The Stillness of Another Epoch
For those who do not know it, the film Suna no onna or "Woman of the Dunes" is perhaps the perfect parable for our moment. It features an amateur entymologist who is trapped in a strange village where the dunes pour sand into the houses, and so the lead house must dig lest the others behind it collapse. He forms a relationship with the woman who lives there, and is unable to escape, even after she dies. Now go back and read the review, ask yourself if the same illogic applies to Iraq.
There seems to be a touch of the bittersweet in the air, because the composer of the music - Toru Takemitsu - has been on the mind of Ives biographer Jan Swafford and New Yorker music critic Alex Ross. Takemitsu also wrote the music for another emblematic movie: Ran.
It makes more than a certain sense that this most post-modern of composers is surfacing at this precise instant - he was a glutton for popular culture, and his music forms a kind of stillness around which the movies which he scored, and the songs he knew, swirled about. We are searching for this kind of stillness in our own moment.
Enter media darling Barak Obama. Though not without dissonance.
Kurogane: Saburo is not our only enemy.
Jiro: So what? If they attack, we retaliate. We grab their land and enlarge our own.
Kurogane: Fine words, but words don't win wars.
Barak Obama has launched his national stardom around a speech and two books, as well as a combination of poly-racial existence - which leads to its own complications. He is both black and white, a combination which befuddles those who try and easily catagorize his origins, politics or political base. He is against Iraq, but his policy proposals read like the The Plan from Rahm Emanuel and Bruce Reed. He was, for a time, the darling of the net left, but is now being praised as "bipartisan" because of his stances on religion and policies.
He is known for fine words to the public. Among the internetizens of the Democratic Party, he is also known for his lecturing tone taken to the netroots. But these minor collisions were not enough to stop him from being the "Wesley Clark" figure of this year's presidential race - the unknown quantity, the charismatic outsider. The difference however, is that Clark had accomplished with his ideas, and Obama has merely legislated from the sidelines.
But this is enough to give him a moment as the "unHillary", the pieces now floating around talk about him taking support from her, particularly among African Americans. This is where analysis has gotten very fuzzy. Hillary has popularity problems, but her core of 30 to 35 percent support is hers and will be difficult to take away. Obama's political direction is not inscrutible either - he has surrounded himself with Tom Daschle's people and figures to lean to the right on almost every issue. In essence, he is Evan Bayh, with more charisma, better demographic profile, and without the boat anchor of Iraq.
This is not to be discounted. Right now the territory to the left of Hillary is crowded and teaming with challengers - Gore, Edwards, Kerry being the big three, with Clark capable of vaulting upwards at any time. However to the right there is a void after Warner's departure. No, Obama doesn't have the "southern democrat" card, but he does have many positives that the right wing of the Democratic Party is lacking. In America, race, grace and the war are factors which create an instant karma around a candidate.
Obama's power is that he can do what seemed difficult earlier this year, and nearly impossible to Mark Warner - collect almost all of the 10 to 15 percent of the primary vote to the right of Hillary, and then be able to left flank her on the war and style issues. He's got the soft spoken technocrat voice that makes Democratic center left voters swoon. They found it in Dukakis, Kerry, Mondale, Carter, McGovern - and enough of it in Bill Clinton. This strange straddle accomplishes three things.
First, it gives him access to money. The right wing of the Democratic Party is really good at three things: cheering Bill Clinton, losing Congressional Elections, and raising tons of money.
Second, it immediately makes the previous "left of Hillary" scrum unstable - before there was time for Kerry, Edwards, Clark, Feingold and Gore to sort matters out between them in the preprimary season, and perhaps even use Iowa to finish the process - a gentleman's agreement that who ever did the best in Iowa would get the support of the others. Politicians are loathe to drop out until at least some real live voters have spoken.
Third, boxes Hillary - if she goes to the right after Obama's policy people, he goes to the left on the war. If she goes to the left, he sidesteps, agrees with her on the excesses of the Democratic Left - which like Joe Lieberman comes naturally to him, and then gathers up votes to the right by taking a faith based position that would turn to ashes in Hillary's mouth.
