The Harvard Crimson endorses Obama:
Various critics have voiced concerns that Obama is too ambitious and inexperienced to be the next president of the United States. We disagree. Obama’s candidacy reflects a lack of political maneuvering and instead is based on a desire to see dramatic change in the political system. And what Sen. Obama might lack in political experience, he makes up with sound judgment, intelligence, charisma, and a personable and bipartisan demeanor. Furthermore, in office he will surround himself with some of the smartest and most experienced advisors in the world.
Obama represents an opportunity for a Democratic nominee who represents the value of service, intelligence, and judgment, and, most of all, an opportunity for real change, unburdened by favors owed and ideals lost. He deserves your vote.
Andrew Sullivan says “the younger generation gets it.”
But that’s not true across the board, as Matthew Yglesias says—he understands the rough stuff and the need for it.
Barack Obama talks about getting roughed up by Hillary and Bill Clinton: “This is good practice for me so, you know, when I take on these Republicans I’ll be accustomed to it.”
I have no idea if he genuinely means that, but it’s true either way.
And, Yglesias concludes [e.a.]:
I think it’s good for the rival campaigns to really go after one another. It’s politics, and people who want to succeed in it need the practice.
This is true. Everybody who thinks politics (and life) should be all kumbaya had better think again. No one likes aggression and negativity and certainly everyone would prefer kumbaya, but if you hate the status quo, the only way to change it is to fight it. And that means politics, often hardball politics. Confrontation. Yelling. Getting hot and bothered. That’s not very popular behavior among those who are, say, 35 and under. But it’s who we are as human beings, and fighting it out (though not violently, of course) is also good for our democracy.
It’s certainly not the first time I’ve talked about people’s personal relationship to power in their everyday lives. In July 2006, I blogged about a piece in the L.A. Times that described certain hiphop moguls embrace of a book by Robert Greene, called Power. I wrote:
[Here's] a cool piece of pop sociology written by someone other than David Brooks. This one is from Chris Lee, writing in the L.A. Times, about hip-hop moguls’ (Kanye West and Jay Z are among the devotees) fascination with The 48 Laws of Power, a quirky Swimming with the Sharks-type manual for winning at the game of life by synthezing strategies from famous historical courtiers and warriors and generals-from Sun-Tzu to Machiavelli to Richelieu.
…
The book is like a martial-arts manual for the business,” said Quincy “QD3″ Jones III, a rap producer turned filmmaker who is making a feature documentary about “The 48 Laws’ ” hip-hop connection. “It teaches people in our demographic how to think more holistically about their business practices.”
Lee points out that reviewers saw things rather differently:
“By the 36th law, you start to feel unclean and worried about your own morality,” said one. “By the 44th, you have accepted the fact that you are basically immoral and so is the world. By the time you reach No. 48, you are saying: ‘Right, who is my first victim?’ “
I kinda know what he means. It is kind of disappointing to find your peace-loving self drawn to such an unlikely book. But I confess: I was.
Yes I was. And you should be too. Especially when you read Greene’s warning about people who profess that they are above political games:
To some people the notion of consciously playing power games-no matter how indirect-seems evil, asocial, a relic of the past. they believe they can opt out of the game by behaving in ways that have nothing to do with power. You must beware of such people, for while they express such opinions outwardly, they are often among the most adept players at power.
That got my attention. Greene continued:
They utilize strategies that cleverly disguise the nature of the manipulation involved. These types, for example, will often display their weakness and lack of power as a kind of moral virtue. But true powerlessness, without any motive of self-interest, would not publicize its weakness to gain sympathy or respect. Making a show of one’s weakness is actually a very effective strategy, subtle and deceptive, in the game of power (see Law 22, the Surrender Tactic).
Recognize anyone there? the guy who his wife has described as “the real deal”?
Obama is a politician, all right. He’s just not as obvious about it as Bill and Hillary Clinton. And if he’s not a politician, or as hard-nosed and cynical a politician as they are (and his wife tries to distance herself from such politics in the article I linked above), then no matter how great his vision and his ideas, he won’t have the power to impose his will.
It’s a sad state of affairs, but so it goes.
