Somlandel' Obama!

I have been having very similar thoughts myself.

What I think Tata Madiba and Mfowethu Obama have in common is a politics based on what King calls the moral arc of the universe.

In both their discourses you will see deep historical roots; both appeal to the experience of a nation over the course of centuries to explain the moral dispensation of the present. If you remember when Madiba was first released, journalists would ask him about negotiations or the armed struggle, and he would constantly respond with a history lesson -- look this is what happened to Bambatha, this is what happened at Kliptown, this is what happened at Sharpeville, this is the context of where we are at present.

Madiba approached politics as the extension of history by other means; the application of history to the present. My sense is that Obama is doing the same thing, although in his case the moral contours of that history are less easy to discern. But here, he stands alone amongst US politicians since King and Kennedy. Who else talks about slaves and abolitionists? Or pioneers and immigrants?

In any case, it is this sense of the force of history that gives them both a rock-solid moral orientation. It's not so much a question of personal character or heroism as it is ... well .. destiny and a clarity about where things stand. Madiba has such a magnetic presence not because of his charisma, although he has that, but because you know you are at the tip of the spear of hundreds of millions of Africans who have struggled and suffered under slavery, colonialism, and oppression. It's precisely that ocean of injustice behind him that made it possible for the country to be carried through the negotiations period and into democracy. It's also something the Nats had no conception of whatsoever. They thought he was, at most, a politician. Others say he is a statesman. But, even though this may sound pretentious, I think Hegel has the best term: he's world-historical. Carter is a statesman but Carter was never an agent of a historical seismic shift.

With Obama, I think it is more muted, but nevertheless quite similar. The country knows that with him as president, it will take a leap into the future and that a variety of stultifying conventional expectations will be shattered -- expectations about race, about party divisions, about the possibility of a politics accountable to the people, and so on. People will start demanding things they did not even think to want before. And for better or worse, he has now become the agent of change to effect that revolution.

One thing I roll my eyes at is this idea that there is a cult of personality around Obama. It's laughable. Obama has not even a fraction of the effect on people as Madiba had. There's a massive difference between enthusiasm and inspiration, and the passionate adoration most South Africans have for Madiba. But even with him there was no cult of personality in the slightest. I never once knew anyone who said, well, Mandela says it, so it must be right. What American pundits don't seem to understand is that there is a very large middle ground between being bored by your politicians and surrendering all will and judgment to them.

Posted at February 22, 2008 12:47 AM in response to Is Obama the American Mandela?

Right. It ain't called NON-cooperative game theory for nothing.

A Nash equilibrium is an equilibrium of strategies within a game. It's not an agreement that ends the game.

One may as well say that the Heisenberg principle shows that there is a lot of uncertainty in politics.

This sort of faux intellectual sophistication is really quite disappointing to see on a site like this.

Posted at February 12, 2008 3:28 PM in response to Dems Need to Go For Nash Equilibrium

I don't see any blame being imputed to Clinton, let alone a causal link between WJC being president and the Republican sweep in 94.

Surely the point is simply that the Democratic nominee also needs to work to build and maintain a Democratic majority?

Posted at February 11, 2008 8:29 PM in response to Obama Faults Bill Clinton For Dem Losses In 1990s