Thoughts on Obama

What makes Barack so appealing?

1. He's a person of integrity. Not integrity in the sense that he's incorruptible, though there's that. No, it's a deeper sort of integrity that comes across--this sense that he can be a person of deep religious faith (note that he started his speech yesterday by giving "praises and glory to God for bringing us together today") and at the same time be so with it: Intellectually honest, critical, self-aware, a believer in science. He's not a fundamentalist, and he's not a secular rejectionist. To many, he seems to represent the possibility that you can have a deep, tested, and committed sense of faith, without being a wacko.

2. He can communicate with everyone. In the Torah portion that Jews read worldwide yesterday, we recounted the story of the giving of the Ten Commandments at Mount Sinai. Jewish textual tradition provides some amazing images of the paradoxical unity and variety that occurred at the moment of revelation--every person heard God in his or her own voice, and yet they all experienced the revelation the same way. This is related to the integrity point above: Obama is able to communicate with all sorts of people and be genuine; there doesn't--yet, anyway--seem to be the 'black Obama' and the 'white Obama' or the 'Christian Obama' and the 'secular Obama.' It's just him.

3. He inspires people. The NYT pointed out today that Obama's opponents are starting to call him on his lack of details. (Edwards said "Have you seen his health care proposal? I haven't.") But as much as details are important, the greater thing that people want in a president is inspiration, and Obama delivers on this, of course. Yet one has to wonder: hasn't Bush been inspiring Republicans for 6 years (at least certain ones)? Isn't his whole problem the lack of detailed planning? And are we perhaps headed down the same road? This seems like it will be the test for Barack: Give us a reason to trust you.

David Brooks on the pragmatism of today's young people

So where have I been for the last several months? As much as I'd like to say that starting today I'll be back on my blog regularly, it's a hard promise to keep: blogging takes a regular commitment. But I'll try.

What brings me back today is a nice piece in this morning's New York Times by David Brooks about today's college students and their political attitudes. In particular, Brooks highlights their rejection of ideology in favor of pragmatism, and traces the origins of this attitudes to the ideological battles of the 1990s, which today's young adults seem to reject.

Some questions: While I agree with the shift, do you think that Brooks' diagnosis of the cause is accurate? What about the 'bowling alone' effect: the increasing individualism and corrosion of community-building forces, which have helped create a generation so oriented around self? Is that a part of this at all?

What I find remarkable about the emerging adults I work with is not the attitudes of "I'm spiritual but not religious" or "I'm liberal but not a Democrat"--those attitudes have been around for a long time, and reflect general late adolescent searching for self. What's new, in my estimation, is the general unease this generation has with insititutional identification, whether that's ideology (religious, political, philosophical) or about relationships (marriage, family, etc.).