Elections are about policies. They are about character. They are about parties
and their evolving philosophies. But elections can also be expressive
events. They don’t just determine prime ministers or presidents; they
express culture. They can be a reflection of the public mood, refracted
through an individual. They can be a cultural statement about where a
society is and where it wants to go.
That was true of the emergence of Reagan and Thatcher in the 1970s — both
represented a cultural shift from all that dreadful decade conjured up. It
was true of Bill Clinton’s promise in 1992 and Tony Blair’s in 1997 as well:
two men who promised to marry the market economy with a new social
diversity.
David Cameron and Barack Obama now occupy strangely parallel places in the
political culture of Britain and America. They are both young, dynamic,
loquacious and extremely well-packaged politicians. They are creatures of
their respective parties, and yet distinguishable from them. Obama has done
his time in the precincts of Chicago politics; Cameron has worked his way
patiently up the Tory machinery.
But Obama’s reasoned tone and serene religious faith set him apart from the
vices of the American left, just as Cameron’s easy-going empathy distances
him from the detritus of the “nasty party” on the right.
The appeal of both, however, lies, I think, in the expressive nature of their
candidacies for high office. By their very backgrounds they each represent
to their respective countries the latest answer to an old question. In
America, the oldest and densest issue is race; in Britain, the oldest and
once insurmountable issue is class. Obama is the postracial candidate for
America; Cameron, in turn, represents a candidacy that is, at root,
postclass.
Obama’s postracial appeal leaps out from his polling demographics. His support
is not primarily from black voters. African-Americans actually favour
Hillary Clinton over the son of a Kenyan immigrant and his Kansas
sweetheart. Obama is racially half-black but he is not culturally
African-American. His lineage does not come from America’s segregated or
enslaved history. Unlike Condi Rice or Clarence Thomas, the inheritance of
deeply American racism does not directly mark him.
Yes, as Obama has rightly pointed out, he is black when he is trying to catch
a cab on an urban street. Bigots don’t distinguish between a black son of an
immigrant and the attenuated progeny of slaves.
But he is also canny enough not to appropriate a past that isn’t his. In the
famous speech he gave at the 2004 Democratic convention, he spoke the
following words: “In no other country on earth is my story even possible.”
But that story is one of immigration and opportunity, not slavery,
segregation and survival.
Black Americans are keenly aware of these cultural distinctions. Some have
been bold enough to say so. If Obama were Republican, the clamour would be
much louder. But most African-Americans will surely not let Obama’s
difference from many derail a chance for the first American president of
African ancestry.
White Americans, in contrast, are all but falling over each other to elect a
black man to the highest office. He is an opportunity for them to prove
their lack of racism. After all Obama is, as one of his rivals indelicately
put it, “clean and articulate”. He is, in the eyes of some whites, black but
not too black.
But whatever the voters’ motives, Obama’s becoming a nominee or even president
would be a historic moment of emotionally unpredictable consequence. He
declared his candidacy last weekend where Lincoln began his law career, in
Springfield, Illinois. His arrival in the White House a century and a half
after Lincoln’s victory in the blood-soaked battle against slavery would and
should cause all Americans to stop and take stock.
A country long contaminated by the legacy of slavery would take a moment to
see how far it has come. Yes, it would be an alloyed victory. Obama the
immigrant would not be the great-great-great grandson of American slaves.
History is not that neat. But he would represent what the South once feared
and despised. And the colour of his skin would change the character of the
presidency.
Cameron represents nothing so profound. But he does signify something
relatively new. Cameron’s broad-based appeal has a remarkable aspect to it —
remarkable, perhaps, because it no longer seems remarkable. Voters do not
view Cameron primarily through the lens of class. He isa product of Eton and
Oxford; he is also a dope-smoking former member of the Bullingdon club, as
we have recently discovered. These affiliations are shot through with
class-consciousness. In the relatively recent past they would have rendered
a Tory toff with Cameron’s past too politically toxic for primetime.
I confess to a little of this myself looking at that now-infamous photograph
of him in his Bullingdon white tie and Spandau Ballet pose. I admit I felt
an involuntary spasm of class-loathing. I remember the effortless sense of
total privilege that some of the Bullingdon members had at Oxford — and
their upper-class chaviness. (The underclass has always had its echo in the
overclass, as far as binge drinking and antisocial behaviour goes.) The
behaviour repelled me then. It repels me now.
But then the spasm relents and I realise what a waste of energy it is to take
these old and not too pretty feelings and plaster them on someone who has
obviously outgrown them. We all have pasts; we all have backgrounds. They
shape us but they do not determine us. It seems to me that there are plenty
of legitimate reasons to criticise Cameron (and plenty of reasons to admire
him too) but his past life isn’t one of them. Yes, Etonians have human
rights too. Give the man a break.
Some still harbour these resentments, of course. Roy Hattersley had a
predictable splutter on Question Time last week. But the splutter dates him,
as well as demeans him. Most Brits have gone beyond this kind of thing, just
as most Americans are eager to get past race.
