CE Week #2: “‘We need a leader,’ not a politician”
LEONARD PITTS JR. I was 6 years old when John F. Kennedy was killed. I don’t remember much about that time, but do I recall that people felt as if hope had died. The murdered young president had embodied transformation, the startling power of the new, a sense of promise, optimism, unexplored frontiers. Four decades of revelations about backstage politics, marital infidelities, gangsters and Marilyn Monroe have not stopped people from looking back on that era with longing. To his admirers back then, Kennedy represented a promise that we the people could be better than we were. Much as Barack Obama represents for his admirers now. That realization was crystalized for me by two events of recent days. • The first was public. Shortly after the Illinois senator won South Carolina’s Democratic primary, John F. Kennedy’s daughter Caroline announced her support of him in a New York Times column that compared him to her father. This was followed by an endorsement from her uncle, Sen. Edward M. Kennedy. • The second event was personal. A chat with one of my best friends. Michelle, 46, said she intends to volunteer for Obama’s campaign. As far as I know, she’s never volunteered for any candidate, ever. In that, she’s like my brother, also 46, also a first-time volunteer, also working for Obama. Michelle, a registered independent, told me that if Obama is not the Democratic nominee, she will vote Republican, even though none of the GOP candidates excites her. She feels she’d have no choice, because she can’t stand Hillary Clinton. Clinton is a politician, Michelle said. And at this crucial juncture in our history, ”We don’t need another politician. We need a leader.” Which strikes me as the most succinct explanation of Obama’s appeal I’ve ever heard. For months now, we in the punditocracy have struggled to frame the question of What It Means, this Obama phenomenon. We have talked about charisma, but that doesn’t half explain it. Bigger crowds are coming out for him. Republicans are switching parties for him. People who have never volunteered before are volunteering for him. “We don’t need another politician. We need a leader.” I submit that the answer to the question lies there. I submit that maybe a critical mass of us have grown sick of the politics of acrimony, the politics of red versus blue, the politics of addition by division. I submit that there is a yearning to be called into the service of something larger than self or party. It’s not that Obama is a tabula rasa, bereft of political ideology. He has an ideology, and moreover, that ideology is — pardon my language — liberal. Indeed, I interviewed him once and described him as a centrist, whereupon he promptly corrected me. It’s more accurate, he said, to say that he tries “to understand the arguments that are being made on both sides and to see there are ways of finding common ground. But that common ground may not always be in the middle.” Yet if Obama has an ideology, he has managed to avoid being trapped by it or defined by it. He has not sacrificed intellectual honesty for ideological purity. He comes across as a man not so rigidly enslaved by political creed that he cannot be persuaded, a man who is, in a word, reasonable. And reason has become a rarity. Obama appeals to American characteristics that have lately seemed used up, forgotten, discarded. Meaning our capacity for reinvention and the native idealism that powers it. That appeal has been Obama’s most valuable political asset, his Teflon and shield through the rough and tumble of this political season. “We don’t need another politician. We need a leader.”
If I were a politician, I’d be taking notes.
“I submit that maybe a critical mass of us have grown sick of the politics of acrimony, the politics of red versus blue, the politics of addition by division.” Sick of politics? Every time a Ron Paul commercial comes on, I cringe. I go to blog, and it takes me ten minutes just to find an article that is NOT about the election. Politics get old – fast. So, we don’t need someone who is just going to emphasize those politics. Is there a lot of politics with the presidency? Of course! But, truly, the President is the LEADER of our country. And Michelle is right when she says that, “We don’t need another politician. We need a leader.” Eric was asking today in class if we are ever going to have a President like George Washington again. A man who is a hero and loved by everyone. Will we have that again? No. But I still have high hopes that one day we will have someone who leads our country. I don’t know if Obama will be more so a leader than the other candidates or past presidents, but I see potential in him! He is a young guy who does not meet the unwritten presidential requirements (white, male, Christian), and I don’t care if he doesn’t have an American flag on his campaign button. “He comes across as a man not so rigidly enslaved by political creed that he cannot be persuaded, a man who is, in a word, reasonable.”
I agree with Pitts. We are in a pivotal time in which we need a leader, not a politician. Clinton flaunts her “experience” despite the fact that, not including her years as first lady (which I never do), she has little more experience than Obama but she is already in the league of the most contemptuous career politicians. She wants to have things both ways, most likely just to get votes from as many people as possible. When asked what she thought of parental notification being required for abortion in girls under 18 she said she “supported it but it is inappropriate in some cases.” How do you right a law capable of deciding when it is “inappropriate” to notify parents of their daughter having an abortion? It’s just not practical.
