Small thoughts about Big Things

(reprinted from an online discourse with Obama supporters who stated that the various attacks brought by critics of Obama (Reverend Wright, Flag Pin and Pledge of Allegiance controversies among others) were "small" things. My response follows):

First, by way of full disclosure, I want to state that I am a life-long conservative Republican. Raised in a Democratic household, I nonetheless became enamored of Ronald Reagan at a young age and spent the first 12 years of my adult life working for him – first on campaigns and then in his Administration at HUD, GSA and the White House. I worked also for the Republican National Committee and participated in a score of gubernatorial, Senatorial and Congressional campaigns (including two of my own), as well as a passle of state and local campaigns. I worked in the Jewish and Christian world – serving as Pat Robertson's Press Secretary (during his failed Presidential bid) and immediately thereafter joining the White House staff as Jewish Liaison to the President. I recount my C.V. here first so that you won't think my opinions borne of idle (or heaven forbid idol) thought but rather having come from decades of on the ground, real world experience.

I believe that Barack Obama is, perhaps, the most fascinating political figure on either side of the aisle to appear on the American national political landscape in a generation. With Clinton-like charisma (Bill not Hillary) and Reaganesque/Churchillian oratorical skills he has captivated a nation hungry to follow an inspiring/inspired leader. After 8 years of George W. Bush and facing the prospect of a return to the Bush/Clinton/Bush political ping-pong duopoly that has dominated for the past two decades, the American people have given Obama a pop culture welcome not seen since the Beatles launched the British invasion on Ed Sullivan. Crowds mass, women swoon and the press loses its objectivity in the rush to laud.

Some of this celebrity is due and well earned. Obama is thoughtful and articulate. While a neophyte, and ill-credentialed for the position he is educated and well spoken.

How, then, does one objectively assess the candidate and properly decide whether or not to support a candidate?

I believe that to properly evaluate a candidate for any position – be it President of the United States or soda jerk at the local diner – you have to know the requirements of the position.

The job of President has many requirements, and it is easy to get lost in the details. Broadly said, however, the President has two jobs – lead the nation and represent her to the world. The nuts and bolts of the job – running the Administration – is generally left to underlings (Jimmy Carter notably did not do this and was consumed in the process) so that the President can be free to concentrate on the job of leading.

It is no surprise that the Presidents we think of as being the most successful in history were the most inspiring. Clinton, Reagan, Kennedy and Roosevelt all were either great orators or shepherded the nation thought difficult times – or both. Bush I, Bush II, Carter, Ford and Johnson were all deemed middle of the road or worse. The job of President is chiefly to have a vision for the future of the country that inspires the population and then to be able to articulate it well. Everyone remembers lines from the great Presidential speeches:

"The only thing we have to fear is fear itself" - Roosevelt

"Ask not what your country can do for you, ask only what you can do for your country" – Kennedy

"Mr. Gorbachav, Tear down this wall." – Reagan

"I did not have sex with that woman." – Clinton (sorry, couldn't resist that one).

Each of these Presidents understood the importance of speech and symbology as essential tools in leading the nation.

Obama too understands this. He is a bright – indeed possibly brilliant – politician whose every word is crafted to move an audience. Every important speech that he has delivered has been in front of an appropriate audience or organization. His campaign team has trotted out his family when needed and attacked others for bringing his family into the campaign when it suited him. Each move has been well planned and executed. This had to be the case – he was running against a former First Lady and the head of a formidable political machine - Hillary Clinton.

I say all of this in preface to make the point that there are no small issues when it comes to picking a President. It was not an accident that Barack Obama didn't wear an American Flag lapel pin and it was not an accident that he didn't have his hand over his heart during the singing of the American anthem. If it were so, then he and his campaign should be impugned for insolence and negligence. No, this was no accident. These were moments reminiscent of the raised black gloves of Olympians Tommie Smith and John Carlos at the Mexico City Olympics in 1968.

Obama was making a statement. He knew that there are no greater symbols of American patriotism than the American flag and the Star Spangled Banner. He knew precisely that these were symbols of the status quo establishment in this country and – like it or not – he made the conscious decision to flout the standard.

To deny this is to say that Barack Obama was not smart enough to understand that Politics 101 in this country dictates you wear an American Flag lapel pin and put your hand over your heart during the National Anthem.

To say that this is a small thing and it doesn't matter is to deeply misunderstand the second part of the job of President – that of diplomat in chief.

Just as the President's main job is to lead and inspire the nation at home, so too is it his job to inspire confidence abroad. The use of symbols in diplomacy may be even more important than their centrality to domestic tranquility.

Without belaboring this point to the point of utter boredom, let me say that while I'm fascinated by Obama and enjoy his ascendancy through the political ranks, it is apparent from his recent jaunt abroad that he is not seasoned enough for the job of leader of the free world. Lapel pins and anthems, flags in headquarters and errant ministers are mere distractions. The world is a dangerous place and I'm not sure it is prudent for America to put such an abject rookie in this role at such a critical time.

In the fight against terrorism, dictatorship and oppression, it might not be wise to entrust our future to a man who has such scant experience in the world of real politick.

In some ways it is quite sad that Obama is so ill-prepared for the job. I believe it would be a healing balm for the nation's long illness with racial discord for a man of such obvious appeal to be elected to the highest office in the land. His defeat in the fall – even if sound and uncontested – will be a cause for a deepening of the white-black divide here and will likely be used as an excuse to ignore participatory democracy by a generation of young enthusiastic Obama supporters.

Were it not for the equally obvious danger he represents to the Republic and our allies in Europe and the Middle East, I would be tempted to cast a vote in his column.