Responding to the desire for "change," Barack Obama implicitly promises to voters that he wants (and can) "wipe clean the slate of history and begin again from scratch," as John Judis writes in TNR. Few columnists, however, have measured the implications of this promise, something that is worth a pause.
No Country, of course, can free itself from geography and history: this should be obvious from Anchorage, Alaska, to Puerto Rico in the Caribbeans, as it is plain from Lisboa to St.Petersburg, and from Teheran to Sidney. Unfortunately, the US still thinks of itself as a Country with a "mission" to fullfill, nothing like the other, "normal" countries of the world. It is American exceptionalism that supplies the bedrock for the pretense of being able to "begin again from scratch" when needed.American exceptionalism, as most ideologies, is an important resource for leaders who position themelves on its wavelength. However, in time they are bound to disappoint their followers because promises based on ideology cannot be fulfilled. Leaders who surf the desire for political change will disappoint even more, because voters don't realize that the Founding Fathers did their best to prevent changes to their almost-perfect machinery.
Any political scientist, or historian, could tell citizens that separation of powers, checks and balances, and countermajoritarian institutions like the Supreme Court were devised precisely to forbid changes, and to create a structure that will last for centuries. The Constitution's authors were not optimistic about human nature, nor was Abraham Lincoln, who openly expressed his doubts concerning the political institutions born in Philadelphia: "Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation, so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure." They had more faith in Law that in their fellow citizens, and ingeniously created a weak federal government that would not put Liberty in danger.
In time, the weak government grew strong but obstacles to its reform are as formidable today as they were in 1787 or in 1861. American Presidents cannot be tyrannical, but neither can they be efficient. Their appetite for reform inevitably clashes with lobbies, petty squabbles in the House, money interests in the Senate, and frank hostility in the Supreme Court. The Commander in Chief can easily invade a foreign country, but has trouble in giving health care to children.
Congress could, and would, pass legislation in order to give health care to children, but only if Big Pharma, American Doctors, and other relevant lobbies give their assent. And both branches of Government will bow to the Supreme Court if this institution will rule that the Costitution doesn't guarantee health care to American citizens.
Magic moments come only once in a generation, and often are a source of tragic disappointments when politicians like Bob Kennedy or Martin L. King pay the price of their committment. However, the "Candidate as Messiah" remains a dangerous delusion, even in the best cases. Should Barack Obama become President, he would probably be a weak President, not because of a lack of character, or of political qualifications, but because the Constitution wants him (or anybody else) this way. Sure, Franklin Roosevelt, Lyndon Johnson and Ronald Reagan were strong leaders but even them were able to implement only a fraction of their ambitious agenda.
Any political scientist, or historian, could tell citizens that separation of powers, checks and balances, and countermajoritarian institutions like the Supreme Court were devised precisely to forbid changes, and to create a structure that will last for centuries. The Constitution's authors were not optimistic about human nature, nor was Abraham Lincoln, who openly expressed his doubts concerning the political institutions born in Philadelphia: "Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation, so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure." They had more faith in Law that in their fellow citizens, and ingeniously created a weak federal government that would not put Liberty in danger.
In time, the weak government grew strong but obstacles to its reform are as formidable today as they were in 1787 or in 1861. American Presidents cannot be tyrannical, but neither can they be efficient. Their appetite for reform inevitably clashes with lobbies, petty squabbles in the House, money interests in the Senate, and frank hostility in the Supreme Court. The Commander in Chief can easily invade a foreign country, but has trouble in giving health care to children.
Congress could, and would, pass legislation in order to give health care to children, but only if Big Pharma, American Doctors, and other relevant lobbies give their assent. And both branches of Government will bow to the Supreme Court if this institution will rule that the Costitution doesn't guarantee health care to American citizens.
Magic moments come only once in a generation, and often are a source of tragic disappointments when politicians like Bob Kennedy or Martin L. King pay the price of their committment. However, the "Candidate as Messiah" remains a dangerous delusion, even in the best cases. Should Barack Obama become President, he would probably be a weak President, not because of a lack of character, or of political qualifications, but because the Constitution wants him (or anybody else) this way. Sure, Franklin Roosevelt, Lyndon Johnson and Ronald Reagan were strong leaders but even them were able to implement only a fraction of their ambitious agenda.
