Obamanation
Posted by ben on 18 Feb 2008 at 06:13 pm | Tagged as: announcements, borders, politics, responses/reviews
Some of you may have been a bit surprised to see Emvergeoning turn into a platform for a political campaign yesterday (I must admit I was a bit surprised myself, despite my own flirtations with political themes). Yes, the contemporary art community in San Antonio seems to be coalescing around Obama’s campaign, but what does this really have to do with the artistic project, especially considering our previous criticisms of politically driven art?
Let me try to explain why this presidential campaign is relevant to Emvergeoning’s overall mission. In a nutshell: we are here to open up the dialog that exists within the San Antonio art community, to help draw new voices in, both from the local community and from distant cities. We want to bring more people into the conversation. This is, I think, exactly the kind of change that Barack Obama is offering America: to break down barriers in the dialog. No, he’s not going to instantly launch the United States into a post-racial, post-partisan social dynamic. No, he’s not going to end corruption and corporate influence in Washington. But Obama does represent our best chance to mollify the cynicism of our political discourse, and move partisan bickering a little closer to sincere and honest dialog.
As an example, look at Obama’s strategy while working to expand health care options in Illinois. As reported by health care expert Jonathan Cohn in the New Republic, Obama worked to build a coalition of health care activists, doctors, and hospitals, while holding direct talks with insurance and business lobbyists. Because he brought all interested parties on board as he crafted a health care task force, “He could not be accused of partisan aggression. But he got his way,” according to John Bouman, director of the Shriver Center on Poverty Law.
Contrast this approach to Hillary Clinton’s when she headed the Task Force on National Health Care Reform created by then-president Bill Clinton. The task force’s members and meetings were kept secret, so that by the time the plan was unveiled, the task force had already been sued for violating regulations related to government transparency. Meanwhile, a number of fellow Democrats crafted their own, competing health care plans, while conservatives and business interests lined up an intense PR campaign to kill the idea.
These episodes exemplify the approaches of the two Democratic candidates, one of whom works closely with both allies and opponents to build consensus through open dialog, and one of whom works within a tight political network to push things through. It could be argued that Hillary Clinton has learned her lesson from her health care debacle, if it weren’t for her campaign’s use of some of these same kinds of tactics in this primary season. Her insistence on seating the delegates from Florida and Michigan after agreeing with the Democratic National Committee’s decision to strip these states of delegates smacks of cynical political manipulation, and threatens to create an enormous rift within the Democratic party.
I don’t have much hope that Obama will be able to live up to all of his soaring rhetoric; but I do know that that rhetoric is supported by a strong record of good judgment and open discourse. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said of his opponent. It is for this reason that I see Obama as a candidate who is aligned with the goals of Emvergeoning, goals that I think are also central to the task of contemporary art.
Thanks Ben, I was wondering if I should tell you where I was going during my bathroom break during the second act of the no idea festival..but it seems like you’ve figured it out. =)
Your criticism of Clinton is anectodal and a hasty generalization. How are we to believe that Clinton “works within a tight political network to push things through” based on a single anecdote. It’s incomplete, Ben. I’m not saying you’re wrong. I’m just saying it’s incomplete.
So is your conclusion about Obama’s work “with both allies and opponents to build consensus through open dialog.” You admit there’s not “much hope that Obama will be able to live up to all of his soaring rhetoric,” but you pin your entire post and the “task of contemporary art” on his “good judgement and open discourse” citing only one example in which he exhibited what you perceive as “good judgement and open discourse.”
Which is it, Ben? Is he blowing smoke up the public’s ass or is he Ghandi/MLK/Kennedy/et al. incarnate? You can’t have it both ways.
Which is it, Ben? Is he blowing smoke up the public’s ass or is he Ghandi/MLK/Kennedy/et al. incarnate? You can’t have it both ways.
Why does it have to be either/or? It’s a much more complex dynamic than you make it out to be. What I’m saying is that like Kennedy, and yes, like Clinton, Obama is a politician. He’s not going to be able to change America overnight, and although he doesn’t exactly promise this, I think that is what a lot of people are taking from his speeches. Every politician blows smoke up the public’s ass to some extent, and I’m just saying that Obama is no different in that regard. But it doesn’t change the fact that he does have a substantive record that shows his rhetoric actually has meaning. He is telling us he can change America; and I think the direction he points is precisely the direction we need to be going. But I also recognize that the president alone can’t take us there, even if he is a coalition-builder like Obama. We will still live in a two-party system, and there will still be bitter divisions and gridlock. I’m trying to be realistic about what he can accomplish, while I also really believe that he would take us in the right direction — just not as far in that direction as some people seem to think.
Your criticism of Clinton is anectodal and a hasty generalization.
I really don’t think my characterization of Clinton is hasty. Yes, I only offer two examples (health care reform and the Florida / Michigan mess), but c’mon Steve, this is a blog post, not an essay for a political journal. I picked these examples because they do reflect her character as I’ve observed it, especially in this primary race. Her tactics are getting more and more underhanded — her allegations of plagiarism, for instance, are ludicrous. Politico reports today that her campaign is planing on going after Obama’s pledged delegates. If true, that’s about as divisive as you can get.