Obama is straight forward with where he stands. He has opposed the war from the start, not just opposing it when it became popular to do so like some senators *ahem*. I think we need a non-career politician so we can finally get things done. Maybe Obama can be a Lincoln-esque president, concentrating on change rather than working towards reelection.
Politics can get old for many people. Yes, there are those who thrive upon the new political happenings, but many just ‘want politics to stay in Washington D.C. where it originates!’ This has led to our politically apathetic nation. The masses hear bits and pieces that do not keep their attention compared to the beat-‘em-up fighting, outrageous sex, and cunning cartoons. America cares about famous people though. We want to know the nitty-gritty details about personal lives. In politics, people still want that, but they also want a politician that the masses can relate to. A politician that will console, guide, and direct our country. “We don’t need another politician. We need a leader.” Dictionary.com defines leader as “a guiding or directing head, as of an army, movement, or political group.” Apparently, Obama is showing these leadership qualities. “He has not sacrificed intellectual honesty for ideological purity. He comes across as a man not so rigidly enslaved by political creed that he cannot be persuaded, a man who is, in a word, reasonable. And reason has become a rarity.” The people are speaking and becoming involved. That in itself is a rarity in our politically apathetic country. “Bigger crowds are coming out for him. Republicans are switching parties for him. People who have never volunteered before are volunteering for him. “We don’t need another politician. We need a leader.” I submit that the answer to the question lies there. I submit that maybe a critical mass of us have grown sick of the politics of acrimony, the politics of red versus blue, the politics of addition by division. I submit that there is a yearning to be called into the service of something larger than self or party.” One of the major problems in any democracy is getting the people to participate. Voting is one of the major ways in which the people politically participate—how people become actively involved in politics. Maybe this election will take the public a step closer to politics in knowledge and interaction.
Before even getting to the point where this article referenced Obama, that was who I was thinking of. Obama is the John F. Kennedy of our time. We learned that JFK really tried to find supporters from the minority groups and Obama is really doing that too. Many women are supporting him as well as Hispanic and black people. He appears to connect well with people of different races, ages, and salaries.
The punditocracy is trying to figure out why many Americans like Obama. Pundits are people who claim they are specialists on politics. George Stephanopoulos is a pundit because while he has helped candidates such as Bill Clinton campaign, he has never been a president or a member of Congress. The pundits are having difficulties understanding the “Obama Phenomenon,” but the people are not. People like Obama because is charismatic without appearing fake and stiff. Some politicians just say what the people of their party supposedly want to hear. Many candidates’ only concern is winning the votes of the people of their party. Obama seems pretty reasonable and some Republicans might even vote for him. Also, some Democrats without him would switch their votes to the Republican Party. Obama is not afraid to lean to the right at times and go against the grain of his party a bit. Most of the other candidates remind me of car salesmen- they will say whatever and do whatever to get your vote. Obama might have just perfected being a politician, but I don’t really think that that’s just it. Obama actually says what he thinks and doesn’t just try to sell himself as the best candidate.
I believe this article makes a huge revelation on what separates Clinton and Obama. Throughout this entire primary, candidates have been going back and forth on the specifics of what they believe when really what we need is someone to come in and fix the problems we have. We need a Reagan or a Roosevelt but if we are left with a president that is more politics than leadership, nothing will get changed. And being a leader means that the person can’t always rely along party lines. Like Obama said “to understand the arguments that are being made on both sides and to see there are ways of finding common ground. But that common ground may not always be in the middle.” This is what’s needed. Unemployment is high, foreclosures have sky rocketed, and the war keeps going on. All of these problems have caused the American people to look up to someone for a resolution. And in this election there are a plethora of politicians but not many leaders. Although I lean republican, if McCain wins the nomination I will probably go for Obama because I see McCain as just another politician. And if we end up with another politician, we will have the same problems come the ‘12 election.
