There were two oddly related meetings in Washington, D.C., recently. You’ve probably heard of CPAC, the Conservative Political Action Conference, the one that featured Rush Limbaugh. It was well covered by the media — C-SPAN and Fox News carried large chunks of it live — and not just because of Limbaugh. Joe the Plumber was there, and John Bolton and Mike Huckabee and Ann Coulter and Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney and sundry members of Congress, too, along with some 8,000 registered participants. CPAC’s organizers were particularly pleased with the large number of young people who turned up, some 2,000 of them.
The other meeting was called PowerShift, a mobilization of young people organized by the Energy Action Coalition, a network of 50 national organizations that advocate for clean energy and responsible climate policies. It received very little press coverage, though it drew 12,000 young men and women — mostly between ages 18 and 26 — to its deliberations.
It is tempting at this point to insert a collection of sound bites from Limbaugh’s 80-minute (60 over his allotted time) CPAC speech, but that would not be fair. To get the full flavor of his incoherent rant, you really should listen to all of it. If you do, you will learn that Limbaugh is a kind of Ronald Reagan with ADHD (Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder), a man whose enthusiasms far outpace his thought processes, a man who sees the world through ruse-colored glasses.
CPAC was principally a nod to yesterday; PowerShift is the more likely prelude to tomorrow. And the reason for that is not just what PowerShift reveals about a new generation of Americans, nor even its manifest success at community organization. The reason for that, in very large measure, is Barack Obama.
Here we are, less than halfway through those clichéd “first 100 days” of a new administration, far too early to label it either a success or a failure, but not at all too soon to be dazzled by our new president’s grasp of both politics and policy. Obama inherited more a slop bucket than a full plate, but that does not seem to discourage him. Instead, he is a stunning exemplar of sangfroid, of composure in the face of difficulty.
So much for the stereotypical assumption that childhood trauma, of which Obama experienced more than his fair share, leaves distorting scar tissue. Instead, we have a president who, mirabile dictu, seems utterly free of neurosis, Bill Clinton’s intelligence without Bill Clinton’s self-destructive appetites.
I know of no one, even among his most fervent enthusiasts, who believed that Obama would actually move so quickly to redeem his campaign promises. And surely no one imagined that a month and a half into his tenure, the Obama family would emerge as the idealized American family, the poster family for a newly inspired nation.
Yes, the market plunges downward. Yes, the sudden scope and depth of this recession suggest a recovery that will take a very long time to restore the economic growth we have come to expect. Yes, there will be, as Obama has said, missteps and mistakes along the way. And no, it is doubtful that the Obama agenda will be fully realized. But it is a very substantial comfort, and one we’d mostly given up on, to have at the helm so steady a hand, connected as it is to so capacious a mind and, apparently, so true a heart.
Does that sound too gushy? I well recall my reaction when I attended the first inaugural of Clinton and Gore. I wrote then that if these two could not do it, perhaps it could not be done. And the disappointing truth is that they did not do it. But now I see the PowerShift meetings and begin to understand the relationship between Obama’s strategic ambitions for our nation and the tactic called “community organizing.” Strategy and tactic are mutually reinforcing, reciprocally inspiring. It turns out that what many of us thought was “merely” terrific rhetoric — “We are the change that we seek” — has real meaning. Essentially, PowerShift and all the other ongoing efforts at energizing and mobilizing people old and young are critical components of the new political equation.
It matters that Barack Obama is the first African American to become our president. That is, as everyone acknowledged in the first post-election days, many with tears in their eyes, a historic event. These days, however, it matters less and less. His multiracial background is among the most interesting things about Obama, but it is far from the most important. The most important is that he is an adult, as whole a person as we have seen in public life in a very long time. And he is a teacher who knows the first and foremost lesson of distinguished pedagogy: You don’t talk down to your students. He tells us, as he promised during his campaign he would, not what we want to hear but what we need to know.
The Rush Limbaugh people don’t get it. They are happily vitriolic, moaning and groaning and cursing about our nation’s turn to “socialism.” Listening to them and reading their speeches and their blogs can be dispiriting not because their language is so bloated nor because they have almost nothing save “lower taxes” to say but because it is as if the entire nation, its current anxieties and economic woes notwithstanding, is enjoying a block party to which they, the Limbaugh people, were invited — but which they’ve chosen to boycott, to grouse about. This, they tell us, is the “core constituency” of the Republican Party. Yet it is obvious that there are large numbers of Republicans who are neither amused by Ann Coulter nor proud to be associated with Rush Limbaugh. It is for them to disentangle from that crowd.
As it is for us to move on.