It's no wonder that Chris Cillizza of the Washington Post is all over Obama. A Black Republican against the War running as a Democrat.
The holes in this narrative are easy to pick out. Obama is already a souring milk on the liberal left, as it becomes clear that he is anti-Iraq, but also anti-left - this is the gist of Matt Stoller's argument linked to above. His book, as Tom Schaller points out, executes Joesque "kick the base" over and over again. Nothing like stamping out support with both feet. But this is less important than it looks - Obama answers a need, a deep need, for the quiet of another epoch, when reasonable men got together and did reasonable things. It wasn't really like that, instead the reality is that the most vicious of partisanship was simply kept below the radar and out of most foreign affairs - but it is how people remember politics before the 24 hour spin zone and the rise of Gingrich and Atwater. The irony is that the more vicious the Republicans become, the more the same people who yearn for an era that never was want to get soft.
There is a bull market for serenity right now, particularly because the Republicans are being as brutally vicious as they know how - Lt. Gov Healey of Massachusetts is trying to Horton front runner Deval Patrick, while the Republican establishment and their hoard of illustrators try and create a scandal out of not much of anything around Harry Reid.
Obama is less than meets the eye. But then he has earned being less than meets the eye, since he has two books and obvious attempts to run for President since 2004. Like Clinton, it is clear he has the Presidential face before even winning state wide office. Substance is over-rated in early presidential politics, largely because the problems of office tend to assert themselves, rather than be the problems that a candidate thought would be there waiting for him. However, an essential vision is important, and after wading through two books and several speeches of Barak Obama, it is this that is missing - a key understanding of an essential arbitrage that can shift the national effort from one place to another, and yield better results.
He is also more than meets the eye - in an age when politicians take stances to maintain their "viability" - Obama has had much better judgement than most on how to craft a profile which is destined to look good later, rather than necessarily looking good now - his handling of Alito is case in point - he did it, but he did on grounds that could be seen as conservative as well as liberal. This is no small political gift - to be right in the right way.
There have been a host of JFK/LBJ parallels tossed about, and Obama is about to be the beneficiary of more and more of them. As a result, the unHillary slot is the one which must now make a decision, Kerry seems not to want to make that decision until later. This is the single most important factor working in Obama's favor - it was a factor working in Dean's favor until almost the last minute. Obama's entry against three or four unHillaries makes him instantaneously in the second tier - and he is less vulnerable to jostling than the other unHillaries. The more they fight each other, the more his serene sailing above the conflict looks like the confidence of a winner.
However, like all dark horses, he is one stumble away from being put down. He is, in a sense, the anti-Dean. Dean's danger was telling the truth in a way that went down like "broken glass" - Obama's danger is being caught unable to give people a straight shot when it is needed.
Obama's entry helps Hillary, and costs Dodd, Biden and Bayh the oxygen they need - sensible men, if they are sensible men, would drop out if Obama entered, because he has shown that he can easily do what they haven't done - create a wave and aura of star quality around himself. It also gives Edwards a strong case to go to his foot soldiers and point to his hard won political maturity and say "that's the difference".
But as importantly it sets the stage for a potential 2012, where a host of Democratic governors are getting ready to mount the national stage - Spitzer, Strickland and Corzine. Obama, to some extent, must run harder earlier, because he will be facing opponents in '12 who have the ultimate campaign prop in a run for President - a heavy oak desk with a veto pen on it.
Various observations:
* There aren't that many people souring on Barack Obama. His approval among Illinois liberals is steady, dropping only in the last poll, and only dropping about as much as his approval among conservatives and moderates. Just because a few cranky bloggers are unhappy about his comments on religion doesn't mean he's there.
* It seems to me the obvious play is for Hillary to announce or insinuate that Obama will be her VP choice. This mollifies a huge chunk of the "not Hillary" electorate: just keep your mouth shut for eight years and then we'll give you exactly what you want. It also prevents Gore and Edwards from vying for a chunk of the African-American vote that HRC has supposedly locked up.
