His Obamaness

I heard Barack Obama interviewed on NPR  a week or so back. I don't have the exact words in front of me (I'm composing on the fly), but basically the interviewer asked why Obama thought he could do things like turn education around, or solve immigration problems.

His reply was both naive and vain. He admitted that his policy proposals were not radically different from other Dem candidates, but he believed (I think sincerely) that the difference was that he could unite people, make them forget their petty differences and come together to do what no other president could.

Apparently, he just radiates his Obama-ness like Dickens' Ghost of Christmas Present, scattering - nay sprinkling, as if in Baptism - joy and brotherhood over the huddled masses. Never mind pesky policy details, his plans will work because all of us will want so badly to please him.

I was astonished. That is, I think, the most megalomaniacal thing he could have said.

Run away. Terribly fast.

Comments

[Mary]

and what petty differences are we supposed to forget?

All _our_ disagreements with _him_?

[The Aesthetic Elevator]

Naive is an acceptable word for it, but then I'm pretty certain every candidate speaks in terminology that can be called naive when on the campaign trail and then when in office. I don't think I've heard any of them every seriously address any of the issues. They speak in broad generalizations about very complex topics.

And of course this is understandable to a large degree. The rabble in their audience would be lost in extended discussions about these complex topics, and candidates usually aren't afforded the time to comprehensively address the issues during interviews or debates.

But, still, I personally wish they would get more into it.

And, no, I'm pretty sure Obama won't unite! While certain leaders possess a charisma that people will gather around, the U.S. is, I think, much too cynical and diverse for that at this point. FURTHER, we live in a polarized culture that doesn't know how to, in many cases, engage in civil discussion on topics that we disagree on. On my blog yesterday I wrote this in response to a Gregory Wolfe essay on religious humanism:

"This speaks to a number of things I’ve learned and talked about in the past couple of years, particularly people’s inability to live with paradox, to live with mystery. We as humans seem to be personally in the business of adopting strict dogma — whether derived from our parents, our faith, our friends, our education — which we are compelled to defend to the death, not willing to hear let alone consider feasible alternatives to our personal canons. Such polarized points of view seem to come to the surface most in the realms of politics, faith and science in my own experience."

[Tim J.]

Weird thing is (and Chesterton would appreciate this) the acceptance of paradox is absolutely necessary to even begin to reason and communicate. In other words, paradox is a foundational dogma.

All reason and discourse begins with an assumption, and as Chesterton pointed out, there is no such thing as a reasonable assumption.

These assumptions, which we all take on faith (even those who claim they don't), are the *beginning* of reason. We can't reason our way into them, they are what we reason *with*.