Commentators

Showers (AM and PM) 6° London Hi 10°C / Lo 5°C

Matthew Norman: Passion, drama and democracy

Friday, 29 August 2008

You have the advantage of me. Obama gave his convention speech a few hours ago, framed by those curious Attic columns in a Denver grid iron stadium, and writing yesterday afternoon I haven't the foggiest what he said or, perhaps more significantly, how he said it... with the soaring, lyrical cadences of the preacher man; the cerebral guise of the law professor who spoke so brilliantly about race; as a hybrid of the two; or as someone else entirely.

I have my hopes and hunches, all outdated and doubtless ridiculed by events, but above all the suspicion that once the snap judgements – that the speech a) unquestionably clinched him the White House and b) blew his chances to smithereens – have come to look a shade hysterical, any sharp movement in the polls will evaporate and little, if anything, will have changed.

Admittedly no oration in memory has been so eagerly awaited. If Jesus Himself returned and set a date for Sermon of the Mount II: This Time It's For Keeps, the level of anticipation wouldn't come close. Yet however eloquent, stirring and epic, big set-piece speeches seem not to influence American elections much, let alone decide them. Politics, as Bill Clinton recently reminded us, is a brutal combat sport, and it is in the hand-to-hand battle of televised debates that all the transformative power lies.

Everyone is aware of the received wisdom that Richard Nixon's sweaty top lip cost him the White House in 1960, despite radio listeners scoring the bout in his favour, and everyone recalls Ronald Reagan's folksily condescending put down of Jimmy Carter ("Oh, there you go again") as the catalyst that began to turn a tight race into a rout. But who can remember a convention speech that radically affected an election, there being no element of combat in standing on a dais and spouting forth to your most fanatical supplicants?

One convention speech those of us lucky enough to watch it live will never forget is the one with which Barack Obama announced himself four years ago. If he dwelt on how unlikely it struck a black guy with a funny foreign name to be there then, perhaps it's worth briefly reflecting, inured to the bizarreness as we've become, on how utterly extraordinary it is that the ingénue of 2004 spoke a few hours ago as the favourite to win the presidency. It may also be worth reminding ourselves, so gloomy and defeatist has the aura around him become, that he is still an odds on change, albeit a less warm one than he was.

The cause of this modest but alarming decline is the subject of intense debate, and several theories are routinely advanced. There's the heightened relevance of John McCain's alleged foreign policy advantage since the eruption in Georgia; all the Republican attack ads; the refusal of the terminally pantsuited to accept Hillary's defeat; and those lingering doubts about the Obamas' apple pie Americanness which Michelle tried so hard to assuage this week. And then, of course, there is racism.

There may be something in some or all of these, but right now it doesn't feel like our place to be affecting too much outrage over the latter. When you live in the glasshouse in which Paul Boateng remains the most successful elected black politician in British history, you want to be cautious about throwing too many stones across the Atlantic. What is indicated, in fact, is a general sense of humility, hard though that emotion comes to Her Britannic Majesty's loyal subjects, because if there is one unavoidable lesson from the past year or so since, it is that the American political system is incomparably superior to our own.

Its limitations are enormous, as are those in every nation which confers the portentous title of "democracy" on the inevitably flawed process of choosing between two potential leaders every few years. But its strengths are colossal too, and chief among these is the sheer vibrancy. The passion with which the people of Iowa kick-started the merriment in early January has no more wavered than the high drama which crescendoed again this week, thanks to Hillary's well-rehearsed spontaneous storming of the stage to call for Obama's coronation by acclamation.

Whatever one might think of those Clintons, and a more chilling pair of amoral horrors you couldn't wish to encounter, they are immense characters. So, with his compelling personal history, is grouchy old John McCain. So too, beyond question, is Barack Obama. They are political titans, all of them, albeit everyone looks like a Gulliver when you live in a Lilliput like Britain, where a chap like David Miliband – a quite preposterous figure with his pipsqueak posturing in Ukraine – is regarded as a potential saviour of an atrophying ruling party.

If Barack Obama has made one serious mistake, with hindsight it was the grandstanding foreign tour that played so wonderfully outside the USA and so poorly within. Its failure domestically was due, I suspect, not so much because he came across as vainglorious and presumptuous, although to some degree he probably did, but more because of the sense it transmitted of Europeans telling Americans who they should make their president. They won't take that sort of advice from anyone, and rightly not. It is their affair whom they prefer, however much their preference impinges on the rest of the world, and a cussed "screw you, we'll vote for who we want" is a the perfectly healthy reflex reaction to perceived interference from beyond.

As much as anyone in Britain, I hope and pray they eventually go for Obama, and remain convinced they will, so long as he does no worse than very narrowly lose that indescribably crucial trio of TV debates. But it is not for any of us to lecture an impoverished dairy farmer in Wisconsin or a laid-off car plant worker in Detroit, or anyone else, as to which potential president is in his or her best interests. As the Democratic convention Barack Obama doubtless took by storm once again last night has underlined, a country that has allowed its political process to become as anaemic and schlerotic as ours has nothing to teach America about what passes for democracy, and everything to learn.

