Conventional Observations: Obama and the Democrats

Following are my immediate reactions to Obama’s acceptance speech at the Democratic Convention last night as I watched it on CNN.com. I literally jot down my thoughts as I listened. These notes have been edited; I'm trying to forgo with my usual mock-exasperated tone.

Observation #1:

Obama is standing on a pretentious looking platform modeled, according to Reuters, in the Classical Greek style. His audience consists of 75,000 souls, though the New York Times puts the figure at 80,000. All the while, they are chanting various catchphrases and slogans, nothing unusual. Some of the cultish followers could even be seen weeping.

My personal reaction to the sight of one woman with tears running down her face was, predictably, sardonic: “Lady, this man is not your savior. It’s unhealthy to project all of your hopes onto his nebulous ideology… there’s little he can personally do for you.”

I remember reading an opinion article in The Inquirer by Starr Parker claiming that Obama’s life story is a Republican’s one: the self-reliant rise from the lower echelons of society to great success and power, against all odds. He depended on the traditional conservative virtues of hard work and personal responsibility. He had little help from government handouts (though his family was on food stamps for a very brief time). The point is, it’s ironic how Barack Obama is promising to use his power as president to lift people’s lives up, when he himself knows personal sweat and tears – not an over-expanded government – are the best remedy for improving one’s lot in life.

In this blogger's humble opinion, Obama appears demagogic. And it’s a little scary. There are few other world leaders who moved their followers to such fanaticism. His meteoric rise to celebrity status is equal cause for alarm. Four years ago, he was nobody. And now he thinks he’s qualified to run the world. Do I detect a bit of egotism?

Observation #2:

I mentioned the sloganeering throngs in the third sentence. Again, this is nothing unusual: just “Change we can believe in.” His idea of “change” is still too murky and vague to move me. I once said in Frustrations of the Paleoconservative that Obama’s idea of change is “of the wrong species.” For example: in the realms of energy and the environment, he advocates implementing a “carbon credit” policy on fossil fuel burning power factories. This is only a change in the veneer – not true, fundamental change. A truer change belongs, ironically, to John McCain, who wants to build more (air pollution free) nuclear energy generating plants. That’s true change, whether you agree with it specifically or not, because it’s not just slapping regulations on top of a problem (like Obama); it’s going to the problem’s source and uprooting it.

Observation #3:

This observation relates back to the demagogic feeling that I noted in Observation #1. Perhaps Obama is popular because he repeats people’s problems on the national stage. He appeals to them; they think he connects to them (never mind that, according to him, small town Americans are “bitter.”). There is no denying that many things in America need improvement. So, in this type of atmosphere, all a politician needs to say is “change” and people will gladly support him.

One question that comes up in history is whether “the times make the men or if men make the times.” Obama seems a case of the former. The times are bad, so, as a political opportunist, Obama rose to power. Since we’re down as Americans right now due to war and economic troubles, the time was ripe for a national hero of sorts – an Obama. The question now is if Obama can deliver the type of change he promises. My answer is no - he himself is a product of the times (the political opportunist), not the changer of them.

Observation #4:

Obama’s speech has moved onto the subject of good judgment. According to him, McCain has poor judgment for supporting the War in Iraq. Never mind that Clinton and Biden also exhibited “poor judgment" (they voted for the war, also), that’s not the point I’m going to make here. The point I want to bring up is that Obama cannot claim to have had better judgment in 2001 (after 9/11) and in 2004 (before the War), because he was an insignificant state legislator. As such, how can he have made an informed decision regarding the country’s course of action? He could have had an opinion, just like the rest of us Americans, but that would have been it. His judgment at those times would have been no better than anyone else’s.

In addition, Obama reminded the Convention that Democrats are the “party of [John F.] Kennedy.” No doubt that he employed the reference to JFK here to invoke images of peace in people’s minds. One problem with this – Kennedy was an enthusiastic Vietnam War supporter, and sent thousands of Americans to fight there.

Observation #5:

This observation actually came this morning in class. A student remarked how “American and normal” Michelle Obama and her children appear. Well, looks can be deceiving. Mrs. Obama makes a six figure salary as a private hospital administrator. Now, one word is significant here: “private.” Michelle Moneybags Obama (sorry, couldn’t resist that quip) is a member of the private health care sector, while her husband is promising extended public health care for America. That doesn't seem right.

---

I fully acknowledge and admit here that my observations of Obama at the convention are not positive. I do not support his candidacy. However, I admit that McCain isn’t too much of an improvement. I think we’re going to have to wait another four years or so for a real agent of change to show up in the Whitehouse. I prefer McCain because I agree with his fundamental ideology, just not many of his current issues. Obama seems fundamentally wrong, but his current issues are all right on the money (again, see Observation #3).

Regardless of what happened at the Convention, and regardless of my own finite observations, this presidential race will be yet another close one.