The Forward welcomes reader comments in order to promote thoughtful discussion on issues of importance to the Jewish community. In the interest of maintaining a civil forum, the Forward requires that all commenters be appropriately respectful toward our writers, other commenters and the subjects of the articles. Vigorous debate and reasoned critique are welcome; name-calling and personal invective are not. While we generally do not seek to edit or actively moderate comments, the Forward reserves the right to remove comments for any reason.
To post a comment, click to login:
Copyright © 2012, Forward Association, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
"The Forward welcomes reader comments in order to promote thoughtful discussion on issues of importance to the Jewish community..." So it is written on this very page. This dedicated reader, however, wishes to ask the Forward to publish articles that have some kind of Jewish importance - that have some kind of Jewish angle to them. This article of Mr Fein is simply in the wrong newspaper. There are no Jews mentioned, nor was any aspect of Jewish life illuminated. Just once, Mr Fein gives a non-English quote. Here was his chance to hint that this is a Jewish newspaper (and that the writer has a Jewish life experience) by using a quote from the Tanakh or from the Siddur - or perhaps some Yiddish wisdom. Strangely, this week we're not wearing a Jewish cap, so our wisdom is in Latin ("mirabile dictu"). Even the simple word "we" or "our" is not spoken from a Jewish standpoint. "Our nation" obviously is not "our ancient peoplehood" - it's "we the Americans". Jews are not even the faintest spot on Mr Fein's radar screen this week.
In simple words - being a Jew in America and viewing events from the point of view of a Jewish identity is a Jewish experience. Being an American in America and viewing events from the point of view of an American identity is not a Jewish experience. In even simpler terms, being a Jew is not the same as being an American. There is still a difference (so I hope). That's why they evented the Jewish press. It's the place where we express aspects of Jewishness.
There's a really old joke that goes: A gathering of famous zoologists presented a series of papers about the elephant. The Parisian wrote about the love life of the elephant. The Russian wrote about the social habits of the elephant. The Italian wrote about the food preferences of the elephant. The American wrote about the sexual habits of the elephant. And the Jew wrote about the elephant and the Jewish problem. Don't you think myopia in any form is a bit short-sighted?
Yehuda,
You are deeply concerned about the fate of Israel, yet you write that this article lacks “some kind of Jewish importance.” You seem to make a point of missing the point.
No, Joel, I don't think that I'm "missing the point". I would imagine, however, that we probably don't agree on what is the point. Actually, I was pleased to have read Eleanor's rendition of the "Elephant and the Jewish Question", even though it has been presented to criticize my "short-sightedness" (in being focused on Jewish issues). It is the most famous joke in all of Jewish history (it's from the 19th century) when the "Jewish Question", the issue of giving the Jews civil rights, was debated in European societies. The joke, obviously, tells a certain truth about the Jews - we seem to be busy with themselves - but obviously it's an exaggeration. We're busy with other topics as well. However, the Jewish press is indeed the forum for being busy with ourselves. Mr Fein's article this week could have been published in the NY Times. In fact, I read the NY Times occasionally to see how America sees itself and the world, just as I read the Arabic press to see how the Arab world views events. I read the Forward to see how American Jewry expresses itself and its interests.
In Eleanor's new rendition of the famous joke, she differentiates between the outlook of the "American" and the "Jew". They're not the same - even if it's just a joke. That's what I'm criticizing in Mr Fein's article. He's writing an article for a Jewish audience, and yet one wouldn't know from the content therein that a Jewish audience with its own perspective of events is being addressed. I understand that for most American Jews, American identity is a much more substantial identity ("primary") than their Jewish identity ("secondary") - yet, it's still obvious that there is a continued (albeit somewhat watered-down) interest in Jewish particularism. Why else would one read the Jewish press?
Yehudah,
Just why do you think that silly old Leonard Fein published this article in The Forward?
Yehuda, Each year Leonard Fein publishes in Forward dozens of articles; many of them are written with a burning emotion towards Israel, Yiddish, Jewish ethics and other Jewish topics. All seasoned Forward readers know perfectly well Leonard Fein's attitudes and interests. Occasionally he publishes an article with all-American perspective. Fein's articles enrich dialogue for all those who like to read him. An occasional non-Jewishly-reclusive topic is a part of any reasonable Jewish discourse. It is simply a moral obligation of the author to his regular readers.
Your constant vigil regarding Fein's non-Jewish perspective actually is a form of irritating censorship. Those who do not like Fein's articles (and there are many, very many of them, like the yawning gentleman just above) are not obliged to read Fein's articles. A constant reprimand sounds like your intention is to silence this author. It brings to the fore very unpleasant memories.