Over the past two weeks, Senator John McCain and the Republican Party have been hammering away at Senator Barack Obama for not admitting that the surge in Iraq has been a success. A number of politicians, political pundits, media political analysts, and others, have been doing the same, and have also said that Sentor Obama ought to congratulate Senator McCain for having been a forceful advocate of this strategy.
This collective chastisement of Senator Obama is occurring within what I call a "soundbite context." Politicians, political analysts, and journalists, as well as American voters, are conditioned by the soundbite. It is the be-all end-all of American politics for them.
What is the soundbite? The soundbite flows from either-or thinking. It is a terse, singular, simplistic comment or phrase that appears to convey truth, knowledge, understanding, and to reflect reality, when in fact, it does none of these things. A soundbite is employed when one wants to obscure or ignore, or distort all of these things.
To make this point, take the phrase: "taken out of context." This is a reference to the construction of a soundbite. Taking a comment or phrase out of context means isolating it from other phrases and comments in the context and focusing on it as if it were the only thing said, and thus, indicating where the discussion and analysis should begin.
An isolated comment or phrase becomes the soundbite, and since it is taken from the context that would invest sense, truth, or meaning in it, the comment as a soundbite, represents not only a distortion, or misrepresentation of facts, or a reality, but also represents a conscious effort to tell a lie.
Senator Obama loathes the soundbite. He thinks in holistic, rather than either or, singular terms. His preference is to provide knowledge and explanations, and to try to help people understand things, and that usually involves, as he sees it, providing them with more than one factor to consider and digest, to accomplish this objective.
Senator Obama regards the soundbite feature of American politics, as a manifestation of old political thinking and old politics, which then becomes one of the things that induces him to try to change political thinking and politics in the country.
Senator John McCain is a long time practitioner of the soundbite. He seeks to explain the surge on this basis, because he takes one aspect of the surge--the military/security aspect-- and makes it appear that this is what the whole surge was about. Thus, he is engaged in conscious deception and falsification. This is John McCain playing the surge card.
The surge as launched in 2007 and made very public involved three broad component parts: 1) a large increase in American troops in Iraq (30 or 40,000) that would train Iraqi military and security forces, and that would seek to reduce or suppress the daily violence in the country. 2) the use of the military/security part of the surge to provide some political space to develop the new Iraqi government and to promote political reconciliation between the Shiites, Sunnis, and Kurds, and between the central and outlying governments of the country and 3) to rebuild the economy and the country, and work out a method to redistribute the oil revenues of Iraq.
John McCain signed off on and encouraged this surge in Iraq. But over the past two weeks, following Senator Obama's successful trip to Afghanistan and Iraq, and other places in the Middle East and Europe, where he substantially showed his Presidential, foreign policy, commander-in-chief, and world leader credentials, McCain has turned desperately to playing the surge-card to try to lessen the domestic impact of Senator Obama's great triumph, and to try to salvage his own image of having the same credentials.
If Senator McCain argued that the military and security dimension of the surge was successful, Senator Obama would readily agree with that. He saw that success in Iraq, and while there, and since being back in the country, he has praised the American troops for their courage, dedication, and magnificent performance in achieving this result.
But Senator Obama also expanded his view. He said in Iraq and back in the country, that the Anbar Awakening and the cessation of the hostilities between the Shiites and Sunnis, i.e., the present halting of the civil war, also contributed to the reduction of daily violence, deaths, and casualties in the country.
There were McCain surrogates and political analysts who pounced on this comment, saying that it undercut credit for the troops, and also that his answer was not "straightforward," that it was "mixed", or "ambiguous", and seemed like an effort to try to "avert" dealing with and crediting the surge. In short, Senator Obama did not honor the soundbite and its deception.
Senator Obama praised the part of the surge that succeeded, but he could not praise the surge itself, because as a full scale reality, it had not been successful. He refused to be drawn into promoting a lie despite some political pressure to do so.
But in playing the surge card, Senator McCain was contradicting General David Petraeus and Ambassador to Iraq, Ryan Crocker. When they reported to the House and Senate hearings on the war in Iraq in 2007, they acknowledged that the surge had three broad parts. The military/security part had significant success, but political gains, as both men said many times at the hearings, were "fragile and reversible," thus, clearly not successful; and that the economic recovery, rebuilding of the country, and the equitable distribution of oil revenues was proceeding frustratingly slowly.
In Iraq, Senator Obama learned that military and security successes had increased since the earlier report, but that the other features of the surge still lagged frustratingly behind. General Petraeus wanted more time to work on these matters with massive U.S. troops in Iraq, and indicated to Senator Obama, as the latter himself reported, that he was not in favor of a time table drawdown of troops in the country, and that he wanted more time and flexibility to deal with the situation.
As another part of his comments, Senator Obama said that if he were in General Petraeus's shoes, he would espouse the same values. But he also said that as President of the United States, he would have more concerns to deal with than the General, on the homefront and in regard to America's strategic interests, that went beyond Iraq and even Afghanistan.
Senator Obama said directly to General Petraeus that as President he would be commander-in-chief, and that he would set the mission in Iraq. He said this many times during his Presidential nomination campaign, and he conveyed that understanding to General Petraeus when he talked to him.
What has continued to go unnoticed by politicians and political analysts is that President Bush has abandoned his commander-in-chief role to General Petraeus to let him set the American mission in Iraq. Senator McCain shows deference to General Petraeus and satisfaction with this submission, implying that if he were President, he, like Bush, would let General Petraeus, or someone else dealing with events on the ground, be commander-in-chief.
This is not Senator Obama's attitude. He showed great respect for General Petraeus, but not deference, and indicated to him that he would still work from a 16 month time table drawdown of troops in Iraq, and would redeploy troops, about two brigades, to Afghanistan.
In August of 2007, he had said that 7000 troops should be sent to Afghanistan. In early 2008, the commanders in that country, fighting the Taliban and Al Qaeda, called for 7000 troops, echoing the Senator. Now the call is for about 10,000 troops.
But Senator Obama had shown Presidential and commander-in-chief metal, asserting both with General Petraeus. He held his ground about the 16 month strategic withdrawal, and more than that he got Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki and his government to endorse the plan.
Senator Obama had bested John McCain. He had taken some of the shine off of his credentials as military expert and commander-in-chief. Senator Obama had also succeeded in changing the debate that McCain had once dominated: from Iraq to Afghanistan, from the surge to the withdrawl and redeployment of troops, and from the long term occupation of Iraq, which Senator John McCain had said on a number of occasions, could be from 50 to 100 years, to a protective and tactical U.S. force in the country.
