The notion of change in American politics today is a strong one, and the three major contenders for the White House in 2009 all preach a promised doctrine of change (some more than others).
Barack Obama is larger than life for many American teens and twenty-somethings; the turnout and support he has garnered from college students is unprecedented. Why does a candidate with many policies similar to his rival's find such overwhelming support from typically politically-aware college students? The answer is George W. Bush.
Bush and Cheney have reigned over the United States for a tumultuous 7+ years. When Clinton left office, I was still too young (like most of Generation Y) to have any memory or comprehension of politics. As a result, the Washington I've grown to know is a lying and corrupt oligarchy of sorts, consisting primarily of narrow-minded politicians with even narrower objectives.
Political pundits often talk about this "post-9/11 world." Aside from the obvious heightened security measures and the sudden worldly awareness present in America, the state of a post-9/11 America has had a great impact on all the citizens of these United States. "Nine-eleven" is often thrown around in Washington as a way to take advantage of Americans. "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety" (attributed to Benjamin Franklin) is what I'm getting at here. Wiretapping, gross amounts of secret documents, the Patriot Act - and oh yeah, that trillion-dollar travesty half a world away. After all, we wouldn't want to let the terrorists win. Getting back to the point: the Washington I've seen in my lifetime is not an institution one is likely to have much faith in.
Enter Mr. Obama. Often criticized as being naive, called a dreamer, and labeled an idealist, Obama has also been said to speak and think in a manner not unlike John F. Kennedy or Dr. Martin Luther King. "Change We Can Believe In" is his slogan, and not a terribly bad one at that. This is where I find myself getting sucked in at times, and I believe many others do as well. People want change, many believe America needs change; the problem is that most people don't even know what it is they want, aside from the fact that they don't want Bush. Obama's message and strong rhetoric radiates the promise of change, and a hope and faith in our government once again - a hope and faith that many of my generation have never had. Put Obama's wholesomely clean political record and his promise of change together with the dirtiness that is D.C., and you'll find a candidate that can present precisely what Americans are looking for: a new age in American politics.
With all of that being said, there is still great gravitas and legitimacy behind the candidacy of Barack Obama. I am an avid supporter of his campaign to the top seat in Washington, and have several policy-driven reasons for this support. The optimistic "hope" for a better America certainly plays a role, but rest assured, the basis of my support for Obama consists of relevant political matters.
10 comments:
Really good as usual. Maybe it will even convince some apathetic cynics like whom we call the King, and by convince I don't mean convince to vote for Obama, just instill a sense of hope.
Del I don't fully understand this comment I don't think haha, but you said it was good at least, so I'll accept that, thank you.
Let's stop the Clinton Machine and live the Obama Dream.
First, I'd like to thank Del for having stated the obvious: that it is well-written. Truly astounding diction and masterful vocabulary, as always.
I think that it is also important to include, not only where Obama excels, but also where he is better than his opponents and where his opponents are better than him.
You go on and on about Obama. Ron Paul promises change. Why not support Ron Paul? That's more or less a rhetorical question, unless you have a satisfactory answer.
And Del, I'm going to play the arrogant role (trust me, it's a new thing), and assume you meant I was the King. I'm not sure why I am the King, but you speak of instilling hope. I am no more hopeful after having read this blog, sorry Ritter.
I might add, more critically, that I am less a fan of this blog than others.
Thank you Joe, for the initial praise.
As far as talking about how he compares to his opponents, I agree that that is very important to consider. The reason those types of things weren't included in this post is because I didn't deem it necessary to try to "sell" Obama to anyone, I tried not to focus on his policies, and just show why (aside from policy) he has developed such a strong following. I could write quite a bit on why I like him more than Hillary or one of the Republicans, based solely on policy, but I didn't think this was the place for that.
Ron Paul does promise change, that's correct. He supports a very defined change though, that isn't appealing to many people (ie: eliminating the Fed.), including myself.
Sorry to you too, Joe, as not all Blogs are written for you :-P kidding, but really I didn't expect you to fall in love with this one, nor was I particularly hoping for it to make anyone more hopeful. That would be nice, very nice in fact, but really I was just trying to show why Obama has such a staunch support from younger Americans.
I think your omission of his policies in this blog is representative of at least some (if not a lot) of Obama's national support. People, as always (and probably for forever), neglect the issues at hand and are wooed by nice-sounding, smooth rhetoric (See: Yes We Can speech). Sure, that's part of the political game, but how many people bring their own informative-ness forward?
Of course eliminating the Fed scares you; you're a liberal, but isn't it the Fed that you most complain about? Sure, Bush is supposed to have been a conservative, but his expansions of the PATRIOT Act, etc, are all reminiscent of a large government, the same large federal government that Obama supports under the guise of universal healthcare. They are two heads of the same coin.
And! While you're living The Obama Dream, I'll continue to live The American Dream. Thank you.
Joe, Obama does not support universal healthcare so please check facts. What Ritter is trying to explain to you, is that he doesn't need to go through policy explanations because that is not the purpose of the blog. As Ritter said pretty clearly, he is not trying to "sell" Obama, he is trying to explain the large following he has. And if you think people like Matt Ritter would base their vote for a politician on smooth rhetoric and inspiration alone than you don't know him so well.
By the way, rhetoric and inspiration can be highly essential to a successful presidency. How does the president get people to support all of the great policy initiatives he has, if he can't be persuasive and uniting with his rhetoric?
I never was good at English, Del, but I'm pretty sure that "My plan begins by covering every American" means Universal Healthcare (Source: http://www.barackobama.com/issues/healthcare/).
And again, I read his response. Thanks for being so thoughtful. I said that I thought it was representative of the national sentiments. Don't put words in my mouth, I know Ritter has considered the issues at hand and at stake.
I'm also offering my opinion as to why Obama has such a large following: he tells people what they want to hear and he's young and appears fresh.
And God damn, Del, did you read my response at all? I said that it was part of the fucking game! I understand that! Christ.
Well I suppose it's no surprise that I'm taking Del's side in this little argument. I also felt like you missed what I was saying about not selling Obama, but if you say you understand I'll take your word for it.
Also I'm glad that you both realize I wouldn't base my opinions on such shallow matters.
Joe, isn't your reason kind of what I said? He promises change and people want change. Ergo, he's telling people what they want to hear, no?
He supports a form of universal healthcare, in the sense that it will be available and affordable for every American. Not every American is required to have the coverage though, through Obama's plan, as they are in Hillary's plan. Essentially, you'd be able to opt out (many people choose not to have health care, even if they can afford it).
Maybe we said the same things in different ways. The fact of the matter is, though, is that his following comes via the wrong means. That's all.
I'm disappointed that neither you nor Del responded to the connection between Bush's large Fed and Obama's large Fed. That doesn't concern you? Or is it because Obama doesn't support "true" universal healthcare, it's not a consideration.
Well there are differences between the governments they have/will run. There's a difference between a big government that spies on its citizens and one that provides affordable healthcare for them.
Post a Comment