Various Notions, Volume 7: Senator Clinton's Concession Speech; Also, We're About To "Do Nuance"

FIRST, REGARDING SENATOR CLINTON'S CONCESSION SPEECH....


The following is what I wrote regarding Senator Clinton's concession speech on the "Centrisity" blog-site (http://centrisity.blogspot.com) on Saturday:


"Since she brought up history, the only thing I would have asked her to do that she didn't do is link more directly and more explicitly the struggles of the civil rights movement with those of women's sufferage and equal rights; she danced around making a direct link between the two groups (though she did insinuate a link), as if refusing to fully hitch herself to Senator Obama's wagon just yet.

"(Obviously their voters extend beyond women and minorities--as a white guy, I'm a case in point--but metaphorically the women who supported Senator Clinton need to join hands with the minorities who support Senator Obama in order for him to pull off a victory in November....)

"But that's okay, these things take time, and, in an overall sense, her speech was strong. As an Obama supporter who also admires her, I appreciated her words today."

The only thing I would clarify regarding my comments is that it is of course the case that Senator Obama's supporters are male and female, white and non-white, as are the folks who supported Senator Clinton's candidacy. But if Senator Obama (and, to a great extent, Senator Clinton) can fully make the "link" between women and minorities that Senator Clinton couldn't quite bring herself to do on Saturday, it would create a sense of solidarity between folks who fall into those (admittedly wide-ranging) groups. If he can also manage not to alienate white male voters, it would create an awful lot of momentum for the autumn election, and surely give the Democrats the advantage. We'll see if it happens over the summer months....


I'm not a big fan of Senator Clinton's speeches. I realize that presidential candidates need to utilize a rather cheap but effective sort of "mood music" in that they need to appeal to sentimentality far more often than candidates for high office in most other countries, but she tends to ladle the cheese on awfully thick--one sentimental story can be effective and can sometimes be poignant, but she seems to love delivering three or four or more in a row, as she did at the beginning of her speech on Saturday. All those variations on that particular theme is difficult for me to take seriously. But though I'm not enamored of her style, I do admit that she is effective with a certain type of "Middle American" swing-voter, and I believe she was effective with those folks again on Saturday.


Can we really ask her to do more than that in regards to Senator Obama's candidacy, at least right now? I don't think so. Perhaps down the line, however....


IN THE AUTUMN, AMERICAN POLITICS WILL CHANGE FOREVER


A Prediction: We've just finished the nominating contests (well, the Republican one has been finished for quite some time, really) and it is now the summer, which means that people will try their best to at least occasionally pay no attention to the forthcoming general election. But that will change in mid-August, as the conventions approach. And once the conventions commence, Americans will come face-to-face with the fact that this is, first and foremost, an international world; the entire world will continue to intensify its already-intense interest in the American election, and the "worldwide viewpoint" from which Americans, by virtue of our geography and rather ubiquitous culture, have until now been oddly shielded, will muscle its way into our politics, probably for good.


Until now, mainstream American culture has tended to think of the international world in a rather generic, general sense--there's "us" and then there's "everyone else," or perhaps "us" and the various continents, etc. But the particularities of individual countries and cultures throughout the world, and in particular their socio-political mindsets, will be on full display all autumn; international media will be everywhere, covering every moment of the election, and when it's over, they will not simply go "back there." In large part, the impact they make in our media and culture will not fade, at least not completely, as has happened so often in the past. The complaint I always received regarding my country when I lived in Britain and worked with hundreds of colleagues, none of whom were American--that America is a good place filled with good people and opportunities, but Americans are also incredibly ignorant of other societies and cultures, and filter ideas through a more parochial lens than folks from many other industrialized nations--will finally begin the process of fading.


This is to say (in an admittedly somewhat-rambling manner) that the United States, already so successful in any of a number of ways, is about to become more sophisticated, though many Americans don't yet know it. Come the autumn, a good percentage of us may not know what hit us, but I have faith in the fact that we will adjust to the new multi-lens reality, and we will be better off for it. Call it elitism (it's not--it's reality--but I guarantee a lot of people will call it "elitism"), but I think we will both retain our sense of "uniqueness" and never again be as parochial as we've been up to and including this point.


