Oh That Hillary part deux...(Cicero and Demosthenes)

OK, I have to admit, I love it when I see my blog posts echoed in national media. There's some sort of validation there, despite my contempt for the majority of manufactured stories on non-issues that I tend to see in the MSM. So, when I saw that both my recent post on Obama and the politics of hope, and the first chapter in this topic had been echoed here and here, it was nice to see that some of the same perspectives I have are shared almost verbatim by those hoity toity syndicated types (and by hoity toity, I mean, I'm jealous of the fact those writers collect a paycheck for doing the same thing I'm doing right now).

The Washington Post piece had an interesting take on the differences in message between Obama and Clinton that I want to explore a little more.

E.J. Dionne writes:
"Yet if Clinton's answers come off as well-intended lectures, Obama is offering soaring sermons and generational opportunity. In 1960, the articulate Adlai Stevenson compared his own oratory unfavorably to John F. Kennedy's. "Do you remember," Stevenson said, "that in classical times when Cicero had finished speaking, the people said, 'How well he spoke,' but when Demosthenes had finished speaking, the people said, 'Let us march.'" At this hour, Obama is the Democrats' Demosthenes."

Despite Demosthenes dire end, I think the comparison holds some merit, above and beyond what the writer suggests. Demosthenes was thought of as a sincere, energetic, almost perpetually anxious in his passion. Cicero was considered a consummate politician, smooth tongued, and quick to use facetious humor in an attempt to outwit and embarrass his opponents. Demosthenes was a populist success story, orphaned at 12, yet achieving political influence, and a small wealth, by the age of 25. He was imperfect, often considered ill mannered, but persuasive in his speech because his passion for the cause shone through. Despite great accomplishments, he was humble about his political prowess, and thought poorly of others who flaunted it. Plutarch, in comparing the two, said this:

"It is necessary, indeed, for a political leader to be an able speaker; but it is an ignoble thing for any man to admire and relish the glory of his own eloquence. And, in this matter, Demosthenes had a more than ordinary gravity and magnificence of mind, accounting his talent in speaking nothing more than a mere accomplishment and matter of practice, the success of which must depend greatly on the good-will and candour of his hearers, and regarding those who pride themselves on such accounts to be men of a low and petty disposition."

Cicero was indeed, a magnificent speaker, well studied in facts and figures, and nimble of wit and tongue. He was popular among the political ruling class, because he played their game so well. He was less popular among the citizens because he was seen as a politician's politician, snarky and cutting, intellectually elitist and a boorish snob.

The comparisons here are very strong. Look at the core message of each campaign. Hillary's campaign is based on her knowledge, experience (although I can't for the life of me figure out what experience she is referring to), and how she is the candidate for the job to go in and run this show. Obama stays on a populist message of tearing down the walls of power, not providing them new leadership. His platform consistently refers to a return of the power to the people.

Time will tell, however, if Obama learns the lessons of Demosthenes in power. In the end, Demosthenes' struggle from early hardships left him vulnerable to monetary temptation, and his career began to dissolve under accusations of corruption and bribery. Even then, however, he took his fight for freedom to the front lines, traveling Greece and assisting local militias in the resistance to the Phillipic invasion. His actions, even after his power and influence were unrecoverable, are a testament to who the man was at the core.

As for Cicero, his political maneuverings left him for not, when he massaged the law to allow a scruffy youth named Julius Ceasar approach the Senate for Consulship, and the rest is history.

Hillary Clinton is truly a Cicero for our times, self congratulatory at her perceived accomplishments, and a graduate of the Al Gore "Smother them with Tedium" school. She fancies herself the smart kid in the class, and is quick to show it off. Like Kerry before her, she thinks there are enough Northeast Liberal Intellectuals in the country to carry a whole election, and like Kerry, she would hand the win to the Republican party while learning a hard lesson.

Hillary wants to be queen of the current government. Obama wants to return control of that government to the people. Both of those stances come with the possibility of being campaign rhetoric, but given the choice, I like the rhetoric that passionately proposes a return to the spirit of Democracy, and a progressive populist administration.

Which do you prefer?

The Kennedy Factor, or, Why You Shouldn't Write Off Obama

48 years ago, the Democrats controlled congress, and a two term Republican President was stepping down. In competition to replace him were an accomplished Republican insider, and a young but upwardly mobile Democratic senator. He religion was an issue to some, but his progressive ideas on social policies, and an enthusiastic belief in America resulted in his being the youngest President ever elected.

Forgive me if that was a bit over simplistic. I'm aware of the subtelties and nuances of that time and place, but I wanted to briefly ilustrate those basic facts because I thought about all this for a while this evening after a minor epiphany. It starts with a confession. I have written Barak Obama off from the start. In my mind, a candidate who is young, black, and most of all, a Senator, simply faces too great a statistical improbability. Why, I thought to myself smugly, there hasn't been a Senator elected president since JFK.

And that's when myself began to suggest to me that our current election and JFK's election share quite a bit more in common than I was realizing. Oh, and if one Kennedy been elected, wasn't it possible another could be?

So, the question now became, how alike were Kennedy and Obama?

Some of the comparisons were obvious, as listed above. Obama is a young Senator, who has been described as follows:

"...In short, Obama -- young, thoughtful, intelligent, charismatic -- seems the only candidate with the potential to spark a true progressive revival."

JFK became the first Roman Catholic President. Becoming the first African American president is an obvious correlation. His wife is a modern Jackie O, glamorous in a 2008 kind of way, as a striking lawyer of imposing presence, and yet, dedicated to husband and family. Everywhere I go, I read that Obama is a hopemonger, an optimist, working for change, wanting to get people involved in the political process, and move America forward. These are the exact same phrases used to describe JFK's political appeal, and policies.

It's easy for me to be cynical, to predict a Hillary-Romney run off leading up to another four years of the same corrupt and self serving governance that has become the norm, but every now and then I have a moment where there is truly hope. I'm not implicity endorsing Obama; nor have I decided yet that he's who I'll vote for. The fact that I was able to truly feel some optimism in the possibilities, however, is a win for today.