Back to the Future? 

In politics, insurmountable differences aren't always what they seem.

The unsurprising moderation of Barack Obama has caught many people by surprise. At this point, he seems intent on restoring a version of the old Clinton presidency — Hillary Clinton running foreign policy, Robert Rubin's ensemble running the economy, Bill Richardson at Commerce and nary a certified "cut 'n' runner" on Iraq anywhere in sight. The erstwhile "change" candidate seems intent on vindicating that old French expression: The more things change, the more they remain the same. Oui.

What is surprising is that any of this should come as a surprise. All during the primary campaign, the main difference between Obama and Hillary Clinton was supposedly Iraq. This was the issue that propelled him to victory in Iowa, and this was the issue that stoked his supporters to paroxysms of enthusiasm. One candidate was for peace and the other was for the war — and that was all there was to it.

Not quite. There was always a synaptic gap between Obama's ethereal image and his more grounded reality and the sneaking suspicion that he and Clinton were not all that far apart on anything — Iraq included. He conceded as much before the presidential race began. "I think very highly of Hillary," he told New Yorker editor David Remnick in 2006. "The more I get to know her, the more I admire her." In that same interview, Obama even narrowed the gap on Iraq: "I was running for the U.S. Senate. She had to take a vote, and casting votes is always a difficult test." In other words, who knows?

This is not to suggest that Obama thought the war in Iraq was really a good thing. It does suggest, though, that he recognized that the issue was never an easy one, and had he not represented a dovish Chicago district in the Illinois Senate, he might well have expressed a more nuanced opposition. After all, not a single one of Obama's U.S. Senate rivals for the Democratic presidential nomination voted against authorizing the war. Two of them are now about to play prominent roles in shaping and executing Obama's foreign policy — Joe Biden, the vice president-elect, and Clinton, the presumptive secretary of state. As for the economy, a third Clinton administration would probably have looked like an Obama first: Lawrence Summers doing macro, Timothy Geithner doing micro, and both of them making late-night calls to Bob Rubin in New York.

What, then, can explain the length and bitterness of the Democratic primary campaign? For the answer, we must look not to some talking head but to Sigmund Freud and his phrase "the narcissism of small differences." By this, he meant the antipathy we feel toward people who resemble us. To an outsider, this explains the age-old Protestant-Catholic enmity or the proclivity of Shiites and Sunnis to slaughter one another. It also explains why Clinton and Obama supporters were at each other's throats. With the exception of the candidates themselves, they had so few differences. This is why so many Obama supporters despised Hillary Clinton — and were despised in return.

Remember that? Remember when Clinton had no integrity, no character, when she lied about almost everything and could be trusted about almost nothing? Remember when she was excoriated for diabolically exonerating Obama of the charge that he was, secretly and very ominously, a Muslim with the portentous phrase "as far as I know"? And remember when her husband had supposedly revealed himself to be a racist? That was a calumny, a libel, and a ferocious mugging of memory itself. But it was believed.

As is sometimes the case with passionate love, one can look back after a campaign and wonder: What was that all about? Usually, the passion of the campaign is shared by the candidates themselves and, for sure, their staffs. They live in a bubble infected by rumor and suspicion, a latter-day Borgian court of intrigue. But with Obama, he seemed always to distance himself from the heat of the campaign and to look down at it, as he did with that immense crowd in Berlin, as being of short-term use.

A presidential campaign is really a government looking for a parking space. Obama's campaign showed us a candidate of maximum cool. He has always remained ironically detached, and that has served him — and now us — very well indeed. It's now clear that he will not govern from the left and not really from the center but, as his campaign suggested, from above it all.

Richard Cohen writes for the Washington Post Writers Group.

Comments (3)

Showing 1-3 of 3

Add a comment

Subscribe to this thread:
Showing 1-3 of 3

Add a comment

    • Testing Trump

      Democrats stand back and watch, as Republicans wrangle with the realities of governing.
    • Slouching Toward Refuge

      Trump’s war against immigrants is taking us back to a bleaker time.
    • Fight For $15

      On the frontlines of Dr. King’s battle for economic and racial justice.


News Blog

Contemporary Media Inc. Hires Michael Donahue

News Blog

Circuit on Street Safety Kicks Off

Fly On The Wall Blog

Memphis is Ugly. Cleveland Still Uglier, According to BS List

Fly On The Wall Blog

Reading the CA: This Column by I. Dunno

News Blog

Revisions of Overton Gateway Plan Revealed

Fly On The Wall Blog

When Local News Isn't Local: A "Guns & Bunnies" Slideshow

Politics Beat Blog

Vouchers Bill Dead for 2017 Legislative Session

News Blog

Volunteers Paint RiverPlay Mural


More by Richard Cohen

Readers also liked…

  • A Letter to the Memphis City Council

    The council gets an “F” for its performance on the Greensward decision.
    • Mar 10, 2016
  • Memphis’ Central Park

    The Memphis Zoo/Overton Park controversy is really about the right of Memphians to craft their environment.
    • Feb 4, 2016
  • A Zoo Solution?

    The answer to the Memphis Zoo’s parking dilemma may be just a block away.
    • Nov 20, 2015
© 1996-2017

Contemporary Media
460 Tennessee Street, 2nd Floor | Memphis, TN 38103
Visit our other sites: Memphis Magazine | Memphis Parent | Inside Memphis Business
Powered by Foundation