Senator McCain sought salvation and redemption in playing the surge card, and on a basis of trying to demean Senator Obama. He and his surrogates have argued that the Senator was showing a lack of character and being dishonest, and unprincipled, because he still would not admit that he had made a mistake opposing the surge, and because he still would not apologize for having done so.
There are politicians and political analysts playing the surge card along with John McCain and his surrogates, as this is also their talking point with Senator Obama and his surrogates.
The behavior on the part of Senator McCain and his spokespeople is so disingenuous and dishonest that political observes should have taken them to task for it, which they have not done, and presently show no willingness to do.
The political observers insisting that Senator Obama should admit his mistake and apologize do not place the same demands on John McCain.
Senator McCain has never admitted, nor apologized, for the mistake he made encouraging and being in full support of the Bush administration taking the United States into a needless war with Iraq; and, therefore, a war of needless deaths and needless casualties, a needless massive expenditure of American taxpayer dollars, and a needless drain on the country's military preparedness and capabilities.
Senator McCain has never admitted that he made mistakes supporting the Bush administration's strategic blunder of waging war against Iraq and not encouraging or insisting that it pursue Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda in their haven and training ground between Afghanistan and Pakistan, nor has he ever apologized for this mistake.
He has never admitted that the war in Iraq has not made America safer or more secure, which it has not, because it has allowed Al Qaeda to re-group and to re-strengthen itself, and to ready itself to renew its attacks on the U.S. at home and abroad.
These are all instances of poor judgment and miscalculation on Senator McCain's part. And his refusal to at least admit his mistakes, which were so collosal and so obvious, says something poignantly about his character and temperament, and how he seems to think that he stands above criticism.
It also points to how much of a risk and liability he might be in the White House, because he really does not seem to see that he made collosal mistakes and grievous miscalculations. As President he might engage in the same kind of myopic thinking and behavior with respect to Iran.
There is a very egregious way that Senator McCain also plays the surge card, and that also reflects his character and temperament. He says that when Senator Obama stands against the surge and its successes, he is saying that American troops have been fighting and making sacrifices in vein in Iraq.
He charges that Senator Obama would rather have the U.S. surrender and lose a war in Iraq, and leave the country with dishonor, in exchange for achieving a political objective, namely, to become President.
Senator McCain has said that he would rather lose a Presidential election than lose a war, while Senator Obama would take the opposite road. These words and sentiments not only called into question Senator Obama's loyalty, but also implied that he was a traitor.
This is the pugnacious and cruel streak that dwells in John McCain, that is often hidden by a sudden smile that follows a remark, and by attempts to cover up the traits with humor. Political observers should have laced into the Senator for making these outrageous and contemptible charges--a Presidential candidate virtually accusing another Presidential candidate of being a traitor!
But, instead, they have given him another one of their many passes to help him escape criticism, and enabling him to feel that he does not have to be held accountable for what he says or does.
The same people also permit Senator McCain to keep saying, unchallenged, what he said repeatedly over the past two weeks: that he always puts his country first, and also saying that Senator Obama doesn't.
But McCain did not put America first when he supported the United States engaging in an unprovoked and needless war with Iraq. He did not put the country first when he was adamant in supporting the Bush administration to step up that war while letting Al Qaeda reconstitute itself and become an ever stronger threat to the United States. And he did not put America first when he was in favor of the country spending huge amounts of money on a needless war, that could have been spent on rebuilding the infrastructure in the country, and augmenting the lives of the American people.
In all of these instances, Senator McCain put a neocon ideology, a military mentality, and a military based foreign policy first. This was also the same mind-set that prompted him to advocate and support the surge, and that keeps him welded to his deceitful position regarding it.
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
Monday, July 28, 2008
False Knock On Michelle Obama: Her Embrace of Change Does Not Equal A Lack Of Loyalty or Patriotism
False Knock On Michelle Obama: Her Embrace of Change Does Not Equal A Lack Of Loyalty or Patriotism.
Earlier this year, Michelle Obama, Senator Barack Obama's wife, made the comment that "for the first time in my adult lifetime I am proud of my country, because it is ready to embrace change."
In front of a white Republican audience the day after those remarks, Senator John McCain and his wife Cindy weighed in on them. Cindy McCain said to the audience "I have always been proud of my country." Her husband said the same, with both receiving applause and cheers.
People in the McCain campaign, a number of strident talk show hosts, Republican politicians, journalists, political pundits, and media political analysts became a large chorus denouncing Michelle Obama for what its collective voice said was her lack of loyalty and patriotism to the United States.
This response was clearly predictable. It came overwhelmingly from White people, and reflected the understanding that so many Black people have, that too many white people still have great difficulty distinguishing between White hegemony and the United States, White domination of the American government and the American government itself, and White interpretation of American ideals and values, and the ideals and values themselves.
This difficulty stems from the longstanding and continuing practice of too many White people equating this country and this society with White people; that both belong to them and no one else, or to no one else like they both belong to them. This is clearly not Michelle Obama’s view.
There used to be phrases in American history that reflected this kind of thinking that lasted up to about the 1960’s and 1970’s, such as a “White man’s country,” or “White society.”
In one of the Lincoln-Douglas debates of 1858, Abraham Lincoln described the Declaration of Independence as “ the white man’s charter of liberty.” Stephen Douglas said in that same debate “ this government of ours is founded on a white basis. It was made by the white man for the benefit of the white man.”
Historically and generally, the White argument has been that the United States belonged to White people and was to benefit them, and that it did not belong to Black people, that they were not able to claim it as their own or benefit from it, and certainly not the way that Whites benefited.
Blacks were to be dominated, confined, and excluded in their own country. Whites endeavored to do this by enslaving Blacks, denying them human, political and civil rights, subjecting them to racist laws and racist segregation, by public denigration, by denying or diminishing their education, by denying them employment opportunities, access to health and medical care, forcing them to live in poor neighborhoods, and by subjecting them to various forms of violence.
Senator John McCain and his wife Cindy were adults when much of this gross mistreatment of Black people was occurring. They said that they had always been proud of their country, without any qualifying language. That means, then, on the basis of their own words, they were proud of this country when it was treating Black people the way it was doing.
But why would Black people be proud of it? Why would Black people be loyal to this? Patriotic about this? This would be tantamount to being imbecilic or masochistic.
The national/social context in which White and Black people lived in this country, from its founding up to about the 1960’s and 1970’s, with White people dominating, segregating and excluding Blacks, led to the two groups of people looking at many things in the country in very different ways, including the matter of loyalty and patriotism.