* '12 is also complicated by the fact that, looking at the current state of affairs, the incumbent will almost certainly win. More precisely, the Strickland, Spitzer, Corzine, Hatch, et al. crop of gov's will probably not enter the race. Either '08 goes to McCain, and his star power forces top contenders to bail on the race in '12 (as GHWBush's postwar popularity kept Cuomo, Gephardt, Gore, and Kerry out in '92), or it goes to a Democrat, and Republicans are faced with a lack of viable candidates (a complete list of potential popular pro-life governors after this election: Otter, Hoeven, Rounds, Gibbons, Heineman, Barbour, Riley, Perdue, Sanford, Palin, Crist).
* The other option is for Obama to ditch the Senate and run for IL-Gov in 2010, then run for President in 2016. Obama already has an "out" for the Senate; he dislikes the fact that there's not any actual debate that happens in Washington, so he can move to the state level where he feels like he can have more reasoned debates and make changes that are more immediate.
What's more, there is a good chance that Hot Rod will go down, either with an indictment or a permanent stench of scandal, and may make it impossible for AG Lisa Madigan (D) to win in '10. Obama then comes in as a savior, much as Corzine did in 2005. Then he's ready to run for President in 2016 (see above), challenging the rising crop of Dem governors.
* It's also not clear to what degree Obama is "shifting right" versus getting his colleagues to shift left. Daschle, for instance, has talked a better game on health care since leaving office. Based on DW-NOMINATE, Obama is well situated in the center of the Democratic party; to the right of Boxer, Feingold, and Jack Reed; but to the left of Bayh, Biden, and Feinstein. Most of Obama's bipartisan work consists of "strange bedfellows" coalitions with people like Tom Coburn and Sam Brownback, rather than "left-in" coalitions with Chafee/Snowe/Collins. In the current state of affairs, that's the only way to get things done (other than actively choosing to do nothing; notice that on the big ticket item -- Social Security -- Obama was okay with sticking with the "leave it alone" plan).
Obama, like Bill Clinton and George Bush, benefit from the fact that they are able to appeal to people of different political stripes at the same time. He also understands that to build a lasting majority, one has to draw a wedge between Republican politicians and the Republican voter. This can't be done without saying some good things about some Republicans and/or Republican ideals.
October 23, 2006 11:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
"His approval among Illinois liberals is steady, dropping only in the last poll,"
He's running for President of Illinois? Who would have thought it.
When liberal byliners start souring on a candidate, it's called a leading, not trailing, indicator. But it probably does not matter, Obama's doesn't need liberals and progressives first, he just needs them to be enthusiastic when the choice comes down to "Obama or Hillary?" Which is a very different question. He went to progressives because they were desperate, now he can fish among the conservatives, because they are the ones feeling left out and without a standard bearer.
But to make this a coherent coalition, he's going to have to be more coherent than he was on Meet The Press, where he let loose some outright howlers. Hillary, Edwards, Kerry, Gore would all have anhilated him over his medicare payments howler - it looks, well, like he's just managed to find the washrooms in the Capitol.
The Obama boom is expected, and he needs it to get going and start making taps, but he the "cofront runner" etc label is well over blown.
As for Daschle's people moving left. Umm, no. But then, they are who is available, and they know the people he has to reach - there isn't a huge wave of liberal votes to be had in Iowa, South Carolina or New Hampshire, and the ones that are there might well listen to pragmatic moderatism with an edge of compassion.
The basic problem is that these are big shoes to fill, and Barak, despite his speaking ability, would do better to duck trying to fill them too early.
Stirling Newberry http://www.bopnews.com
October 23, 2006 12:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
"'12 is also complicated by the fact that, looking at the current state of affairs, the incumbent will almost certainly win." I wouldn't be so sure. If Iraq looks bad now, wait a couple more years. It'll implode when we leave, and I'm not saying in the least we can do anything to alter that by staying longer. The economy will pay the price for Bush's borrowing spree and war. Regaining public trust in government after the present corruption will not be so easy. Etc., etc.
I know I've said this before, but I worry about a repeat of Carter, where the Democrats had to pay the price of Nixon's extending the war, postponing paying the cost of war with wage-price controls, and creating a disaster in public trust with Watergate and his resignation. That's why it's important to start framing the issues our way now, to hammer home how we got there and who has the courage to change course.