As a commenter on a Guardian blog last week opined: “Didn’t this type of class
envy go out some time in the 1970s? This really is feeble stuff.”
Yes it is, in many ways. But this “feeble stuff” once defined much of British
culture, just as race defined America’s. If a Tory leader with Cameron’s
pedigree emerges as a classless symbol of Britain, it will indeed be a
cultural moment of sorts.
Maybe a Labour prime minister could get away easily with such a privileged
pedigree, just as a black Republican could win over white America more
easily than a Kenyan-Kansan Democrat. But Obama and Cameron are trying for
something subtler and harder. They are fallibly trying to move past these
categories, while representing new and complicated forms of them.
Will either succeed? I don’t know. Race and class have mined the field with
booby traps in both countries. Both men may falter; and both have something
of the inauthentic about them. But more inauthentic than the rest of us? I
doubt it. Life is messy in these complicated times; and getting beyond
categories that limit our horizons is never easy.
One gets the sense that in Britain and America voters are seriously looking at
a new century and a new paradigm. The candidacies of Obama and Cameron are
test runs for a future all of us secretly want.
Mr Obama's big pitch is that he is for "CHANGE." Does any one have a clue what he plans on changing and how he is going to do it? I would really like to see his 5 top items he plans on changing and how he is going to do it. Talk of "CHANGE" is cheap any one can say I going to change this or that but he never presents what he is going to change and how he is going to change it. And please his I don't want to count his bantering replies to what Mrs Clinton starts talking about. I want to know what this man is planning on doing. Just a list of 5 items in order of importance (#1 the most, etc.) and how he is going to accomplish this change. I'm tired of all of all this cheap talk of change - I want an action plan and let me tell you right now he better think long and hard because if he is elected he better stick to it. But I betting it won't happen he's a big talker and he voted "present" over 100 times on important legislation. Not impressed with "Talk of Change"
Cecil , St. Joseph, USA/MI
I think you haven interesting take on these candidates - one I haven't come across before. I've admired your thinking before - and can't really fundamentally disagree with the points you've made in this article. Keep it up!
Chris Holland, Sydney, Australia
The past two decades have ruuined faily life whichis part of our heritage. Everyone makes mistakes, some just youthful growing up whichgo into the past. Some continue in the behaviour of the adult. Power and the everlasting search for more power destroy not just the man, but those dependent on his/her decisions. There have been many bad decisions in the last ten years, which have made a larger gap between the rich and the poor. there has been little encouragement or example for discipline, and this is shown in the behaviour of our young people Not all of course, as we have many adirable youngsters. They are a tribute to their home life, their school and their community.We hear lttle about the good, but at present the bad seems to outstrip the good. Let us return to family life.
A.Pcull, Totnes, Devon.
Give these guys a break! Get over it ........
Would it not be great for politicians to be elected to the highest positions of power in the western world on the basis of their history of accomplishment, integrity and vision rather than they should be elected, as Mr Sullivan alludes, on people's pre-judged outdated ignorant and bigoted ideas of what they believe an advantaged or disadvantaged upbringing might be.
If there is to be hope Obama and Cameron had better make it as currently gangsters rule, bringing shame on us all.
Gorgi, St Ives, UK
Give these guys a break! Get over it ........
Would it not be great for politicians to be elected to the highest positions of power in the western world on the basis of their history of accomplishment, integrity and vision rather than they should be elected, as Mr Sullivan alludes, on people's pre-judged outdated ignorant and bigoted ideas of what they believe an advantaged or disadvantaged upbringing might be.
If there is to be hope Obama and Cameron had better make it as currently gangsters rule, bringing shame on us all.
Gorgi, St Ives, UK
Well, if not Barack and Cameron, how about McCain or Hillary and Brown ? I think I'm going to be sick........
Jeff,, ,, USA
What has Cameron actually done? His CV includes PR but in what capacity, tea boy for a start? I don't think so. He probably took a directorship to enable the political aspirations, and the PR company takes a pay off along the way. He must be pulling a lot of benefits with 4 kids.
M wilson, bidache, France
People who say Senator Obama is too inexperienced need to stop comparing him to God, and saying he comes up short. They need to start comparing him to mere mortals and realize that his list of experience and accomplishments is quite impressive compared to his actual opponents. What has Hillary Clinton ever accomplished that qualifies her to be president? What has John Edwards ever accomplished? The only candidate with much experience is McCain, and he's too tied to war in Iraq to get elected.
Daewoo Kim, Seattle, U.S.A.
Fortunatly the result of the next elections is a forgone conclusion thanks to the total mess made by the currant lot. and the enormous waste of taxpayers money by Gordon Brown. However just what sort of an inpact Mr Cameron will have as PM remains to be seen.
D Case, nEWQUAY, uk
I think you're right. Cameron has about as much chance as Obama.
Ken Leyland, Liverpool, U.K.
Given his total lack of experience, the fact that serious commentators are actually talking about Obama possibly winning the White House shows just how "post race" America isn't.