There is the old Machiavellian phrase “my country right or wrong.” This is something that Black and White people would likely agree upon. But Black people would be a lot quicker than White people to say, that the country should be right, and not wrong, and that being proud of the country should be based on it being right and moral.
In the late 1960’s, as will be remembered, Martin Luther King, Jr. opposed the Vietnam War, calling it an immoral war, and one that the country should not be fighting. He was roundly condemned by many White people, including many White liberals, with the stated or implied racist argument: that he should confine his political role to Black issues, and let White men deal with foreign affairs, and with matters of war.
But King was not deterred, because he contended, contrary to his White critics, that the Black struggle and the Vietnam War were linked together. King’s view about the immoral character of the war, and the great mistake in engaging in it, eventually became the national sentiment.
Michelle Obama, who was born in 1962, emerged into adulthood in the early 1980’s and full adulthood over the next twenty years. These were years that saw the effective ending of blatant White racism and when Blacks made significant political, economic, educational, and other gains, and when Michelle Obama herself achieved stunning personal and individual successes.
But the years between the 1980’s and 2000 were also years when the White backlash that had begun in the late 1960’s attained its full force in the country. It was brought to this level primarily by the Republican Party. Whites in that party sought to take back or diminish the gains that Blacks had made, showing that many Whites were strongly against changing the United States away from its racist past.
Michelle Obama knew, like a lot of Black people knew, and that a number of White people knew as well, that between the 1960’s and 2000, the national/social context of the country had been significantly altered. It was being put in line more significantly with its ideals and morality, despite the backlash resistance to his new construction.
The America that was now being built, that was endeavoring to promote a racist free national/social context, and which was occurring during Michelle Obama’s full adulthood, was the emerging America that she was very proud of, that she was very loyal to, and strongly patriotic about.
She was also proud of White people, and other people, who could embrace this change, and who were committing themselves to keeping it going, and joining with her husband to do so, which he wanted to help promote as President of the United States.
Those who cry that Michelle Obama is not loyal to or patriotic about the United States are showing that they do not have these feelings about the country she wants to see fully established.
The White Republicans who denounce her are showing their rejection of this America, and also their anger that she will not be loyal to and patriotic about their version of the country, where White people are dominant and in the ascendancy, and Blacks are subordinated, confined, and excluded as much as possible.
When one considers that the Republican Party is overwhelmingly White in composition, speaks for and represents this large White population in the country- which centers in White people in the South- it is not a mystery why members of it would label Michelle Obama disloyal and unpatriotic.
But she is not daunted, because she has too much intelligence, integrity, and common sense to be loyal to and patriotic about the kind of America that so many White Republicans want.
Earlier this year, Michelle Obama, Senator Barack Obama's wife, made the comment that "for the first time in my adult lifetime I am proud of my country, because it is ready to embrace change."
In front of a white Republican audience the day after those remarks, Senator John McCain and his wife Cindy weighed in on them. Cindy McCain said to the audience "I have always been proud of my country." Her husband said the same, with both receiving applause and cheers.
People in the McCain campaign, a number of strident talk show hosts, Republican politicians, journalists, political pundits, and media political analysts became a large chorus denouncing Michelle Obama for what its collective voice said was her lack of loyalty and patriotism to the United States.
This response was clearly predictable. It came overwhelmingly from White people, and reflected the understanding that so many Black people have, that too many white people still have great difficulty distinguishing between White hegemony and the United States, White domination of the American government and the American government itself, and White interpretation of American ideals and values, and the ideals and values themselves.
This difficulty stems from the longstanding and continuing practice of too many White people equating this country and this society with White people; that both belong to them and no one else, or to no one else like they both belong to them. This is clearly not Michelle Obama’s view.
There used to be phrases in American history that reflected this kind of thinking that lasted up to about the 1960’s and 1970’s, such as a “White man’s country,” or “White society.”
In one of the Lincoln-Douglas debates of 1858, Abraham Lincoln described the Declaration of Independence as “ the white man’s charter of liberty.” Stephen Douglas said in that same debate “ this government of ours is founded on a white basis. It was made by the white man for the benefit of the white man.”
Historically and generally, the White argument has been that the United States belonged to White people and was to benefit them, and that it did not belong to Black people, that they were not able to claim it as their own or benefit from it, and certainly not the way that Whites benefited.
Blacks were to be dominated, confined, and excluded in their own country. Whites endeavored to do this by enslaving Blacks, denying them human, political and civil rights, subjecting them to racist laws and racist segregation, by public denigration, by denying or diminishing their education, by denying them employment opportunities, access to health and medical care, forcing them to live in poor neighborhoods, and by subjecting them to various forms of violence.
Senator John McCain and his wife Cindy were adults when much of this gross mistreatment of Black people was occurring. They said that they had always been proud of their country, without any qualifying language. That means, then, on the basis of their own words, they were proud of this country when it was treating Black people the way it was doing.
But why would Black people be proud of it? Why would Black people be loyal to this? Patriotic about this? This would be tantamount to being imbecilic or masochistic.
The national/social context in which White and Black people lived in this country, from its founding up to about the 1960’s and 1970’s, with White people dominating, segregating and excluding Blacks, led to the two groups of people looking at many things in the country in very different ways, including the matter of loyalty and patriotism.
There is the old Machiavellian phrase “my country right or wrong.” This is something that Black and White people would likely agree upon. But Black people would be a lot quicker than White people to say, that the country should be right, and not wrong, and that being proud of the country should be based on it being right and moral.
In the late 1960’s, as will be remembered, Martin Luther King, Jr. opposed the Vietnam War, calling it an immoral war, and one that the country should not be fighting. He was roundly condemned by many White people, including many White liberals, with the stated or implied racist argument: that he should confine his political role to Black issues, and let White men deal with foreign affairs, and with matters of war.
But King was not deterred, because he contended, contrary to his White critics, that the Black struggle and the Vietnam War were linked together. King’s view about the immoral character of the war, and the great mistake in engaging in it, eventually became the national sentiment.
Michelle Obama, who was born in 1962, emerged into adulthood in the early 1980’s and full adulthood over the next twenty years. These were years that saw the effective ending of blatant White racism and when Blacks made significant political, economic, educational, and other gains, and when Michelle Obama herself achieved stunning personal and individual successes.
But the years between the 1980’s and 2000 were also years when the White backlash that had begun in the late 1960’s attained its full force in the country. It was brought to this level primarily by the Republican Party. Whites in that party sought to take back or diminish the gains that Blacks had made, showing that many Whites were strongly against changing the United States away from its racist past.
Michelle Obama knew, like a lot of Black people knew, and that a number of White people knew as well, that between the 1960’s and 2000, the national/social context of the country had been significantly altered. It was being put in line more significantly with its ideals and morality, despite the backlash resistance to his new construction.
