Op-ed

Obama for President

The question confronting the American electorate is this: are we a decadent power? This query should not be misconstrued; I am not sure whether America’s finest days are behind her, nor is the goal of this essay to prove that they are. Rather the following must be understood as an attempt to understand the full implications of the current electoral cycle.

The past does not guarantee the future. Although the United States will still be the preeminent power in the world in 2012 regardless of who is elected as the next President, there is significant danger that the 2008 election could mark the beginning of the end of the American Century.

The reason is that this election is about the nature of America, the soul of the nation. It is true that America is a self-interested country that does terrible things in the international arena. In this respect, it is no different than any other great power. What is different about America is the mythos that surrounds it, a mythos that is rooted in the American Dream and the centrality of the individual. The idea that “all men are created equal” lies at the very core of what it means to be Americans. Indeed, what makes America different is that, eventually, we live up to this creed—slavery was abolished, women gained the right to vote and the New Deal and civil rights movement made equality the cornerstone of the American experience. Yet, like alliance politics, these past triumphs do not ipso facto guarantee future successes.

Nor is America’s hold on international imagination guaranteed to last. The vision of America as a purveyor of freedom is being muddied. Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay are slowly replacing the Statue of Liberty as the symbols of America. We cannot allow this transition to be completed, for it would extinguish the thing that keeps human rights activists and political dissidents working and dying for their causes: hope. America is the idea that hope will win out in the end, that equality will trump inequity, that the poor and rich will all be held equally accountable in when their ballots are counted and when they appear in court. This election is about whether or not this creed will be sustained in the years to come. By looking at the two candidates, we can see that the two conflicting halves of the American self have been pitted against one another.

On the one side, we have the brash, patriotic war hero. By all accounts, he is surrounded by sycophants and driven by notions of courage, patriotism and honor. He will not brook defeat, nor will his desire for victory be shackled by international institutions—the national interest will be his guiding principle. He believes that the withdrawal from Vietnam humiliated the nation and snatched defeat from the jaws of victory and he will not let this happen again. Ostensibly, this “can do” attitude is an admirable trait for a commander-in-chief. The problem, however, lies in the details—victory in this war is impossible. History is replete with occupying forces that have brought about their own demise and failed to impose their will on the occupied. What we do not have an example of is an occupying force that was able to successfully end and win an internal civil war.

To think that we can create a constitutionally liberal democracy in Iraq out of the current constituent parts is quixotic. Not only do we not know how to “create” rule of law, a state that enforces contracts and works for the public good, we know very little about Arab culture and the Arabic language. This is not to imply that the Iraqis will not be able to create a tenable constitutional structure for themselves, but to simply note that we, as outsiders, will not be able to force such an agreement to come to pass.

The stubborn patriotic desire to win in Iraq is also at play in the candidate’s refusal to negotiate with Iran. Iran is an enemy, so we can’t give them the legitimacy that will be afforded to them if we negotiate. Well, yes, Iran is an adversary, but the ostrich head-in-the-sand approach is not going to work. In fact, the Iranians were very helpful in Afghanistan and Iraq until the Bush Administration labeled them as part of the “Axis of Evil.” Not negotiating will only serve to strengthen Iran’s current course of action, which consists of meddling in the internal affairs of Iraq and supporting Hezbollah and Hamas.

And as for his Vice Presidential selection, suffice it to say that she represents the ugly id of the American psyche.

On the other hand, we have a candidate who embodies the American ideals of compromise, equality, cooperation and the prudent use of overwhelming force as a last resort. His initial objection to voice concern over the invasion of Iraq should, with the help of hindsight, elicit applause. But approbation for this prescience should serve as the beginning, not the end, of any discussion of his understanding of international affairs. He understands that America is strongest when it binds itself to the international institutions it created during the Truman Administration. To be sure, he has asserted that his administration will work outside of this framework if need be, but only as last resort, not as a standard operating procedure. Moreover, a look at his foreign policy team reveals that he surrounds himself with professionals who will give him honest advice. As no one is omniscient, this ability to seek out and accept advice from top-tier assistants is a prerequisite for being an effective President.

Engaging with allies and forging a tenable solution for exiting Iraq will be top priorities. By extricating ourselves from an un-winnable war and re-energizing the fledgling Atlantic Alliance, he will demonstrate that America is no longer Prometheus unbound. Rather, we will return to our traditional role as the leader of the free world. By working with others, he will restore the moral credibility that has been decimated by the Bush years. Engagement with Iran, while not necessarily accomplishing anything, will show that the U.S. will not eschew all states that do not conform to American norms. More important than Iraq or Iran, however, are the issues looming over the horizon. What will America do about environmental degradation, resource depletion, water scarcity, global warming, and the rise of China?

To adequately address these issues, the next Administration is going to have to engage with China. The Bush Administration should be applauded for helping to bring China and Taiwan into the World Trade Organization. This has tethered the Chinese economy—and with it the fate of the Communist Party—to continued economic growth and the U.S.-led western bloc. But unlike some had expected, China has not become a constitutional democracy overnight. Rather, Hu Jintao has used Chinese economic growth—much of which relies upon the international system the U.S. created, leads, and during the past few weeks has almost managed to destroy—to tighten the reins on the press and political dissension. Thus China is an attractive model for other authoritarian governments that want to enjoy the benefits of the U.S.-led economic order without relinquishing power. These governments want to let their populations become rich, but they don’t want them to become free.

China offers bread for the poor and guns, riches, and power to those already in power. Before discounting the appeal of the Chinese model, it is important to realize that humans want dignity. Dignity entails freedom, but the foundation of dignity is the ability to provide oneself and family with food, shelter and education. China appeals precisely because its model provides basic dignity for the poor and power for the rich.

Instead of shirking from a real debate by unequivocally asserting that humans want freedom, we must reckon with the fact that, more than freedom, people want dignity. Before pointing a self-righteous finger at those who would gladly trade freedom for bread and a job, those of us in the West need to realize that subsistence farming is the most brutal and terrible of all jobs. And that a hungry person will take any job that will end the hunger. A vote cannot buy a person bread—but a job can.

America offers an alternative to China, and this is what excites the masses, the human rights activists and those who care for their fellow man. This is what scares those in power.

This election matters because we cannot afford to lose hope. The foundation of hope is the steadfast belief in the equality of man. This election is about the nature of America—the very fabric of the country. Will we continue to soldier on Iraq and waste American lives and treasure for four more years until we realize that as outsiders we cannot win a civil war? Will we refuse to work with the Europeans, or engage with Iran and thereby lower our international standing to its nadir? Or will we realize that it is time to turn the page of this disastrous chapter of our nation’s foreign policy that the Bush Administration has wrought. Will we finally realize we don’t know how to export democracy and that incremental and cautious change is the best we can hope for?

This brings me back to the issue of decadence. If the electorate does not take a chance on a candidate who is intellectually, descriptively, and philosophically the embodiment of the most salient features of the American experience and what it should mean to be American, then we as a people deserve our fate. But whatever numbers are posted on November 4th, I am proud to say that I have already voted for Senator Barack Obama and currently enjoy the privilege of volunteering for his campaign in Cleveland, Ohio.

© 2008 The Hypermodern.