"Obamania"

It's a couple of days after the fact, but I've just watched Obama's "Race and Religion" speech online. It's too early to say exactly how this speech will be remembered in American political history, but I think there's a very real possibility it will become one of the defining American political speeches of the last hundred years (I'm not alone in thinking this: see here for a similar appraisal). Obama, of course, has come under fire for being a politician that's all rhetoric and no substance. Such charges, when borne out, can or should be fatal. But I think that, regardless of the merit of such accusations in Obama's case, they miss the point. What is so intriguing about his presidential candidacy is the way in which he has transformed the rhetorical framework of race and politics in the US. Certainly his appeal to segments of the population that in years past wouldn't give an African-American liberal politician the time of day is striking and requires some explanation.

Here's my theory: moments when the political landscape is really transformed are few and far between (think about ordinary political discourse as Kuhn's "normal science" and the kinds of political transformation I have in mind as what Kuhn would call "revolutionary science"). What seems to make them possible--and I'm not trying to make a historical argument but rather a logical one--is the emergence of a politician or a political message that for whatever reason has unquestionably strong credentials in the eyes of his or her political base and yet "crosses over," speaking the language of the opposition in such a way that the opposition's position is legitimized in the eyes of his or her natural base. In Obama's case, no one could doubt his bona fides with the liberal wing of the Democratic party. But his genius lies in speaking fluently a language intelligible to conservatives as well. This kind of political "bilingualism" or capacity to translate the concerns of one segment of the political spectrum into terms intelligible to his own political base makes it natural to see him as someone capable of breaking political stalemates over the most divisive of issues (in the case of Obama, race). I've long thought that if a conservative really wanted to see the country turn more to the right on some given issue, the best way to bring that about is for the case to be made, not by a conservative but a charismatic, rhetorically gifted liberal. And vice versa. Whether one is conservative or liberal, what one really should desire is not so much a candidate that mirrors one's own views and belongs to one's "own party" as an articulate and persuasive spokesman for that cause on the other side of the aisle. Only in that way can inroads be made in convincing one's true target audience--the "opposition"--of the wisdom of one's own position.

So, does it matter what Obama believes? I don't think a lot of voters really care about the nitty gritty of his health care plan or his foreign policy stance. In almost any other political election and with regard to almost any other political candidate, this would be deeply troubling (I think of the not-insignificant number of McCain supporters who according to exit interviews voted for McCain in the primaries because they wanted him to "end the war in Iraq." Gulp. Now, that's bad stupid). But there is a nontrivial and nondeleterious sense in which voters needn't be obliged to support Obama because they agree with all the particulars of his policies. One reason why so many voters seem to be reaching out to Obama is because they see in him what they want to see in him: namely, someone capable of changing the national conversation about race (of course the argument I've made here would put me in this camp. But I hasten to add that this would not be my only reason for voting for Obama). Long-standing issues such as racism and affirmative action are to a large extent issues about perception. And the capacity to change the way such issues are perceived--even if the policy particulars would still need to be worked out--may be reason enough to support Obama's candidacy. I think there are other reasons besides, but this one may be sufficient. I'll hazard an (un)educated guess: in the same way that the phrase "Reagan Democrat" has entered our political vocabulary, "Obama Republican" will soon become a commonly used term as well.