The America that was now being built, that was endeavoring to promote a racist free national/social context, and which was occurring during Michelle Obama’s full adulthood, was the emerging America that she was very proud of, that she was very loyal to, and strongly patriotic about.
She was also proud of White people, and other people, who could embrace this change, and who were committing themselves to keeping it going, and joining with her husband to do so, which he wanted to help promote as President of the United States.
Those who cry that Michelle Obama is not loyal to or patriotic about the United States are showing that they do not have these feelings about the country she wants to see fully established.
The White Republicans who denounce her are showing their rejection of this America, and also their anger that she will not be loyal to and patriotic about their version of the country, where White people are dominant and in the ascendancy, and Blacks are subordinated, confined, and excluded as much as possible.
When one considers that the Republican Party is overwhelmingly White in composition, speaks for and represents this large White population in the country- which centers in White people in the South- it is not a mystery why members of it would label Michelle Obama disloyal and unpatriotic.
But she is not daunted, because she has too much intelligence, integrity, and common sense to be loyal to and patriotic about the kind of America that so many White Republicans want.
Sunday, July 27, 2008
Biting The Hand That Feeds?
There is a history of white men in this country allowing their racism to be manipulated by other white men, to the extent of voting against theirs and their families's political, economic, and social interests; thus, contributing to their subordinate position in society.
For instance, in the first half of the nineteenth century (indeed, throughout the century), white men were told and believed that they were superior to white women and all other women. This racist thinking and belief was manipulated by white politicians who convinced other white men to oppose women having the right to vote.
In a family where there was a father and two sons, and a mother and three daughters, that family in this racist context had only three votes. But if the women had been able to vote the family would have had seven votes. This additional political power would have made it possible for this family and others similarly situated to have augmented their political power against society's dominant elements, and to advance their lives in the country.
In the South, in the first half of the nineteenth century, the racism of middle and lower class white men was manipulated effectively, preventing them from joining with Black slaves and nonslave Blacks to end slavery, and thus, an institution that slaveholders used not only to enslave Blaks but to suppress many Whites.
But the slaveholders convinced middle and lower class white men that being white and feeling superior to Blacks was more important than anything else, and also held out to them the possibility that they might become slaveholders, too, and their wives mistresses of slave plantations. One of the baleful things this pernicious behavior produced in the South in the course of its history was generations of poor and uneducated Black and white people, with the latter being called by upper class and better off middle class white people, "poor Whites, or much more scathingly, "white trash."
In more recent times, Ronald Reagan and other Republicans manipulated the racism of middle and lower class white men to gain their vote, and then promoted fiscal and economic policies in Washington that increased the wealth of the richest people in the country, and widened the gap between the rich and the poor.
This was also done by the President and Republicans in Congress (aided by southern white Democrats) cutting social programs, which benefitted middle and lower class white people (as well as Blacks and others in the country and, indeed, with the cutting being aimed at hurting Blacks the most, as a way of accomodating the interests of southern white allies who did not want government aid for Blacks).
But cutting social programs does not mean cutting government spending. The programs are cut, and the funds that would have gone to them, are shifted upwards, to the rich, to big business and industrial corporations, to military spending, and to other "worthy" projects.
Ronald Reagan and other Republicans also showed that they were no friends of labor unions and the labor movement. Indeed, Reagan himself was very anti-labor and unions, and he and his administrations did their best fully to suppress and discredit unions in the country--the economic and political weapons of white and other hard working people. But such people were placed in jeopardy and hardship owing to so many among them voting for people who moved against their unions, themselves, and their families.
Will this kind of contradictory and self-suppressive history continue, or will there be a break with it? There are those Whites today who are Republicans and Democrats who say they will not vote for Senator Barack Obama as President because he's Black. That, of course, is not the reason.
To put it this way is to make the Senator's race the problem, and not the racism of the white people holding this view. This is blaming the victim and not the racist believer, and letting the latter off the hook and escaping critique.
Racists are not born, they are made. There is nothing in the genetic or biological make-up of white people (or any people) to make them racists. Those who are have been taught, one way or another, to be racists. What they have learned can be unlearned, as difficult as it might be.
It is clearly absurd to believe that Senator Obama's skin color, hair texture, lip or leg construction--some of his racial features--determine his ability to think, what his values are, the quality of his political skills, or his leadership capabilities. But this is what people are absurdly saying when they say that the Senator's race is the problem.
Many among them are saying that Senator Obama does not share their values. But he believes in and advocates American values. Are these not their values, also? They would readily say they are, and thus, when they say that Senator Obama does not share their values, they are really saying, prompted by their racism, that he should not think of himself as an American and hold American values, and that he should be penalyzed for seeking to do these things.
This is the kind of fanciful and irrational thinking that the Republican Party, and its 527 cohorts, are counting on millions of white people doing, that will make them amenable to their racist manipulation and fear tactics, and also their ability to make them sacrificial lambs.
But will such white men and women allow themselves to be manipulated and used as in the past, or will they resist and reject the efforts, and decide to align themselves with the non-racist future in which the country is heading?
If they choose not to resist or reject, and to be willing political tools again, here are some questions for them to consider:
1) If President Obama's health insurance program gets passed into law will they reject its benefits, because a Black President provided them?
2) Will they say to their children that they can't accept the $4,000 a year subsidy that a Black President offers them for their college education?
3) Will they reject an annual increase in the minimum wage, adjusted to the inflation rate, because a Black President provided the increase? Would this be true particularly of blue collar women who would greatly benefit from an annually higher minimum wage?
4) Will those seniors making less than $50,000 a year reject not having to pay an income tax on that money, because a Black President offered them that opportunity?
5) Will those on the verge of losing their homes reject a Black President's program to help finance their mortgages so they can keep their homes?
6) Will they reject the middle class tax cut that a Black President has provided them, or a stimulus check to aid them, as well as the economy?
7) Will those who want the protection and preservation of Roe v. Wade object to a Black President putting someone on the high judicial bench to do these things?
8) Will they say to their sons and daughters who have returned from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that they should not accept the health care benefits and medical treatments, or other kinds of veteran benefits that a Black President has provided them?
9) Will they reject a new green job or an infrastructure construction or repair job, or technical training for new kinds of jobs, that a Black President has provided?
10) Will they reject benefits from the social security system that a Black President has kept solvent and responsive to their needs, and has kept from being privatized that would put their retirement and old age security at great risk?
11) Will those workers who want to unionize refuse the help of a President who would enable them to do so?
12) Will those in small towns and rural areas in great need of medical care refuse services from doctors, nurses, and medical facilities that a Black President made available to them?
