Upon reading about the events of this week as they relate to now former NY Governor Spitzer, one might be quick to laugh this saga off as another politician fallen from grace. One might ask what is the big deal with one more sex saga. The NY Post playfully coined him the “Luv Gov”. Whether it is the Luv Gov or “Client 9” it is clear that this public fall from grace holds an important lesson.
The Danger of Arrogance and Hubris
Most of us are familiar with the term Hubris from Greek Mythology. In many myths, mortals who display arrogance and hubris end up learning, in quite brutal ways, the folly of this overexertion of ego. Edith Hamilton, writes that “the Greek concept of hubris refers to the overweening pride of humans who hold themselves up as equals to the gods. Hubris is one of the worst traits one can exhibit in the world of ancient Greece and invariably brings the worst kind of destruction.” There is the story of young Phaëthon, who pridefully believes he can drive the chariot of his father, the Sun, loses control and burns everything in sight before Zeus knocks him from the sky with a thunderbolt. For the ancient Greeks, any type of hubris or arrogance, no matter the circumstance, is an attitude that no god will leave unpunished.
Sadly, Mr. Spitzer’s situation in “NY Sex Gate” is analogous. He captured the public trust by campaigning as a crusader against crime and the evil ways of Wall Street. He declared himself a man of family values. Little did the people of NY know that Client #9 would go on to spend more that $80,000 on prostitutes during his time as governor.
Mr. Spitzer in apologizing states that “I acted in a way that violated by own sense of right and wrong…and violated my duty to my family”. I think Mr. Spitzer’s actions have violated more than just his sense of right and wrong, they have violated the objective sense of those concepts. I also believe he had a higher duty to the people of NY. I know the former wizards of Wall Street he “brought to justice” are rolling in the aisles at the falling of this former crusader. One commentator, commenting on the situation states “yes he was wrong, but he is human”. Yes he is human, with all the accompanying frailty. The point, however, is that he sought out and accepted the public trust. In doing so he committed to a higher standard of decency. This is the lesson to be learned. This lesson is particularly relevant in this season. That is, do not accept the public trust unless you are prepared to accept not only the power of the mantle, but also its responsibility.
We have all learned time and time again, that the lessons of Hubris apply to us all and secrets we think are secrets in the dark, become embarrassing lessons and falls from grace when they come to light.
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
Hillary Clinton and the Kitchen Sink—Desperation Politics that Threaten to Divide a Party
In watching the events of the last two weeks, I am reminded of a scene from one of my favorite movies “Any Given Sunday”. In this scene, the coach, Al Pacino, is addressing his team as they struggle to make the playoffs to face their dreaded rivals. He says “[m]en we are at war, we are in hell right now, if we don’t come together, put aside our differences and play as a team, we will be torn apart….piece by piece, limb by limb”. Even if you are not as much of a sports fan as me, the power of this analogy should be clear. We are at a crossroads in the Democratic Party. After 8 years of a very bad, on many levels, Bush, Republican White House, we, the Democratic Party should be poised to seize the Presidency. However, rather than standing united behind one candidate, the party is on the verge of being thrown into disarray by the desperate politics of Senator Clinton. If we can not find a way to come together, and quickly, I fear we are the ones who may be torn apart, and if so, the Presidency, which is well within our reach, may also be torn from our grasp in the process.
The 3am Call
Hillary’s now famous commercial that aired just days before the contests in Texas and Ohio. Hillary suggests, by showing images of people’s children sleeping, that if a call to action came in the middle of the night, presumably a terrorist based emergency, that she is the best candidate to take that phone call. Setting aside her deplorable scare tactics, I am wondering, hopefully with the rest of the Democratic Party and nation, what makes Hillary so qualified to answer that call. The fact that she was the first lady? The fact that she has been a Senator slightly longer than Senator Obama? When pressed on this question, she struggled to give one tangible example of where she has been the central leader in a crisis, and managed and solved that crisis situation. The question of readiness to answer the 3am call may perplex any current candidate. It may be the case that only someone who has served as President and received such calls, has the experience to authoritatively say they credibly know what to do in such a situation. That being the case, I believe it comes down to judgment. The kind of judgment I think we need is someone who stands in the face of a challenge, and against the great weight of his peers, as Senator Obama did in first opposing the Iraq war, and has the courage to stand up and say when something is wrong. Someone who has not only the desire, but the courage and the judgment to lead.
