The recent California Democratic debate was on the surface not very spectacular. However, if one were to look at it thru other eyes, it is possible to imagine the contours of a 16 to 20 year period of transformational change with a gigantic capital C. Part I – The Choice No One Should Be Asked To Make
As I nestled into the couch to watch this debate, I had low expectations. Given the tenor of the recent campaign I feared a ‘he-said-she-said-no-I-didn’t’ kind of debate. Sort of what the Republicans had offered the previous night. Instead we were treated to a show that was to a surprising degree ‘I’m okay-you’re-okay-it’s-the republicans-we-are-after.’
On the key issues of this primary season these two are practically within millimeters of each other. When it comes to the complex issues of
health care, the economy and the mortgage crisis the differences are merely technical and quite frankly beyond the ability of even an above-average informed voter to really judge which set of measures are ‘optimal’. Even insurance, medical or economic experts sharing similar philosophical policy goals, as Hillary and Barack clearly do, would not be able to agree which combination of measures are ‘best’.
And certainly when it comes to health care, for example, we know that whatever set of measures is first tried the march to universal health care will be marked by trial and error over many years if not decades. Even for countries with a long heritage of universal health care there is no end game; rather it is a constantly evolving process of tuning, re-tuning and fine-tuning with the occasional major course correction. Either Barack’s or Hillary’s plan would be a wonderful starting place for such a transformational change in America’s health care system.
On the war in Iraq, the only substantive difference is setting a firm end date 16 months down the line versus the desire and hope to have all the troops out in a year if possible but without naming a definite end date. Which approach is going to have the most chance of forcing political action in Iraq? Who knows? Which is going to be better in enhancing America's strategic interests? No one knows. Given the unexpected fluidity that characterizes Iraq and the Middle East in general neither of these approaches, which importantly share identical policy goals, will be exactly what happens in the end. And quite frankly, the constant hammering on that one vote of Hillary to support the use-of-force resolution as proof of anything has lost its appeal.
So what really happened? The essential differences between Barack and Hillary did become crystal clear. And more importantly, each candidate recognized the other’s strength, that single and significant point that truly divides them. Obama perhaps said it best:
"…part of the question is who can work the levers of power more effectively. Part of the question is also who can inspire the American people to get re-engaged in their government again…"
And then later he even said, "The reason that this is important again is that Senator Clinton, I think, fairly has claimed that she's got the experience on day one."
And there you have it. Hillary’s unique strength versus Obama is her ability to work the levers of power due to her long history as a ‘homo politicos’ and as more of an experienced Washington Insider. And Obama’s unique strength versus Hillary is his demonstrated ability to reach across traditional divides inspiring, energizing and enthusing, especially but not only young people. He is able to to get people involved in the political process, to claim a stake in our collective future and more importantly to believe once again we can achieve great things.
The challenges facing America and indeed the world are ones of immense consequence: climate change, a just economic system, the shape of American leadership in the world, global East-West divides, education that prepares young people for a drastically changing future, security, energy, human rights domestically and abroad. These are but a few of the things that must be gotten right if we are to walk together into a future of realized potential.
And two things are undeniably clear. At this juncture in history, the Republicans are incapable of sheparding the country into this hopeful future. And secondly, it is not going to happen without great political acumen to maneuver through the resistance that the current system will offer and outstanding inspirational leadership that can envision the possibility of change and create strength and daring through diversity.
The choice that Democrats now have– the need for political acumen and experience versus the longing and need for inspirational leadership – is a choice no one should be asked to make. It is a false choice that in its essence represents false hope. It is a choice that can only lead to disappointment and unfulfilled expectations.
In Part II, I will suggest a crazy alternative, a pathway that can become the basis for true and long-lasting transformational change in American politics and in American society.
Comments