I know we all are tired of dealing with politics as usual, but in all honesty, is the search for a President, and thus an administration, free of unnecessary political maneuvering possible? I am very wary of change candidates. Don’t get me wrong, I think the way things are in Washington DC right now are not perfect; special interest groups and corporations are too involved and politicians are too partisan. Do I want this changed? Yes. Do I honestly think that anyone will be able to move into the White House next January and start to change everything? No. Sometimes I think people need to be realistic. Obama’s message of change has been a very successful campaign strategy, especially because of its appeal to the media and younger voters, but in the grand scheme of things, I doubt there would be any out-of-the-ordinary change in the way the US government is run with Obama as President. Obviously a change from a Republican to a Democrat President will bring a certain amount of policy change within the executive branch, but I doubt there will be that much of a difference in whether or not Obama or Clinton holds the title of President. Right now everyone is high on Obama’s change candidacy, but we will just have to wait and see if he becomes President whether he can put his words and hopes into actions.
I like what pretty much everyone that has posted has to say, as Pitts puts it, “we need a leader, not a politician”. I completely agree. We need someone fresh. As Trevor said we need another great, a Reagan, a Roosevelt, basically a true leader. Politicians are old. We are sick of them. They have not gotten us anywhere, and are mostly out for their own self interests. One thing I have to bring up though is that I do not believe that Obama is this “leader”.
Obama is a fresh face. That can definitely be agreed on. But, his views are the exact same as Hillary’s! What is the difference? His campaign is about change, that he fails to explain! It sounds great, but when examined closely is simply not present. Obama states that he tries“to understand the arguments that are being made on both sides and to see there are ways of finding common ground. But that common ground may not always be in the middle.” Common ground, once again it sounds wonderful. But lets face it, Obama is an outright liberal that would never agree with a true conservative on anything (neither would a true conservative with a true liberal). It just doesn’t work that way. I think Obama is trying to ease the political tension with this statement, but when taken into perspective and examined closely that is just not what will happen. He seeks a move towards a moderate era, however this moderate era is liberal, not moderate! Obama is clearly not the face of change. Change is electing someone into office that will restore the country. Obama cannot do that. Increasing expenditures, via; nationalized health care, free education, and aid to people that bought houses that they could not pay for will not get the country out of this financial pit. Come on! Let’s see we have a huge deficit, but let’s expand the scope of the government? Ridiculous!
We will not have a leader. All we have is politicians. We are in the divided era, and right now I believe that we are at its peak. A break is coming, and has been this election is only a further sign of that. If not a break, there is definitely a big shift, that shift being towards a moderate view on politics.
When the author mentioned our youngest president John F. Kennedy and talked about this election he brought many points up that have kind of been lingering in the back of my mind for some time. A lot of what people wanted then is what many are in search of now. Change. I think this young president was able to bring something youthful and new to the table. Which makes me think that perhaps Obama could bring this too. Many say he is too young, but isn’t that what many said about JFK?? It is no surprise to me that “ John F. Kennedy’s daughter Caroline announced her support of him (Obama) in a New York Times column that compared him to her father.” One quote that came up in this article was the statement that “Clinton is a politician…And at this crucial juncture in our history, ”We don’t need another politician. We need a leader.” Which I can’t agree with more, people are sick of dirty politics and scandals. The high-tech politics and mass media who have introduced America to a world of scandal, gossip, and deception. In my opinion Hillary represents the old crap of the past and Obama could bring a new future. This article was a real interesting read for me.
Mallory Brown
I chose this article because I think that Leonard Pitts is hilarious and I can honestly say that I love his obvious sarcasm saturated writing style but with his writing style comes a very biased point of view. A point of view that I usually don’t mind, however in this case the article rubbed me wrong. Now I don’t have strong ties with either candidate and I am struggling with my own party identification, siding more democratic on social issues and more republican on foreign affairs and legal issues. However, when Pitts was describing Obama it sounded like a movement, like and epidemic, sweeping the nation. It’s moderately alarming. As the Obama tide sweeps the nation it makes one wonder whether something is being missed. Not to be an antagonist but the media ALWAYS has something bad to say about everyone! They’d find a way to thrash Mother Theresa, oh wait, I say something on the Insider actually doing just that. I don’t want to just sit hear and bag on Obama because I am the first to admit that I am no expert, but don’t we have to ask what is it about Obama that has everyone so enamored? In this respect, I do draw incredible comparisons between Kennedy and himself. However, as far a politician vs. a leader, what is wrong with being politician? Can one not be both?
