What's Missing?

Greenwald has a good post today that puts his finger on what I was feeling as I listened to Biden's speech last night.  It wasn't so much what he was saying as what he wasn't.  It just sounded as though we were in the middle of another typical election rather than in the middle of one of the profoundest political crises in our history. Greenwald says that the Democrats

are largely guilty of doing what they typically do: appearing listless and amorphous by standing for nothing other than safe and uncontroversial platitudes. The loudest reaction Bill Clinton provoked last night was when he proclaimed, in passing and without elaboration, that Obama is "ready to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States." So much of the case against the Bush administration -- much of what has fueled high-level Democratic energy to remove the GOP from power -- has been driven by the GOP's radical transformation of the core political values of the country, trampling on the Constitution and overtly embracing policies that are completely anathema to how Americans perceived of [sic] their country.

Republicans often use their Conventions as an opportunity not just to feed voters what they want to hear but to induce them to see the world the way the GOP wants them to see it. Even if it's true that the voters who Democrats are targeting care little about these issues -- and that's a precarious assumption -- the Convention is still an opportunity to persuade them why they should care and, at the very least, to fuel Democratic resolve to win and to demonstrate to non-core-Democratic voters that there are political values that Democrats actually "stand for." They've done very little of that. The virtual nonexistence of these issues in the key Convention speeches, the failure even to take a stand on virtually any of it, seems to be as much of a political failure as it is a failure on the merits.

The so-called kitchen-table issues are important, and maybe the Dems focus on them will be enough to get them into the White House, but it's not enough to get the country on a healthier trajectory.  Obama during the primaries talked about the necessity of changing the mentality that has come to define normal reality within the Beltway.  Perhaps the problem is that too many of the people at the Denver convention are too comfortable with that mentality to attack it in convention speeches. 

Look, we can talk all we want about what the American people are concerned about.  But ultimately the effectiveness of Obama's candidacy and his presidency, should he be elected, will depend on his using his oratorical skills and the bully pulpit he's been gifted with to educate the American people, to inspire and to motivate them to support his program to dismantle the current Beltway mentality that governs our national politics.  People settle for what they feel comfortable with unless somebody offers them the possibility of something more interesting.  It seems like he's trying to blend in more than to stick out.

Rather than try to persuade the American people that he is somebody they can feel comfortable with, he should exploit what makes him unique and compelling. So far he has failed to do that. The question is whether he will at some point summon the courage to do it.  I am not minimizing how difficult such a task is or how much courage would be required to do it.  But that's the difference between mediocrity and true greatness.

This is not a year for politics as usual. We need someone to step up and speak truthfully about what's ailing us, and to show us a plausible strategy toward finding a cure. The American people are ripe to move forward.  They know how bad things are. They know it's not just about the economy, but that economic problems are rooted in a deeper collective sickness. Jimmy Carter got it right in his now infamous "malaise speech", and we rejected it for "morning in America". We're paying the price big time.  The question is whether Americans have the collective moral fortitude to snap out of this thirty-year, Reagan-induced moral torpor. 

I'm not expecting a speech tonight that will address these concerns, but maybe Obama will surprise us.  I'm expecting, rather, more safe Democratic platitudes and toothless, formulaic criticisms of the Republicans.  I believe a majority of Americans are ready for stronger stuff than this, but it's going to take someone who has the courage to break out of these tired formulas to give it to them.  We didn't get it from Biden last night.  Will get at least a taste tonight?

Comments

[Valerius]

"I'm not expecting a speech tonight that will address these concerns, but maybe Obama will surprise us. I'm expecting, rather, more safe Democratic platitudes and toothless, formulaic criticisms of the Republicans. "

Well, this is the price of elevating 'post-partisanship and unity' as the political ideal.

[Jack Whelan]

Valerius--

I've been clear about my disappointments with Obama for some time now, but you can't still think that Hillary would have been better. Read the Roger Simon piece about the two campaigns and come back and tell me that Hillary would be an effective executive when she couldn't even manage her campaign effectively. She's has two opportunities to lead and she's blown them both: her attempt to get comprehensive healthcare in 93 and her attempt to run a campaign in the last year. She simply does not have what it takes even in the competency dept. much less the vision and communications dept. The Simon piece can be found here: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0808/12731.html
She's a paint-by-numbers grinder who would be at best a mediocre leader. Obama might very well turn out to be a mediocre leader, but on his worst day, he's still better than Hillary on her best.