A moment to define ourselves

Last year, you might recall, I made a somewhat cynical prediction about the 2008 Presidential race, namely that the Powers That Be had already figured out that a Clinton-vs.-Giuliani matchup would generate the most profit for them, so by golly that’s the way it was going to be.

The recent Iowa caucuses, which gave victories instead to Barack Obama and Mike Huckabee, were of course only the first major electoral event, with many more to come. So it may be too soon to discard my prediction entirely. But now I think we can contemplate a different kind of contest, not between candidates but between two different possible election campaigns: “Clinton-vs.-Giuliani” vs. “Obama-vs.-Huckabee.” The comparison might tell us a few things about ourselves.

After all, we are defined as a nation not only by the leaders we choose, but by the way we make those choices. I think there’s little doubt that a Clinton/Giuliani slugfest would be an ugly spectacle indeed, far more about the individuals involved, their personalities and the flaws in their histories than about their visions for America, their ideas or their potential policies. I wouldn’t even be surprised to see a few incidents during that campaign that would raise the specter of the elections in Kenya or Pakistan.

But a contest between Obama and Huckabee could, I think, provoke much deeper reflection on the part of the American people about who we are now and what we want to be in the future. While both men have substantial track records that would certainly be examined and discussed in detail, they haven’t been in the public eye long enough to have generated the kinds of baggage that encumber Giuliani and Clinton. So it might be easier for us in the American electorate to look forward rather than backward—and to define ourselves rather than having to settle for some externally imposed set of choices based on the remnants of the past.

An Obama/Huckabee contest could set the stage for the beginnings of a real and productive dialogue, one that is badly needed, among Americans about the appropriate relationships between church and state and between faith and politics, as well as among Americans of different religious viewpoints. And the economic discussion might not be so much about knee-jerk aversion to taxation and regulation as about responsible spending, prudent fiscal management and the efficient and effective provision of government services.

To be sure, I’m not so naïve as to think such a contest would be completely mud-free—there will be plenty of allegations and scurrilous rumors thrown about by all concerned. But I think that there would be much more actual substance, a much better signal-to-noise ratio, if you will.

John Edwards, in his speech after the Iowa caucuses, summed the results up well: “The status quo lost, and change won.” Just what shape that change will take is yet to be determined, of course. But I would encourage you, dear reader, to think about what you want that change to be, and then to roll up your sleeves, find others who share your vision and set about the work of making it happen. Historical moments like these present rare opportunities. It would be a shame to let them slip past us.

- Skip Mendler