This kind of questioning could go on and on. And beyond it there are two additional questions to be asked. If people can accept government financial and social program aid from a Black President, couldn't they have also voted for him to put him in office, so he could do the things that benefitted them?
Or would they feel that it was just and proper not to vote for a Black President, accept the benefits he offered, and also just and proper to bite his hand as he extended it to them to help them?
Can this kind of thinking, and this kind of behavior, be done in good conscience and with a feeling of living up to the ideals and sense of right and fairness in America? Can it be done by saying that Senator Obama does not share their values or their hopes and aspirations?
For instance, in the first half of the nineteenth century (indeed, throughout the century), white men were told and believed that they were superior to white women and all other women. This racist thinking and belief was manipulated by white politicians who convinced other white men to oppose women having the right to vote.
In a family where there was a father and two sons, and a mother and three daughters, that family in this racist context had only three votes. But if the women had been able to vote the family would have had seven votes. This additional political power would have made it possible for this family and others similarly situated to have augmented their political power against society's dominant elements, and to advance their lives in the country.
In the South, in the first half of the nineteenth century, the racism of middle and lower class white men was manipulated effectively, preventing them from joining with Black slaves and nonslave Blacks to end slavery, and thus, an institution that slaveholders used not only to enslave Blaks but to suppress many Whites.
But the slaveholders convinced middle and lower class white men that being white and feeling superior to Blacks was more important than anything else, and also held out to them the possibility that they might become slaveholders, too, and their wives mistresses of slave plantations. One of the baleful things this pernicious behavior produced in the South in the course of its history was generations of poor and uneducated Black and white people, with the latter being called by upper class and better off middle class white people, "poor Whites, or much more scathingly, "white trash."
In more recent times, Ronald Reagan and other Republicans manipulated the racism of middle and lower class white men to gain their vote, and then promoted fiscal and economic policies in Washington that increased the wealth of the richest people in the country, and widened the gap between the rich and the poor.
This was also done by the President and Republicans in Congress (aided by southern white Democrats) cutting social programs, which benefitted middle and lower class white people (as well as Blacks and others in the country and, indeed, with the cutting being aimed at hurting Blacks the most, as a way of accomodating the interests of southern white allies who did not want government aid for Blacks).
But cutting social programs does not mean cutting government spending. The programs are cut, and the funds that would have gone to them, are shifted upwards, to the rich, to big business and industrial corporations, to military spending, and to other "worthy" projects.
Ronald Reagan and other Republicans also showed that they were no friends of labor unions and the labor movement. Indeed, Reagan himself was very anti-labor and unions, and he and his administrations did their best fully to suppress and discredit unions in the country--the economic and political weapons of white and other hard working people. But such people were placed in jeopardy and hardship owing to so many among them voting for people who moved against their unions, themselves, and their families.
Will this kind of contradictory and self-suppressive history continue, or will there be a break with it? There are those Whites today who are Republicans and Democrats who say they will not vote for Senator Barack Obama as President because he's Black. That, of course, is not the reason.
To put it this way is to make the Senator's race the problem, and not the racism of the white people holding this view. This is blaming the victim and not the racist believer, and letting the latter off the hook and escaping critique.
Racists are not born, they are made. There is nothing in the genetic or biological make-up of white people (or any people) to make them racists. Those who are have been taught, one way or another, to be racists. What they have learned can be unlearned, as difficult as it might be.
It is clearly absurd to believe that Senator Obama's skin color, hair texture, lip or leg construction--some of his racial features--determine his ability to think, what his values are, the quality of his political skills, or his leadership capabilities. But this is what people are absurdly saying when they say that the Senator's race is the problem.
Many among them are saying that Senator Obama does not share their values. But he believes in and advocates American values. Are these not their values, also? They would readily say they are, and thus, when they say that Senator Obama does not share their values, they are really saying, prompted by their racism, that he should not think of himself as an American and hold American values, and that he should be penalyzed for seeking to do these things.
This is the kind of fanciful and irrational thinking that the Republican Party, and its 527 cohorts, are counting on millions of white people doing, that will make them amenable to their racist manipulation and fear tactics, and also their ability to make them sacrificial lambs.
But will such white men and women allow themselves to be manipulated and used as in the past, or will they resist and reject the efforts, and decide to align themselves with the non-racist future in which the country is heading?
If they choose not to resist or reject, and to be willing political tools again, here are some questions for them to consider:
1) If President Obama's health insurance program gets passed into law will they reject its benefits, because a Black President provided them?
2) Will they say to their children that they can't accept the $4,000 a year subsidy that a Black President offers them for their college education?
3) Will they reject an annual increase in the minimum wage, adjusted to the inflation rate, because a Black President provided the increase? Would this be true particularly of blue collar women who would greatly benefit from an annually higher minimum wage?
4) Will those seniors making less than $50,000 a year reject not having to pay an income tax on that money, because a Black President offered them that opportunity?
5) Will those on the verge of losing their homes reject a Black President's program to help finance their mortgages so they can keep their homes?
6) Will they reject the middle class tax cut that a Black President has provided them, or a stimulus check to aid them, as well as the economy?
7) Will those who want the protection and preservation of Roe v. Wade object to a Black President putting someone on the high judicial bench to do these things?
8) Will they say to their sons and daughters who have returned from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that they should not accept the health care benefits and medical treatments, or other kinds of veteran benefits that a Black President has provided them?
9) Will they reject a new green job or an infrastructure construction or repair job, or technical training for new kinds of jobs, that a Black President has provided?
10) Will they reject benefits from the social security system that a Black President has kept solvent and responsive to their needs, and has kept from being privatized that would put their retirement and old age security at great risk?
11) Will those workers who want to unionize refuse the help of a President who would enable them to do so?
12) Will those in small towns and rural areas in great need of medical care refuse services from doctors, nurses, and medical facilities that a Black President made available to them?
This kind of questioning could go on and on. And beyond it there are two additional questions to be asked. If people can accept government financial and social program aid from a Black President, couldn't they have also voted for him to put him in office, so he could do the things that benefitted them?
Or would they feel that it was just and proper not to vote for a Black President, accept the benefits he offered, and also just and proper to bite his hand as he extended it to them to help them?
Can this kind of thinking, and this kind of behavior, be done in good conscience and with a feeling of living up to the ideals and sense of right and fairness in America? Can it be done by saying that Senator Obama does not share their values or their hopes and aspirations?
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
Obaman Political Thinking and Obaman Politics
During his Presidential nomination campaign Senator Barack Obama was repeatedly cast as a "new" and "different" politician and Presidential candidate.
