Barack Obama - The triumph of hope over experience?

[The West Maghreb Dialogue]

Barack Obama

The triumph of hope over experience?
Dec 13th 2007
From The Economist print edition


Definitely not the finished product; but at least Democrats now have a
hard choice to make

ONLY two months ago, Hillary Clinton looked unbeatable. Her lead in
the race to capture the Democratic nomination widened by the day. Some
polls put her as much as 30 points clear of Barack Obama, and she led
in every one of the early-primary states. All was sweet in
Hillaryland.

No longer. Mr Obama is now ahead, by a slender margin, in Iowa, which
in less than three weeks will be the first state to vote. This week he
seemed to have eliminated the gap in New Hampshire, which will vote
five days later (and where independents crucially can vote in the
Democratic primary). Some polls now even show him ahead in South
Carolina, the third important Democratic race, where until very
recently Mrs Clinton was leading by more than 20 points. But Mrs
Clinton still has a formidable machine behind her. For Mr Obama to
sneak past her, he needs everything to go right (whilst she just needs
him to trip up once); but there is now a real contest.

In principle, this is a good thing. Democrats deserve a choice. Even
if Mrs Clinton prevails, it is better that she has been tested. But
what about Mr Obama himself?

His rise is partly due to that familiar part of any presidential race:
the front-runner's wobble. First, Mrs Clinton prevaricated during a
debate; then she panicked--attacking Mr Obama personally, which has
gone down very badly, and tacking abruptly to the left with a
startling disavowal of the free-trade policies so effectively promoted
by her husband. Meanwhile, though, Mr Obama has been picking up speed.

The bad news for Mr Obama is that he will now fall under the same
degree of scrutiny that Mrs Clinton has endured for ages. But there
also seems to have been a change in mood. Two months ago, this
newspaper hazarded that the quality Americans most wanted was
competence, and this remains the point on which the formidably
intelligent and hard-working Mrs Clinton remains ahead. (If she has
much less experience than she claims, she still has more than Mr
Obama.) But the campaign is starting to focus on softer issues. Weary
of "Bush-Clinton" partisan politics, Americans may prefer someone who
can bring their country, and the world, together.

The audacity of hope--and its limitations

This plays to Mr Obama's strength: he has always been the candidate of
"hope". As America's first black president, he would show a new face
to the world. As someone who was educated in Indonesia and has an
understanding of Islam that no other candidate shares, he could do
much to bridge the deadly gulf between Christian and Muslim states. He
admits, bluntly, that "the world has lost trust in our purposes and
our principles"--though he still reserves the right to use unilateral
force. At home, he would put an end to America's depressing and
vicious version of medieval England's dynastic Wars of the Roses. He
appeals to Republican voters far more than any other Democrat,
especially the detested Mrs Clinton.

This is not just spin. A President Obama would turn preconceptions
upside down: indeed he might be able to achieve far more both at home
and abroad than any other candidate. But hope does not balance
budgets, craft alliances or reform schools. It certainly does not
prove that Mr Obama would be the best, or even a good, president.

Mr Obama cannot change his experience deficit; but he can change his
substance deficit. His economic policies (like those of the other
Democrats, it must be said) are crowd-pleasing stuff. He is iffy about
free trade. He wants health insurance for all--and expects the rich to
pay for it. He wants schools to get better, but he panders to his
leftist base by eschewing merit pay for teachers and independent
charter schools. On Iraq, he affects not to have noticed that the
"surge" in and around Baghdad is producing palpable successes, and
clings to the idea, beloved of his party base, that all troops should
be withdrawn even before he putatively takes office.

There is something rather timid and unhopeful about all this. Mr Obama
is not prepared to break ranks with his party in the same way that
John McCain divides Republicans over immigration or Rudy Giuliani does
over abortion. Where he has produced novel policies, they have
sometimes been bizarre, such as his plan to fine mortgage-lenders who
allow borrowers to get into debt, and to give the money to the
"victims".

Offering America a chance to heal its divisions is a powerful selling
point. But like Mrs Clinton's competence, it is not enough. Mr Obama
still needs to do more to show how he defines change, as opposed just
to personifying it. If he can somehow do that, though, he will be a
hard man to beat.


Copyright (c) 2007 The Economist Newspaper and The Economist Group. All
rights reserved.