|
By Ira Sharkansky
 JERUSALEM, Oct. 10 —Barack Obama is a fascinating individual. He is also sitting in the world's most important seat. Observers the world over risk a great deal if they fail to understand him. Yet the task is not easy.
No doubt about his intelligence, and it would not be wise to disparage his sincerity and aspirations. If the test of a Nobel Peace Prize is "extraordinary effort" in behalf of peace, he deserves it. Ironically, Nobel committees that award prizes in other fields are chary of bright new stars. They demand a test of decades before deciding that a candidate is worthy. The Peace Prize committee works by different rules. Obama got the nod with less than 10 months in office. Yassir Arafat, Shimon Peres, and Yitzhak Rabin shared the prize in 1994 for a deal made in 1993, that was in shambles less than a decade later.
Obama's magic is a source of strength and weakness. Race and religion are helpful in understanding him. He speaks like a African American preacher. The music of his voice is captivating, and his words inspiring. His themes of change and engagement are thrilling. They evoke hope and progress, rather than the hate associated with the preacher that may have taught Obama the cadence of his style. The President is more like Martin Luther King than Jeremiah Wright.
Yet the President's weakness is not far from his strength. While inspiring and on the side of good, he may be too much the minister rather than a politician. He plays to magnificent ideals rather than to deals that are possible. He is on the spiritual rather than the pragmatic plane. He talks about eternal truths rather than interests, but politicians deal in interests.
This is apparent especially in his international efforts. He has shown himself able to gain the support of masses in Europe as well as the Nobel Committee in Oslo. Hesitance rather than confidence is what we have heard from those who lead the governments of Russia, China, North Korea, Iran, Germany and Israel. Afghanistan is on the other side of the dark mountain, and shows no sign of being touched by his magic.
The New York Times called the Nobel award a "mixed blessing."
It drew attention to the fact that while much of the world was celebrating him as the anti-Bush, he had not broken as fully as he had once implied he would from the previous administration’s national security policies. And it set off another round of mocking criticism from opponents who have chafed at what they see as the charmed and entitled rise of Mr. Obama.
Go to top of next column
|
|
It is not yet certain that he is effective with politicians in his own country. Health is the great test, and it shows a problem of his great goals and spirituality. Individuals who are not members of his political church oppose him with an animosity that is unusually bitter, and may be dangerous.
Thomas Friedman sees a parallel between American responses to the health proposal and extremist Israelis who cursed the Oslo Accords in the months before one of them murdered Yitzhak Rabin.
It is appropriate to use the term fanaticism to describe much of the opposition to the President's health initiative. Slogans of death committees, socialism, and rationing are too highly charged when every other Western democracy employs the principal devices being discussed without damaging individual freedom, and producing indicators of health that put the United States to shame.
Antagonism comes along with threats. According to a CNN anchor, "a source . . . close to the U.S. Secret Service confirmed . . . that death threats against Barack Obama . . . go far beyond anything the Secret Service has seen with any other president."
There are remnants of racism in the antagonism to the President in his own country. Accusations of his being a Muslim and born in Kenya are not far from the stereotypes used by the Klan, Nazis, and their kin. Claims that his health proposal is contrary to American tradition also condemn him as the hostile other.
Obama personifies a question that returns time and again about the American presidency and other heads of state. Is their function to make policy or to define uplifting aspirations, even if they are beyond reach? Great themes may win elections and excite the crowds afterward, but may not accomplish much that is tangible. Franklin Roosevelt is a rare example of a leader who was both exciting and effective, but scholars are still arguing about how he did it. Ronald Reagan generated enthusiasm and may have contributed to the end of the Cold War, or that might have occurred in any case on account of internal collapse culminating in the last years of the Soviet Union.
Nine and one half months might have produced a record good enough for the committee that awards the Nobel Peace Prize. It is not enough to decide if President Obama is closer to Franklin Roosevelt or to the lesser figures who have held his office. Those of us who admire his aspirations but are skeptical about his prospects should hope that he does not end up like another bright star who generated great passion, John Kennedy.
|
|
