It’s not because he is black that Obama is so exciting a prospect as leader of the free world. Although, of course, it helps, on all sorts of levels, most of them feelgood and hope-filled, offering reassuring notions of inclusivity, trust, and the healing of old American racial hurts. Those internal wounds are especially soothed because Obama is black culturally, despite his mixed-race inheritance; he is no Uncle Tom. Despite going to Ivy League colleges, he was not seduced by effete New England WASP ways – he immersed himself in the community of his black church, and spoke eloquently and non-defensively about it when his preacher got carried away with himself. More importantly, he married a (fiercely bright) black woman, a descendant of slaves and slave-owners; if this says anything, it is that he has no chip on his shoulder, is easy in his own skin, and therefore has nothing to prove. 80% of African-Americans describe Obama’s election as a “dream come true” – they are surprised and overjoyed to realise that they live in “a nation where they will not be judged by the colour of their skin but by the content of their character.” Character won through, this time around.

But the rest of the world is colour blind – it really doesn’t matter what colour the US President’s skin is, it’s policy that counts. For example, it hasn’t really mattered to the rest of the world that, for the past eight years, the US Secretary of State has been African-American. When cluster bombs fall, when the United Nations is lied to, and when the Geneva Convention is torn up, skin colour of the protagonists concerned is a mere footnote of history.
Oddly enough, I believe it does matter that his middle name is Hussein. The United States will never forget nor forgive the sight of Palestinians dancing on the streets on 9/11, before the dust settled; it shocked them to their core that such hate existed for their nation. For Palestinians and their supporters, the symbolism of the once-loathed enemy choosing a man called Hussein as their leader, can only cool temperatures, encourage dialogue, and diminish demonisation. It is more likely that honest respectful dialogue between the opposing sides can happen, and as we know from Northern Ireland, that stops people killing each other.
The main reason I am so passionately pro-Obama is that he’s so goddamned intelligent. He has the unmistakable quality of a reflective, thoughtful, agile intellect that is all too rare on the world stage. We know it when we see it, but what baffles me is why we as a race don’t prize it. Shouldn’t all our leaders be the brightest among us? Why is that so odd?
Obama has a quality that reminds me of a few other politicians in recent times. And, not just because they are black, I have to start with Nobel laureates Nelson Mandela and Kofi Annan; then my mind wanders to Mary Robinson, Aung San Suu Kyi, the American Senator George Mitchell, Garrett FitzGerald, and others who bring a sense of deep consideration to their utterances, that seem to demonstrate a grasp of the bigger picture.
But thinkers don’t often get to the top of the pile in politics, not least because intellect is irrelevant when it comes to being politically clever. Politics attracts those who deal in power, in influence, and who delight in the grubby business of horse-trading principles. It is the art of getting things done, not thinking about them; and in most cases, things get done by a highly sophisticated system of strokes and favours and deals. In the United States, the party that usually comes top in this department is the Republican party – not least because the boys in the backroom know how to pick a suitable folksy anti-intellectual figurehead to appeal to Mr and Mrs Average America, ever since Reagan, while the deals are done in the background to keep Big Business happy and the oil flowing. John McCain was unusual in that he is a man of character, and not a puppet. But Sarah Palin is the true Bush heir-apparent, and will no doubt be moulded and trained to play the role in 2012, just like Bush was.
In the meantime, let’s hope that Americans get to like having an intellectual as President, and see the benefits that follow internationally from having a respected leader. He has enough self-deprecatory charm and enough of a mercifully impish sense of humour to break down the suspicion that he’s elitist; he has a delightfully vibrant relationship with his wife and family, and he’s already signalling that parent-teacher meetings and soccer matches are going to feature in the new president’s diary. It’s a new dawn, it’s a new day.
So forgive me if I wallow in a little bit of jealousy here. Ireland can never elect a leader of Obama’s stature, because of the nature of Irish politics, eternally tribal, clientelist, and anti-intellectual. The only reason someone like Mary Robinson rose to the top in Ireland was because she was directly elected; but of course she didn’t have real power, by which I mean economic. She could never have become taoiseach, and we are much the poorer for it as a nation. Brian Cowen’s coronation as taoiseach after Bertie left came about obviously because he’s a clever man, a genial deal-maker and a politician in the classic Fianna Fáil mode; but he is no leader for a country in crisis, he has no vision, he does not inspire. Like the US Republicans and George W, it looks like Fianna Fáil are going to implode with record low opinion poll rankings; the chickens have come home to roost, and the world economic storm has blown the flimsy tin roof off our little coop. And, for all his popularity at the time, it was Bertie who built it.
Now, miserably, it is becoming screechingly obvious what happens to a country when we elect cute-hoor leaders who avoid rigorous, intelligent planning and have no time for strategic thinking.
Will we ever learn?