BY JONATHAN EMONT

In print | October 30, 2008

I’ve always been a supporter of Senator Obama, and, along with the rest of Swarthmore’s student body and faculty, I plan to vote for the Senator on November 4th. I grew a little cynical during the middle of the campaign and decided my vote would be to oppose the Republicans more than it would be for anything else, but I have recently reversed my stance. I became very impressed with Obama after the last couple months of the campaign. He appointed extremely bright and pragmatic people to advise him on policy, came off poised and articulate during the debates, and, for the most part, kept his attacks on John McCain fair and relevant.

I have no illusions about the man. His decision to further government funding for religious groups is repugnant, and in rejecting the public financing that he had previously promised to accept, Obama contributes to the climate that allowed corporations and special interests to dominate the political sphere. Still, an important aspect of maturity is recognizing that no candidate will ever be anything close to ideal, and Obama strikes me as a man bright, competent, and generally pragmatic.

As the article on page 3 attests, I attended Obama’s rally on Tuesday in Chester. I don’t pretend to be the rallying type, and, having already seen Obama give a number of speeches before, I did not come to the event thinking that I would leave inspired. This is a good thing, as I did not leave inspired.

Maybe this column is useless a week before election day, and probably my issues stem more from my contempt for the level of national discourse than they do with Obama’s speeches, but I was utterly startled by how many clichés Obama could pack into his 5000 words. Seeing the event in person, and hearing the man say so many vacuous and arrogant statements, made me reconsider ever giving up my cynicism.

He began his speech by discussing how, from the beginning, he knew that Americans would pick him “to make change happen.” He knew the American people would choose him, even when he was unknown nationally and didn’t have “much money” or “many endorsements.” He knew this because he believed that Americans were “decent, generous people who are willing to work hard and sacrifice for future generations.” Aside from the obvious platitude about how glorious Americans are, a platitude, needless to say, repeated throughout his speech, Obama believed that it was the goodness of Americans that got him elected. In other words, Obama was declaring his belief that the fundamental decency of the American people was what made him so popular.

Certainly this rhetoric isn’t as blatantly divisive as Sarah Palin’s. But in effect, the rhetoric of the man who aspires to “unify” the country and the woman who declares certain regions of the country more pro-American than others, aren’t all that different. When Obama says that it’s the goodness of people that’s getting him elected, one has to wonder what it is with the upwards of 45 percent of voters who don’t support him?

But forget that pesky 45 percent. Nearly two years after Obama started his campaign, things are going great. One week until election day and he’s up by as much as ten points in some polls. What does that mean? It means his “faith in the American people has been vindicated.” So, basically, when he made the decision to run, Obama premised it on the belief that we Americans are a kind and wise bunch, and look at it, it seems as if we’re about to elect the man, so now he feels vindicated in believing in us! Imagine if this country decided to support his opponent instead. What would that say about us?

And, of course, he’s going to save the country. I’m willing to cut him some slack for the section of his speech when he discusses how his policies are going to save the middle class from Republican depredation; he’s a politician and has to be foolishly optimistic. And I especially appreciate that when laying out his plans for revolutionizing the education system, righting a failing economy, investing in technology that will stave off global warming while simultaneously growing millions of new jobs for Americans, and completely changing the culture of Wall-Street, that he “won’t stand here and pretend any of this will be easy.” Nope, folks, it’s going to require a lot of hard work and a lot of that good old American can-do attitude.

And then, with no sense of shame or irony or anything, he says that you shouldn’t just vote for him because his new programs will make America perfect. Nope, it’s not about his policies or his programs, “It’s about a new politics — a politics that calls on our better angels instead of encouraging our worst instincts; one that reminds us of the obligations we have to ourselves and one another.”

How he feels his politics appeal to our better instincts when his most prominent campaign promise of late has been to lower 95 percent of people’s taxes, is frankly beyond me. Saying “I’ll increase your taxes, but your neighbor’s kid will learn math” is an example of an appeal to my better instincts. Saying “I’ll improve your health coverage and educate your children and increase real wages and it will cost you nothing” is an appeal to my baser ones.

His speech was arrogant and hypocritical. But please, please, vote for him.

Jonathan is a first-year. He can be reached at jemont1@swarthmore.edu.

« RETURN TO OPINIONS

« PREV ARTICLE | NEXT ARTICLE »