A new day dawns, it does indeed …

[aadler]

 
Welcome, Mister President.

You arrived in this office on a message of hope and change. The change has come. These are my hopes:

I hope you’re even one-tenth as special as your most enraptured supporters appear to believe.

I hope you’re every bit as idealistic as you’ve presented yourself as being, and at the same time cynically calculating as to which campaign promises you intend to keep (and how), because winning a campaign and running a country are entirely different tasks, not to be carried out in the same way.

I hope there is solid substance underlying the magnificent style, resulting in years of impressive performance to (finally) fulfill all that perceived potential.

I hope that, having won largely on the basis of race — while presenting yourself as post-racial — you can actually move this country beyond the dogmatic straitjacket of racial politics.

I hope you can inspire both parties, but especially your own, to more idealism and less ideological posturing.

I hope you will actively resist the desires of some on your side of the aisle to attempt the ex post facto criminalization of policy differences. This is a sword that cuts both ways, and would do incalculable harm to the nation for decades to come, regardless of which side happens to be in power.

I hope the man who turned the national imagination toward the future will avoid falling back on those past nostrums (particularly socialism and New-Deal-style big-government interventionism) that not only aren’t new but were consistent failures in their own heyday.

I hope “the smartest guy in every room he’s ever occupied” will have the wisdom to surround himself by people who know more than he does, and listen carefully to them before making his decisions.

Above all, I hope the next four years — or more — will be a time of actual growth in this country, rather than something that simply has to be survived.

[Advance warning: any comments expounding on the evils and contemptibility of the departed Bush administration will be deleted without reply.]

Comments

[lwbush.livejournal.com]

Amen and thank you.

[aadler]

You are welcome. And I hope ‘amen’ means you are expressing the same carefully-hedged support that was the point of my post.

[lwbush.livejournal.com]

Yes - as I have often said before, I cannot really dislike Obama, since mostly he's been a campaign - beyond that, he is a cipher.

I can only pray the man is nearly as worthy of and capable in the office as the last President was, and that he is a better person than many of his supporters have been.

[ozma914.livejournal.com]

I couldn't have said it better, well done. I especially liked that last line -- why didn't I think to just make a deletion warning, instead of verbally sparring with the blind Bush haters?

[aadler]

I learned from the last political entry I made. I simply wasn’t in the mood then (“heartsick” would be a fair description) to deal with dissenting opinions … but when that’s the case, it’s only courtesy to provide notice. I didn’t then, so I took care to do so this time.

[ozma914.livejournal.com]

It was a great idea ... there's really not a lot of point in arguing with people who simply aren't going to look at both sides.

[frogfarm]

I do not Believe.

'Nuff said.

[aadler]

Nor do I, but I’m willing to wait and see. I gave no allegiance whatsoever to Bill Clinton, not for a single moment … but he was a special case, and outside such extremes, the President deserves a certain amount of respect and tolerance simply from holding the office. It is simply impossible for Obama to live up to all the hype, because the hype went beyond any bounds of common sense. He can, however, turn out to be much better than his skeptics are willing to expect. That is my hope.

[learnedhand-dj.livejournal.com]

I'm sorry, but "having won largely on the basis of race?" Do you really think that if President Obama was white, the election result would have been significantly different? If anything, a white President Obama would have won by a somewhat wider margin, based on the polls done earlier in the campaign that showed both Hillary Clinton and John Edwards doing better against most of the potential Republican opponents that President Obama. What are you basing "won largely on the basis of race" on?

[aadler]

I base it on the fact that the entire campaign operated on two pillars of support: rejection of every aspect of whatever appeared to be the Bush legacy — including anything that could be even tenuously connected to it — and how wonderful it would be for the country to elect its first black President. Obama played the race card sparingly and carefully (his supporters were less discreet), but play it he did, less to claim his pre-eminence or vilify his opponents than to make it difficult for those opponents to criticize too closely or too harshly without facing charges of systematic racism. (Much good it did them; to the Left, racism was the only conceivable reason NOT to vote for Obama. This is not my judgment, it was an explicit statement by a liberal writer in a prominent blog or newspaper column.) A huge part of his appeal as a transformational figure was precisely that he is black/biracial. Black people voted for him 95%-99% because he’s black; many, many white people voted for him because 1) he presented himself in such a way that they could believe his political stance echoed their own, 2) ‘new and exciting’ generally comes out ahead of ‘same-old, same-old’ (and Obama genuinely was new and exciting), and 3) voting for an acceptable black candidate was a nifty way to show how tolerant and progressive and non-racist and superior they were.

