Bill Clinton spoke at my daughter’s college yesterday, and today, of course, the entire student body is abuzz with politics. On the other hand, she goes to a pretty politically plugged-in university, so political talk is always in the air, particularly during a presidential election cycle like this one. But yesterday, rather out of the blue, she asked me who I was supporting for president.
[Full disclosure: I am a pretty die-hard and left-leaning Democrat, but I have a fierce independent streak, and have been also known to vote for the occasional Republican.] After recovering from my shock that she would want my opinion on anything (much less politics), I began my reply with a deep sigh, dismayed as I am by the current field of candidates in both parties.
But then I related to her my benchmark — my very own litmus test, as it were, for presidential candidates. Forget about supreme court justices; stands on Israel and the middle east; stem-cell research (although all of those things factor into my choices). My litmus test is much harder to pass, particularly in this day of sound bites and spin. But how the candidates measure up to my benchmark determines whether (and in what way) I’ll support their candidacy.
Not that anyone really cares who I support. Me? I’m just one of those soccer moms. But it does help me filter through the hundreds of emails, phone calls, and snail mails I get each month asking for my (financial) support. So the results of that “litmus test” help me decide whether I might simply hold my nose and vote for the lesser amongst evils (if it came to that), or conversely, put my money where my mouth is. And it’s been an awfully long time since I’ve actually voted for a presidential candidate and not against the other guy.
Robert F. Kennedy was assassinated, hours after winning the California presidential primary in 1968. I was in eighth grade, already very politically aware, even at 13 years old. Working on the Gene McCarthy campaign as a teen volunteer, I was shocked and horrified at the news of Kennedy’s murder, only two months after Martin Luther King also was gunned down. We actually don’t know how the world might be different today had Kennedy not been killed. Or if it would be better, worse, or no different at all. But Kennedy (at least thinking of him through the distance of time and circumstance) was a visionary. At least he spoke like one (your mileage may vary, so this - caveat emptor - is my opinion). Kennedy often quoted the eminently quotable playwright George Bernard Shaw with these words: "Some men see the world as it is and ask why; others see the world as it might be and ask why not."
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Adam Ash
Excellent piece, Barbara.
But I sort of fear visionaries: so much depends on what that vision is. Bush/Cheney had a vision, and look where it got us.
I think I'd like someone practically-minded, like Hillary -- just to be sensible and pragmatic and willing to make compromises to get things done.
Adam Ash
2 - Barbara Barnett
Thanks Adam. I was thinking, as I was writing the piece, that you're right about Bush and Cheney being visionaries of a sort. There is nothing wrong with having a vision and acting on it, but to go about acting on the vision through lies and opacity in governance is not what this country is all about. That's where accountability comes into play.
And that is also why there must be three co-equal branches of government. Vision gone amuck without checks and balances is incredibly dangerous (as we have seen)--especially when couched in the language of national security. And I think that's the difference.
Practicality and only practicality breeds the sort of incrementalism that I think would be misguided by the next presidency in 2009. The changes to our government, the way it operates and the constitution have been so sweeping that a pragmatic president will not be able to fix what has gone wrong with any sort of speed. In my opinion anyway.
3 - The Obnoxious American
I agree, well written, nice job.
I was with you until about the eigth paragraph.
While the response to Katrina wasn't satisfactory by any stretch, it was a natural disaster, not one brought on by Bush or Cheney's politics.
Any new president should definitely take stock in what preceeded their term, but that's true anytime someone new takes office.
As far as our civil rights, by virtue of my freely typing this opinion a mere 6 feet away from my gun safe, while I think we should be very vigilant about our freedoms, there simply has been no widespread abuse. Whatever abuses may have been carried out may have been necessary considering we are at war.
Regaining our standing in the UN should not be our foremost priority over protecting this country. And frankly I think any rational consideration of the antics at the UN Security Counsel prove this out.
I also don't agree that Al Gore would make a great President, nor Bill Richardson for that matter. But I do agree with you that the current stable of politicians on both sides (and I lean to the right) is less than compelling.
4 - The Obnoxious American
Incidentally on the topic of civil rights, isn't the right to keep a good percentage of what you work for a civil right? Wouldn't the converse of that be a sort of indentured servantry?
I would much rather my civil rights be trampled on by the CIA listening in on my calls to mom in an attempt to root out terrorists, than by the IRS taking 45-55% of my pay to make for a much bigger government that just regulates my life more and more. Many on the left are preaching a type of civil rights trampling that I am just not OK with.
5 - Dave Nalle
I think you're selling Bill Richardson short. There's a lot more to him than just being a governor. He has also served as ambassador to the UN and Secretary of Energy among a variety of other accomplishments. No one is more qualified to run this country than he is.
Dave
6 - Barbara Barnett
Dave--I don't sell Bill Richardson short. And I do think he'd make a fine president. And any of the current democratic candidates would be a vast improvement on what we have now--and better than anyone in the republican stable. Richardson has some great ideas, and I agree with a great deal of what he says, I'm only saying that our best hope for this country is to elect someone who is extraordinary. Will that happen? Perhaps not. I'm not sure that Richardson is my ideal choice. But that's my opinion. Some of my best friends (and some of the smartest, politically attuned people I know) are Richardson supporters. But for now, I'm unconvinced.
