Sunday, February 10, 2008
Obama's Faith
To the irritation of certain Old Tories, I have applauded the intelligence of Barack Obama. I did so on the basis of an intuition. Now I can provide hard evidence having watched this speech. Here it is in text form. This is extraordinarily fine, even echoing - I assume unconsciously, but who knows? - the sublime Marilynne in its defence of the role of religious thinkers in American history. The use of Abraham and Isaac is a quite brilliant dramatisation of the logic of the separation of church and state. We would be right to take Isaac away from Abraham because 'we don't hear what he hears'. But the big point is the weight of intelligence that had gone into this position. Obama has out-thought everybody on this matter. In addition, there is his willingness to engage in an issue that, for entirely different reasons, would threaten political careers on both sides of the Atlantic. Obama may not succeed and, if he does, he may not even make a good president. But he interests me. For a contemporary politician, that is a huge achievement.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
A blog about, among other things, imaginary ideas - What ifs? and Imagine thats. What if photographs looked nothing like what we see with our eyes? Imagine that the Berlin Wall had never come down. What if we were the punchline of an interminable joke? All contributions welcome.
Obama may not succeed and, if he does, he may not even make a good president.
ReplyDeleteI am inclined to agree.
Obama projects a political aura all his own. Everything about him makes a statement. A powerful, charismatic and original endowment. It seems pretty evident moreover, that his success is in no wise impeded by excessive racial scruples on the part of his electorate. But for a large part this is due to an overflow of resentment from a previous incumbent, by which America has been sincerely and profoundly aggrieved. The electorate is quick to adapt and quick to repent. And while it is probable that he is about as much of a political free-thinker as it is possible in our day, I, personally, would consider the celebration of a >populist uprising< to be a precipitous approbation of someone who has already achieved more than any of us would have dreamed possible.
In other words, his political success has come early and easily. Obama will not make the change from charismatic incumbent to fully-fledged President without forfeitures. The real test can only come from the White House.
Dreamy
Hi Bryan,
ReplyDeleteNow that it looks like he will get the Democratic nod, I want him to engage McCain by applying the doctor's fairmindedness at each juncture. He may not then grow into being president--maybe that will come in one of the next elections; he may not win the debate--after all the application of fairmindedness involves giving due respect to the intelligence, philosophy and experience McCain has put into a good platform; and he may have to make important turnabouts as he listens to McCain--for instance in asserting that we will be out of Iraq in four years; but he may, on the other hand, get my vote--after all, I will be listening to him. However, I will be watching for him preaching to whichever choir he happens to be speaking to--some of this may be successful and intelligent campaign strategy, and some speaking out of both side of his mouth.
Thanks for posting this.
Yours,
Rus
This Old Tory will concede, Bryan, that this speech - delivered two years ago - contains more substance than everything the man has said during the entire presidential campaign so far. I am, however, less impressed than you are by what he has to say about so-called separation of church and state. All that the Constitution says on the matter is this: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ..." At the time this first amendment was adopted half of the states had established churches. Massachusetts did not disestablish Congregationalism until, I believe, 1834. The amendment was obviously designed to protect state governments from interference on the issue by the federal government. The "wall of separation" phrase was coined by Jefferson in a letter to a Baptist sect in Connecticut and its point was that both the federal legislature and the chief executive were constitutionally prohibited from doing anything that might be construed as establishing a religion. He pointedly made no mention of what the state's powers were in that regard. I would be more impressed by Obama's opining if I had any sense he was aware of any of this. I would add that I am completely immune to charisma and have no interest in political auras. I don't find Obama himself anywhere near as interesting as the phenomenon of Obamism. I still doubt he will win the nomination.
ReplyDeleteFrank, what is Obamism? Or more accurately what are its tenets?
ReplyDeleteAnd Bryan, maybe he's the only candidate remotely interesting intellectually because he smokes (Marlboros like a chimney) and, as we know, smoking gets the brain working?
Well, I didn't know he smoked. That changes everything. (I no longer smoke myself, except for the occasional cigar, but anybody willing to buck the puritans on this can;t be all bad.) As for Obamism, google Obama and messiah.
ReplyDeleteFrank thanks for the link on Obamism.
ReplyDeleteI would vote for him because:
1. He is not Hilary Clinton (whose appeal to swathes of americans is lost on me);
2. He smokes;
3. He appears to have something between his ears which is rare in politicians, especially american ones.
Frank Wilson makes some interesting points. However, while the history is certainly useful I think it can be overemphasized. The important point is what the separation of Church and State has come to mean for modern Americans rather than the intentions of the people that passed the amendment.
ReplyDeleteIn the same way I rather admire Franks sturdy independence of political auras but at the same time would like to see a unifying candidate get the job. Obama not only aspires to unify (and I agree that there is hardly anything more important than putting an end to the divisiveness) but also has the charisma to pull it off. (And his robust anti-war stance is also attractive, of course.)
talking of divisiveness, I hadn't realised how much Bush had taken on Margaret Thatcher's political programme until Naomi Wolf pointed it out recently.
Hi Bryan,
ReplyDeleteBarack Obama has beaten Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, Maya Angelou, and Alan Alda for the (Democratic) Spoken Word Grammy.
Republicans, on the other hand, know that when someone is speaking, it is a good time, not to nominate them for some politicized Grammy Award, but to catch up on much-needed sleep.
Yours,
Rus
it still doesn't alter the fact that it's all a competition to find the most convincing liar. I feel sorry for them all.
ReplyDeleteThat's an astonishingly good speech. Does anyone know who wrote it? i found myself thinking, "i can't believe he's saying this" but if it was 2 years ago that makes sense. i find it hard to imagine a potential presidential candidate daring to utter anything more than platitudes.
ReplyDeleteIf he becomes President he'll quickly find it impossible to act on the values of this speech. The machinery just won't allow it.