There were political pundits, media political analysts, and journalists, and especially among those in these categories who did not like him, who scoffed at this depiction, and who sought to pen the label of "typical" or "ordinary" politician and Presidential candidate on him.
They got some fuel for their counter depiction, when Senator Obama was forced to engage in some counterpunching to combat spins on his statements, misrepresentations of his positions, assaults on his character and integrity, or denials of his patriotism.
He was actually condemned for fighting back, with people saying that it wasn't consistent with the image he presented of himself, or that the media was floating about him. Senator Obama used to retort that he was from Chicago and Illinois state politics, and that he knew about rough and tumble politics, and indicated that he was pretty good at them.
But it was also true that he did not like the hard nose politics of calculating, maneuvering, cutting up opponents, or making undesirable, expedient allies. During years in Chicago and Illinois state politics, he determined within himself that if he had to engage in hard nose politics, he would try to do so with some moral constraints so that they did not become ends in themselves, or expressions of rank ruthlessness and brutality.
This was the kind of balanced and purposeful thinking he did in fighting off the various spins and chafing charges during his Presidential nomination campaign, with the thought always of moving back to political highground as quickly as possible, where he preferred to be and where he wanted to keep his campaign.
This kind of thinking, and gut-determined efforts to implement it, enabled him to get through the spiked sparring without being seriously marred, and with his image of being a new and different politician and Presidential candidate strongly intact.
Former mayor of San Francisco, Willie Brown, had it right when he said: "Senator Obama is a political 'phenom.' He does not conform to the model that is used to evaluate politicians and Presidential candidates."
What is that model? It was fashioned by political pundits, media political analysts, journalists, and politicians over a period of years, and has been in use for several decades. This model has six component parts. The politican or Presidential candidate 1) must not be very intellectual, 2) has to think in absolute either-or terms, so that he or she can be described as simply a Republican or Democrat, or a liberal, moderate, conservative, or radical, 3) has to be partisan and pragmatic in a limited political party sense, 4) has to be able to spin, i.e., to distort, misrepresent, or lie abut an opponent's political thinking, or political proposals, 5) has to master the soundbite response, and 6) has to be willing and ready to separate morality from political thinking and politics.
Senator Obama showed when he launched his Presidential nomination campaign, that he not ony did not fit the political model, but that he fast rejected it.
He was very intellectual and also very thoughtful. He thought in holistic and not absolute either-or terms. He was broad coalition-minded, and espoused broad coalition pragmatism. He detested political spin, and the soundbite response, preferring to give explanations, rather than provide terse phrases or comments. He also believed that moral values should guide political thinking and politics.
This is Obaman political thinking. He gave the American people an introduction to it even before he became a Presidential candidate. He did this in the speech he gave at the Democratic National Convention in 2004, and where he also provided a glimpse of his conception of politics that was broad coalition and nationally oriented. There he talked of America and Americans, about America being one country, and Americans being one people, about the unity of the American people, about the American people taking responsibility for each other, and coming together around a common cause to promote change, progress, and freedom in the country for all.
The Senator remarked in one of his writings: "I'm not somebody comfortable with liberal-conservative labels. What the American people are looking for are commonsense solutions. To me the issue is not are you centrist or are you liberal? The issue to me is, Is what you're proposing going to work? Can you build a working coalition to make the lives of people better? And if it can work, you should support it whether it's centrist, conservative, or liberal?" (Barack Obama in His Own Words).
This is Obaman political thinking, and also an expression of Obaman politics. They refute the traditional political model's notion of singular political thinking, and narrow party partisan politics, and puts the lie to anyone endeavoring to attach a singular political label to him.
Senator Obama has never been and is never likely to be this kind of political thinker or politician. He does not see any political party or political position, liberal, conservative, moderate, or radical with a monopoly on ideas, proposals, or programs. He is open to new ideas and programs, and is even willing to listen, and perhaps adopt, what even his political adversaries have to say, or policies or programs they proffer.
For instance, he has said that he will promote the faith based initiative program that President Bush has put in place, because he thinks it's a good idea, and also because he feels he can make it a better program.
This kind of behavior befuddles, and even angers many political observers. They immediately, owing to the traditional political model they work from, blast the Senator for being "ambiguous," "wishy-washy," or "flip-flopping," from previous thinking, or positions, confirming for them that he is a typical or "run-of-the-mill" politician.
Since the political model decries being too intellectual, or complex, and sanctions only the simplistic soundbite response, politicians or Presidential candidates, will be accused of "walking away from", "back-tracking", "waffling", or "flip-flopping", from their initial limited statement, if they sought to give a fuller view of their thinking or positions.
The soundbite constriction also penalizes a politician or Presidential candidate, if he/she changes their minds, even when it is owing to compelling evidence to make the change to establish a better position. This should be something lauded, or considered reasonable, or intelligent behavior. But under the model's soundbite constriction, it is interpreted as being devious or manipulative, not being truthful or straight forward, and it is viewed as behavior that merits an individual being called unreliable or not trustworthy.
"Flip-flopping" can and does occur, as when a politician or Presidential candidate switches to a position previously criticized, without an explanation for the switch, or a clearly phony explanation for it, or evidences an expedient reason for switching.
But clearly, no usual or typical politician could have accomplished what Senator Obama has. He was a relatively obscure politician eighteen months ago. But in that short time he used his intellectual capability, his community organizing skills, his oratory, charismatic leadership, good political advisors and campaign managers, youthful volunteers on the ground, and the internet to build a national political organization from scratch.
The Senator's cohorts were also involved in helping him establish a very fruitful way to publicly finance a Presidential nomination campaign (and even a Presidential election campaign), to build a broad national coalition, and a national political movement, and against all odds, to help him become the presumptive Presidential nominee of the Democratic Party. It was a case of achieving the impossible.
It also all signaled the appearance of a different and unusually capable politician, something that many political pundits and media political analysts did not want to acknowledge, or accept, or engage in assessing what this incredible achievement said about Senator Obama, his abilities, his character, or about him as a person, or what valuations thereof might portend for an Obaman White House, and for the country.
What presently preoccupies these people, and numerous other political observers, and which shows how all are driven by the traditional political model, is their focus on the assertion, and for them, truism, that Senator Obama has to abandon his movement, and like other Presidential candidates, has to move to the political center and become a centrist or moderate on all major issues. And they are saying that the Senator--with some saying that he, in typical fashion--is making this move.
But the truth is, Senator Obama is not giving up his efforts to build a broad national coalition, or a national political movement, as indicated by the 3600 youthful volunteers that have been dispatched to 18 (swing or battleground) states to register voters, and to bring new people into politics and into the Democratic Party.