Legal Challenges Abound
Senator Clinton first challenged the rules about where hotel workers in Nevada could vote. She did this in the wake of the strongest union in Nevada endorsing Senator Obama. She did this after the rules had been agreed to more than a year prior. She threatened to challenge the caucus rules in Texas when it became clear she would not fair as well under that format. She now threatens to sue, or otherwise challenge, agreed upon rules regarding the Michigan and Florida primaries. Sanctions against this states were imposed by the Democratic leadership, agreed to and known by all candidates. Now, Senator Clinton wants to spend time, energy and most importantly money re-opening this issue. As an African American, the last thing I want to do is disenfranchise anyone, however, we do have rules for a reason. If these are not followed there are consequences. These consequences were known to the states of Michigan and Florida, as well as to Senators Clinton and Obama. Now desperate for voters and delegates, Senator Clinton seeks to challenge these previously understood rulings. Other than declaring herself the victor in those states, I don’t remember Senator Clinton raising issues of fairness or voters being dis-enfranchised at the time. This position, at the least, seems disingenuous.
Senator Obama as VP
Senator Clinton suggested that Senator Obama would make a good VP and she might consider such a proposition. I applaud Senator Obama for his response, and frankly for stating the obvious, which is that he is running for President, and second, when does the person in second place in a race offer the VP job to the person in first place. That is audacity, and not the good kind. A last footnote here. If Senator Obama is not ready to answer the 3am call as President, why would he make a good VP, where he stands next to be President should something happen to the then sitting President.
Ferraro and Spitzer
Earlier this week, Ms. Ferraro, a prominent Clinton fundraiser, said "If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position," she said. "If he was a woman [of any race], he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept." My apologies, but I have seen few instances, and none involving a person seeking the Presidency of the United States, where being African American is an advantage. Quite the contrary, I think Senator Obama’s impressive rise has come almost completely without playing the race card. His credentials, Harvard Law, University of Chicago Law Professor, Illinois State Senator and US Senator, his positions on the issues and the powerful way he can use his rhetoric to inspire millions, I think, is why he is in “this position”. The fact that Senator Clinton has not rebuked, and summarily dismissed Ms Ferraro after such remarks, to me, shows she is willing to stop at nothing to tarnish Senator Obama as she attempts to regain the party lead. By contrast, senior foreign policy aid Samantha Power was dismissed from the Obama campaign for calling Senator Clinton a monster.
On an unrelated note, the conspiracy theorist in me can not help but wonder about the timing of the Spitzer indictment (separate blog on this topic). Very strange to me that this announcement and resignation has dominated the news at a time where Senator Obama won two more states, and captured enough delegates to erase any gains made by Senator Obama on March 4.
Whether or not one agrees with Ms. Power, it is clear that Senator Obama means what he says when he states that he will not promote politics as usual, nor tolerate those that do. Senator Obama is a unifier and seeks to unite the party at time when is badly needs unification. One would hope that Ms. Clinton would realized that her actions are not shifting the election in her favor, and are in fact, dividing a party that should be celebrating and unifying behind the only Democratic candidate that can take the White House in the fall. To do otherwise is to engage in a futile exercise of Hubris, and to further waste valuable capital that can be put to work in the general election.
