To say that the recently announced candidacy of Barack Obama has generated buzz would be the most egregious of understatements. For disaffected liberals, Obama shines so brightly, he may well go supernova. But those ebullient ones signing onto the Senator's campaign may be unwittingly reprising the role of Middle American and evangelical conservatives in the 2000 election. That is, foolishly supporting a candidate on the basis of little more than "hope."
A comparison between Obama and President Bush might appear to strain credulity, but in fact, their appeal is virtually identical. For, you see, Bush is no stranger to the fluttering of hearts and swells of affection that follow Obama's every footstep.
In 2000, voters who favored Bush reacted to him in much the same way that Obama's backers do now. He was the candidate who would rescue the US from the perceived depravity and moral decay of the Clinton era. The disenchanted feeling that washes over liberals today is staggeringly similar to the emotional state that befell conservatives who were disgusted by Clinton's last years.
But the Lewinsky scandal was not the only element of the Clinton era that left conservatives wanting. Clinton was the first full-term post-Cold War president, which means he was tasked with determining role the that US would play in a fundamentally novel foreign policy context. But just when the US was finally in a position to assert unilateral dominance, globalization and the multilateral trappings attending it, became our guiding light in the international arena.
Conservatives looked at their country and the world at large and were struck by a kind of persistent dysthymia. Clinton was not only amoral, he was also weak. He had the chance to snub the United Nations and our so-called allies once and for all, but he refused. Conservatives needed a new hope. Someone who could be everything that Clinton wasn't. Bush was that hope. He showed contempt for foreign affairs and would exorcise the land in the name of compassionate conservatism and self-assured Christian values.
Fast-forward to 2007 and liberals are feeling more then a little nauseated. To many progressives, the U.S. seems barely recognizable. It is time for a wunderkind who is going to make us feel right about this country. Obama is playing into that basic desire with the hope trope, but that is no reason to vote for the man.
Bush's compassionate conservatism, like Clinton's Fleetwood Mac-inspired "don't stop thinking about tomorrow," Ronald Reagan's "morning in America," and now Obama's hope, are rosy appeals to our need for fulfillment on essential emotional and spiritual registers. These slogans and the phantoms they promise are what has driven American poll-goers for nearly thirty years, and the result has been continued disappointment.
We are voting in order to feel better about ourselves and our leaders without recognizing that emotional wellbeing is not why the office of president exists. This is political therapy, but government is not here to make us feel good. It is here to protect borders from enemies and individuals from the predation endemic in society and the economic system.
A government that seeks to govern well is ill served by politicians who capture imaginations and find themselves in a sentimental public embrace. The president is not your pal, he or she is not meant to brighten your day or inspire you to cut your Zoloft regimen.
The presidency is a role for boring folk, administrative types who can exercise patience, a level head and good sense. Any politician who sees his or her responsibility as bringing hope to an embittered people has no idea what the job of president rightly entails.
Thankfully, there appears to be one such "no bones" candidate, or potential candidate. A man who realizes he needs voters, not love letters. That man is Bill Richardson, the Governor of New Mexico and, perhaps, the finest candidate in a generation.
He has overseen a business renaissance in his state, served as Energy Secretary and Ambassador to the United Nations under Clinton, balanced New Mexico's budget, negotiated with hotheads in Darfur and North Korea, secured American hostages overseas and been nominated four times for the Nobel Peace Prize. Unlike Hillary Clinton, his experience speaks in his favor, and unlike Barack Obama, he actually has some.
Americans may not swoon in the presence of Bill Richardson, but at least he isn't trying to be our collective Sigmund Freud. Richardson doesn't want to make us all feel better. He wants to run the country.
--Simon Waxman is a senior international studies major from Newton, M.A. He is opinions editor for the News-Letter.
