As most students surely noticed, the campus was momentarily brought to life on Friday, Feb. 1 by a rally in support of Senator Barack Obama’s presidential campaign. Featuring big names like Ned Lamont and Kal Penn (of “Harold and Kumar” and “House” fame) and attracting local news teams, the rally gave off-the-beaten-track Middletown a rare taste of the political spotlight.
While not personally an Obama supporter, I decided to attend the rally out of curiosity more than anything. As I watched hundreds of boisterous students crowd into SCIE 150, dozens bearing the Obama ’08 signs that are becoming ubiquitous on college campuses across the nation, I got to thinking about the uneasy alliance between college undergraduates and mainstream politics that the Obama campaign appears to be bringing about.
Whether it is due to cynicism, radicalism or just plain apathy, college students are generally not as politically engaged as their parents or grandparents. Much like Howard Dean’s failed campaign for the 2004 nomination, however, Obama’s campaign seems to have invigorated the college voter far more than most recent political campaigns.
While I certainly view this increased political excitement amongst college students as positive development, I find myself somewhat mystified by the dynamics of the phenomenon, especially as it surrounds the Obama campaign.
Having witnessed the rally, and having spoken to many friends and acquaintances that support Obama, I have become increasingly perplexed by what I hear. More than any substantive policies that he advocates, Obama’s support amongst college students seems to be due to a mixture of his charisma, relative youth, and his supremely vague (and somewhat corny) pledge to bring “change” and “hope” to Washington.
When explaining their support for Obama or contrasting him with his rivals, college students (and Obama supporters in general) tend to lean heavily on these admirable personal qualities at the expense of policy positions. Comparisons with John F. Kennedy abound, the importance of character and ethics are touted and normally inquisitive and critically minded students are reduced to chanting empty platitudes such as “Yes we can!” at the top of their lungs.
From my perspective, charisma and trite rhetoric ought to activate a potential voter’s suspicion rather than blind support. It seems ironic that Obama is praised for his commitment to changing the ways of the Washington establishment when he employs the same political tricks (corny catchphrases, vague sweeping pledges, plain old-fashioned charm and good looks) of every other successful politician.
Before I get labeled as an “Obama hater” or a “Hillary Clinton attack dog,” let me make myself clear: I do not support either candidate, and frankly I see little substantive difference between them. I am just concerned that voters (and college students in particular) are allowing themselves to be swayed by a mix of the superficial, vague and intangible qualities that Obama so skillfully projects.
A brief survey of recent history may be instructive in bringing home this point. The president that Obama is most commonly compared to is none other than JFK—a man who possessed similar youth, good looks and charisma. Yet people seem to forget that, for all of his accomplishments, Kennedy also oversaw the disastrous Bay of Pigs fiasco and the initial escalation of the United States’ presence in Vietnam. Furthermore, despite the appeal of his character and personal qualities, Kennedy turned out to be less than perfectly ethical, allegedly making a habit out of marital infidelity.
A more revealing case may be the divergent paths of the presidencies of Bill Clinton and George W. Bush. Clinton was widely regarded for his personal qualities and charisma early in his presidency yet, like Kennedy, proved to have questionable personal ethics. Despite this, however, Clinton had a very successful presidency. George W. Bush was similarly admired for his personal qualities (strong ethics and personality, if not charisma), yet he turned out to have one of the most troubled presidencies in the past half century.
The point is threefold: (1) politicians who appear to be good people are not necessarily good people, (2) good people do not necessarily make good presidents and (3) bad people do not necessarily make bad presidents. One can have very questionable personal values and yet still be a very successful president (e.g., Bill Clinton). By the same token, one can have apparently strong personal values and yet preside over a largely disastrous administration (e.g., W. Bush).
To vote based on “character” and personal qualities such as charisma and looks is manifestly a poor way to choose a president. Not only is it very difficult to accurately gauge personal qualities in the context of a political campaign, but, even if we could, it wouldn’t be very useful.
I beg that you do not read this as an attack on Obama or as an endorsement for any other candidate, because it certainly is not. I am arguing is that we ought to have the self-respect to dig a little deeper than charisma, clichés and good looks before deciding whom we support. For those who have already done so and still find themselves supporting Barack Obama, then by all means, carry on.
Leave a Reply