The 3am Call
Hillary’s now famous commercial that aired just days before the contests in Texas and Ohio. Hillary suggests, by showing images of people’s children sleeping, that if a call to action came in the middle of the night, presumably a terrorist based emergency, that she is the best candidate to take that phone call. Setting aside her deplorable scare tactics, I am wondering, hopefully with the rest of the Democratic Party and nation, what makes Hillary so qualified to answer that call. The fact that she was the first lady? The fact that she has been a Senator slightly longer than Senator Obama? When pressed on this question, she struggled to give one tangible example of where she has been the central leader in a crisis, and managed and solved that crisis situation. The question of readiness to answer the 3am call may perplex any current candidate. It may be the case that only someone who has served as President and received such calls, has the experience to authoritatively say they credibly know what to do in such a situation. That being the case, I believe it comes down to judgment. The kind of judgment I think we need is someone who stands in the face of a challenge, and against the great weight of his peers, as Senator Obama did in first opposing the Iraq war, and has the courage to stand up and say when something is wrong. Someone who has not only the desire, but the courage and the judgment to lead.
Legal Challenges Abound
Senator Clinton first challenged the rules about where hotel workers in Nevada could vote. She did this in the wake of the strongest union in Nevada endorsing Senator Obama. She did this after the rules had been agreed to more than a year prior. She threatened to challenge the caucus rules in Texas when it became clear she would not fair as well under that format. She now threatens to sue, or otherwise challenge, agreed upon rules regarding the Michigan and Florida primaries. Sanctions against this states were imposed by the Democratic leadership, agreed to and known by all candidates. Now, Senator Clinton wants to spend time, energy and most importantly money re-opening this issue. As an African American, the last thing I want to do is disenfranchise anyone, however, we do have rules for a reason. If these are not followed there are consequences. These consequences were known to the states of Michigan and Florida, as well as to Senators Clinton and Obama. Now desperate for voters and delegates, Senator Clinton seeks to challenge these previously understood rulings. Other than declaring herself the victor in those states, I don’t remember Senator Clinton raising issues of fairness or voters being dis-enfranchised at the time. This position, at the least, seems disingenuous.
Senator Obama as VP
Senator Clinton suggested that Senator Obama would make a good VP and she might consider such a proposition. I applaud Senator Obama for his response, and frankly for stating the obvious, which is that he is running for President, and second, when does the person in second place in a race offer the VP job to the person in first place. That is audacity, and not the good kind. A last footnote here. If Senator Obama is not ready to answer the 3am call as President, why would he make a good VP, where he stands next to be President should something happen to the then sitting President.
Ferraro and Spitzer
Earlier this week, Ms. Ferraro, a prominent Clinton fundraiser, said "If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position," she said. "If he was a woman [of any race], he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept." My apologies, but I have seen few instances, and none involving a person seeking the Presidency of the United States, where being African American is an advantage. Quite the contrary, I think Senator Obama’s impressive rise has come almost completely without playing the race card. His credentials, Harvard Law, University of Chicago Law Professor, Illinois State Senator and US Senator, his positions on the issues and the powerful way he can use his rhetoric to inspire millions, I think, is why he is in “this position”. The fact that Senator Clinton has not rebuked, and summarily dismissed Ms Ferraro after such remarks, to me, shows she is willing to stop at nothing to tarnish Senator Obama as she attempts to regain the party lead. By contrast, senior foreign policy aid Samantha Power was dismissed from the Obama campaign for calling Senator Clinton a monster.
On an unrelated note, the conspiracy theorist in me can not help but wonder about the timing of the Spitzer indictment (separate blog on this topic). Very strange to me that this announcement and resignation has dominated the news at a time where Senator Obama won two more states, and captured enough delegates to erase any gains made by Senator Obama on March 4.
Whether or not one agrees with Ms. Power, it is clear that Senator Obama means what he says when he states that he will not promote politics as usual, nor tolerate those that do. Senator Obama is a unifier and seeks to unite the party at time when is badly needs unification. One would hope that Ms. Clinton would realized that her actions are not shifting the election in her favor, and are in fact, dividing a party that should be celebrating and unifying behind the only Democratic candidate that can take the White House in the fall. To do otherwise is to engage in a futile exercise of Hubris, and to further waste valuable capital that can be put to work in the general election.
