama’s campaign isn’t working as well as it could. Those criticisms—ironically, I think, without much substance themselves—that Hillary’s machine is so vigorously repeating are hurting Obama’s campaign. In my opinion, uttering them without due reflection is dangerous, as it risks proliferating those single-phrase slogans that threaten the foundations of American democracy.
I mean no disrespect, but I feel that your post failed to state a clear stance on those arguments. By calling it “What a Republican Taught Me About Barack Obama,” and then citing your friend’s statement that he “has no substance behind his rhetoric,” I felt like you led the casual reader into thinking that these arguments were valid. I didn’t feel that you adequately assessed whether those attacks even made any sense. I, clearly, feel that they don’t; hence I wrote the post above. I apologize if I misunderstood your post, and assure you that I meant not to raise argument for argument’s sake, but to address those hollow complaints that I worry are unnecessarily eroding Obama’s message.
Thanks for your respectful reply.
on January 26th, 2008 at
[…] Here it is: To disclose my own political preferences, I (at the moment) support Obama in his bid for the Democratic nomination. I’m as tired of candidates throwing around the c-word as everyone else seems to be, but what frustrates me is the even more cliché stance that Obama “has no substance behind his rhetoric.” It seems a favorite among people who have already made up their mind about the election, driven more by laziness than critical thinking. […]
on January 27th, 2008 at
Quite right, Ben. Daniel Koffler has a great article in The Guardian Unlimited that argues this point as well. He’s got a wonderfully articulated rundown of Obama’s main position statements.
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/daniel_koffler/2008/01/substance_not_style.html
on January 27th, 2008 at
[…] good friend Ben Adlin wrote a great blog post earlier this month debunking the popular criticism of Barack Obama that he’s all rhetoric and […]
on January 27th, 2008 at
Ben, I think you penned an excellent synopsis with the caveat that you didn’t take it far enough.
On Obama’s website there are very detailed policy papers. Along with his stance that inspiring an apathetic electorate is essential to fundamental change, he trusts the American electorate to think/read/compare for themselves.
I believe he believes if he can get us to our feet, we are an intelligent, curious electorate that doesn’t need to be spoon fed sound bite, paint by the numbers policy quips.
While this is one of his greatest draws to me, it could also be his greatest downfall. He may be ahead of his time, drowned out by a lazy public and a sound bite, smack down hungry media.
I do believe it is largely up to you young people to bring this over the finish line. My boomer generation is so entrenched in their turf wars, they are likely to stay holed up in the safety of divisive political battles.
I have hope. Thanks.
on January 28th, 2008 at
Ben: Please consider pursuing a career as a writer. You have a real gift.
on January 28th, 2008 at
[…] there’s an interesting article over at Liberal College Kid I’d suggest reading — Barack Obama: A Response to Critics. Last 5 posts in PoliticsA Quote from Jay Leno - January 14th, 2008Congrats to Obama and Huckabee - […]
on February 17th, 2008 at
I’l start by saying that I’m not an Obama supporter. But, with that, I also have to agree that Obama is popular not because of ideas, but because he represents “change.” Yes, he has (weakly) outlined plans. But, ask the average Obama fanatic what Obama would actually do, and they don’t have a clue. I can’t tell you how many Obama-ites have admitted to me they don’t know his platform, but they just feel inspired by him. And as I mentioned, while he has outlined plans, they tend to be weakly outlined with few specifics. I can tell you, as someone who pays attention as much as I can, he wants to a) increase taxes on the rich (and in Democratic language, that always means richer than the crowd being spoken to), b) mandate as much community service as possible through education funding and tax credits, and c) somehow get universal healthcare. I guess I could also add, as Bush recently pointed out, Obama has said he would be more agreesive with Pakistan while also being more willing to negotiate with Pakistan.
on April 14th, 2008 at
None…
None…