I emote

In a post titled The Cult of Obama, Craig Carter frets that a politician short on experience and long on rhetorical gifts will lead a sheep-like electorate to the slaughter. 

(And please note, Indecisive, how Carter goes directly to Godwin's Law.  He does not pass Go!  He does not collect $200.00!)

This is unfair for a number of reasons.  First, when times are bad, it is rational for voters to choose someone with a vision of change and the shorter resume.  The latter often means that the candidate is not implicated in the policy failures that voters would like to change.  Otherwise incumbents would always win re-election.  This is why Hillary Clinton has failed to lock down the nomination despite her superior experience.  Along the way of accumulating experience in government, she voted for the Iraq War.

Carter complains that he doesn't know what kind of change Obama would bring.  Well, how about letting a black guy run the government?  That's not enough change for you? 

Carter teaches in Canada.  I don't know what his citizenship is, but perhaps from north of the border, it's harder to appreciate what a stunning change in both attitude and behavior electing a bi-racial candidate to America's highest office would represent. 

Carter may disdain the role of biography in politicking, but not all voters are wonks.  Some will vote for Obama because he's a symbol of racial reconciliation.  Others will vote for McCain because he's a war hero, and Americans love their war heroes (Ike, TR, Grant, Jackson, and of course George Washington, to name a few).

In fact, Carter does know what kind of changes Obama proposes, because he ticks them off when he mocks Obama supporters' teary-eyed hopes:

It is all glitz, glammor and emotive slogans and images. Everyone projects his or her own concerns and hopes onto him and is convinced he really cares about his or her particular issue. Will he end poverty? Certainly. Is his top priority fighting AIDS in Africa? Undoubtedly. Will he bring in universal heathcare. Of course. Will he end the war in Iraq without leaving Iraq in shambles? Without question. Is he really down deep most concerned about jobs and the economy? Yes, naturally. Is he patriotic? Of course. Is he committed to personal freedom? Is the Pope Catholic?

Withdrawal from Iraq, universal health care, better stewardship of the economy, no trampling on civil liberties in the War on Terror.  Yup, you've got it Dr. Carter.  That's not glitz.  Those are actually substantive differences with the current administration. 

Now whether he will enact them depends on whether he can govern as well as he can campaign, whether he's gobbled up by unforeseen events, or whether he's telling the truth.  But we won't know for sure until we give him the chance. 

Carter sounds like a lot of people on the political right who can no longer defend the indefensible record of the Bush administration, but can't follow where logic inevitably leads them--giving the other team a chance with their program.  Knowing that Bush's malevolent incompetence has rehabilitated the "liberalism" they disdain, they're reduced to mocking the other team's supporters rather than engaging in a rational debate about policy.

And that's what's all glitz and emotive slogans.

UPDATE (MAY 21):  Craig Carter replies here.

Comments

[Mike]

A quibble and an observation.

My quibble is that you repeat the laughable assertion of Clinton acolytes that Hillary possesses "superior experience." While it may be rude of me to point out the obvious as Hillary's presidential aspirations are swirling down the drain, I can't let this asinine claim go unchallenged. There was nothing more annoying early in the primary season than to hear her stretch her second Senate term into "35 years of experience." Bah. Would you let the spouse of your surgeon operate on you? Then how does she plausibly claim credit for any experience prior to 2000?

My observation is that there seems little to be gained by paying attention to those who claim to know nothing about candidates' (any candidate's) proposed programs. To ask, as Mr. Carter does, "What do we know about Obama?...What is his program? What policies would be his priorities?" immediately disqualifies any point he may have had. (Of course, the invocation of Godwin's Law in sentence five had already accomplished that.)

In this day and age to claim ignorance of a candidate's positions is merely to demonstrate one's own ignorance. Period.

Ninety seconds on "the Internets" would have revealed page upon virtual page detailing Obama's positions and proposals on rural and urban issues, healthcare, energy and environmental policy, veterans affairs, and over a dozen other policy areas. Not enough for you? Then download his 64 page "blueprint for change" which describes, well, what he means when he talks about "Change."

One can certainly disagree with elements of Obama's policy proposals. But to claim that he is all hat and no cattle is just plain silly.

[Eric Lee]

Mike,

Hmm, I guess I read Marvin's thing concerning Hillary's experience as a rather tongue-in-cheek comment.

Marvin,

The more I read from Carter, the more I am disappointed with what he does with the Yoder/Hauerwas theology. I, for one, will be eager to see Obama as president.

Peace,

Eric