John
http://www.haberarts.com/
October 23, 2006 12:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gee, if I was going to make an artsy-fartsy movie metaphor (and why not, since they're screening Battle of Algiers at the Pentagon), I think I would pick Visconti's La Notti Bianche (which recently came out in a terrific Criterion DVD, by the way). Every night, the Left waits for the Democratic party to achieve power and turn us into Sweden... but we all know that, once again, you're going to get your heart stomped by centrist Jean Marais.
It could be worse, you could be Au Hasard, Balthasar, I guess.
October 23, 2006 2:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
But you already are a Scandanavian metaphor. I Dovregubbens hall, specifically.
Stirling Newberry http://www.bopnews.com
October 23, 2006 2:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
I should state that I'm not an Obama partisan; like you, I'm an Edwards guy. But I think that the distance between the post-'04 Edwards and Obama isn't particularly large.
The political junkie class, as best I can tell, has mixed feelings on Obama. The Senate-haters want him to run now, becuase they fear the Senate will turn him into something different [and worse]. Others want him to run later after building a resume. The Sirotas of the world want people who will bash business more, or use more "progressive sticks" than "liberal carrots", or at least talk about the TR-esque "square deal" for business. I don't think it's a matter of leading or trailing—I think political geek opinion is genuinely split at the moment.
Obama got into politics as an outgrowth of community activism, and a lot of his politics gear towards making political activism possible again (student loan forgiveness, sunshine laws, etc) It's all stuff I thought you might go for. :)
October 23, 2006 3:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not getting the current wave of Obama glorification.
He seems a nice enough guy. But on the other hand, what's he done? I don't see him attached to a major piece of legislation like universal health insurance or welfare reform. I don't see him at the center of a major Senate investigation like Iran-Contra or the Tower commission. I don't see him taking a major role in a key issue of the day, such as the Iraq War. Nor do I see him leading a major fight, win or lose, like the Alito nomination or the recent dismantling of Habeas Corpus and adoption of torture as an American value.
Admittedly, he hasn't had much opportunity, as both a freshman Senator and as a member of a minority party in an extremely partisan environment.
But still... Seriously. As near as I can tell, Obama's credentials come from:
1) the fact that he scored a decisive electoral victory against an opponent whose campaign fell apart and who was replaced with a raving lunatic. That's very good.
2) The fact that he says very nice things. He's a good talker and he has a pretty mouth.
3) Nice hair.
His downside is apparently that he has said some not so nice things, which normally, I'd regard as pretty trivial.
But seriously, how is this serious? Is good hair really the only criteria needed for a Presidential contender?
October 23, 2006 4:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Cute and, I must admit, not entirely untrue. But still, don't you find the monotony of the echo chamber stultifying, the steadily ratcheted outrage of partisans each trying to outdo the next in their devotion to the cause disturbing? Isn't it a relief that the Devil should stop by for a cup of coffee once in a while to share his point of view, in clouds of sulfur? This crowd would be too easy, otherwise. Every Katadreuffe needs his Dreverhaven, gives the place character.
October 23, 2006 4:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
I understand why Obama became a hit here in Illinois. After some genuinely disastrous flameouts-- Mel Reynolds, Carol Moseley Braun-- and a goodly number of go-along-to-get-along Machine hacks (including the ultimate one, Jesse Jackson, who decided he'd rather have a beer distributorship than risk actually accomplishing something by running for mayor), there is a deep hunger here for a black politician who's not nuts, who seems smart, competent and capable. For Harold Washington to return in human form.
Unfortunately, Obama has since displayed more of the instincts of the machine hack than the visionary. In the March Cook County elections he backed a 30-year-old candidate for state treasurer who's proven hapless at explaining away his connections to the connected. It usually only takes about two rounds of six-degrees-of-Kevin-Bacon to get from any Illinois politician to the Outfit and that's how you get from Obama to a convicted bookie and pimp named Michael Giorango in two.
