Barack Obama, Storyteller in Chief, has been going around the country making clear what he thinks the choice is in the upcoming election: the Republican position that government is the problem not the solution versus the Democratic position that good governance can matter.  As I examined in my last post, he is telling his version of the American story, supporting specific candidates and promoting specific policies, but also giving his account of the recent past and his imaginative understanding of what the alternatives are in the near future.  The specifics are interesting.

In Boston, supporting Governor Deval Patrick, the emphasis was on the economy and the kinds of tax cuts and public support that would benefit working people, the emphasis of all his speeches, but then a group in the audience called out: “Fight global AIDS!  Fight global AIDS!” And the President improvised around his central theme:

And if they [the Republicans] win in Congress, they will cut AIDS funding right here in the United States of America and all across the world.  (Applause.)  You know, one of the great things about being a Democrat is we like arguing with each other.  (Laughter.)  But I would suggest to the folks who are concerned about AIDS funding, take a look at what the Republican leadership has to say about AIDS funding.  (Applause.)  Because we increased AIDS funding.

He was highlighting a distinctive position that Democrats share in contrast to their Republican opponents, public investment can contribute to the common good, especially in difficult times.  And he makes his basic argument by citing the greatest of Republican authorities. (link)

But in the words of the first Republican President, Abraham Lincoln, we also believe that government should do for the people what they cannot do better for themselves.  (Applause.)     We believe in a country that rewards hard work.  We believe in a country that encourages responsibility.  We believe in a country where we look after one another; where we say I am my brother’s keeper; I am my sister’s keeper.  That’s the America we know.  That’s the choice in this election.”

In Portland, environmental commitment was given a little bit more prominence.    In Seattle, he included in his list of accomplishments the withdrawal of 100, 000 troops from Iraq.  “Because of you (who supported him and the Democrats) there are 100,000 brave men and women who are back from a war in Iraq.”   In many speeches he denounces “All this money pouring into these elections by these phony front groups — this isn’t just a threat to Democrats; it’s a threat to our democracy,” as he did in Los Angeles, frontally criticizing the results of the Roberts’ Court 5 to 4 decision in the Citizen’s United Case.  But in L.A., he went on to declare: “which shows you how important it is who’s making appointments on the Supreme Court. I’m proud I appointed Sonia Sotomayor.  (Applause.)  I appointed Elena Kagan.  (Applause.)

And in Las Vegas he ended very strongly, supporting the Nevada Democratic candidates, especially Harry Reid, with quintessential Obama rhetorical passion:

Look, change has always been hard in this country.  This country was founded when 13 colonies came together in a revolution that nobody believed could happen, except they believed. They founded this country on ideas that hadn’t been tried before:  We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal — (applause) — that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  (Applause.)

Nobody believed that the slaves could be free — (applause) — except they believed.

Folks didn’t believe that women could win the right to vote, except women believed.  (Applause.)

Nobody believed that we could get workers’ rights, except workers believed.  (Applause.)

There were a lot of folks who said we would never get civil rights.  But we got civil rights because somebody out there believed.  (Applause.)

Imagine if our parents, our grandparents, our great-grandparents had said, oh, this is too hard; oh, I’m feeling tired; oh, I’m feeling discouraged; oh, somebody is saying something mean about me.  (Laughter.)  We would not be here today.

We got through war and depression.  We have made this union more perfect because somebody somewhere has been willing to stand up in the face of uncertainty; stand up in the face of difficulty.  That is how change has come. (Applause.)  And that’s the spirit we have to restore in 2010. (Applause.)

And if all of you are going to go out and vote, all of you knock on doors, all of you are talking to your friends and neighbors, I promise you we will not just win this election, we just won’t elect Harry Reid, but we are going to restore the American Dream, the Vegas dream, the Nevada dream, for families for generations to come.

God bless you.  And God bless the United States of America.

Obama went full steam there and then, perhaps, because Reid is not a particularly expressive political speaker.  Perhaps it was because Reid has been a key player in the accomplishments of the past two years, as Obama sees it.  The way he supported him sums up what Obama has been doing on the campaign trail, indeed what he has been doing since he gave his speech at the Democratic Convention in 2004, telling his story as a way to guide the American story.  I suspect that this will guide him and the Democrats and the nation in meaningful ways in the coming years, though I doubt it will prevent significant Republican gains on Election Day.  How big the gains are will reveal the power and limits of Obama’s storytelling around the country.

Thoughts on Sotomayor:

A significant portion of the population in the United States is not comfortable with an African American President.  This very seriously has shaped official public debate, clearly in the confirmation hearings of Justice Sonia Sotomayor.  The New York Times reported about Sotomayor’s leading critic in the Senate before the confirmation hearings:
Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama, the highest-ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee, said the fairness issue was “the core of the American system” and was central to Republicans’ qualms.

“Every judge must be committed every day to not let their personal politics, their ethnic background, their biases, sympathies influence the nature of their decision-making process,” Mr. Sessions said Sunday on the CBS program “Face the Nation.”

Mr. Sessions pointed to what he called Judge Sotomayor’s advocacy positions and to her widely publicized remark that a “wise Latina woman” would make better judicial decisions than a white man.

“I am really flabbergasted by the depth and consistency of her philosophical critique of the ideal of impartial justice,” Mr. Sessions said. “I think that’s a real expression of hers.” (link)

The underlying theme of the Republican questioning of Sotomayor was revealed in Sessions’ statement.  There was the proposition that because she thought that the special insights and experiences of people with different identities could improve the quality of justice, she somehow was less committed to the ideals of impartial justice.  Over and over, the Republican Senators returned to one quotation from her public speeches, “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.” (link)

The principle reason given for opposing Sotomayor was that she didn’t believe in equal justice.  Could it be that this was serious?  What she meant is really not complicated.  Bringing in new perspectives improves the pursuit of justice.  People who have been excluded add something important, and they can be proud of it.  Of course, if one wants to be suspicious one could read more sinister meaning into her words.  If one is uncomfortable with the changing attitudes towards diversity, in which it is understood as a societal strength most clearly represented in the words, deeds and person of President Barack Obama, a Supreme Court Justice who works with this strength is indeed most threatening. Sessions understanding of Sotomayor is more a consequence of his suspicion and fear than of her words.  It fuels conservative politics, has little to do with impartial justice, which is indeed a fundamental ideal.