On a recent coffee run, a Starbucks employee politely asked me how my day was going. I replied, honestly: “so so.”
This immediately provoked a surprising response from this sprightly woman. How could I not be elated, she asked. It was a new year and Barack Obama had just taken the Iowa caucuses.
A curious thing to hear from a stranger. Our ensuing discussion never veered into the realm of specificity, despite my best efforts. In the end, she failed to explain a single Obama position properly.
Now, a bitter and cantankerous columnist, not wanting to quash the brimming optimism of youth, let the conversation head elsewhere. But once again, I was reminded that Obama’s candidacy can often ignite enthusiasm merely by existing. It’s fresh. It’s about hope. And, quite often, it’s remarkably superficial.
How far can likeability and the promise of change take him? Hillary Clinton, Obama’s chief rival, already has dismissed his magnetism, by saying, “You campaign in poetry, you govern in prose.”
Those who watched the presidential debates this past weekend were treated to some — but not much — honest to goodness substantive talk on policy. Occasionally, as a bonus to viewers, testy exchanges erupted between candidates fighting for power.
One thing we learned was that Obama and Clinton actually have precious little conflict when it comes to core policy.
Sure, one candidate might govern in a calculated prose, the other in affecting prose, but both stories have the same exact theme: Government is here to grow.
The debate now is about change vs. experience. It’s about style. Clinton the defensive insider. Bill Richardson the wonk. John Edwards the angry hypocrite. All the while, Obama soothes your worries.
So with all this Obama momentum and excitement, pundits have begun to compare the Illinois senator’s rise to that of candidate Ronald Reagan over 30 years ago.
Fair enough. Both are likable. Both can attract independents, younger voters otherwise inclined to avoid politics and moderates of the opposing party. Both have promised to wash away the pessimism and corruption of the past.
While there are similarities, there is also an enormous dissimilarity. Reagan brought with him — whether you are a fan or not — a comprehensive ideological shift within his own party. A conservatism that germinated in think tanks, grass-roots organizations and college campuses. A coalition in the making since 1964.
Moreover, Reagan brought with him a defining set of issues and new ideas. Issues that were completely anathema to the status quo. The specifics of change were transparent and definitive.
Obama’s campaign may yet coalesce around foundation-shaking ideas that diverge substantively from left-wing orthodoxy. But he hasn’t yet.
In fact, in recent history, Democrats have dismissed change-bearing hopefuls. Most recently, Howard Dean, who played the outsider role in 2004 and helped ignite the online progressive movement, was pushed aside for a sure thing: John Kerry.
The Republicans do not face a similar quandary this election cycle, as none of them are particularly likeable. Capable perhaps. Experienced, maybe. But not likeable.
Republican voters might have wanted to grab a beer with George W. Bush, but surely they are put off by John McCain’s snarky temper tantrums. Mitt Romney is drinking beer that no one can afford. And Mike Huckabee, well, he’ll make them feel guilty for drinking beer at all.
Rudy? Rudy’s just weird.
Obama, on the other hand, has an innate quality that no other candidate shares.
Then again, though likeability and exciting speeches might be enough to seduce excited primary voters, in the long run, it’s probably going to take more.
Reach columnist David Harsanyi at 303-954-1255 or dharsanyi@denverpost.com.