I’ve been seeing examples like this all over the place during this primary season, and when you look back over her “35 years of experience,” you see it in her record as well. It’s underhanded politics, and I don’t think it’s good for the Democratic party or the country.
If you have examples of Hillary being a good coalition-builder, or fostering meaningful discourse among political adversaries, I’d love to hear them. Or if you have examples of Obama using dirty politics and sowing division, let us know. I’m sure there are cases of both — but to me the patterns on both sides are pretty clear. The point of this post was not to prove definitively that Obama is the savior or Hillary the villain, but just to lay out the way I understand this choice, with a few examples.
One thing I’ve learned since I began blogging years ago (back in the days of Apple’s eWorld), is that people hold you accountable for what you say the perception being that you are an actual media outlet. You can fly under the radar for only so long before people start taking your occasional hobby serious. I lived for years with the one-foot-in/one-foot-out approach to journalism and it was fun because when people would get on my ass about what I would write, I could cop out and say, “Hey, man. I’m just another idiot with a Web site.”
Anyway, my point is, if you’re going to put something out there, make sure you’re comfortable with it, because there’s always someone who crawls out of the woodwork to call you on shit. In this case, it’s me, but I’m being relatively gentle about it.
“C’mon Steve, this is a blog post, not an essay for a political journal” is akin to “Hey, man. I’m just another idiot with a Web site.”
This is a contemporary art blog, but in this case, you went out of your way to endorse a political candidate. If you want to make that choice, then surely you’re willing to put in the effort to sell the visitors to your site on the merits of that choice.
I’m not sold on it… yet.
BTW, here’s an archive link to my old blog called Grande Mesa (FYI):
http://web.archive.org/web/20030328223627/http://www.grandemesa.com/
Toward the middle of the page is Grande Mesa’s statement on the war in Iraq which had just started. Boy, did I catch hell for that.
“C’mon Steve, this is a blog post, not an essay for a political journal” is akin to “Hey, man. I’m just another idiot with a Web site.”
That’s not what I’m saying. I fully stand behind my judgment on this, and I’m fully willing to back up my statements with more facts. My point was merely that I don’t have the space or the time to post a 2,000 word essay on the topic, so I can’t get into the nitty-gritty of and in-depth comparison of their records. At this point I’ve backed up my assertions with several pieces of evidence that I think are legitimate.
I could also say that Obama’s ethics legislation in the Senate and his police interrogation reforms in Illinois also follow this pattern that I’ve discussed.
So far, you haven’t provided any countervailing evidence to dispute my claims. I look forward to seeing even a single good reason you disagree with my arguments.
I don’t necessarily disagree with your arguments. My point is and has been that your original post on this was weak and pretty much the same, to me, as just saying “Obama is cool. Clinton sucks.” If that’s the message, then cool. I’ve got no problems with that. But your post comes off almost as an NPR-style political ad.
Again, if you’re going to stick your neck out, make sure there isn’t a noose around it.
I don’t feel any particular need to counter your argument. I know what I believe and I’ve moved on from the political blog thang (although this little exchange has me thinking twice).
My point is and has been that your original post on this was weak and pretty much the same, to me, as just saying “Obama is cool. Clinton sucks.”
I think it’s perfectly legitimate to ask me to provide more evidence or flesh out my ideas. I expect and welcome that. But this is a mischaracterization of my argument. I’ve made an assertion about what defines the candidates’ legislative styles, and I’ve given examples of what that means in terms of actual legislation. I’ve compared this (at least in Clinton’s case) to the way the campaigns are being run.
Now I would say that it is perfectly legitimate to disagree — a lot of smart people think you need to fight your political enemies without compromise if you want to enact your agenda. I think this is a big part of why Paul Krugman has a particular disdain for Obama.
But I don’t think that’s where we need to be going, and I think we can see how Hillary’s approach has played out both in her legislative history and during this campaign. She just hasn’t been all that effective in pushing through meaningful legislation or in getting votes.
It’s not about being “cool,” it’s about being an effective executive. We’ve seen how Obama’s approach to legislating has been effective, and we’ve seen how his approach to managing his campaign (which is a huge organization) has been effective. In both cases he brought people on board who Hillary has left out of the process.
I think this is a perfectly meaningful distinction, and when you are talking about two candidates who have very few policy differences, it is one of the most essential aspects of the conversation: How are they going to govern?
So again, I welcome criticism on the strength of these points, but I think the assertion that it’s a meaningless distinction recalls the tired critique of Obama for “lacking substance,” coming from people who haven’t actually looked at his legislative record, or his impressive array of policy proposals.
PS I encourage you to read that “his legislative record” link, it does a better job of making some of the same arguments I’m making here.
Great post, Ben. And I am enjoying the discussion you are having with Steve.
Now *this* response is what I was looking for.
I agree. Great post, Ben.