The Senator is also drawing on these same people and others, including Senator Hillary Clinton, some governors, and eventually, former President Bill Clinton, to try to bring those blue collar men and women, and small town white voters into his broad national coalition and national movement that he had not been able to bring in during the primaries and caucases.
The Senator also continues to reach out to disaffected Republicans and Independents to make them part of his broad political fold, and is still using the internet as a major means to finance his comprehensive political operation and objectives, raising $52 million in June.
What is necessary to note is that political observers have not discerned that Senator Obama has his own political center or grounding. His preference for principled political thinking and political action, and providing people with knowledge and explanations, his holistic, flexible political thinking that enables him to draw on diverse ideas or programs, his national broad coalition, and his national political movement constitute his center or grounding.
Something else that is a part of it, is his thought that as President, he would establish a strong working relationship with his broad base of supporters to draw on them as additional clout to help him get his agenda passed in Washington and implemented at the state and local level.
All the political features just alluded to also constitute Senator Obama's political model that he, with help, has created over the past 18 months.
Political observers have perceived neither Senator Obama's own political center or grounding, or the political model that he, with the aid of others,has fashioned, which can be of use to individuals in the future who might wish to run for the White House. The observers are tied to the old model in trying to view him, and they keep coming up short in their observations.
Senator John McCain, his surrogates,and the Republican Party are also showing their difficulties trying to deal with Senator Obama, and even mounting a campaign against him. They keep trying to attach a single political label to him, namely, the label of liberal, but it does not work effectively, because Senator Obama is complex in his political thinking.
He often talks like a conservative, indeed, a Republican conservative, when he emphasizes the themes of "the American people," and "American values," patriotism, family values, and argues that politicians should not be afraid to express their religious beliefs, or regard them as a source of moral guidance for their political thinking and practical politics.
Senator Obama has no more difficulty adhering to and expressing these conservative ideas, than he has difficulties embracing and expressing the liberal idea that the U.S. government should help needy and poor people in the country, or the liberal idea that there should be government mandated health insurance for children, or the liberal idea of increasing the minimum wage, which he says he will do annually as President.
The Senator easily accepts the moderate idea that the Constitution legitimizes individual ownership of firearms, but that there should be some legal restrictions on the kinds of weapons that can be owned, and the ability to gain access to weapons. He accepts the moderate idea that the U.S. government has to find a balance between protecting the rights of American citizens, and gathering intelligence on terrorists. Also, the moderate idea of maintaining a balance between the use of military force and direct and effective diplomacy and negotiations in conducting U.S. foreign policy.
In addition to having to deal with this Obaman complexity, Senator McCain, his surrogates, and the Republican Party have the daunting task of trying to confront the Senator on the hot-button issues of the day, such as Iraq, Afghanistan, national security, the economy, health insurance, taxes, and other issues. They actually don't feel comfortable, or confident about being successful here because of Obama's capabilities with dealing with these matters, but also because Senator McCain sounds too much like President Bush on all of them, whose popularity rating presently stands at 28%.
The Republicans are increasingly showing, despite their ready public denials, that they are going to rely heavily upon the traditional Republican tactics of lies, distortion, character assassination, misrepresentation, inuendo, smearing, i.e., guilt by association,belittling, and stroking racist fears to combat Senator Obama, and hope that white American voters especially are amenable to this behavior; this corrupted and unethical method of trying to get John McCain into the White House.
In short, they are increasingly showing that they will make extensive use of the sixth component of the traditional political model, which calls for separating morality from politics, which would also lead to separation in a presidential administration, that would occur in the conduct of domestic and foreign policy.
Senator Obama has already been depicted publicly, in commercial items, as a monkey, which is akin to the blatant racism of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. He has been the butt of racist jokes, one dished out by the former governor of Arkansas, Mike Huckabee, before a National Rifle Association meeting.
The Senator and his wife Michelle have been accused of not being patriotic and loyal to the United States, a racist slur against Black people that also goes back to the nineteenth century. The Senator's wife has been portrayed as "the mean Black woman," replacing the racist image of "welfare queen," that Ronald Reagan himself had devised and employed in Presidential campaigns.
Senator Obama is the butt of the lie that he is a Muslim, even though Republicans criticized him in a severe manner for months for being a member of Reverend Jeremiah Wright's Christian church in Chicago, and thus, a Christian for twenty years. How can one be a Christian for twenty years and simultaneously a Muslim during the same time period?
The Senator is portrayed, as another lie has it, as a "secret terrorist." Indeed, just recently, a political ad ran in Florida saying not to vote for a Democrat, with the twin towers burning. What Democrat could this ad be talking about other than Senator Obama, the Party's presumptive Presidential nominee, who has the middle name Hussein, and which insinuated that he was an Islamic terrorist, and that this is what the American people would be electing to the White House?
This is also the message conveyed when Senator Obama is referred to as Osama Bin Laden, or when he is shown in a picture along side Bin Laden with both draped in Islamic garb, with such a picture recently circulating in South Carolina, exhibiting the tactic of guilt by association.
These are all instances of blatant, unethical acts, and also gross attempts to stroke racist fears, similar to the way Republicans stroked these fears with the Willie Horton ad to help get George Herbert Bush elected in 1988.
The Republican Party, an overwhelmingly white party, with a strong southern White base, shows that it still has a significant racist orientation, and that it seeks to preserve, and perpetuate, as best it can, the lingering racist orientation of the South and country, and it obviously, or apparently, feels that Senator McCain, as President McCain, will help it do these things.
These realities have to become a concern of political observers and American voters. They both have to be monitors to ensure that the Presidential election has integrity. They have to decide whether or not they will tolerate the Republican Party (or its 527 surrogates) conducting a Presidential election on a significant racist basis, that not only separates morality from politics, but which inescapably shows disdain for American ideals and values, and equal disdain for democratic politics and democratic elections, and which can only add to the damage of America's image in the world.
And while this introspecting, soul-searching, and public scrutiny is occurring, Senator Obama and his surrogates will have their challenge before them, that of spelling out very clearly and forcefully, for political observers and the American people, what Obaman political thinking and Obaman politics are, and what both portend for an Obaman Presidency, for the fortunes and future direction of the country, and regarding the latter's relationship to the world.
There were political pundits, media political analysts, and journalists, and especially among those in these categories who did not like him, who scoffed at this depiction, and who sought to pen the label of "typical" or "ordinary" politician and Presidential candidate on him.
They got some fuel for their counter depiction, when Senator Obama was forced to engage in some counterpunching to combat spins on his statements, misrepresentations of his positions, assaults on his character and integrity, or denials of his patriotism.