Friday, February 22, 2008
Texas Show Down--A Prelude to a Nomination
Texas Showdown—A Prelude to a Nomination
by Bryan R. Parker
Last night I, like many other Americans, and interested observers from around the globe, watched the debate in Austin, Texas between Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. I was filled with excitement to see who would fare best between these two candidates for the Democratic Presidential nomination. My tact, initially, had been to take notes, grade the candidates, point by point, and see whether the pundits agreed with my choice of a winner. Mid way through the debate, however, my outlook changed. This was not a point by point contest. It was a question of momentum. One candidate, Senator Obama, had it, and the other, Senator Clinton, did not. The question for me then became, could Senator Clinton halt the impressive momentum Senator Obama had established in winning the last 11 Democratic primaries.
Webster’s Dictionary defines “momentum” as the force or speed of movement; impetus, as of a physical object or course of events. By this definition, or most others, it would appear that Senator Obama clearly has the momentum in this campaign. The British Playwright, Tom Stoppard, said in the early 1900s that “[w]e’ve traveled too far, and our momentum has taken over; we move idly towards eternity, without possibility of reprieve or hope of explanation”. I realized what we are speaking of, as it relates to the Obama campaign, a movement, a destiny, one that may not yet be fully understood or explainable, yet one that is moving toward some higher purpose, one that seemingly can not be stopped. That is, after all, the way momentum seems to work. Once you have it, it becomes very hard for another to stop it. Senator Clinton’s task last night, viewed in this light, was simple, score big points in the debate such that she had the momentum heading into the Texas and Ohio primaries, or hope that Senator Obama stumbled badly and lost his momentum.
In my opinion, neither of these things happened last night. The candidates largely volleyed on the issues last night. There were subtle differences on healthcare, the economy and dealing with adverse nations like Cuba and Iraq, however, I think these differences were largely nuances without great substantive difference. Senator Clinton, despite showing a very human side at the end of the debate, stumbled badly earlier in the debate when trying to attack Senator Obama on his use of key words and phrases that were shared with his National Co-Chair, Governor Duval Patrick. Senator Clinton was roundly booed by the audience when she said “I think if your candidacy is going to be about words, then they should be your own words,…[l]ifting whole passages out of someone else’s speech isn’t change you can believe in; its change you can Xerox”.
Senator Clinton, through remarks like the above, and body language and tone throughout, looked very much like a runner-up. A now, all but certain, second place finisher heaving up a desperate last shot with time running out. This shot of desperation appears to have fallen flat for Senator Clinton. Senator Obama, on the other hand, very much played the part of front runner, taking the high road to such remarks, and instead of snipping back sought to focus on the issues and on uniting the party. He did point out that Governor Patrick, one of the National Co-Chairs of his campaign, had offered some of the words in his past speeches and encouraged Senator Obama to use them. He further pointed out that almost every paper in the State of Texas had offered him their endorsement. These remarks were nice “icing on the cake”, however, the most significant strides Senator Obama made last night were showing America and the world that he is indeed ready to be Commander and Chief, and that while his words are indeed very eloquent, they are backed by substance; tangible ideas and solutions that are going to drive the movement of change he has so often referred to throughout his campaign.
In terms of substance, I think skeptics of Senator Obama were given real specifics to back the eloquence of his speeches. I think, these doubters, Senators Clinton and McCain will be hard pressed to continue calling his words ones of hallow eloquence. Senator Obama spoke on Cuba, saying of course there must be pre-conditions to diplomacy, but that the President should lead diplomacy, versus a meeting with the President to achieve such diplomacy being an earned right of these nations with whom we seek to spread the tenants of democracy. He further spoke on the Economy, outlining thoughts on tax breaks for the middle class, trade that focuses on strong labor, the environment and safety standards and the creation of a “Green” economy and how that “Green” economy can lead to the creation of badly needed jobs for many Americans. He was similarly detailed in the areas of immigration, troop withdrawal from Iraq, healthcare and his Presidential readiness.
Looking ahead, against the backdrop of last night’s debate, and the fact that Senator Obama has moved from several percentage points behind Senator Clinton, as little as a few weeks ago, in both Texas and Ohio, to a now statistical dead heat in both those states, it appears the future for Senator Obama remains bright. Senator Clinton did nothing last night to disrupt the momentum of Senator Obama, in fact, with her snipping, she may have further damaged any remaining chances she had for wins in Texas and Ohio.