Part of me thinks that what we need to hear are fiery words, articulated with passion and intellect. Something to inspire. Bill Clinton had that ability. So did Mario Cuomo. I know that oratorical skills are not necessarily in the job description for POTUS, but I miss that after 8 years of anti-intellectualism.
7 - Dave Nalle
Obama and Edwards make some pretty slick speeches. Of course one is an inexperienced cypher and the other is a soulless weasel, and neither of them has more substancce than the last speech they made.
I think I'd be perfectly happy with someone who's not totally eloquent if he does a competent job. But then I'm not arrogant enough to accuse the current administration of 'anti-intellectualism.' After all, neocons are nothing if not intellectuals.
Dave
8 - Barbara Barnett
I'm not being arrogant when I accuse this president (and by extension his White House) of fostering an anti-intellectual vibe--a fear a mistrust of any candidate who's too smart.
I think Edwards is far from being a soulless weasel. His message has been consistent and right on the money. He is at his best being a critic from the outside during this campaign. Of course unlike Hillary or Barak, he doesn't have to vote on the Senate floor. But I lost any faith I had in Barak and Hillary when they withheld their votes on the Iraq funding bill until nearly everyone else had voted and it was "safe" for them to vote their conscience. It was a small but significant move.
What do you think of Dodd, Dave?
9 - bliffle
"...one is an inexperienced cypher and the other is a soulless weasel..."
Just like Bush and Cheney?
Why not a cypher-weasel? In 2000 we elected an egotistical loser who proceeded to lose again: lost a trillion bucks in an unnecessary war, lost a war that should have been easy, lost track of a pipsqueek killer in Afghanistan, lost sight of the purpose of invasion, lost WMDs, lost the tallest buildings in the country, lost a major city while standing immobile, lost, lost lost. It must be fun to lose so often when you never have to pay and never suffer consequences.
10 - Dave Nalle
What do you think of Dodd, Dave?
Not much. He's so uncharismatic he's like a void on the stage at the debates, and his career as Ted Kennedy's meat puppet is certainly uninspiring.
Dave
11 - Dave Nalle
I'm not being arrogant when I accuse this president (and by extension his White House) of fostering an anti-intellectual vibe--a fear a mistrust of any candidate who's too smart.
So you're saying that because Bush was too smart we should elect a less clever candidate to avoid the same problems?
Dave
12 - The Obnoxious American
I've noticed that the major problem the author has with President Bush centers around his "intellectual vibe", his "anti-intellectualism" his inability to deliver "fiery words" with "articulation, intellect, and passion."
I'm sure we all know people who while very smart, don't always say the right words or always sound right. I think it's ignorant to suggest Bush is actually stupid. But I have to say I find your obsession with the appearance of intellect interesting. It's a kind of vanity that you are showing.
Why not just attack Bush on his actual policies and actions? There is plenty of fodder there, why resort to attacks on the person, or worse attacks on the appearance or perception of that person?
13 - The Obnoxious American
And btw, John Edwards? I mean I can't think of a candidate more wrong headed and full of it in the Dem field. Even the media has basically dismissed this guy, not based on polling because inexplicably, he is doing well in some states, but because of some of his outlandish positions, as well as his private history.
Don't get me wrong, I fully support your trying to get more votes for Edwards, I know I'd love the GOP to face Edwards in the 08 general. But you shouldn't want such a matchup.
14 - Barbara Barnett
I've noticed that the major problem the author has with President Bush centers around his "intellectual vibe", his "anti-intellectualism" his inability to deliver "fiery words" with "articulation, intellect, and passion."
Trust me it's not. But the thrust of this article was to discuss the ability to inspire and challenge. Discussing Bush's failures of policy was beyond the scope of my essay.
I don't think Bush is stupid (or at least not as stupid as he projects--I really hope not, anyway). But he's not especially smart, either. A brilliant president with his head in the clouds and all the progressive ideas in the world would not make a great president if he couldn't get out of his ivory tower and get the job done.
Barbara
15 - The Obnoxious American
Well I concur with you on that, although I don't think any of the candidates for 08 fit that description either, save for perhaps Obama. Although I really don't think he has what it takes (yet) to be a feasible choice for president.
It comes down to the old saying about no really good candidate would ever actually run for office. I think that's true. I also think that the backbiting, left vs right culture (that's existed well before any Bush stepped into office) that we tolerate and encourage in politics helps to ensure that is true.
16 - The Obnoxious American
Further to that last point, we've let the media set the bar so high that it's insane. Why do we care if Clinton had some sex on the side, or if Guiliani got divorced or had protection when he went on dates? And more curiously, why, when there is the faint smell of something that could possibly be a scandal, do we demand the immediate resignation of said people?
Imagine if our lives were like that. If every time in the course of a normal business day, if we made a mistake, there'd be an immediate inquiry into what we knew and when we knew it, as well as who else knew it, and immediate calls for censure and resignation... after about a month, we'd have 100% unemployment.
