Election Night Tears

Though the election is a few days behind us, today I came across a piece in the NY Times that moved me deeply. Perhaps it is the visual nature of the metaphor articulated in this piece that is so powerful, perhaps it is simply her point. Either way, I will carry this image with me for years to come.

 

Two images will forever stay in my mind to mark this epoch-breaking election day. One is that of Jesse Jackson’s face, drenched in tears, in Chicago’s Grant Park on Tuesday evening.

 

And the other is a photo that ran in The Times on Wednesday. In it, a black mother and daughter sit on the floor of a church in Harlem. The mother, Latrice Barnes, having heard of Obama’s victory, is doubled up in tears; her daughter, Jasmine, is reaching a tentative hand up to soothe her. To me, she looks like the future, reaching out to heal the past.

 

It is, I suppose, in part a matter of temperament, whether one shouts or weeps at happy transformative moments. But I also think it’s a matter of what has come before. The young people joyfully frolicking in front of the Bush White House never knew the universe whose passing was marked by Obama’s victory and Jackson’s tears.

 

This moment of triumph marks the end of such a long period of pain, of indignity and injustice for African-Americans. And for so many others of us, of the trampling and debasing of our most basic ideals, beliefs that we cherished every bit as deeply and passionately as those of the “values voters” around whose sensibilities we’ve had to tiptoe for the past 28 years.

 

The election brought the return of a country we’d lost for so long that it was almost forgotten under the accumulated scar tissue of accommodation and acceptance. For me, this will be the enduring memory of election night 2008: One generation released its grief. The next looked up confusedly, eager to please and yet unable to comprehend just what the tears were about.

Bits and Pieces

Yesterday’s election of Barack Obama was a truly momentous occasion, for the change it signifies in the political preferences of the American people as well as its historical significance. Both Senator McCain and Senator Obama gave excellent speeches, which you should read if you missed them the last night. The commentators have a lot to say about it all, below are some of the most interesting bits and pieces I have read. 

EJ Dionne, of the Washington Post: 

Above all, it is time to celebrate the country’s wholehearted embrace of democracy, reflected in the intense engagement of Americans in this campaign and the outpouring to the polls all over the nation. For years, we have spoken of bringing free elections to the rest of the world even as we cynically mocked our own ways of conducting politics. Yesterday, we chose to practice what we have been preaching.

Micheal Gerson, of the Washington Post:

This presidency in particular should be a source of pride even for those who do not share its priorities. An African American will take the oath of office blocks from where slaves were once housed in pens and sold for profit. He will sleep in a house built in part by slave labor, near the room where Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation with firm hand. He will host dinners where Teddy Roosevelt in 1901 entertained the first African American to be a formal dinner guest in the White House; command a military that was not officially integrated until 1948. Every event, every act, will complete a cycle of history. It will be the most dramatic possible demonstration that the promise of America — so long deferred — is not a lie.

I suspect I will have many substantive criticisms of the new administration, beginning soon enough. Today I have only one message for Barack Obama, who will be our president, my president: Hail to the chief.

NY Times Editorial:

Mr. Obama will now need the support of all Americans. Mr. McCain made an elegant concession speech Tuesday night in which he called on his followers not just to honor the vote, but to stand behind Mr. Obama. After a nasty, dispiriting campaign, he seemed on that stage to be the senator we long respected for his service to this country and his willingness to compromise.

That is a start. The nation’s many challenges are beyond the reach of any one man, or any one political party.

And finally, Thomas Friedman, of the NY Times: 

But a new politics of the common good can’t be only about government and markets. “It must also be about a new patriotism — about what it means to be a citizen,” said Sandel. “This is the deepest chord Obama’s campaign evoked. The biggest applause line in his stump speech was the one that said every American will have a chance to go to college provided he or she performs a period of national service — in the military, in the Peace Corps or in the community. Obama’s campaign tapped a dormant civic idealism, a hunger among Americans to serve a cause greater than themselves, a yearning to be citizens again.”

None of this will be easy. But my gut tells me that of all the changes that will be ushered in by an Obama presidency, breaking with our racial past may turn out to be the least of them. There is just so much work to be done. The Civil War is over. Let reconstruction begin.

Rick & Barack

This week, per his usual brilliance, Rick Reilly wrote about his fantasy football team experience with Barack Obama. Per Obama’s usual brilliance, he scoured over the numbers before making some solid judgements. Gotta love those two.   http://sports.espn.go.com/espnmag/story?section=magazine&id=3657201

Obamacans for Intelligence

In a rather fascinating interview today, David Brooks (The conservative political philosopher of our generation) came out strongly against Gov. Palin because of her inexperience and spoke briefly about Sen. Obama’s strong suits. 

When I first started in journalism, I worked at the National Review for Bill Buckley. And Buckley famously said he’d rather be ruled by the first 2,000 names in the Boston phone book than by the Harvard faculty. But he didn’t think those were the only two options. He thought it was important to have people on the conservative side who celebrated ideas, who celebrated learning. And his whole life was based on that, and that was also true for a lot of the other conservatives in the Reagan era. Reagan had an immense faith in the power of ideas. But there has been a counter, more populist tradition, which is not only to scorn liberal ideas but to scorn ideas entirely. And I’m afraid that Sarah Palin has those prejudices. I think President Bush has those prejudices.

Brooks went on to comment on two of Obama’s strongest presidential qualities: his intellect and his social perception. The first is demonstrated in a story Brooks tells about asking Obama if he had ever read Neihbuhr, to which Obama responds with a very thorough and nuanced understanding of his theories. Second, Brooks notes his social perception and ability to pick up on the more human side of policy debates. This, Brooks argues, is why Obama is in politics and not simply in the world of academia. Brooks most certainly disagrees with Obama on all major policy positions, but the interview is a shining example of some of the other traits Obama has, aside from policy positions, that would make him a good president. 