Momentum is indeed a hard thing to stop. Viewed from the current state of play, I think Senator Obama makes it 12, with Texas, and 13 with Ohio, Democratic primaries in a row on March 4. The larger question is how quickly Senator Obama can get on to the business of battling Senator McCain. There is a movement of change afoot. One that is more than about eloquent speeches. This is a movement of actionable ideas that will make a better America and a better world. It is my hope that Senator Clinton follows the example of Senator Edwards in deciding that what is at stake is the best interests of the American people, rather than an individual candidacy, and she “gets real” and helps the Democratic party’s best candidate, Senator Barack Obama, capture the White House.
by Bryan R. Parker
Last night I, like many other Americans, and interested observers from around the globe, watched the debate in Austin, Texas between Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. I was filled with excitement to see who would fare best between these two candidates for the Democratic Presidential nomination. My tact, initially, had been to take notes, grade the candidates, point by point, and see whether the pundits agreed with my choice of a winner. Mid way through the debate, however, my outlook changed. This was not a point by point contest. It was a question of momentum. One candidate, Senator Obama, had it, and the other, Senator Clinton, did not. The question for me then became, could Senator Clinton halt the impressive momentum Senator Obama had established in winning the last 11 Democratic primaries.
Webster’s Dictionary defines “momentum” as the force or speed of movement; impetus, as of a physical object or course of events. By this definition, or most others, it would appear that Senator Obama clearly has the momentum in this campaign. The British Playwright, Tom Stoppard, said in the early 1900s that “[w]e’ve traveled too far, and our momentum has taken over; we move idly towards eternity, without possibility of reprieve or hope of explanation”. I realized what we are speaking of, as it relates to the Obama campaign, a movement, a destiny, one that may not yet be fully understood or explainable, yet one that is moving toward some higher purpose, one that seemingly can not be stopped. That is, after all, the way momentum seems to work. Once you have it, it becomes very hard for another to stop it. Senator Clinton’s task last night, viewed in this light, was simple, score big points in the debate such that she had the momentum heading into the Texas and Ohio primaries, or hope that Senator Obama stumbled badly and lost his momentum.
In my opinion, neither of these things happened last night. The candidates largely volleyed on the issues last night. There were subtle differences on healthcare, the economy and dealing with adverse nations like Cuba and Iraq, however, I think these differences were largely nuances without great substantive difference. Senator Clinton, despite showing a very human side at the end of the debate, stumbled badly earlier in the debate when trying to attack Senator Obama on his use of key words and phrases that were shared with his National Co-Chair, Governor Duval Patrick. Senator Clinton was roundly booed by the audience when she said “I think if your candidacy is going to be about words, then they should be your own words,…[l]ifting whole passages out of someone else’s speech isn’t change you can believe in; its change you can Xerox”.
Senator Clinton, through remarks like the above, and body language and tone throughout, looked very much like a runner-up. A now, all but certain, second place finisher heaving up a desperate last shot with time running out. This shot of desperation appears to have fallen flat for Senator Clinton. Senator Obama, on the other hand, very much played the part of front runner, taking the high road to such remarks, and instead of snipping back sought to focus on the issues and on uniting the party. He did point out that Governor Patrick, one of the National Co-Chairs of his campaign, had offered some of the words in his past speeches and encouraged Senator Obama to use them. He further pointed out that almost every paper in the State of Texas had offered him their endorsement. These remarks were nice “icing on the cake”, however, the most significant strides Senator Obama made last night were showing America and the world that he is indeed ready to be Commander and Chief, and that while his words are indeed very eloquent, they are backed by substance; tangible ideas and solutions that are going to drive the movement of change he has so often referred to throughout his campaign.