As for early polls, many of those polls showed Hillary beating Obama, and Giuliani being the Republican nominee. Polls attempt to read public opinion; some are better than others, and opinions change over time. And, if the Democratic Party had selected a white candidate, the election results might indeed have come out mostly the same but for entirely different reasons. I believe that this election produced this result for this reason, among others.

No question, Obama had a lot of favorable winds behind him. He could not have beaten George W. Bush in 2004; the time wasn’t right. He was actually trailing McCain following the Republican convention, until the economic crash changed the national paradigm. Aside from Bush himself, he faced the ideal opponent, a crusty old balding white guy who could turn the occasional witty phrase but could NOT deliver an exciting speech. Many things were behind his success. Race was one of them. It was an attribute that he used to his advantage, used skillfully and effectively, appealing to positive elements of the American psyche as well as several that were superficial and partisan and (yes) intolerant. How much he used it, and to what extent that use was legitimate, can be argued passionately by both sides; THAT he used it is simply a fact.

I didn’t say he won ‘primarily’ because of race. I didn’t even say ‘mostly’. I said ‘largely’, and the word was chosen with care. Race was a large part of the result. To claim otherwise would be disingenuous at best.

[learnedhand-dj.livejournal.com]

Oh, I wouldn't claim that race had nothing to do with it. I'm sure there were many people who based their vote for President Obama primarily on his race. I'm sure there were some people who based their vote for Senator McCain primarily on President Obama's race as well. But frankly, I think the Democrats could have run a potted plant for president this year and won. Between the perceived failures of President Bush's foreign policy and the economic collapse, I don't think any Republican nominee could have beaten any Democratic nominee this year.

Also, according to thesaurus.com, synonyms for "largely" include mostly, primarily and principally, as well as abundantly, considerably and extensively. I thought you meant "largely" to match the first groups of synonyms, not the second. Now that you've explained, your comment makes more sense.

[lmzjewel.livejournal.com]

Yeah. I didn't party yesterday. I will party when and if he's able to pull off even half of what he needs to. With that said, I do feel a great deal of sympathy for our new President. There is alot of expectations put on his shoulders and even in the best of times I would not want his job. Well, anyway, here's to hoping that he will lead the country with wisdom and integrity.

[aadler]

I do indeed anticipate a huge backlash — disappointment, disillusionment, even a sense of betrayal — when he fails to live up to expectations so extravagant that no non-divine figure ever could fulfill them. In a way, he has it coming, because he recognized and stoked these expectations in order to win; he is, however, President now, and a new President deserves a fair chance to prove himself in office.

[texanfan.livejournal.com]

I echo your hopes. My mother is devastated that Obama won the election. I have repeatedly told her that the candidate and the president are two different people and I am witholding judgement until I see President Obama in action. I am hoping for the best and braced for the worst. We'll see what happens.

As to Bush's administration, for some strange reason (sarcasm fully intended) Marc Anthony's speech from Julius Ceasar keeps running through my head. "The evil men do lives after them, the good is oft interred with their bones." I've thought of doing a post listing all the positive things Bush and his administration accomplished but I don't think I'm braced for the fallout that would bring. Also, it seems rather pointless. It would change no one's mind as anything positive would be found to be a fault or declared a lie.

[aadler]

At least one opinion writer has noted that the most prominent public person busily re-evaluating the Bush presidency is President Obama himself. Now that he has the responsibility of dealing with the different aspects of the War on Terror (which Bush named but Al-Qaeda launched), he is observing thoughtfully that several things — Guantanamo, and warrantless electronic surveillance of foreign individuals of suspect habits and acquaintances, and the American presence in Iraq — are more complex and ambiguous than was depicted in campaign rhetoric.

Be assured, I agree with you. I don’t doubt that there will be a substantial contingent who will continue to regard Bush as irredeemably evil for policies that Obama, after careful consideration, will continue to apply because he has decided that they are necessary and appropriate … yet these same people will give the new President a pass on these same things because he is 1) so wonderfully himself and 2) not the malignant moronic hatemonger Bush.

I heard the basic sentiment expressed often in Iraq (by Iraqis): “You know he’s a bad person because he does bad things. You know the things he does are bad because he’s a bad person. If I do the same things, they’re not bad because I’m not bad.” At the time I was somewhat disillusioned by the shallowness and self-servingness — and, yes, the obvious innocent sincerity — of this attitude. It does not make me optimistic to see the same thing operating in more ‘advanced’ people in America.