17 - The Obnoxious American
One last point (i meant to say this a while ago), I hate Keith Olbermann, really disappointed that you linked to that. Keith is a psuedo journalist. Has he ever had a guest on his (cough) show that didn't fully agree with him? I saw him cover one of Bush's speeches, and afterwards Keith went on a 30 minute tirade that was just ridicoulous. He does sports well, he should stick to that.
18 - bliffle
Today Romney reassured all us Good Christian Americans that he's not going to obey his Holy Books and Priests and rule like a Mormon. Pheww, until he revealed his own capacity for hypocrisy I though he was going to force us all to sing in massed choirs.
He assured all People Of Faith that they have a friend in the Romney administration. That means only you atheists out there will have no voice in the Romney dynasty. That'll teach you slackers to not take guidance from spooks and ghosts.
19 - Lumpy
I'm looking forward to donny and marie singing at his inauguration.
20 - Barbara Barnett
Further to that last point, we've let the media set the bar so high that it's insane. Why do we care if Clinton had some sex on the side, or if Guiliani got divorced or had protection when he went on dates? And more curiously, why, when there is the faint smell of something that could possibly be a scandal, do we demand the immediate resignation of said people?
I think this is what prevents some of the best and brightest from even trying to put their hat in the ring.
One last point (i meant to say this a while ago), I hate Keith Olbermann, really disappointed that you linked to that. Keith is a pseudo journalist. Has he ever had a guest on his (cough) show that didn't fully agree with him?
Olbermann is the one mainstream media guy who presents the other side of the story. Other broadcasters are too quick to give this administration a pass, afraid to be labeled as anti-security or worse. One show amongst many on the other side of the issues. While his commentaries can be a bit self-righteous, he often speaks harsh truth to power.
21 - Howard Bowen
What kind of visionary? One who can orchestrate the management of social morals to insure enough fetus's in stem-cell research labs? One who can finalize restricting "private property districts" from causal visitors to insure "safety" from terrorists, and immediate patrols to abscond anyone in areas not authorized by a data base? One who can uphold and disseminate faulty news broadcasts that can be chanelled into unwary households under the maxim, "what they don't know won't hurt them". One that will convince and manipulate the thinking of its repressed to allow survailance of themselves at home? This country needs to divert from the kind of nanny government policies that will have every facet of every life formatted on an electronic grid. It is the individual's freedom of will, and freedom of movement and industriousness, that causes a healthy country. WE THE PEOPLE
22 - handyguy
I love the article, Barbara. In part because I agree with you, of course, but also because it's better written than about 95% of the political fare on this site.
I support Edwards too, although I am skeptical of his chances in the primaries. Nalle's and Obnoxious's cheap, off-the-mark snipes at him just make him look that much better. His lawyerly slickness is what puts people off him most frequently. But I think his passion about the issue of poverty is completely sincere and would change many things in this country for the better should he be elected.
You don't say a lot about Obama, who has directly drawn on that RFK quote and has tried to create a similarly positive, inspiring message. If he is either the presidential or VP nominee next year, we will at least hear some beautiful speeches.
And no, Bush is not really a dumb hick. But he likes to play one on TV because his handlers believe it goes over well in the heartland. Our president need not be an intellectual, but shouldn't he be required to pronounce "nuclear" correctly? [Although at this point I suspect it's deliberate that he doesn't stop saying "newkeelar."]
23 - handyguy
And: of course Keith Olbermann is not an objective journalist. But we on the left deserve our own Bill O'Reilly to get the juices flowing. [It helps that he's about three thousand times smarter and wittier than O'Reilly, and Limbaugh and Coulter as well.]
24 - Houseguest
Great topic, Barbara, and you've certainly fostered some diverse replies. For me, Barack Obama is that visionary you speak of, the only candidate that seems committed to embracing a "world view" and going well beyond political divide. To judge his entire candidacy on one vote would be like me judging Edwards on his $400 haircut (as others have). Diverse issues, to be sure, and one certainly holds more importance than the other, but you see what I mean. I like Edwards also, and he is definitely my 2nd choice - in fact, an Obama/Edwards ticket would foster the same excitement in me that the Clinton/Gore ticket did back in the "good ol'days." As you said, though, any of the Dems are better than what the Republicans have in their sorry stable.
25 - Barbara Barnett
Handyuy--thank you your kind words. I agree that if we have an Edwards/Obama ticket we'd have enough passion to light a fire beneath even the complacent of people (ever the idealist, me).
I think he'll do OK in the Iowa caucus--enough to stay in the race and then we'll see what happens over the next few weeks.
I also agree that Olbermann is an articulate and witty (and very, very smart) commentator for the progressive side of the argument. No, he's not objective. But neither are Tucker Carlson, or, for that matter--despite what he claims--is Chris Matthews.
Houseguest--so nice to see you commenting here. I do like Obama--he's my own senator, after all (we are truly blessed in Illinois to have two wonderful senators). I would very much like to see Obama on the ticket. But as Number 2. But even as number 1, I'd vote heartily for him.