In terms of substance, I think skeptics of Senator Obama were given real specifics to back the eloquence of his speeches. I think, these doubters, Senators Clinton and McCain will be hard pressed to continue calling his words ones of hallow eloquence. Senator Obama spoke on Cuba, saying of course there must be pre-conditions to diplomacy, but that the President should lead diplomacy, versus a meeting with the President to achieve such diplomacy being an earned right of these nations with whom we seek to spread the tenants of democracy. He further spoke on the Economy, outlining thoughts on tax breaks for the middle class, trade that focuses on strong labor, the environment and safety standards and the creation of a “Green” economy and how that “Green” economy can lead to the creation of badly needed jobs for many Americans. He was similarly detailed in the areas of immigration, troop withdrawal from Iraq, healthcare and his Presidential readiness.
Looking ahead, against the backdrop of last night’s debate, and the fact that Senator Obama has moved from several percentage points behind Senator Clinton, as little as a few weeks ago, in both Texas and Ohio, to a now statistical dead heat in both those states, it appears the future for Senator Obama remains bright. Senator Clinton did nothing last night to disrupt the momentum of Senator Obama, in fact, with her snipping, she may have further damaged any remaining chances she had for wins in Texas and Ohio.
Momentum is indeed a hard thing to stop. Viewed from the current state of play, I think Senator Obama makes it 12, with Texas, and 13 with Ohio, Democratic primaries in a row on March 4. The larger question is how quickly Senator Obama can get on to the business of battling Senator McCain. There is a movement of change afoot. One that is more than about eloquent speeches. This is a movement of actionable ideas that will make a better America and a better world. It is my hope that Senator Clinton follows the example of Senator Edwards in deciding that what is at stake is the best interests of the American people, rather than an individual candidacy, and she “gets real” and helps the Democratic party’s best candidate, Senator Barack Obama, capture the White House.
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
Obama--A President Like My Father
Obama—A President Like My Father
by Bryan R. Parker
A few weeks back I heard that Caroline Kennedy was going to endorse Barack Obama. As a supporter of Mr. Obama I was excited. As an African-American male I was filled with pride. Ms. Kennedy, in a New York Times Op-Ed piece, called Mr. Obama “[a] President like my father”. Since hearing this analogy, by John F. Kennedy’s daughter, to one of the most loved Presidents of all time, I have tried to ponder the historical significance of this statement. To be clear, it is historically significant for many reasons. The extent to which the statement will be deemed historically significant is still yet to be told. This much I believe, Barack Obama has a chance to be a President like the late, great John F. Kennedy. A charismatic leader of our country. A leader who can usher in needed change. A leader that can unite our country during a time of crisis and turmoil. A leader that can address the challenges that face our nation, and the world more generally, and fashion solutions that are both practical and profound.
We all know that the late Mr. Kennedy famously challenged Americans “[t]o ask not what their country could do for them, but what we could do for our country”. The emphasis being on the “we”, as an American people, and how “we” working together could make a difference in addressing the problems of the day. Mr. Kennedy was a very popular President who became famous for his leadership style, personality and noted speech making abilities. He came to power during the Cold War. He faced many challenges, both domestic and global when he took office. On the global front he was immediately met with situations in both Russia and Cuba. On the domestic front, he faced a nation threatening to be torn apart by racial tensions. It was a time of change in America to be sure. He noted that it had been seven years since the landmark Brown vs the Board of Education decision, yet America, in many ways remained both separate and unequal. He further noted that it had been more than 100 years since Lincoln had freed the slaves, yet there was little tangible evidence that there was equal opportunity in America independent of race.
In response to the growing race crisis that was facing the country, Mr. Kennedy bound together with civil rights leaders like Martin Luther King, Jr. to fight racial prejudice and fashion solutions to the growing problem. Mr. Kennedy proposed the now famous Civil Rights legislation. He was truly a bridge between whites and minorities at a time when race threatened to tear our nation apart. Mr. Kennedy also formed the Peace Corps to promote democracy and freedom throughout the world. On November, 21, 1963, when he was assassinated, it was a sad and tragic day around the world. Many Americans, who were living at the time, still report being able to vividly remember where they were when the tragic event happened.