For rolling comment on the US election visit: independent.co.uk/campaign08

Interesting? Click here to explore further

Comments

13 Comments

Please, another Euro (sorry, Brit) with no real clue about this American election or any American election for that matter. But why put on this I'm at the top-of-the-heap analyst speaking down to the plebs tone about matters the analyst doesn't seem to have a clue about to begin with? Plenty of people here could easily untie the Gordian knot of doubts and confusions the author has tied himself into. But once these people are identified for what they are the yearning anticipation would evaporate in an instant and everything in the Euro view would default back to square one. In case you're wondering: they are people with commonsense and conservative to boot.

Posted by davelnaf | 29.08.08, 23:03 GMT

Post a complaint

Please note all fields are required.

Contact details

At last. A good article from an Independant journalist. Is this a first? Comments on the Clintons were a bit over the top though, most senior political types in the US carry some sort of baggage. The whole presidential campaign certainly highlights the deficit in our own system, one half of Parliament is unelected, the governing party polled less than 40% in the General Election and only the people of Kirkaldy got to vote for Gordon Brown. Almost as important, our political leaders refuse to take part in Head to Head debates on the run up to elections, if either Obama or McCain refused to do this then it cost them the election.

Posted by graham | 29.08.08, 21:40 GMT

Post a complaint

Please note all fields are required.

Contact details

kath- i am trying my hardest to prevent myself from being a victim of islamic and asian globalisation.

Posted by WLil | 29.08.08, 20:16 GMT

Post a complaint

Please note all fields are required.

Contact details

kath, no, i don't think only white americans are worthy of a better life. i meant many hard working, capable deserving white americans are being denied a better life due to the misguided policies of their own white/european race and due to being besieged by other race. by the way, i am not an American, though i share many of the American ideals, that is if it still exists.

Posted by WLil | 29.08.08, 19:37 GMT

Post a complaint

Please note all fields are required.

Contact details

WLil, 'their kind'?? That's quite a big demographic. Are only white Americans worthy of a better life? What constitutes deserve? Are you saying that America is the victim? Are you playing the victim? What I admire about America is its tradition of psychotherapy, taking responsibiity and not living in a cycle of blame. WLil, you are sounding a little bit un American to me.

Posted by kath | 29.08.08, 17:41 GMT

Post a complaint

Please note all fields are required.

Contact details

kirsten, the Americans have been titans of generosity to undeserving cases and causes. helping the wrong kind, not their kind just create more hardship for many white americans who are worthy of better life. so many asians/middleeastern/black immigrants to US are having the good life that they don't deserved at all.

Posted by WLil | 29.08.08, 16:42 GMT

Post a complaint

Please note all fields are required.

Contact details

I agree that the Clintons and Obama are titans but John McCain? He's just another Republican mediocrity with a dubious selling point - he was tortured, Reagan was a Hollywood actor and Bush juniors pop had already done the job. McCain is a lightweight apart from having been tortured and it was'nt like he volunteered for it but it certainly comes in handy when running for pres.

Posted by kirsten | 29.08.08, 15:43 GMT

Post a complaint

Please note all fields are required.

Contact details

Dear readers, correction on my last sentence on my previous posting. My statement should be America do not need Obama help/rhetoric.

Posted by WLil | 29.08.08, 15:25 GMT

Post a complaint

Please note all fields are required.

Contact details

A nicely written opinion piece, the best I've read in the Independent.

The last thing those of us in the US who support Barack Obama need is for Europeans to tell us that the only reason we would choose not to elect him is not-so-latent racism. It's a great way to insult every independent voter on the fence for reasons having nothing to do with race into voting for McCain.

Posted by Russell Pass | 29.08.08, 14:20 GMT

Post a complaint

Please note all fields are required.

Contact details

Perhaps it's the water at the Independent that makes your columnists prone to a severe case of hyperbole. "...a more chilling pair of amoral horrors you couldn't wish to encounter..." Who are we talking about here, Myra Hindley and Ian Brady?? Get some mature traditional British reserve into your prose, please, or we'll have to get you a job on the Sun or News of the World. You will not single-handedly raise the subscription rate to the Indy with your claptrap

Perhaps Matthew Norman could write a fact-filled column citing evidence to support his comment about Hillary Clinton, but that would require intelligence, accuracy and possibly, wit. Sorry, Matt, see you on the Sun.

Posted by joe turner | 29.08.08, 12:21 GMT

Post a complaint

Please note all fields are required.

Contact details

13 Comments

Columnist Comments

steve_richards

Steve Richards: Damian Green will soon be forgotten

Cameron’s speech, though good, was upstaged by Brown’s mortgage coup.

matthew_norman

Matthew Norman: A written constitution is the answer

Jacqui Smith is Brown’s lightning rod when it’s the PM we should be frazzling

john_rentoul

John Rentoul: Thanks Queen, but it's about the Budget

The Queen's Speech never has a theme, New Labour has never fabricated one.