I’ve had a number of slightly frustrating discussions recently w/r/t the Democratic primary currently in full swing. Not that I am complaining–I think people realizing the importance of the upcoming election is a fantastic development. What has been frustrating for me is that I have found it difficult to effectively explain my position: that I would be fine with either Clinton or Obama as our next president. There isn’t a lot of difference in their policy proposals, and they would both be as capable as the other at repairing some of the damage Bush has done to our government.
With all things being equal I was at first pulling for Clinton, if only to express my displeasure at all of the blatant misogyny being thrown about. There are plenty of valid reasons to dislike her, yet 80 percent of all negative comments seem to sound like, “I’m not sexist, I just don’t like her because she’ ambitious and unattractive and a bitch.” I think I’ll save the discussion of whether sexism or racism is more prevalent in our society (and whether that is even a productive way to look at the situation) in a different post, but suffice it to say that the sight of Chris Matthews makes me throw up in my mouth a little more quickly than in the past.
Yet I have still been drawn to Obama. And luckily, George Packer at The New Yorker wrote an excellent piece that has been able to help my crystallize why I have been so drawn to Obama, and why that is important. Packer argues that the biggest difference between Clinton and Obama is in their conceptualization of the presidency. Should the president be an efficient manager (Clinton) or should the president should represent larger, unifing leadership ideals (Obama)?
These rival conceptions of the Presidency—Clinton as executive, Obama as visionary—reflect a deeper difference in how the two candidates analyze what ails the country. Obama’s diagnosis is more fundamental: for him, the illness precedes the Bush years and the partisan deadlock in Washington, originating in a basic failure of politicians to bring Americans together. A strong hand on the wheel won’t make a difference if your car is stuck in the mud; a good leader has to persuade enough people to get out and push. Whereas Clinton echoes Churchill, who proclaimed, “Give us the tools and we will finish the job,” Obama invokes Lincoln, who said, “As our case is new, so we must think anew, and act anew. We must disenthrall ourselves, and then we shall save our country.”
Packer goes on to unpack the positive and negative aspects of each of these presidential conceptualizations. You should really read the whole thing. And I think that, while there are serious risks in backing the visionary over the executive, a national CEO is not what our country needs;–George Bush has not only damaged our government, but the global idea of what American is and should be. In addition to that, however, I think that this visionary aspect is what will help Obama in the general election against McCain.