Wow! I really enjoyed reading this article. Francis makes brings up an excellent point about how Hillary wants to have it both ways, which can’t be done. I appreciated what Barack said about how he’s understands both sides of the argument, and knows there is a way to middle ground but it won’t necessarily be in the middle. If he understands and knows that, I think that he will be a much better president than Hillary will. You can’t always have your way. Clinton is a politician and wants to appeal to the masses. By trying to do this she is showing herself to be a big flip-flopper, and very shallow. I don’t feel her sentiments to be genuine. Barack has accepted that fact that you can’t have it both ways and that people value authenticity. To me it is so refreshing to find a candidate that isn’t willing to mudsling in order to win. I don’t agree with all of Obama’s stances but to me he is looking like a winner. So many people are jumping on the Obama bandwagon, that this could give him vast momentum going into these next few caucuses and primaries. With the endorsements from the Kennedy’s, things are looking up for his campaign.
I love the point Megan made that we’re tired of politicians with their own self-interests becoming president. I think the reason people have started to hate Hillary Clinton as much as they do is not only does she have her own self-interest in mind but her husband has HIS own interests in mind and the public is taking notice. Instead of talking about the changes their going to make while in the White House (again), they’re talking about the inexperience of their opponent and how he cannot possibly be able to handle the presidency.
The endorsements from the Kennedy’s I think will greatly help Obama since they’re the closest thing to royalty that we have in America. Even though we’ve long talked about Ted Kennedy’s alcoholism and scandalousness it’s known the he represents change. One of the few politicians who’s been able to pull off coming from wealth and winning the Senator position in Massachusetts and representing the unfamiliar, the poor.
I don’t know whether or not Kaitlynn is right. Obviously it’s going to be hard to make major changes no matter who wins the presidency (as we’ve learned about legislation and the hoops people have to jump through and the unsupport of Congress) but I think that Obama is going to try harder than some of the other candidates.
I agree that this article was very interesting. It was an eye-opener in the fact that the author describes Obama as a leader and Hillary as a politician. I have not looked at the two this way and it is holds true. From what I see Hillary is representing the “experienced” look while Obama wants to change the world. I do like his optimism and I think that Kaitlynn is being pessimistic about Obama as usual…jk Kaitlynn. “Sometimes I think people need to be realistic. Obama’s message of change has been a very successful campaign strategy,…but in the grand scheme of things, I doubt there would be any out-of-the-ordinary change in the way the US government is run with Obama as president.” John Kennedy was more of leader than a political expert and he had a very positive impact on our nation. If I had to vote I would choose leadership over experience because I believe that if you have strong leadership skills then that is just as strong as having experience. If we were in a time of crisis I would want the president to make a decision based on what he or she thought would be the most impactful rather than playing it safe with what past experiences have taught us. It is evident by looking at our war situations that it is time for change and although I’m not necessarily against the war like Obama, I think a change would be good.
I agree with Mallory. I think change is good. This is what obama is bringing to the table. Mr. Pitts Jr. makes the connection to JFK. JFK was “young,” and he was catholic. These two features could be someone’s down fall because of the status quo. Many people were afraid that if we elected Kennedy, he would be answering to the pope and our country would be run by the catholic church. Did that happen? No. Of course not. Kennedy was one of the most revered president’s on our country’s history. He was well liked by most of the country. He represented change. Hope. Much of what Obama represents. I do believe that we need a leader and Obama would make a good leader. I think he would be able to reach parts of the country that many other presidents haven’t been able to. If you look right now, Obama is drawing a huge crowd, raising tons of money and is appealing to a young audience. This is really important. I may sound like an old man, but, getting the younger generation involved will be good on the long run because we will one day be in the grandma and grandpa range where most of the voting takes place.
Callie,
For once I’m going to have to disagree with you. I don’t think we can attach suspicion to Obama just because the media isn’t trashing him. Also, you should keep in mind in your argument about the Insider trashing Mother Theresa that the Insider is by no means a reliable source for news. It’s completely biased and almost entirely entertainment based. I think behavior like that can be expected from shows like the Insider. I would be more on your side if CNN or Fox had featured a story like that.
To address your other point, is it really a horrible thing that Obama fever is sweeping the nation? I think, especially in this point in time, it would be a very valuable thing for the country to be united in its political thinking. If we’re all working towards the same thing, I can see a lot of work getting done in the next administration. On the subject of politician vs. leader vs. politician leader, I think what is meant by that is the people want someone without a personal agenda (the general assumption is that all politicians are selfish and conniving and want to achieve things for themselves, not necessarily the constituents). Obama is obviously a politician, but he’s a different breed of politician which is part of what makes him so alluring.