Since When is Intelligence a Bad Thing?

There was a great deal of talk in the recent VP debate about ‘main street’ and ‘outsiders’ coming to Washington, and the argument that this would a good thing as compared to the so called ‘elites’ who are currently ruining our nation from DC. The argument is a hypocritical and faulty at best. Those who run ‘Washington’ (the term has simply become shorthand for the federal government and all its branches and agencies) are both east coast elites with ivy league educations and representatives from every walk of life from every corner of this great nation.  Anne Applebaum argued yesterday that contrary to the political rhetoric of the day, Washington ‘outsiders’ are just as susceptible, if not more, to corruption and mismanagement of their posts. 

The District is not Manhattan. In Washington, the significance of this “elite” pales in comparison with that of the “hockey moms,” “Joe Six-Pack” and “Main Streeters” who have dominated the political conversation in the nation’s capital for as long as I can remember… I am thinking here of Sen. Ted Stevens of Alaska (a resident of Girdwood), now on trial on charges of corruption, and Texas Rep. Tom DeLay(born in Laredo), who resigned in disgrace. For the sake of bipartisanship, I’ll mention Louisiana Democratic Rep. William Jefferson (originally of Lake Providence), recently indicted on charges of corruption. But if more small-town Republican names come to mind, that’s because small-town Republicans have figured among the most powerful and most prominent Washington politicians for much of the past decade. 

The bottom line is that the ‘elites’ of DC have, in recent history, been less corrupt in the back rooms of Washington, but they are by no means immune to the temptation.  But where then, have they gotten such a bad reputation? When did this become the standard by which our leaders should be judged? Individuals with ivy league educations have turned out to be some of our best and some of our worst presidents. 

The qualities on which we should be casting votes should be proposed policies, leadership traits, decision making skills- not where the candidates come from or what type of education they may have. Military experience and time at Harvard are both incredibly valuable experiences for anyone, and can impact how one would define themselves as a president. 

The debates were telling in that they were an avenue through which the candidates could articulate their policies, demonstrate how their experiences have uniquely shaped them, and help voters understand the philosophies guiding their thinking and policy making. 

Gov. Palin failed largely on this in last weeks VP debate. Palin defended the government’s $700 billion rescue plan. She defended the surge in Iraq, where her own son is now serving. She defended sending more troops to Afghanistan. And yet, at the same time, she declared that Americans who pay their fair share of taxes to support all those government-led endeavors should not be considered patriotic. Whether you’re from small town Alaska or an ivy league professor, that argument isn’t logical and leads to cherry-picking priorities based on politics not sound philosophy. 

By contrast, in last night’s debate Sen. Obama demonstrated a coherent philosophy on the role of government (health care as a right, not a responsibility) and was able to articulate his priorities should he be elected (While Sen. McCain implied it was un-American to set priorities because we should be doing everything… talk about out of touch). People sometimes criticize Obama for being professorial. But tonight, I thought his calm, coherent explanations of policy were a distinct advantage. There’s nothing wrong with a man who speaks in full sentences. As the philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein observed: “If you can’t say it, you can’t whistle it, either.” David Ignatius

Debate Questions from the Rest of the World

Yesterday the New York Times published a list of questions posed to Obama and McCain by international leaders, policy associates, reporters and heads of nonprofits. The list is comprised of pointed questions that Obama and McCain (and Biden and Palin for that matter) should be able to answer thoughtfully in the debates. The questions won’t be asked, but are thought provoking and highlight some of the toughest international challenges that the new president will likely face come January. They also subtly recognize many of America’s failures in the foreign policy arena over the past 5, 10 and 15 years. Many Americans are concerned about our actions and image abroad (not just military), and the answers each nominee would give to these questions are of incredible importance. 

How would you work with America’s allies in the Muslim world to turn around the widely held misperception there, as evidenced in opinion polls, that the global war against terrorism is actually a war against Islam?

— ASIF ALI ZARDARI, the president of Pakistan

Many developing countries — mine included — have made sacrifices to carry out tough economic reforms and have sought “trade and not aid.” To succeed, we need to compete on a level playing field with more developed economies. Is the United States ready to shoulder some of the burden by advocating the elimination or tempering of protectionism and subsidies? The United Nations by itself, with its faults and many achievements, does not lead. Nation-states do. American commitment and leadership is a must for effective multilateral cooperation. Will you demonstrate a renewed commitment to multilateralism and the rule of international law? Will you negotiate actively to agree on a post-Kyoto treaty on global warming and seek to join the United Nations Human Rights Council? Lastly, what would you do to regain the trust of your allies who would like to see the United States engaging in respectful dialogue and leading the way in the fight not merely against terrorism — which must be done — but also against world hunger, poverty, inequality and disease?

— MICHELLE BACHELET, the president of Chile

Do you view China simply as an emerging great power, or as an emerging great power with a conflicting ideology? And how will this perception shape your China policy?

— HU SHULI, the editor of the Chinese business magazine Caijing

It is important to know not only what the next president will do, but also why he will do it. I am somewhat puzzled by the absence of “why” questions in the presidential campaign. Why, for example, do you, Mr. McCain, advocate the expulsion of Russia from the Group of 8? Do you believe that this will change Moscow’s behavior? Or do you believe that undemocratic states should not be members of the group? Also, why do both of you support Georgia’s and Ukraine’s membership in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization? Do you believe this policy would expand the West’s sphere of influence? Are you convinced that it would be good for the alliance, or do you think NATO has lost its centrality in American foreign policy? Is it possible that each of you advocates the same policy for very different reasons?

— IVAN KRASTEV, the editor of the Bulgarian edition of Foreign Policy magazine