In the time since Mr. Kennedy’s Presidency, our nation has grown and made progress to be sure. We remain a Super Power, though the definition of what that means is again up for debate. The playing field of opportunities is more equal in our nation than it has ever been. We have even had leaders that served to unite people of all races and political affiliations—namely Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton. While it can be debated, I would argue that neither of those men where truly a President like John F. Kennedy. It could be the times or the legacies both men left, however, I do not believe either man left the lasting social legacy reminiscent of Mr. Kennedy. Today, our nation again stands at a cross roads. Racial tensions are at their highest in some time. Opportunity, while better, is still not equal, let alone color blind. We face some of the worst partisan politics in our history. There is a looming US and maybe global economic crisis. The second Mr. Bush will leave us with a budget that at best, will not be able to be balanced before 2010. This is all against a changing global political backdrop where we see China as a dominant world force and a potentially free, or a least non-dictatorial, Cuba.
In his Iowa victory speech, Mr. Obama talked about the concept of equality being “written into our founding documents”. Like Mr. Kennedy before him, Mr. Obama recognizes the need for change to bring about the promise of cases like Brown.
Fredrick Douglas, writing in the late 1800s states “There is no negro problem. The problem is whether the American people have the loyalty enough, the honor enough, the patriotism enough to uphold the Constitution”. The principles of change Mr. Obama seeks, that I believe our country needs, are rooted in the Constitution. It will take change, a movement, a new way of doing things to usher in the true change this country needs. Like Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Obama says “we” have what “we” need to make this change—us. Mr. Kennedy asked Americans what they could do for the country. Mr. Obama says “we” are what “we” have been waiting for. “We” are the “we” that will lead this country to change—change regardless of race, social class or gender. Mr. Obama has shown the Kennedy like leadership and the ability to lead this kind of change. From his days in the Illinois Senate, to the US Senate, he has shown the ability to reach across the aisle to his republican counterparts, to strike compromise without letting the ugliness of partisan politics muddy the waters of change.
Critics say Mr. Obama is good at making speeches, but question his ability to truly govern. Speeches, words, ideas that inspire and catalyze people are exactly what are needed in a time of transition. We need someone that all people will listen to and be inspired by. Mr. Kennedy served as a congressman, and was almost a Vice Presidential nominee prior to running for President. Mr. Obama has, at a similar point in their careers, as much, if not more experience between his time in the Illinois legislature and the US Senate. Some men are just born to lead. Mr. Obama will need a strong team around him to address all the issues mentioned here, as well as others that are pressing. He has already shown a New Deal type willingness to fashion a “brain trust” around himself to give the country the best solutions possible to these myriad issues.
At the end of the day, this election about leadership. Who will lead this brain trust, who can lead this nation. I can only draw historic comparisons. Ms. Kennedy can draw both historic and personal comparisons. Based on what I know, I am inclined to believe her when she says Mr. Obama, unlike any of the other candidates for President, can be a President like her father—YES HE CAN!!!
by Bryan R. Parker
A few weeks back I heard that Caroline Kennedy was going to endorse Barack Obama. As a supporter of Mr. Obama I was excited. As an African-American male I was filled with pride. Ms. Kennedy, in a New York Times Op-Ed piece, called Mr. Obama “[a] President like my father”. Since hearing this analogy, by John F. Kennedy’s daughter, to one of the most loved Presidents of all time, I have tried to ponder the historical significance of this statement. To be clear, it is historically significant for many reasons. The extent to which the statement will be deemed historically significant is still yet to be told. This much I believe, Barack Obama has a chance to be a President like the late, great John F. Kennedy. A charismatic leader of our country. A leader who can usher in needed change. A leader that can unite our country during a time of crisis and turmoil. A leader that can address the challenges that face our nation, and the world more generally, and fashion solutions that are both practical and profound.
