I have just begun reading Obama's pre-campaign Opus. It is quite revealing. I would like to share a few observations. I think they might help us to know what the man stands for.
First of all, he is an excellent writer. As is evidenced by his orating skills, Barack understands the importance of communication in getting people to listen to a message. This is a very important trait in politics, and many of our finest communicators have gone on to inspire millions of Americans. Martin Luther King, John F. Kennedy, Ronald Reagan and others come to mind. In fact, one of the things that the current President lacks is those communications skills that would serve to help him better connect with the American people. The left, of course, plays up his verbal fumbles, trying to equate stumbling rhetoric with lack of intelligence. Barack will not have that problem. It was, after all, his skills as an orator that first brought him on to the national stage in 2004.
His book, as I have read it so far, is filled with warm, well-written and engaging prose. He says some pretty hopeful things about the way our national political polarization needs to be bridged.
"... at the core of the American experience are a set of ideals that continue to stir our collective conscience; a common set of values that bind us together despite our differences; a running thread of hope that makes our improbable experiment in democracy work. " (page 8 )
But he makes no pretentions about where his sentiments lie:
"I am a Democrat, after all; my views on most topics correspond more closely to the editorial pages of the New York Times than those of the Wall Street Journal. I am angry about politics that consistently favor the wealthy and powerful over average Americans . . . I believe in evolution, scientific inquiry and global warming. . . . I can't help but view the American experience through the lens of a black man of mixed heritage, forever mindful of how generations of people who looked like me were subjugated and stigmatized, and the subtle and not so subtle ways that race and class continue to shape our rights." (page 10)
But Obama seems interested in giving at least a nod to balance:
"I also think that my party can be smug, detached and dogmatic at times. I believe in the free market, competition and entrepreneurship, and think no small number of government programs don't work as advertised. . . . I think America has more often been a force for good than for ill in the world; . . . I reject a politics that is based solely on racial identity, gender identity, sexual orientation, or victimhood generally." (pp 10-11)
But he does not keep that conciliatory tone for long, decrying the 2004 election in which "there was the small matter of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth: the shocking efficiency with which a few well-placed ads and the chants of conservative media could transform a decorated Vietnam war hero into a weak-kneed appeaser." (page 19) and complaining about a White House "committed to waging a perpetual campaign." (page 20) On page 24, he states "I won't deny my preference for the story the Democrats tell, nor my belief that the arguments of liberals are more often grounded in reason and fact,"
Like he says, he's a Democrat, after all.
But more than these partisan shots, which are expected and to which he owns up early on, my concerns at this early stage of reading are based on a very fundamental difference in thinking. He, and those who think like him, view the very essence of our government in a completely different way from me. I have made much about not endorsing too narrow a view of the "founder's intent" given the evolving nature of our democracy and the battles that were fought over the balance of powers in this republic. But we cannot ignore the great compromise that George Washington referred to as a "miracle" which resulted in the Constitution. Its ingenious bicameral legislature was designed to balance the views of those who wanted representation based on population (or, the people, as provided for in the House of Representatives) and those who wanted to avoid the tyranny of large states over small by giving each state an equal voice (provided for in the Senate). The Constitution itself embraces a philosophy of limited government, NOT a philopsophy of enumerated rights. That is why many of the founders actively opposed the Bill of Rights - added as an afterthought. They were concerned about creating the impression that the rights therein enumerated were our only rights, or our only protected rights, rather than limiting the governments rights. Obama seems to confirm that fear. On page 10, he promises that chapter three will explore the constitution as "a source of individual rights."
But even more ominously, surpassing Hillary Clinton's stated desire to abolish the electoral college, Barack complains on page 35 about "the structural advantages the Republicans enjoyed in the Senate, where the votes of two Republican Senators from Wyoming, population 493,782, equaled the votes of two Democratic Senators from California, population 33,871,648.". Barack fails to note, however, that California has a total of 53 members of the House of Representatives, where Wyoming has only 1 - giving California a 55 - 3 advantage in representation. In fact, one in eight members of the House of Representatives is from California, giving it a larger representation in the House than that of as many as 21 other states combined.
So, selective statistics, partisan rhetoric and an undisguised anger at Republican success in the past tends to negate what Senator Obama says about bridging gaps. And his fundamental views about American history and the structure of our government, which many Democrats share, makes me fear for the potential changes a fully-loaded Democratic government might bring about in our national character. I'm willing to read what the Senator says. I want to see what he plans, since barring McCain uniting our party this man is looking increasingly like the leader of a new Democrat-controlled government. But I despair that his conciliatory rhetoric will ever match the actions he hopes to take when he gains power. The kind of hope he seems to espouse does, indeed, smack of audacity.