President Bush's proud assertion that "I don't do nuance" is going to fade as a cultural trademark, and rather quickly, from both Democratic and Republican politics, and in a larger sense from American society as a whole. Just you watch....


SPEAKING OF INTERNATIONAL FASCINATION REGARDING THE FORTHCOMING ELECTION....


Matthew Parris, of the center-right-leaning Times (of London), wrote an interesting, very individualistic take on the forthcoming American general election cycle titled "How to Detoxify the Noble American Brand." (Mr. Parris, who is not American, lived for a while in the United States.) It was published in the June 7 edition of the newspaper. As the title suggests, it asserts that the United States is presently squandering its powerful standing in the world, but it also suggests that the United States does remain a noble nation that can, and probably will, largely recover its standing in the international arena, which means that it can adapt to a changing geo-cultural landscape, as well. I will provide some representative snippets from the article, as food for thought, starting with the following two paragraphs:

"I wonder whether most Americans have understood in how parlous a condition this version of America now finds itself abroad. Seen from outside, the essential nobility of the American ideal is close to shattering. The American Eagle, as we abroad see the creature, looks sick - perhaps mortally so.

"I wonder, too, whether most Americans, or the cheerleaders on this side of the Atlantic for the present Republican Administration, have understood the urgency as well as the depth of this crisis for the American brand. During George W. Bush's first term I argued on these pages that he and his friends risked imperilling something more valuable to America than Iraqi deserts. This risk is now close to tipping over. International opinion always hungers for ogres and America is in imminent danger of being cast in that role. Across the free world, the Soviet Union appeared for decades in the guise of World Enemy Number 1. In June 2008, the US is not far from feeling that yoke descend upon its shoulders. It's a heavy yoke to bear, for once it settles, everything a nation does is seen by outsiders through the prism of that country's supposed ill-intentions."

What Mr. Parris asserts is very striking, for he suggests that once a country reaches a certain tipping point in the eyes of much of the world, even its good intentions often seem nefarious, and therefore are often squandered. Yet he also goes on to suggest the following:

"We could argue about whether this would be fair. I would say not. We could argue too about whether neoconservatism is essentially ignoble. Again I would say not: Kennedy's foreign policy (“bear any burden, pay any price...”) can be seen as neoconservative before the name was even invented. Instead I would maintain that no particular policy, and no particular individual - even George W. Bush - has alone threatened the idea of American nobility, but that a malign combination of events and people, including McCarthyism, the Vietnam War, three terrible assassinations, Watergate, Iraq, Guantanamo Bay, men such as President Bush, Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney, and attitudes to global warming, has conspired to threaten the legend.

"In the way that Americans do politics, one person stands head and shoulders above all else in defining the nation to itself and the world. That person is the president, and it is personal. Not just in what he does but in what he is or seems to be, a president can make America feel and look a nobler idea. I happen to think that both Mr Obama and Mr McCain are distinguished from the other would-be candidates by conveying, in their speech and in their personal histories, an idea of nobility. I wonder whether in some subliminal way those voting in the primaries sensed this, and sensed its importance. I hope so, and that in the campaigns ahead both candidates can do what eagles do - soar."


I rather dislike the cheese-ball final line, but I believe that Mr. Parris is essentially correct: Americans may very well have nominated the two best presidential candidates this time around, not only because of their political fortitude and policy points, but also because of their personal stories and personal characters. Americans in particular are largely defined by our leaders (whether we know it or not), and as that is the case I will vote for Senator Obama; if he wins I will be elated, and if he loses I will be sad. But I won't be crushed, because, though I disagree with a number of Senator McCain's policy stands this time around, I do not disagree that he has the capacity to be a noble leader, as well.


As partisan as this election cycle is likely to be at times, it is also likely to have a surprisingly high number of post-partisan instances. That would be something to celebrate at any time, but it is a particularly joyous thought as we fight our way through the cultural and political toxicity of the final Bush year. I always want to admire both my preferred presidential candidate and the opposition's candidate. This time I believe I will have my wish granted.