We all know that the late Mr. Kennedy famously challenged Americans “[t]o ask not what their country could do for them, but what we could do for our country”. The emphasis being on the “we”, as an American people, and how “we” working together could make a difference in addressing the problems of the day. Mr. Kennedy was a very popular President who became famous for his leadership style, personality and noted speech making abilities. He came to power during the Cold War. He faced many challenges, both domestic and global when he took office. On the global front he was immediately met with situations in both Russia and Cuba. On the domestic front, he faced a nation threatening to be torn apart by racial tensions. It was a time of change in America to be sure. He noted that it had been seven years since the landmark Brown vs the Board of Education decision, yet America, in many ways remained both separate and unequal. He further noted that it had been more than 100 years since Lincoln had freed the slaves, yet there was little tangible evidence that there was equal opportunity in America independent of race.
In response to the growing race crisis that was facing the country, Mr. Kennedy bound together with civil rights leaders like Martin Luther King, Jr. to fight racial prejudice and fashion solutions to the growing problem. Mr. Kennedy proposed the now famous Civil Rights legislation. He was truly a bridge between whites and minorities at a time when race threatened to tear our nation apart. Mr. Kennedy also formed the Peace Corps to promote democracy and freedom throughout the world. On November, 21, 1963, when he was assassinated, it was a sad and tragic day around the world. Many Americans, who were living at the time, still report being able to vividly remember where they were when the tragic event happened.
In the time since Mr. Kennedy’s Presidency, our nation has grown and made progress to be sure. We remain a Super Power, though the definition of what that means is again up for debate. The playing field of opportunities is more equal in our nation than it has ever been. We have even had leaders that served to unite people of all races and political affiliations—namely Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton. While it can be debated, I would argue that neither of those men where truly a President like John F. Kennedy. It could be the times or the legacies both men left, however, I do not believe either man left the lasting social legacy reminiscent of Mr. Kennedy. Today, our nation again stands at a cross roads. Racial tensions are at their highest in some time. Opportunity, while better, is still not equal, let alone color blind. We face some of the worst partisan politics in our history. There is a looming US and maybe global economic crisis. The second Mr. Bush will leave us with a budget that at best, will not be able to be balanced before 2010. This is all against a changing global political backdrop where we see China as a dominant world force and a potentially free, or a least non-dictatorial, Cuba.
In his Iowa victory speech, Mr. Obama talked about the concept of equality being “written into our founding documents”. Like Mr. Kennedy before him, Mr. Obama recognizes the need for change to bring about the promise of cases like Brown.
Fredrick Douglas, writing in the late 1800s states “There is no negro problem. The problem is whether the American people have the loyalty enough, the honor enough, the patriotism enough to uphold the Constitution”. The principles of change Mr. Obama seeks, that I believe our country needs, are rooted in the Constitution. It will take change, a movement, a new way of doing things to usher in the true change this country needs. Like Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Obama says “we” have what “we” need to make this change—us. Mr. Kennedy asked Americans what they could do for the country. Mr. Obama says “we” are what “we” have been waiting for. “We” are the “we” that will lead this country to change—change regardless of race, social class or gender. Mr. Obama has shown the Kennedy like leadership and the ability to lead this kind of change. From his days in the Illinois Senate, to the US Senate, he has shown the ability to reach across the aisle to his republican counterparts, to strike compromise without letting the ugliness of partisan politics muddy the waters of change.
Critics say Mr. Obama is good at making speeches, but question his ability to truly govern. Speeches, words, ideas that inspire and catalyze people are exactly what are needed in a time of transition. We need someone that all people will listen to and be inspired by. Mr. Kennedy served as a congressman, and was almost a Vice Presidential nominee prior to running for President. Mr. Obama has, at a similar point in their careers, as much, if not more experience between his time in the Illinois legislature and the US Senate. Some men are just born to lead. Mr. Obama will need a strong team around him to address all the issues mentioned here, as well as others that are pressing. He has already shown a New Deal type willingness to fashion a “brain trust” around himself to give the country the best solutions possible to these myriad issues.
At the end of the day, this election about leadership. Who will lead this brain trust, who can lead this nation. I can only draw historic comparisons. Ms. Kennedy can draw both historic and personal comparisons. Based on what I know, I am inclined to believe her when she says Mr. Obama, unlike any of the other candidates for President, can be a President like her father—YES HE CAN!!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