At the same time, given the opportunity to make an endorsement that would have actually made a difference, he whiffed. The race for Cook County Board President-- the second most powerful job in Chicago and the head of a vast, scandal-plagued patronage army-- was between the aged uberhack John Stroger and a proven reformer named Forrest Claypool. Given that Claypool had headed Obama's transition team and that Stroger was reduced to a drooling stroke victim shortly before the election, it should have seemed obvious who Obama would endorse.
Should have-- but wasn't. Claypool is white, Stroger black. Claypool was opposed by the combine that runs Illinois, Stroger was one of their best friends. Obama decided, rather than make a tough choice and show some backbone, he'd sit that one out-- and with the help of SEIU, Cook County reelected a flat line on a EEG.
If the Sister Souljah moment is an essential ritual of the path to the presidency these days, Obama has already demonstrated he hasn't got the equipment to make one if it means crossing either political bosses or the color line.
October 23, 2006 4:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well yes, you are rather dull now that you mention it.
Stirling Newberry http://www.bopnews.com
October 23, 2006 4:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Please feel welcome to drop by and offer counterfactuals and gadfly comments. An elegant riposte, especially if a literary reference sails over my head, is refreshing.
I do take umbrage at the implication that this is only an echo chamber. When Dems are being portrayed as fractured and unclear about what "big ideas" we should espouse, and you have topics about circular firing squads, and complaints about Lieberman's sour grapes defection, you have to admit we aren't all on message.
Ironic that we see exactly the "the steadily ratcheted outrage of partisans each trying to outdo the next in their devotion to the cause" in the other camp.
October 23, 2006 5:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
My rating capability is not working so I'll just say as another Illinois resident I agree pretty much completely. I figure Obama owes some favors to a major political family, so he did not endorse the clearly competent Claypool.
However, a Sister S moment would be one with national significance, and Cook County politics is a yawn for the rest of the country. No doubt Clinton had to mend some Arkansas fences before he could move on to national politics.
That said, I have seen Obama at close range, and he is pretty high on the charisma scale. Watch him carefully.
October 23, 2006 5:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Never forget that a laceration from a dull blade is usually more damaging than from a sharp one.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
October 23, 2006 5:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
LOL. That takes me back. I knew guys back in high school who would bung up their knives just for that purpose. Silly kids stuff, strutting around, pretending to be badasses. Hardly anyone ever got cut. I did have to break a wrist once.
Its a different world nowadays.
October 23, 2006 5:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your wrist or someone else's?
October 23, 2006 6:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Someone else's, it was a foolish childish thing, it didn't need to start, having started it didn't need to go the way it did, having went that way it didn't need to end up the way it did, and the outcome was bad for everyone. School days, the lessons you learn are never the ones they set out to teach.
October 23, 2006 6:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
For one thing, nobody to the left of Hillary Clinton will ever get elected president. Why? Because our country is too conservative.
The only thing keeping the Democrats from getting blasted again at the polls is an almost unprecedented amount of greed and arrogance being promulgated by the Republicans.
The Democrats will win in 2006 and might win in 2008. But if the next president of the United States is a Democrat, rest assured that they WILL be a centrist.
October 23, 2006 6:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Valdron
The key to Obama isn't necessarily that he hasn't done anything. If he wins debates and charms people, he has a chance.
But as Stirling mentions, will other Democratic hopefuls honor the 'gentleman's agreement' following the Iowa Caucasus?
To be honest, I think he has the best chance of winning the White House in 2008. At least from the climate right now. Granted, things will undeniably change. Fortunately for he, there is still time. If the Democrats successfully reform congress and get the country back on the right track during the next two years, a left-winger will surely win in 2008.
Hillary certainly won't get the nomination. The only questions becomes whether or not the Democrats trust Obama and his racial heritage.
No, that is not meant to be taken as a racial criticism. It is the sad reality of the day here in the U.S and it would be mighty interesting, were Obama to get nominated, to see what kind of attack ads they would come up with. Moreover, what would Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell say?
October 23, 2006 6:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is America all that conservative? I dunno. It strikes me that outside of the incest and pelagra belt of the deep south, polling seems to show that most Americans are pretty liberal.
On the other hand, the American ruling class and the American media seem to be much more conservative. Go figure.
