WHEN YOU HEAR OBAMA, DO YOU THINK "WHERE'S THE BEEF?"

In the near future we'll be depending on our constitutional law expert, Jon Dodson, to analyze President Obama's Supreme Court nominees. So it was important for us all to pull him away from his meditations on the Fouth Amendment and get him focused on Obama. He seemed happy to and here's the report he filed, one that brings another element to a discussion too long dominated by paid Republican shills embedded with the news networks: 

TALK MAY BE CHEAP-- AND IT'S OUR ONLY HOPE

-by Jon Dodson


Forgive me as I venture into election commentary, (a tired theme, and not my specialty), but I hope I have something to say that hasn't been repeated ad nauseam in the past five months. You see, I still bristle whenever I hear the criticism that Obama is "all talk." This has come from all sides-- even some of his supporters. Most recently, one of the wisest people I know echoed this vague concern that, "he talks pretty, but..." The problem with this critque is that it unfairly couples one of Obama's greatest strengths with a few general criticisms that apply to all politicians. In the process it demeans the power and importance of words, and consequently of teaching, communication, inspiration, civics, and the dialogue necessary for democracy to work. Sure, we can't know how authentic Obama is. Of course he can't accomplish everything through a few speeches. But the idea that he lacks substance, or that his eloquence is unimportant, is hogwash.

Its one thing to wonder whether Obama is sincere, or to wonder what he'll really accomplish in office.  This is a fair, general criticism of any politician. I can't imagine any politician who doesn't allow political considerations to influence their style, words, or the battles they choose to wage. This, frankly, is only prudent. (To be sure, many politicians go way, way too far-- leading to the dog-wagging permanent campaign). But, yes, none of us can ever know what any politician actually believes, or what any politician will actually do once elected. That said, there's absolutely no reason that this concern should singularly or disproportionately discredit Obama.

It also may be fair to criticize Obama-- or his supporters-- as being unduly optimistic, naive, or unrealistic. Of course its easier to talk about universal healthcare, pulling out of Iraq, overhauling our energy system, and putting the brakes on global warming, than to actually solve these problems. But again, this criticism applies to every politician! What can a politician do in a campaign but get his or her message and ideas out there? Hillary's platform has been virtually indistinguishable from Obama's. Yet no one seems to criticize her for being "all talk." The contrast, I suppose, is that she has a lenghty record-- a record which often shows her either at odds with her current platform (e.g. NAFTA and the Iraq war), or unable to accomplish her platform (healthcare). I guess Hillary isn't "all talk."  She's a mixture of talk, hypocrisy, and failure! But I digress. The point was not to beat up on Hillary.  I'm actually feeling pretty conciliatory towards her at this point. The point is merely that Obama cannot but be "all talk." He's not president yet. Moreover, since when is it a good idea to aim low? Since when should a platform be based on our cynical sense of what's "realistic," rather than on our highest hopes.

There is an old distinction in early-20th-century copyright law between an "idea" and its "expression."  The rule was that "ideas" couldn't be copyrighted, but their "expression" could. This rule fell by the wayside because it was completely impracticable.  And it was impracticable because it was fundamentally, philosophically misguided. One cannot separate expression from the ideas encapsulated, the messages communicated, or the effect a particular expression has on the listener. To the extent that an idea is communicated more eloquently, this does not reflect a meaningless sophism, but a greater depth of understanding-- not only of the nuances of the ideas expressed, but of the psychology, humanity, and needs of the listener. Unlike the conservative icon William F. Buckley, who once confessed to using a bigger word "because I wanted more syllables," Obama doesn't just "talk pretty," or drop a lot of big words. He communicates. He inspires. He teaches. His rhetoric isn't a meaningless parlor trick. It conveys a breathtaking brilliance, a thorough understanding of the complicated problems we face, and a deep appreciation for the needs of his diverse audience.

Maybe I just see him as a teacher because he was a professor in my favorite subject of constitutional law. But if there's a foundation, a lynchpin, or a first step down the long road to a better future, its a new civic education. Americans have become civically irresponsible and intellectually lazy. This has enabled all of our problems. Naturally, to solve these problems, we need a renewed sense of civic responsibility. Our only hope for such a sea-change in attitudes is to be taught, trained, and inspired-- to be re-socialized towards a democratic political culture. Everything else must follow from this. No amount of Beltway experience, corporate appeasement, negotiation, rough-and-tumble political battling, or even sincere desire for change, can build the coalitions necessary for meaningful change. "Talk" is our only hope.