Hillary Clinton and Obama

Hillary Clinton’s comments on Dr. King and President Johnson have set off a fire storm. What commentators have failed to realize is that they reflect both Clinton’s strengths and her weaknesses, as well as the real difference between her and Barack Obama. “Dr. King’s dream began to be realized when President Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act,” Clinton said in a TV interview. “It took a president to get it done.”

Dr. King’s dream was of a future of social justice in which racism would be banished and opportunities would be equal for African Americans. His achievement was the mobilization of great numbers of black (and white) Americans to affirm that dream and to believe in its possibility, to strive for its realization and to do so without violence. Although King’s dream is still not perfectly realized, it continues to inspire people fighting for justice around the world. He played a key role in changing America forever and shares the credit for that achievement with those that listened and followed his lead, often risking their lives, and learning to think and act in new ways.

Often in history we see the work of a visionary leader implemented and put into a concrete form by someone who comes afterwards. Think of Jesus and Paul or Marx and Lenin. The passage of the Civil Rights Act meant that a vision could be implemented and enforced, although many struggles would still be necessary to see that this was done. Without Dr. King it seems doubtful that either Kennedy or Johnson would have taken on this task, which stood as a challenge to Kennedy after King’s assassination and was inherited by Johnson. Ironically Johnson was probably better equipped to achieve it. Kennedy was an inspiring speaker and held the office necessary to actually implement the dream, but he either lacked or did not have the chance to demonstrate the skills Johnson had in dealing with the Congress. So Ms. Clinton is right when she attributes the practical realization of the dream to Johnson.

These differences in style and skill set are still with us. Hillary Clinton was trained in law and has tended to see detailed and specific legislation as a major tool in social change. Over the years she has been in Washington she has increased her understanding of the need to communicate the visions that underlie policy goals as well as the need to implement them. She learned from her first effort at health care reform that the careful detail needed for legislation is not what speaks to hearts and minds. She is idealistic, with ardent hope for this country and the world, but she is basically practical minded, on balance more a doer than a dreamer. Some audiences — especially perhaps those with vivid memories of the sixties — respond deeply to Barack Obama with memories of King and JFK, and find Clinton overly pragmatic. Other audiences observe that Obama’s experience in the making and implementation of policy has been limited and know that ideals are not enough and the presidency can be profoundly frustrating for dreamers. And there seem to be substantial numbers of voters who respond neither to visions nor to policies but react instead to limited slogans and emotive buzz words.

The American presidency requires both vision and practicality, just as the achievement of social justice or peace requires both. Probably all the candidates have both in some measure, but in different proportions. We should be asking a two-fold question as we look at any candidate: first, will this candidate be inspired by a high vision of what this country can be and the role it can play in ensuring a just and stable world and a positive future? And second, will this candidate have the patience and respect for the democratic system to work with the political process step by step to implement that vision? It takes passion and patience, intelligence and imagination and common sense to do both.