Letter to David Brooks, the New York Times' chief anti-Obamite

Dear Mr. Brooks,

I don't purport to understand your dogged loyalty to a candidate whose time, it's becoming clear, has all but passed, but - in keeping with my personal belief that the absence of dissent is a symptom of a brainwashed electorate - I truly appreciate seeing at least one constant, dissenting voice. I wonder, however, if you've considered the unavoidable political effect of a convincing Obama victory in the general election.

Obama's candidacy is a gamble, to be sure, but politically it promises a rich payout for the country. I was not caught up in the early stages of Obamamania, nor am I enraptured by his charismatic speaking; what is most impressive to me about the candidate is the genuine, unmistakable enthusiasm he generates in his supporters. To be specific, it is the character of this enthusiasm - mobilized and hopeful - that has made me an Obama supporter. It is the first time in my (admittedly short) political memory that I have seen so many different people who each believe that they are an important part of actual history: a movement, they believe, that will take their country beyond its twenty preceding years of partisan malaise. That is the kind of enthusiasm that motivates selfless civic action. From a political standpoint, it is the kind of enthusiasm that delivers a powerful mandate to the politician who manages to generate it. I believe that the character of Obama's campaign will produce one of the most politically empowered first-term presidencies in the country's history; whereas a Clinton victory would have to come after a bruising, bitterly fought general election that would deliver no real mandate, and do nothing in the way of defanging the poisonous hatred that has turned American political life into little more than a well-financed pissing match.

Karl Rove's grand, failed strategy for the Bush administration envisioned a presidency that permanently moved the center of the country's political discourse to the right. That political strategy ultimately failed because of its dissonance with Rove's actual, divide-and-conquer political tactics. By contrast, Obama's main political weapon - his soaring rhetoric of unity which touches both the left and the center alike - is perfectly aligned with the promise of his campaign: shifting the center of our political discourse so permanently to the center-left. If this wins through, the Republicans will be forced - at last - to abandon their fear-mongering charlatanism or be left in the dust forever: nothing more than the voice of the hateful 30% of the electorate who will always believe that they, and their values, are the only ones entitled to own shares in America.

A lot of things have to go right for that to happen. Obama has to win the nomination. He has to hold off a Republican candidate whose biography and strength on national security issues give him the potential ability to tap into the huge bloc of independent voters who have been taken with the Obama campaign during this primary season. Finally, as you have pointed out time and again, he needs to define the change he proposes, then produce and implement policies that will convince all of us that the change is real. Perhaps Obama and supporters are selling themselves the Brooklyn Bridge. Perhaps this election and its ultimate place in the unfolding story of our country's destiny is a craps game, and we've got all of our chips on one number. I believe, however, that this body politic has grown so weary with hedging its bets every four years that it's ready to gamble big: the potential payoff of an Obama presidency is worth the estimable risk it demands we take to achieve it. Personally, I can't wait to throw the dice.

Yours,
Charles Atkinson
Washington, DC