« A Jovial Kucinich On A Moonlit Night | Main | Guess The Fake Fox News Tease »

Sullivan: The Argument For Obama

02 Nov 2007 01:57 pm

In the December Atlantic's cover story, Andrew Sullivan marshals his best case for Barack Obama.

Our editors have made it available for all. Read "Why Obama Matters

Here are some of the more interesting excerpts:

Unlike any of the other candidates, he could take America—finally—past the debilitating, self-perpetuating family quarrel of the Baby Boom generation that has long engulfed all of us. So much has happened in America in the past seven years, let alone the past 40, that we can be forgiven for focusing on the present and the immediate future. But it is only when you take several large steps back into the long past that the full logic of an Obama presidency stares directly—and uncomfortably—at you.

.....

What does he offer? First and foremost: his face. Think of it as the most effective potential re-branding of the United States since Reagan. Such a re-branding is not trivial—it’s central to an effective war strategy. The war on Islamist terror, after all, is two-pronged: a function of both hard power and soft power. We have seen the potential of hard power in removing the Taliban and Saddam Hussein. We have also seen its inherent weaknesses in Iraq, and its profound limitations in winning a long war against radical Islam. The next president has to create a sophisticated and supple blend of soft and hard power to isolate the enemy, to fight where necessary, but also to create an ideological template that works to the West’s advantage over the long haul. There is simply no other candidate with the potential of Obama to do this. Which is where his face comes in.

Consider this hypothetical. It’s November 2008. A young Pakistani Muslim is watching television and sees that this man—Barack Hussein Obama—is the new face of America. In one simple image, America’s soft power has been ratcheted up not a notch, but a logarithm. A brown-skinned man whose father was an African, who grew up in Indonesia and Hawaii, who attended a majority-Muslim school as a boy, is now the alleged enemy. If you wanted the crudest but most effective weapon against the demonization of America that fuels Islamist ideology, Obama’s face gets close. It proves them wrong about what America is in ways no words can.

....



This struggle to embrace modernity without abandoning faith falls on one of the fault lines in the modern world. It is arguably the critical fault line, the tectonic rift that is advancing the bloody borders of Islam and the increasingly sectarian boundaries of American politics. As humankind abandons the secular totalitarianisms of the last century and grapples with breakneck technological and scientific discoveries, the appeal of absolutist faith is powerful in both developing and developed countries. It is the latest in a long line of rebukes to liberal modernity—but this rebuke has the deepest roots, the widest appeal, and the attraction that all total solutions to the human predicament proffer. From the doctrinal absolutism of Pope Benedict’s Vatican to the revival of fundamentalist Protestantism in the U.S. and Asia to the attraction for many Muslims of the most extreme and antimodern forms of Islam, the same phenomenon has spread to every culture and place.

You cannot confront the complex challenges of domestic or foreign policy today unless you understand this gulf and its seriousness. You cannot lead the United States without having a foot in both the religious and secular camps. This, surely, is where Bush has failed most profoundly. By aligning himself with the most extreme and basic of religious orientations, he has lost many moderate believers and alienated the secular and agnostic in the West. If you cannot bring the agnostics along in a campaign against religious terrorism, you have a problem.

Here again, Obama, by virtue of generation and accident, bridges this deepening divide. He was brought up in a nonreligious home and converted to Christianity as an adult. But—critically—he is not born-again. His faith—at once real and measured, hot and cool—lives at the center of the American religious experience. It is a modern, intellectual Christianity. “I didn’t have an epiphany,” he explained to me. “What I really did was to take a set of values and ideals that were first instilled in me from my mother, who was, as I have called her in my book, the last of the secular humanists—you know, belief in kindness and empathy and discipline, responsibility—those kinds of values. And I found in the Church a vessel or a repository for those values and a way to connect those values to a larger community and a belief in God and a belief in redemption and mercy and justice … I guess the point is, it continues to be both a spiritual, but also intellectual, journey for me, this issue of faith.”

Comments (14)

Is this the same Andrew Sullivan from The Atlantic who said last week on TV that Clinton needs to take voice lessons to speak with a very deep voice and sound like a man?

Sorry if I don't run right out and buy political analysis from from such a shallow sexist pundit. Not when I can get it for free five nights a week from Chris Matthews or Bill O'Reilly.

BTW, has Sullivan written about Obama's gay-bashing gospel tour in South Carolina yet?

Andrew Sullivan is such an apologist for Obama that it's hard to take anything he says seriously. Remember how he used to fawn over President Bush from 2000 - 2003?