P.S. Can you post HTML in these comments?
Now *this* response is what I was looking for.
Glad you were patient enough to get there with me…
P.S. Can you post HTML in these comments?
Yeah, basic HTML anyway. Links, images, text styling, etc.
Oh, an art blog run by twenty-somethings who support Obama. That’s like an old lady liking Thomas Kinkade.
That’s like an old lady liking Thomas Kinkade.
You spelled Hillary Clinton wrong…
Alright, here’s a bone:
While doing some research on Obama and Clinton tonight, I was surprised to see that Obama’s been absent from work nearly 40 percent of the time this year compared to Hillary’s 28 percent. While also looking at his voting record I noticed that he simply abstains from voting on what could be perceived as a controversial initiative.
He votes along party lines about 96 percent of the time compared to Clinton’s 98 percent, but that number might be a little lower if he showed up for work.
All of the initiatives he’s voted on in the 110th Congress have been fairly benign issues – things that are cherries to a picker like Obama. It’s almost like he’s been preparing for his run at the Presidency for awhile.
His voting record isn’t much of a barometer. How about the things he didn’t vote on this year:
Vote 25: S 1200: Coburn Amdt. No. 4034; To allow tribal members to make their own health care choices. [didn't vote]
Vote 12: S 2248: Feingold Amdt. No. 3913; To prohibit reverse targeting and protect the rights of Americans who are communicating with people abroad. [didn't vote]
Vote 23: S 1200: Tester Amdt. No. 4020; To express the sense of Congress regarding law enforcement and methamphetamine issues in Indian country. [didn't vote]
Vote 27: S 1200: Coburn Amdt. No. 4032; To protect rape and sexual assault victims from HIV/AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases. [didn't vote]
And those are just from this month.
Keep your nose clean. Keep a low profile. Don’t call attention to yourself. Then run for President.
Have you seen the Congressional committees he belongs to? Most of them are meaningless. Have you ever been on a committee for a large company? I have. They’re a waste of time. Millions of dollars of salaries in one room talking about planning to talk about the plan to get a plan implemented. I can’t imagine what it’s like in Congress.
Clinton is on the Armed Services Committee, she’s on the Subcommittee on Superfund and Environmental Health which is a huge issue in this country.
She has just made the most of her time in Washington, in my book.
If I’m the owner of a company and I need a new CEO, I can’t hire the guy who’s been flying under the radar since 2005. I need someone who’s going to turn my shit around because I’m in the hole by nearly $10 trillion and that debt is increasing by $1.54 billion per day because of the last asshole I hired as a CEO.
I don’t care how much charisma the guy has, after really looking at his record tonight, I’m convinced now more than ever he’s a bust.
He’s got a great smile though.
Oops sorry. Can you delete one of those? Preferably the first one. Looks like I forgot to close out one of my italics.
Another interesting one:
Vote 207: On the Cloture Motion: With this vote Democrats and some Republicans in the Senate sought to move forward on a measure that would have registered the Senate’s official opposition to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales[didn't vote]
Here’s one that he did vote on:
Vote 9: S 5: Sought to curtail the ability of plaintiffs to file class-action lawsuits against corporations by making cases that were filed in multiple states the responsibility of federal courts. [Voted Yes]
These are fair points, and I would respond to them, but I think the Obsidian Wings post I linked to earlier is response enough. He’s probably not the best senator out there, but one thing’s for sure: he’s got a lot more going on than a great smile and nice speeches. And anyway, the best senators should probably just stay in the Senate. Being a good legislator doesn’t necessarily make you a good executive.
(One note: if you want to see a list of bills that Obama and Clinton sponsored, look here. And here’s a list of bills that Obama and Clinton co-sponsored. This might give you a better idea of their priorities than their votes, which can be deceptive. Hillary Clinton, for instance, missed an important vote on stripping telecom immunity from the FISA bill because she was campaigning in the Potomac primaries. Obama voted to strip the provisions, and McCain voted not to. But I don’t really think that’s a good indicator of the kind of president she would be.)
and seized upon Matisse’s trick
And anyway, the best senators should probably just stay in the Senate. Being a good legislator doesn’t necessarily make you a good executive.
I would go further and say that the best people should (and most often do) stay away from politics and that being a good person doesn’t necessarily make you a good politician.
In our age there is no such thing as “keeping out of politics.” All issues are political issues, and politics itself is a mass of lies, evasions, folly, hatred and schizophrenia.
Hey BF,
I am glad the SA art community is behind Obama. I am an artist in Austin working as a precinct captain for him and can’t sleep over this nail-biter. I think he above any other candidate is best equipped to steer our country and he has a depth of understanding of so many sub issues of each issue that no one else has ever expressed in politics! Feel free to pass on my Obama blog to anyone in SA who needs more facts!
Keep up the fight!
http://politicktalk.blogspot.com/
He was proud of his identity but found any balkanization of consciousness abhorrent.
Old-media types who decry the new medium’s supposed immaturity are missing the point.
Thanks for nice post.