When Senator Obama had suggested that there was a righteous wind
at his back, he was criticized as being somewhat presumptuous.
But he was, to a great extent, correct. There was a wind at his
back, and it could be observed in those who were excited for him.
McCain, on the other hand, was himself winded.
There is an excitement surrounding Obama that never could have
been conjured by McCain. It is, in fact, surprising that McCain
was ever able to get so far without it. Indeed, experience is an
excellent qualifier, but experience is not magic. And those who
pulled the lever did so in the hopes that maybe this longshot
candidate could fulfill their dreams for the country. That pull
of the lever was, of course, similar to working the slot machine,
and we will not truly know if it will pay off any time soon. But
it is not insignificant that so many felt the need to gamble in
the first place.
Here in the rain-soaked streets of Washington, young and old, but
all excited, voters swarm in and out of cars. The honking
(frequently three staccato beeps) accompanies cheers of a name.
Posters sway. Driving past the White House, Lafayette Square Park
gathered more onlookers. Where they once stood and wondered "What
if," has finally, for them, changed to "Now that."
That excitement is real. Yes, this is a historical moment, and
one we should be proud of it. A legacy of racism and slavery has
been strongly rejected in this election. And Barack Obama's
greatest strength turned out to be his inexperience. There was so
small a record to point to, it was far easier for people hopeful
for change to turn to him as the embodiment of their hopes. There
was little to contradict them. What he lacked in experience, they
made up for themselves. History was less important than simply
making history.
Some see this as a recipe for disaster. A survey of blogs around
the web note, almost gleefully, that this man will completely and
utterly fail. He can't help to, they say. This is foolishness. No
one really knows. But a serious opposition ought to take its
opponent seriously. More seriously, one hopes, than it did during
the campaign.
What do conservatives have to look forward to? Years in
opposition, something in which they excel. It's easier to fight
the growth of government than to govern without growth. And while
certainly the policies ushered forward in coming years won't be
favorable to those who would prefer to live with liberty, they
will definitely animate a movement struggling to define itself
against what it isn't. If nothing else, it's a helping hand.
In this sense, I wish this for our dear readers. Do not be angry
conservatives. Do not let the politics overrule your day-to-day
lives. Continue living (to the extent you can) without concern
for what the State might do. In this sense, we are so very
different from the left. We won't allow anger to guide our
discourse. Instead, I hope it'll be optimism. We will no doubt
have fights ahead for the soul of American politics, but our own
souls should remain unaffected. There are, after all, greater
things.
This republic has a new president, baptized in the bloodless
revolutions we enjoy every four years. Think about the woman in
Iraq who holds her finger aloft, coated in purple dye. Just
because we've practiced this so often for so long doesn't mean it
should thrill us any less.
Whatever politics are to come, please remember this one thing: We
are free.
Look, the historical significance of America electing its first
Afro-American president is not lost on me. But my reading of
Martin Luther King's dream was for his children to be judged not
by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.
That said, who is Barack Obama other than a person who has shared
what it is that he wants us to know about him and nothing more.
We do have a good sense of his character which, frankly, is
troublesome.
I don't know about the chosen associations of past presidents,
but Obama's selections are dreadful. He may be the only president
in US history to give the finger to his primary opponent and his
general election opponent. One time is explained away, a second
occurrence becomes a pattern. And, in both cases he was winning
or had won. What does that say about being a gracious winner?
Disgusted, Not Angry| 11.5.08 @ 2:53AM
I've been an AmSpec reader since the mid 80's, and I'm gagging on
this rah rah speech. After those great days of Ronald Reagen,
we're right back where we started, as far as the prospects for
liberty are concerned.
Far too many Conservatives went along willingly for the ride over
the past eight years. That includes, in my opinion, this
publication. And now you implore me to think philosophically?
Yeah, right.
I stopped believing that Republicans were serious about limiting
government years ago. Whatever they say now while "in opposition"
will have zero credibility with me.
Henry| 11.5.08 @ 10:04AM
Such blather about electing an African-American. That a minority
has a chance to be president is a testament to the American idea.
But, where did it say we were supposed to settle for the first
one, the wrong one? I think it is much more historic that we
elected our first out-and-out Marxist president. This is how
President Government should be measured; not by race, but by
ideas. His are bad ideas, and he uses the tactics of Marxists
past (Alinsky) in part to prey on the moral confusion and fatigue
found in today's America.
God help us.
a. guess| 11.5.08 @ 1:35PM
"We are free" as in, "Don't worry readers, Barack Obama can't
take away our freedoms" or "We are free, unlike those un-free
socialists over in Europe"?
Andy, you know just how un-hyperbolic I am. It was intended as,
"political defeats should not define how lucky we are to be
here," continuing the theme of "conservatives, please don't
become the angry right the same way the left has been."
ruth| 11.5.08 @ 5:43PM
I don't want to be the 'angry right' and i'm damn sick of being
the wimpy right.
Captain America| 11.5.08 @ 2:18AM
Look, the historical significance of America electing its first Afro-American president is not lost on me. But my reading of Martin Luther King's dream was for his children to be judged not by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.
That said, who is Barack Obama other than a person who has shared what it is that he wants us to know about him and nothing more. We do have a good sense of his character which, frankly, is troublesome.
I don't know about the chosen associations of past presidents, but Obama's selections are dreadful. He may be the only president in US history to give the finger to his primary opponent and his general election opponent. One time is explained away, a second occurrence becomes a pattern. And, in both cases he was winning or had won. What does that say about being a gracious winner?
Disgusted, Not Angry| 11.5.08 @ 2:53AM
I've been an AmSpec reader since the mid 80's, and I'm gagging on this rah rah speech. After those great days of Ronald Reagen, we're right back where we started, as far as the prospects for liberty are concerned.
Far too many Conservatives went along willingly for the ride over the past eight years. That includes, in my opinion, this publication. And now you implore me to think philosophically? Yeah, right.
I stopped believing that Republicans were serious about limiting government years ago. Whatever they say now while "in opposition" will have zero credibility with me.
Henry| 11.5.08 @ 10:04AM
Such blather about electing an African-American. That a minority has a chance to be president is a testament to the American idea. But, where did it say we were supposed to settle for the first one, the wrong one? I think it is much more historic that we elected our first out-and-out Marxist president. This is how President Government should be measured; not by race, but by ideas. His are bad ideas, and he uses the tactics of Marxists past (Alinsky) in part to prey on the moral confusion and fatigue found in today's America.
God help us.
a. guess| 11.5.08 @ 1:35PM
"We are free" as in, "Don't worry readers, Barack Obama can't take away our freedoms" or "We are free, unlike those un-free socialists over in Europe"?
J. Peter Freire| 11.5.08 @ 1:49PM
Andy, you know just how un-hyperbolic I am. It was intended as, "political defeats should not define how lucky we are to be here," continuing the theme of "conservatives, please don't become the angry right the same way the left has been."
ruth| 11.5.08 @ 5:43PM
I don't want to be the 'angry right' and i'm damn sick of being the wimpy right.