Image of Obama the pol misses the point

  While the cleric must exhort his people to generosity and forgiveness and hold up the example of the saints as an ideal to strive toward, the politician must create compromises and coalitions. His goal is to persuade people to settle for the lowest common denominator of what his coalition can live with. The cleric urges the maximum, the politician settles for the minimum. The former holds up the ideals, the latter works to preserve the common good. Both are essential for the good of society.

  The paradigmatic narrative for the politician is the story of the brave young idealist who eventually sells out for votes. For the cleric, it might be the fervent prophet who accepts the limitations of the human condition. Both are stories of failure, of loss of nerve, of disillusion. Both paradigms oversimplify the complexities of human behavior. Both the cleric and the politician must go beyond the constraints of disillusion and failure.

  The paradigm of the idealist who becomes a crafty politician is being applied freely these days to Obama by both the New York Times and by Time magazine. The senator, it is said, became ambitious and damped down his liberalism. He learned to compromise in the harsh internecine world of Chicago politics.

_
 

Keep in touch...
Locally, and Globally! 

Check out
Andrew M. Greeley's Columns for the
Chicago SunTimes'
Daily Southtown.
_

  Both the New York Times and Time articles were carefully researched and well written, but they miss a couple of points. Obama learned in his community work, among the Catholic parishes on the Southeast Side when the mills were closing, that one must expand the borders of one's activity to include as many people as possible.

  His insistence on drawing people together -- the basic theme of his campaign -- is the heart of his style of politics. You try to draw to the bandwagon everyone you can possibly attract to it. That's what Machine politics means to many idealistic people -- compromising to get the votes.

  Moreover, Obama's voting record surely suggests he is on the liberal side of the political spectrum, but you can't govern with just liberals on your side. And, more dangerously, you must sympathize with both Jews and Palestinians.

  Will Obama be able to put together such coalitions, should he be elected?

  Will there be movement toward change on peace, health care, energy, immigration, college education, income redistribution in favor of the poor and the middle class against the great wealth of the super-rich corporations and their CEOs? A consensus on peace will be a much easier task than one on immigration, where the level of hatred is still strong in our society.

  I do not think that even Michael the Archangel and all his crowd could accomplish these changes.

  If Barack Obama should become President Obama, he won't achieve compromises on all issues. The best one can expect is moderate success and painful failures. Such is the lot of the politician in God's service -- and the cleric, too. 

Read Father Greeley's latest Articles: 
How daydreamers caused Iraq nightmare (5/14)              Why media fix on Wright and ignore Hagee (5/7)
Blaming Catholics for bigotry is real bias                        A reasonable response to sex abuse scandal
Bush's victory: Blame the Democrats                             Outpouring of hate greets Obama column
Obama target of sick minds                                           McCarthy's shadow spreads over the land
An immodest proposal: polygamy for powerful                 Democrats find themselves in lose-lose situation        
King David's downfall holds lessons for U.S.                    Church failed to adapt in new era
When did public figures vote to lose privacy?                   Why is N.Y. Times playing gotcha with Obama?

Read the Chicago SunTimes' Daily Southtown articles.