american exceptionalism

The victory of "hope" in Iowa is being hailed as a transcendent, feel good moment. And perhaps Obamamania will carry the day against the Clinton apparatus. I can only give two cheers to Mssr. Obama at this point. As an member of the entitled, liberal intelligentsia, I appreciate his brain power, eloquence, and ability to articulate a coherent vision of what America might be. We Americans like to have our cherished ideal-self mirrored back to us. And, as of today, Obama is that mirror. This is cheer #1.

Cheer #2: I like the way Obama navigates the insistent racialist vision. He usually leaves his identity unstated, which forces others to project their racial meanings upon him and his candidacy for president. 

The missing cheer #3: The high blown talk of "uniting". I don't want to "unite" with neocons and bible-thumpers. I share no common cause with these types. Moreover, I have enough Marxist DNA left in me to find that something should be said about "binding" capital to even the weakest notion of the "public good." While Edwards is serving a warmed over, nativist anti-capitalist spiel, there is something in it that is valuable. Populism, preferably the type that doesn't turn into poujadisme, is about all one can expect as a substitute for 'socialism'. Populism is the US equivalent of socialism, framed in the typically petit-bourgeois form of the little guy versus the big bosses. Obama has cast this frame into the dustbin of history, perhaps prematurely. But maybe he is in touch with the Zeitgeist: the "little guy" is fucked no matter what, but compensation can be found in the warm-fuzziness of Being-Together (Dasein-Miteinander for Heideggerians). My third cheer is reserved for the time when Obama reveals some edge, intellectual or rhetorical, that draws a few lines around what can be included in the America that might be.

*

Finally, let's cut through the crap of "experience." Like it or not, there's nothing in the U.S. Constitution prescribing that only the most "experienced" (in what?) candidate is "qualified" to be President. Hypothetically, anyone (meeting citizenship requirements) who decides to run for President can become President if s/he gains the most electoral votes. Of course, this lack of substantive criteria has lead to problems (see G. W. Bush). But short of administering a take-home exam, I'm not sure that any candidate has a monopoly on "qualification." Each might claim this, but each one still must convince "the people" that their "qualifications" matter.