As a test, imagine he were white. Would he even have managed a passing mention in your column?
Try judging him on his record not the colour of his skin.
Aubrey Laret, London,
In response to the comment from the reader in Virginia, Barack Obama was editor-in-chief of the Harvard Law Review, a senior lecturer at the University of Chicago Law School, served eight years as an Illinois state senator before winning his current seat in the U.S. Senate, and spent several years before law school organizing successful community projects in low-income areas of New York and Chicago. I agree that he needs to speak about his policies in greater detail, but to say he has no accomplishments is inaccurate.
Anne, London,
I don't know anything more about Barack Obama than could be inferred from a few recent clips on British TV, but I can't see him as the next President of the United States. As your article says he is a nice idea from one point of view - which might make him a suitable candidate - but that is quite different from actually fitting into the White House. I think that much the same view applies to David Cameron, who I am sure would make a very good Prime Minister as conceived in your article's terms of eligibility for that office, but, as the many recently passed over Tory leaders and the present media assault on Tony Blair reveal, it is certain essential interests that put a candidate into 10 Downing Street more than his qualities, or qualifications for the job.
Henry Percy, London, UK
Wishful thinking, Mr Sullivan, but the real link between Democrats and Conservatives remains in the last leadership races. The Anyone But Davies (Tories) and the Anyone But Dean (Democrats) left both parties with patrician leaders who know nothing of the life of the 'man-on-the-clapham omnibus'. The result for the Tories under Cameron will quite possibly be the same as it was for the Democrats under Kerry - defeat.
As Gordon Brown (and for Londoners, Livingstone) put their hands deeper into our paypackets and wallets, Cameron and Osbourne's failure to face the fact that allowing us to determine how we dispose of more of our own income allows us to make optimum decisions. I would wager that neither of them know what it's like to struggle to balance the bank account at the end of the month because Brown's taxes have wrecked out finances.
Where is a political leader capable of addressing this. Not in the Conservatives of today, sadly.
Bryan Lewin, London,
"Cameron, in turn, represents a candidacy that is, at root, postclass". This might have been true had Cameron joined the Labour party in the 1980s - but he didn't. He became a Tory at a time when his party was
ultra-conservative - a wholly predictable move for someone of his class.
The current "hug a hoodie" waffle does little to endear him to most people outside Notting Hill. I believe that the mood of this country has moved to the right in recent months - it's just that Cameron and his clique have failed to spot it, being too busy with their "rebranding" exercise.
Janet, London, UK
Oh dear, another 'religious' man is he? Look where that's got us. He needs to be CofE or whatever the american equivalent is. Religion should be confined to school, births, marriage and death...
Mike, UK,
Observer says Cameron cannot take the North - but can Brown take the South?
Maybe we have got past class but is there a new problem facing certain politicians: post-devolution, is Brown too Scottish to get elected by the majority English?
Matt M, Leeds,
Let's be realistic, Obama is extremely unlikely to be presient in 2009. The Vice presidency is a possibility. The present odds on the next President are Clinton 26 percent, McCain 16 percent and falling, Guilani 14.5 percent and rising and Obama 13 percent.
And Cameron is no shoo-in for the next PM. A hung parliament is a real possibility.
William Thomson, Guildford, Surrey
One gets the impression Andrew Sullivan is disconnected from this country and has so little idea of the electoral geography of Britain. Cameron might be able to sweep the primaries in the US and carry The South; but in Britain he cannot carry The North and without our Electoral College System called Constituencies his party comes fourth in many areas of the North behind LibDems, Labour and BNP.
Observer, Leeds, England
LIsten, I have nothing against Obama, but more importantly I have nothing for him. To my knowledge Obama has no accomplishments; No military service, only 2 years as a US Senator, no significant legislation to his name, and no leadership roles filled in the past. His largest management and leadership function to-date is his management of his current office staff, some 10-20 young souls. Friends, that isn't enough to get elected mayor of a medium sized city to say nothing of being elected govenor. Obama may have a future in the White House someday, but that day isn't on the horizon. Unless Obama does something of value besides talk in blissful generalities, he's not ready for prime time.
Dave Heller, Alexandria, VA
How odd that the USA should bear the stigma of slavery but the British who profited from the trade think they have avoided all blame.
Oh, BTW, unhappy 50th Dedan Kimathi day! (Not that many in Britain will know who he was.)
Bill Sadler, Brighton, Sussex
Great article. Since any issue of great political import to the US, which in this case is nothing less than the presidency of a superpower, have world-wide implications, let me give my two sens worth of opinion. If Obama succeeded in his bid for the White House, that would itself reflect the wise judgement of the American public that race consideration today, among other things, is no longer relevant. If only the changed times would have afforded the same opportunites for high office during the lifetime of one of America's greatest and persecuted citizens, Paul Robeson, who, I am sure were he alive today might very well become its next Vice-President.
SD Goh, Petaling Jaya, Malaysia