|
Lincoln, FDR, and JFK were
some of the greatest Presidents to ever lead the United States through
some of its most trying times: Lincoln the Civil War, FDR the Depression
and World War II, and JFK through the reemergence of a Soviet threat to
American sovereignty. All three had a relentless pragmatism, a desire for
change that transcended party lines, and most importantly, the instinct to
do what was right for the future of America, regardless of the personal
and political costs.
But these three also shared
something far less glamorous but equally integral to their success: an
unwavering ability to speak to the people. To articulate the thoughts of
their people with relation to the issues that mattered, without confusing
the intricate details that those issues entailed. Sure, each may have
formulated critical policies, but none of their visions would have been
possible without the hope each was able to inspire.
“All men are created
equal,” “we have nothing to fear but fear itself,” “ask not what your
country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country,” are three
statements, aligned with three respective Presidents, that will forever
grace history.
We are fortunate to have a
Presidential candidate who shares this optimism and this uncanny ability
to inspire in 2008. And while it would be presumptuous to compare Sen.
Barack Obama to the heroes of America’s past, it would be foolish to
ignore the similarities.
Obama is the embodiment of
hope, the symbol of a new era of American politics. Sen. Hillary Clinton,
meanwhile, is one of old. The Clintons continuously espouse their
collective experience, the “thirty-five” years they have spent in the
thick of Washington politics. But there is nothing appealing about this
statement. Washington is broken; the two party system is fragmented and
does not represent the complex fabric of modern America. But nothing is
changing.
Why, then, should the
Democratic Party nominate someone who is so experienced in the status quo
of diplomacy? Someone who has spent years as an integral part of a
fractured federal government?
Obama is neither
experienced nor seasoned. He does not share the combined knowledge of the
ins and outs of the Democratic Party that the Clintons possess. The Obama
campaign does not compare to the power of the Clinton machine. He should
be the clear underdog.
But there is a reason he is
not. There is a reason a rookie senator from a state far away from the
centers of power in Washington is locked in a neck and neck fight with one
in the center of that power. That reason is hope.
Clinton has built a
campaign on policy, talking endlessly about ideas that she will probably
have no hope of implementing. Obama talks about ideas as well, but, more
wisely, he talks about the direction he envisions leading this country in.
In a time of war and economic crisis, that message carries a significant
weight with the American people.
This is not to suggest that
we would be wise to choose the most inexperienced Washington outsider to
lead our nation. Obama is experienced in the sense that he has spent years
in government; he knows how to seek advice and where to seek it. He has
not spent those years accumulating political debt. Sen. Clinton has, and
the added weight of her husband certainly doesn’t help.
A new era of political
thought has finally emerged from the most basic level of American
politics: the people. Now it is time to embody that spirit of change and
inspiration in a candidate who is unburdened by Washington’s failure, but
still equipped to meet its challenges. That candidate is Barack Obama.
Rhetoric is not change, but it does inspire it, and Obama has the ability
to do so in the same way his predecessors did many years before him.
|
