Europeans are scratching their heads trying to figure out how Barack Obama – until recently a relatively unknown politician outside the borders of the United States - has become not only the Democrat front-runner, but also a serious contender to become what is arguably the most powerful political leader in the world.
To understand this peculiar American phenomena – in which the media appears only too ready to compare Obama to that of John F. Kennedy without further explanations - one needs to understand not only how most Americans perceive recent presidents, but also how Obama’s campaign is the by-product of a deep cynicism that has become ingrained in the past 50 years.
I was born in 1962 and was only a baby when JFK was assassinated, but my feelings toward him are fairly representative of my generation. Kennedy is something of a mythical figure that held the Russians at bay and took on the Mafia. He offered a vision of the U.S. that was progressive, while promising to make the world a better place. While JFK’s administration made a number of mistakes - and his personal life was questionable - he is nevertheless remembered as the U.S.’s last great President.
After JFK’s assassination, Lyndon B. Johnson, a Democrat professional from Texas became President. Johnson’s presidency was heavily marked by the Vietnam War, for which he is largely blamed.
After Johnson, America fell in love with Bobby Kennedy who was killed before the Democrat convention in 1968. The Democrats turned to a rather grey but qualified man, Hubert Humphry who lost to Richard Nixon.
Nixon is remembered of course for bombing Cambodia, losing the war in Vietnam, and authorizing the Watergate break-in, as well as a number of other "dirty tricks" against domestic opponents.
And then there was Gerald Ford, who is remembered because he pardoned Nixon.
In a national need for an honest man, the U.S. elected Jimmy Carter who some believe did a lot of things right, but will always be remembered for the Iranian hostage crisis and making the U.S. look weak.
Many people believe that Ronald Reagan was one of the U.S.’s greatest presidents, but others remember huge budget deficits and an over simplistic view of the issues and problems facing the country – and his widely reported siestas and bedtime schedule. That said, part of Reagan’s success was his tremendous optimism and his ability to convince Americans that under his leadership there was a "new morning in America".
After Reagan, came the first George Bush who most would say did a credible job, but had the bad luck to run for re-election during an economic slowdown and losing to Bill Clinton.
Clinton demonstrated a certain mastery of detail and an interest in very complex policy discussions that was combined with optimism. His theme song in both campaigns was "don’t stop thinking about tomorrow" and he himself was born in a town called Hope. But while the country did well by most measures during the Clinton years, the lasting legacy of his presidency was to divide the American people.
After Clinton the divided nature of American electorate was brought to a head and George W. Bush won his very narrow victory over Al Gore. Since then Americans have seen 9/11, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and lately a crumbling economy.
Yes We Can
Into this picture come two very different politicians competing for the Democrat nomination.
Hillary Clinton and Obama actually have the same or similar views on most policy questions and if not for their both having chosen this moment to make their presidential bid, they would probably be allies and not rivals.
Besides the obvious aspects of their being the first woman and African American to get this far, each offer a compelling vision of how to meet the challenges facing the country.
Mrs. Clinton projects competence and carefully researched policy positions on a myriad of questions and to some degree urges voters to repeat the success of her husband’s tenure.
Obama on the other hand offers hope. He like Kennedy, Reagan, and Bill Clinton makes people feel that the U.S. can do better on all fronts and says that election is a choice between the "past and the future".
The real success of the Obama campaign has been its ability to penetrate America’s accumulated cynicism and give them a glimmer of hope that the country can actually move beyond its current divisions and come together.
Obama echoes one of Kennedy’s most famous ideas saying that "we are the change we’ve been waiting for" and telling people that each of them has a role in "healing the nation and repairing the planet".
The Role Of New Media
There is a further lesson in Kennedy’s win over Nixon in 1960. The most common explanation of why a relatively inexperienced and young Senator from Massachusetts could beat a popular Vice President – as it should be remembered was the case of Nixon - was that Kennedy was the first politician at the national level who understood how to portray himself on television.
What is clear about the Obama campaign is that it is using the internet in way that has never been used before to raise money and awareness, as well as to organize voters at the local level to register and vote in the caucuses and primaries.
And this is a key point that many analysts have not sufficiently paid attention to until recently:
The success of Obama’s campaign is due to in a large extant a "viral" campaign begun many months ago that identified the internet as a key ingredient for spreading its message of hope and change and "infecting" potential supporters.
Both the message and the medium appeal particularly to people under 35 - who are supporting Obama in record numbers. Currently around 100,000 people every month send the campaign donations. For many people this is the first time they have donated money to a political campaign.
My European friends have a hard time seeing the simplicity of the message for what it really is and accepting that millions of Americans are ready to suspend their disbelief and support what the Obama campaign calls a "movement for change".
What Role Will Super-Delegates Play In Final Selection
Will Obama’s campaign go all the way? Will the momentum continue to build up until the national convention in August? The race is far from over and the Clinton campaign is betting heavily on winning in Ohio and Texas on March the 4th. – crucial dates for a beleaguered Clinton after Obama’s 10 consecutive primary wins.
But the story – as perhaps it can only be in the U.S. – doesn’t end there.
Perhaps the most interesting question is assuming that Obama goes into the convention with a lead in delegates, will the roughly 800 "super-delegates" split evenly across the two candidates or would they, as a group, come out for Clinton?
This is not a question in vain.
Unlike the Republicans, Democrats since the battle between Vice-President Walter Mondale and Senator Gary Hart in 1984 instituted a system whereby super-delegates can have the final say. Super-delegates are made up of political insiders, senators, representatives and governors who are not bound to cast their selection for the presidential candidate by any previous primary vote. In essence the are free to cast their vote as they wish, however, in practice their vote may be susceptible to political pressures.
In the end it is these super-delegates that may very well hold the keys to the White House.
Obama has said that he feels it would be "unwise" for the party officials to go against the will of the people – in reference to delegates awarded in the various primaries. However, to see if the Democrats are willing to listen to the voice of the people we may have to wait until the convention in Denver.
Mike Rosenberg, Professor of Strategic Management, IESE Business School, Barcelona, Spain
