Cynical Idealist?

I've been thinking a lot about why I have so much emotionally invested in Obama's possible presidency. I think I knew all along, but I've been slow to admit it to myself. I read or heard somewhere, I can't remember, that it's pretty much been proven that most people vote for those whom they feel are most like them. Now, this seems awfully solipsistic, and also illogical. Just because someone isn't like you doesn't mean they can't be a good leader.

But when I'm really honest with myself, I know that I like Obama because more than any other politician, pretty much ever, I feel akin to his experiences. Of course, he' black, and I'm not. However, beyond that, for many years before he entered politics, he was a scholar of law. I define myself, at least professionally, as a scholar. His three favorite authors are Faulkner, Melville, and and Phillip Roth. Talk about going 3-for-3. In Dreams From My Father, his very well-written memoir, he talks about reading Invisible Man, and Malcolm X's autobiography--and several other books that have stirred me as well, and meant quite a bit to me over the years.

His wife's name is Michelle, he has young daughters, he's lived all over the place, and he's simply and obviously more attuned to my generation. I also agree with him on most (not all) of his policies and general beliefs about political and governmental issues. But part of my enthusiasm for him also stems, I think, from two other things: my early fascination with hip-hop culture, which many suburban white boys have experienced, and Obama's non-militaristic background. Let me be clear here: I have nothing against the military. I have many relatives who fought for the U.S. in WWII and Vietnam.

Yet, I think part of the reason that Iraq has been bungled is that this country often commits the error of confusing means and ends. What I mean is that our attitude toward the military, which is encapsulated by the common "Support the Troops" sentiment, promulgates the idea that we enter wars so that our heroes can exercise their god-given right to valor. For example, anyone who questions the Iraq War is often assumed as having not "supported the troops," as if this is the only thing that matters when evaluating our foreign policy. We get into wars to exercise foreign policy objectives, not to justify our already having sent troops to the battlefield. The argument that we would be somehow disservicing our troops if we were to get out of Iraq ASAP, suggests that the experience troops have, and their self-perception, and our perception of their heroism, is tantamount to why we went their in the first place. Sadly, though, our administration doesn't have a clue as to what exactly they want...a free Iraq? Palestine was also "given" a democracy and they elected Hamas. What if the Iraqis elect someone we don't like? Will it be a failed enterprise? Will a "free Iraq" really "change" the middle east? Maybe, but how could anyone answer that with the assurance necessary to send our troops to war, especially when Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11? That's a huge price to pay, and risk to take, for something you're merely guessing will turn out ok. If a war cannot be justified, you don't keep troops into the battlefield just to save face. You bring them home, cede that you've erred, and ask for forgiveness. If only we lived in that kind of world.

Call me an idealist. I've always considered myself a cynic and a skeptic, but lately I've realized that there's an idealism in me which has played a significant role in why I am so invested in this campaign, and which leads me to give Obama the benefit of the doubt when I disagree with him or when he shows weakness. I hope in the end that my enthusiasm for his candidacy will be justified by history and not simply by my own identification with him.