I know what he's trying to get at with the term, but isn't a "logarithm" technically less than a "notch"? He means the opposite, eh?

I don't know much about the author of this article, but his points are right on. You remember seeing videos of radicals burning effigies of Bush? Well, thats because everyone around the world hates Bush, including many in our own country. His point about the re-branding of the U.S.A. is a very good argument! One of Obama's goals is to rebuild the trust of America, to change the way we interact with other nations, and to change their (negative) views of America. You notice that Obama wants to heavily increase foreign aid, especially to South Africa? He wants to build a new sentiment for the United States, one that isn't entirely influenced by military force.

Sullivan also called us Blue States a fifth column after 9/11. He left the conservative movement about as recently as Mitt Romney joined it.

Remind me again why his voice should matter regarding who our party nominates for president?

"Not a notch but a logarithm"? Isn't that the same as "not a vastness but an iota"?

So Sullivan's observation is that the country is paralyzed by the narrative of Nixon vs. McGovern, which would be reincarnate in a Giuliani vs. Clinton matchup.

So, his answer is casting off the narrative... by electing someone who's only apparent qualification is being outside of the narrative?

How about we get past it and elect the person most qualified to do the job?

As a Chicago Democrat wavering between Obama and Clinton, I angrily reject the idea that the solution to global terrorism is to put the title "President" under the name "Barack Hussein Obama" and a brown-skinned face. This argument insults everyone's intelligence. Can't we just change Chris Dodd's name? Win win!

Sullivan has really found his voice in the last year. Yes, he's been wrong in the past, but he's been forthright about his mistakes. And on the McClurkin thing, Sullivan did not pull punches. He said Obama's campaign screwed that up big time, that he could understand why some gays might abandon him over the flap, but that he did not think there was evidence that Obama himself knew what he was getting when McClurkin signed on, and that Obama's own record on gay rights, including criticizing African American ministers for not doing enough to speak against homophobia, and Obama's statements disavowing McClurkin's views on gays deserved to be given real weight as well.

FWIW, I think the use of "logarithm" is correct; each additional increment on a logarithmic scale multiplies the baseline by 10. A "notch" would be adding 1, a logarithm would be multiplying by 10. Sullivan is a pretty careful stylist and has good diction.

But Obama is partly African in race, and therefore 3% dumber than the average white man... or so Sullivan is pleased to argue when in the grips of another obsession.

I like Barack, and I like reading Sullivan, but boy can the latter be stupid.

I'm a big fan of Sullivan too, even from way back when I disagreed with him more [we agree more now that Sullivan has seen the light, ahem]. He just puts things really well.
And he didn't give Obama a pass on McClurkin. But he doesn't consider it a deal-breaker either:
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2007/11/obama-and-the-g.html

Whether I agree or not, this was Sullivan at his best (as opposed to his ridiculous lack of nuance and subtlety on torture -- I am still waiting for his response to Krauthammer). But all the soaring rhetoric aside, the Islamo-facists (as Sullivan calls them) will not be stymied in their march to destroy the West by the "face" of Obama as president. Indeed, Obama's liberalism is what they hate the most. The roots of Islamo-facism are deep and complex and Obama has articulated no sense of understanding it or a real plan to fight against it.

As for the Baby-boomer divide: I believe that it is a narrative that informs Obama's anti-war, I'll engage even the vilest of world-leaders thinking. He has sided with the anti-war left which is still rooted in the McGovern-wing of my beloved democrat party.

Race and gender aside, Obama is the only choice for those of us looking for real change. He is not only electable, but could actually change the face of the average American voter, polls be damned. As Sullivan states, things are different now. Bush's war will just become Hillary's war if she is elected. Obama is not only "outside of the narrative," but is also outside of the (proverbial) box. A much needed quality for these dynamic and uncertain times.

Sullivan's insightful article is but one of many more to come regarding the many sound reasons that an Obama presidency makes perfect sense. The truth is a wonderful thing, and the truth is that Barack Obama is exactly the right person at the right time for the job of the leader of the free world. The invincibility of Hillary Clinton was exposed on last Tuesday's debate-and the results were not very pretty-at least for Hillaryland. The blood is now in the water-and the sharks are coming from everywhere! If she refuses to open up the transcripts from her White House days she will be badly damaged. If she does, she's finished.
The momentum of this primary campaign has shifted-and you are seeing just the tip of the iceberg.