Date of last letter: 21 Jan 2008

February 1, 2008

Dear Colleague:  

    This is a partisan, political letter that you should skip if you don't like presidential candidate Barack Obama. I am writing it because I consider his presidency a lost cause. How can I expect America to rise to the challenge of an Obama when it still has to recover from eight dispiriting years of George W. Bush? I have another reason for writing this letter, a reason that has little to do with politics as such, but more to do with the importance of language—of words and speech.

    During one of the debates between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, Clinton disdainfully dismissed Obama as "all words but no action." She even admits that Obama has eloquence, but what is the good of eloquence when what really matters is action? Hillary had better not forget that she got into trouble when, as Martin Luther King Day approached, she gave King laurels for being eloquent and persuasive, but she crowned President Johnson for picking up the pen (there's action for you!) and signing the Civil Rights bill. Would Johnson have anything to sign without Dr. King's powerful speeches?

    I wish Obama had rebutted Clinton by contrasting King and Johnson in the manner I have done above. I wish even more that he rebutted her on more general, philosophical grounds. He could have said. "Well, Senator, it is sophomoric to make a sharp distinction between words and action. Words are action, just as action frequently takes the form of words. If words are just hot air, as you seem to imply, what are the two of us doing here on this platform? Aren't we making speeches, using words? And don't we believe that our words can actually change the voting behavior of our listeners? If you are a plumber, it makes sense for you to say that what matters is not what you say but what you do. But you are a politician, a senator, words are your tools to effect change. You use them each time you meet with your advisors, your constituents, your colleagues. And if you are elected president? What is the ultimate source of your power but your power of persuasiveness in the cabinet, at the UN, at press meetings, in prime-time radio and television addresses to the nation? As senator, you do just fine with the modest speaking ability you have. But as president, dear Senator, you have to do much better. You need eloquence—Lincolnesque or Churchillian—to articulate the common good."

    There is one more reason why I favor Obama. A black man as the president of the United States is truly revolutionary. France never had a black president; it just wasn't bold enough, enlightened enough. Nor any other European countries. With Barack and Michelle in the White House, we can put all the snotty Europeans in their place. Once more, America will be the undisputed "Light unto the world." Jihadists will be alarmed. Their propaganda machine doesn't run well on an American president whose name is Obama and whose face is a darker color than theirs.    

     Won't a female American president be a good thing? Of course, it would. But it won't be a real novelty for a woman to hold supreme political power. Hillary Clinton would be preceded by such notable figures as Catherine the Great, Elizabeth I, Margaret Thatcher, Angela Merkel, Indira Gandhi, and Benazir Bhutto. I worry also over Clinton's emphasis on her ability to get things done. At times I think she really wants to be America's House Mother. There may be times when America needs a House Mother. But not yet. Not after the Bush years that have so eroded American self-confidence and optimism. At this critical time, we need a bolder figure—an emblematic figure—to make us smile and feel good about ourselves again.

Best wishes,

Yi-Fu