Obama's American Century

For more than a week the rabid chihuahuas of the fourth estate have had their monomaniacal fangs sunk into Barack Obama's trouser cuffs, ripping remorselessly at what they think is a bloody vulnerability: "Come now, Senator, why not your confess your venial sins regarding the holy 'surge'?"

It's been quite the media spectacle, but their obsession must be satisfied -- even when the actual question has been satisfied repeatedly. Yesterday, on the national stage of 'Meet the Press' (transcript), we saw that things hadn't changed much. Said Tom Brokaw: "You opposed the surge.... Many analysts believe that the reason that violence has decreased is because the American troops were deployed in a more effective manner.... But you would not apologize, and you said you did not regret your opposition to this surge."

After this and other more oblique but like attempts to make him confess, Obama finally gave the answer that should have shamed the media into guilt-ridden silence long ago:

You know, if we want to look at the question of judgment which is the one that John McCain raised, John McCain's essential focus has been on the tactical issue of sending more troops, and he's, he's made his entire approach to foreign policy rest on that support of Bush's decision to send more troops in. But we can have a whole range of arguments about past decisions -- the decision to go into Iraq in the first place, and whether that was a good strategic decision, where we've spent a trillion dollars at least by the time this thing is over, lost thousands of lives in pursuit of goals John McCain supported that turned out to be false.

That was Obama's genteel way of telling the media that if they can't be balanced in the application of historical inquiries, then just shut the hell up.

What I haven't heard Obama hurl in response, however, is that the right in general and John McCain in particular have been mighty selective in their historical enthusiasms. You'll recall that when Iraq was in nearly comprehensive flames and debate here about what to do there next was swirling, the one question the right would not tolerate was the one regarding the invasion's wisdom to begin with.

Hey, that's history, the right would inveigh. And what the hell has yesterday got to do with today? We are where we are and the here, now and tomorrow are all that's important. We should look only to the future (precisely what Obama has encouraged). Yet now it's the right, poor dears, who are stuck in, and on, the past, which the media has failed to notice.

Nevertheless there were -- miracles do happen -- other questions asked and answered on 'MTP' yesterday. As I was listening, Obama's answer to one of them seemed not in the least profound -- neither in the way he delivered it or in the way I received it. After revisiting his response in transcript form, however, that changed. First, Brokaw's question:

"Here is some of the perception that you're working against based on the latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll about your qualifications to be a commander in chief.... There is this ... which is an important question that we asked our audience. 'Who's the riskier choice' to be the president with two wars and an economic meltdown going on at home? Senator McCain does much better in that poll than you do. Does that surprise you?"

No, it surprised Obama not, of course. But I'll let him speak for himself, at some length: 

No, because ... the fact is is that our campaign has been based on the idea that we need to fundamentally change how we do business, both domestically and internationally; that we should have a different kind of foreign policy we are deploying all of America's power, not just our military, but also our diplomatic, economic, cultural, political power; that domestically, we've got to promote not just trickle-down economics, but bottom-up economic growth and reinvest in, for example, the clean energy sector. All those things -- anytime you're bringing about big change, there are some risks involved. But it's important, I think, to note that, in that poll, I'm also leading. And, and so what that indicates is that the American people are ready for change. But, as I've said before, this is a big leap for people. You know, I don't look like previous commanders in chief. I've been on the national scene a relatively short time.... But the fact that we are in the position we are in right now -- very competitive in this race -- indicates the degree to which people recognize we can't keep on doing the same things and somehow expect a different outcome.

I apologize for the extended quote -- yes, yes, I confess, Mr. Brokaw, it's often a cheesy way of the most unoriginal sort to fill up column space -- but contained within it was a rather unmistakable familiarity, one that simply didn't register with me upon simply hearing it.

Obama's exhortation, you see, isn't so much a call to arms for "change" as it is merely a sensible plea for return -- a blotting out, if you will, of the last eight execrable years under that apotheosis of unAmericanism, the Bush administration.

It's as much a backward-looking vision as it is forward; a resettling of that twentieth-century American territory of middle-class development and responsible multilateralism. It's TR, FDR and JFK rolled into one. Yet with all of Obama's emphasis on "change," more than a few American voters are missing that underlying continuity. Hence the relevant emphasis may be a strategic mistake.

True, after eight years of George W. Bush, traditional sanity may seem like radical change. In reality, however, it's but a step back into America's Century -- the one that most Americans were rather proud of.

Please respond to P.M.'s commentary by leaving comments below and sharing them with the BuzzFlash community. For personal questions or comments, you can contact him at fifthcolumnistmail@gmail.com