You are here:   Features > American Revolution
 
Of course the effects can be mixed. If Jimmy Carter had remained governor of Georgia he would doubtless be remembered as a more successful if less well-known politician than he is after his presidency. Bill Clinton was a modestly effective president, though if Americans had known a little more about his character they might have preferred on balance to leave him and his dysfunctional family to the clammy security of Arkansas. George W. Bush’s only national point of reference in 2000 was his name, and as it turned out, that was about as unreliable a predictor of his behaviour and general competence in office as it was possible to be.

But the beauty of the Unknown Quantity — at least as candidate, if not as president — is that he not only articulates the powerful desire for change ever present in democratic politics. He can, simply by virtue of being unknown, actually symbolise it. Senator Obama’s elegantly written manifesto is called The Audacity of Hope, and there’s an irony to the title. It is indeed audacious to think that hope — and not much else — is sufficient to run a great country.

Countering the appeal of the new in the nation of the reborn is never easy. Opponents tout their long experience as evidence of higher suitability for office and sometimes it works — for Lyndon Johnson in 1964, Richard Nixon in 1968, and George H. W. Bush in 1988. But like second marriages, American elections more often seem to represent the triumph of hope over experience, as Hillary Clinton, to her disastrous cost, discovered this year.

At first glance, then, the general election campaign that finally got under way in June after the long Democratic primary, might look almost like a parody of this recent history of American presidential politics. In the blue corner, up there on the sunlit uplands, is the new and youthful Mr Obama , who first came to national prominence just four years ago with an oratorical flourish at the 2004 Democratic National Convention, and who began campaigning for president when he had served less than one year in the Senate. In the red corner, where the day’s long shadows are accentuated by the gentle slant of media bias, is Senator John McCain, of Arizona,the man bidding to be the oldest-ever elected president, a man whose public life began in 1968 when he was shot down over Vietnam, and who has been a national figure — famous prisoner of war, congressman, senator, presidential candidate — ever since.

If the candidates match the stereotype, the parties they represent fit it even better. The Republicans look like a tired party, worn out by experience, rather than armed by it.

View Full Article
 
Share/Save
 
 
 
 
Tony Papafilis
July 30th, 2008
9:07 AM
Obama is typical of the western world's new left - lots of carefully crafted double-speak rhetoric that carries reaffirming message for the left while delivering key re-assuring words to doubters. Obama is a racist who trades on his skin colour. Imagine the reaction to any white candidate talking about "his people"! Yet black Americans aren't even his people. His American status comes from his white American mother yet he refers to himself as a black American rather than an American with a black Kenyan father. Why does he include himself in the "black American" tribe when he does not belong in there other than playing on black racism. If his father was Chinese, would he speak of himself as an Asian or American? His speech rejecting his preacher's ugly sermons endorsed the racists idea that blacks are justified to be angry with whites. Why should anyone blessed to live in USA have a right to be angry at the USA? McCain is a better bet for a non-racist political era.

Stefan Fergus
July 24th, 2008
5:07 PM
Just a couple of pedantic points, to do with two slight factual inaccuracies: 1. "Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the only person to win 3 terms." - sort of correct, but he actually won 4 terms (dying during the first year of his 4th) 2. Your comment about the Republicans being the only party to win three consecutive terms in the past 70 years: rather selective factoid, as from 1938-1953, a Democrat was in the White House (FDR, then Truman). Sorry, I'm pedantic and wanted to mention these. Otherwise, I thought the article was excellent.

Joe Camel
July 14th, 2008
1:07 PM
“We are the change we have been waiting for,” you quote Obama as saying, when he clearly meant, “I am the change you have been waiting for.” This royal “we” is something Obama does all the time. Is it just him or is it American politicians in general? Here’s what he is reported as telling a CNN interviewer on Sunday, 13 July, going back on his support for Jerusalem as the undivided capital of Israel. Obama said: “You know, the truth is that this was an example where we had some poor phrasing in the speech. And we immediately tried to correct the interpretation that was given. The point we were simply making was, is that we don’t want barbed wire running through Jerusalem, similar to the way it was prior to the ‘67 war, that it is possible for us to create a Jerusalem that is cohesive and coherent.” Some of those plurals are obviously justified, that last one for example: “it is possible for us to create . . .” But “we” had some poor phrasing? You and who else, Barry?

scott a
July 3rd, 2008
2:07 PM
Since clinching the nomination McCain seems to have gone into the same mode that Bob Dole went into- a sort of hibernation where his personality and qualifications are stiffled by his advisors, turning him into a boring, grey man that will lose the election. Only after the election did the real Bob Dole emerge, appearing on TV shows as a funny, charming man largely missing until November. I hope McCain realises that he needs to run as himself, not as the "republican consensus candidate".

Kate
June 26th, 2008
6:06 PM
Racism is, indeed, a factor in this election: of blacks interviewed after they had voted in the primaries, 95% of them stated they voted for Obama because he was, they said (quite erroneously, as it happens)'black.' Back in February 2007, I had a look at the website of Obama's Trinity United Church of Christ which declared that: "The Vision Statement of Trinity United Church of Christ is based upon the systematized Liberation Theology that started in 1969 with the publication of Dr James H Cone's book, BLACK POWER AND BLACK THEOLOGY." In his book, Cone stated "What we need is the Divine Love as expressed in Black Power which is the power of black people to destroy their oppressors here and now by any means at their disposal. Unless God is participating in this holy activity, we must reject his love...Black Theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy." This was the entity to which Obama belonged for 20 years, the place in which he claims he became a Christian, and the title of his book is taken from a sermon by the man whom he declared was his mentor, Reverend Wright, one of whose sermons, dealing with the sentiments expressed in Cone's book, is mentioned in Obama's book, although it seems to have missed the eagle eyes of the ever-vigilant, totally unbiased 'mainstream media.' Yes, this election has a definite stench of racism to it.

Alexandra Kahler
June 26th, 2008
6:06 AM
This is the best analysis of American past & current politics that I've read during our entire election season. The ability to read "foreign" perspectives on my own country, and to learn about the rest of the world through each country's own journalism, is one of the blessings of the internet that I cherish most.

Post your comment

CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.