October 23, 2006 7:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
A lovely panoply of comments, and scarcely a troll in sight. As far as Obama goes, I enjoy listening to him speak -- it's as much the "how" he speaks as the "what" he says that, in Sterling's word, suggests "serenity" -- you did use that word, didn't you? Or was it "sublimity"? Follow a thread long enough and it's worse than a game of telephone.
In any event, It's just fun to hear the man speak, putting one idea in rational order with the next. One more avuncular "if you will" from the grouse huntmeister or another "it's hard work" from -- ah, don't even try to get me started...
So, noting how well American automakers are doing, let me offer this analogy: We're trying to figure out the '08 model year on the basis of what's going in '06.
And as the history of the Ford Taurus suggests, that may not be the best way to go.
JBraider
October 23, 2006 7:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
How many liberal points will I lose if I just say I like the guy?
aMike
October 23, 2006 8:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Are you saying you didn't really HAVE to do it?
October 23, 2006 9:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know Valdron's discipline; mine is a bit eclectic, mostly judo with some tae kwon do. I've started practicing a bit, and, having had medical advice for stress reduction involving martial arts, visual arts, and meditation, it's an interesting combination.
I've had people come at me with a knife, and I think I've learned some of Musashi Miyamoto's princples: "treat your enemy as an honored guest," and "fight as if you are already dead." There's truth, in a combat situation, going to the Void, everthings s.l.ow.s down. When I realized that a friend was, in here idea, teasing me with a whip, I disarmed her so gently she saw nothing of it. On the street, it can teach quite a bit: is there an opportunity to communicate without injuty, or break elbows, wrist and shoulders. Tis' both frightening and insighful to go through that
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
October 23, 2006 9:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
America is facing some very tough choices in the future. We absolutely must do something about the rapidly rising cost of basic health care. We cannot operate a government without having a source of revenue for it. We cannot be the police force for the whole world. Etc. We can't make those choices rationally unless we have a leader.
The first rule for being a good leader is to get out in front. The second rule is don't get too far out in front. And, the last and most important rule is you have to be able to speak well enough to convice people to follow you. Obama seems to be poised to meet all of those rules.
But, two years ago most people didn't know who he was. Today, most people know who he is, but nothing about what his goals are, what issues move him, what direction he wants to lead us in, etc. I think he needs to start filling in those gaps, either by becoming more of a player in the Senate, or by becoming governor of Illinois. Only then will I believe he is the one to be President. I really believe that day is coming.
Hoppy in Sacramento
October 23, 2006 9:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
You don't lose any points. There's no harm in liking a guy. On the other hand, we need more than a good haircut. I've nothing against Obama, I just think that he needs to prove that he's got more than a pretty mouth.
October 23, 2006 10:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
It was stupid and it was pointless. I was too serious about being a real badass dealing with a pretend badass. The best I can say is that we were kids, fifteen years old. None of it needed to happen.
Y'know, a genius can spend a lifetime making a masterpiece. And a chimp can take an instant to throw a rock through it. There ain't nothing in hard men to respect except their restraint, they're just chimps with rocks.
Where I came from we all came to school with knives and played at messing each other up. We thought chimps with rocks were cool.
October 23, 2006 10:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
I would say the U.S. is getting more liberal, but when you compare American culture to, say, French or German culture, we are still very conservative on everything from religion to sex.
It amazes me when I manage to get out of Los Angeles for a while just how old fashioned many places are.
October 24, 2006 8:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
David Brooks thinks it's a good idea for Obama to run.
Dissent Protects Democracy.
October 24, 2006 9:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Whether he runs or not Democrats should be very interested in his ideas and analysis. Democrats should be interested in how the ideas and analysis resonate amongst the voting public and citizen public.
Primary season is about evaluating and picking the candidate. Preprimary season should be a debate about content.
For those who have not read his first book he does have a unique perspective for policy based on his community organizing. He brings something to the conversation that is new so in my mind is useful. Diversity is more than skin color and gender.
October 24, 2006 10:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Why does this thread keep sounding like a remake of Deliverance?
October 24, 2006 11:37 AM | Reply | Permalink