He was actually condemned for fighting back, with people saying that it wasn't consistent with the image he presented of himself, or that the media was floating about him. Senator Obama used to retort that he was from Chicago and Illinois state politics, and that he knew about rough and tumble politics, and indicated that he was pretty good at them.
But it was also true that he did not like the hard nose politics of calculating, maneuvering, cutting up opponents, or making undesirable, expedient allies. During years in Chicago and Illinois state politics, he determined within himself that if he had to engage in hard nose politics, he would try to do so with some moral constraints so that they did not become ends in themselves, or expressions of rank ruthlessness and brutality.
This was the kind of balanced and purposeful thinking he did in fighting off the various spins and chafing charges during his Presidential nomination campaign, with the thought always of moving back to political highground as quickly as possible, where he preferred to be and where he wanted to keep his campaign.
This kind of thinking, and gut-determined efforts to implement it, enabled him to get through the spiked sparring without being seriously marred, and with his image of being a new and different politician and Presidential candidate strongly intact.
Former mayor of San Francisco, Willie Brown, had it right when he said: "Senator Obama is a political 'phenom.' He does not conform to the model that is used to evaluate politicians and Presidential candidates."
What is that model? It was fashioned by political pundits, media political analysts, journalists, and politicians over a period of years, and has been in use for several decades. This model has six component parts. The politican or Presidential candidate 1) must not be very intellectual, 2) has to think in absolute either-or terms, so that he or she can be described as simply a Republican or Democrat, or a liberal, moderate, conservative, or radical, 3) has to be partisan and pragmatic in a limited political party sense, 4) has to be able to spin, i.e., to distort, misrepresent, or lie abut an opponent's political thinking, or political proposals, 5) has to master the soundbite response, and 6) has to be willing and ready to separate morality from political thinking and politics.
Senator Obama showed when he launched his Presidential nomination campaign, that he not ony did not fit the political model, but that he fast rejected it.
He was very intellectual and also very thoughtful. He thought in holistic and not absolute either-or terms. He was broad coalition-minded, and espoused broad coalition pragmatism. He detested political spin, and the soundbite response, preferring to give explanations, rather than provide terse phrases or comments. He also believed that moral values should guide political thinking and politics.
This is Obaman political thinking. He gave the American people an introduction to it even before he became a Presidential candidate. He did this in the speech he gave at the Democratic National Convention in 2004, and where he also provided a glimpse of his conception of politics that was broad coalition and nationally oriented. There he talked of America and Americans, about America being one country, and Americans being one people, about the unity of the American people, about the American people taking responsibility for each other, and coming together around a common cause to promote change, progress, and freedom in the country for all.
The Senator remarked in one of his writings: "I'm not somebody comfortable with liberal-conservative labels. What the American people are looking for are commonsense solutions. To me the issue is not are you centrist or are you liberal? The issue to me is, Is what you're proposing going to work? Can you build a working coalition to make the lives of people better? And if it can work, you should support it whether it's centrist, conservative, or liberal?" (Barack Obama in His Own Words).
This is Obaman political thinking, and also an expression of Obaman politics. They refute the traditional political model's notion of singular political thinking, and narrow party partisan politics, and puts the lie to anyone endeavoring to attach a singular political label to him.
Senator Obama has never been and is never likely to be this kind of political thinker or politician. He does not see any political party or political position, liberal, conservative, moderate, or radical with a monopoly on ideas, proposals, or programs. He is open to new ideas and programs, and is even willing to listen, and perhaps adopt, what even his political adversaries have to say, or policies or programs they proffer.
For instance, he has said that he will promote the faith based initiative program that President Bush has put in place, because he thinks it's a good idea, and also because he feels he can make it a better program.
This kind of behavior befuddles, and even angers many political observers. They immediately, owing to the traditional political model they work from, blast the Senator for being "ambiguous," "wishy-washy," or "flip-flopping," from previous thinking, or positions, confirming for them that he is a typical or "run-of-the-mill" politician.
Since the political model decries being too intellectual, or complex, and sanctions only the simplistic soundbite response, politicians or Presidential candidates, will be accused of "walking away from", "back-tracking", "waffling", or "flip-flopping", from their initial limited statement, if they sought to give a fuller view of their thinking or positions.
The soundbite constriction also penalizes a politician or Presidential candidate, if he/she changes their minds, even when it is owing to compelling evidence to make the change to establish a better position. This should be something lauded, or considered reasonable, or intelligent behavior. But under the model's soundbite constriction, it is interpreted as being devious or manipulative, not being truthful or straight forward, and it is viewed as behavior that merits an individual being called unreliable or not trustworthy.
"Flip-flopping" can and does occur, as when a politician or Presidential candidate switches to a position previously criticized, without an explanation for the switch, or a clearly phony explanation for it, or evidences an expedient reason for switching.
But clearly, no usual or typical politician could have accomplished what Senator Obama has. He was a relatively obscure politician eighteen months ago. But in that short time he used his intellectual capability, his community organizing skills, his oratory, charismatic leadership, good political advisors and campaign managers, youthful volunteers on the ground, and the internet to build a national political organization from scratch.
The Senator's cohorts were also involved in helping him establish a very fruitful way to publicly finance a Presidential nomination campaign (and even a Presidential election campaign), to build a broad national coalition, and a national political movement, and against all odds, to help him become the presumptive Presidential nominee of the Democratic Party. It was a case of achieving the impossible.
It also all signaled the appearance of a different and unusually capable politician, something that many political pundits and media political analysts did not want to acknowledge, or accept, or engage in assessing what this incredible achievement said about Senator Obama, his abilities, his character, or about him as a person, or what valuations thereof might portend for an Obaman White House, and for the country.
What presently preoccupies these people, and numerous other political observers, and which shows how all are driven by the traditional political model, is their focus on the assertion, and for them, truism, that Senator Obama has to abandon his movement, and like other Presidential candidates, has to move to the political center and become a centrist or moderate on all major issues. And they are saying that the Senator--with some saying that he, in typical fashion--is making this move.
But the truth is, Senator Obama is not giving up his efforts to build a broad national coalition, or a national political movement, as indicated by the 3600 youthful volunteers that have been dispatched to 18 (swing or battleground) states to register voters, and to bring new people into politics and into the Democratic Party.
The Senator is also drawing on these same people and others, including Senator Hillary Clinton, some governors, and eventually, former President Bill Clinton, to try to bring those blue collar men and women, and small town white voters into his broad national coalition and national movement that he had not been able to bring in during the primaries and caucases.
The Senator also continues to reach out to disaffected Republicans and Independents to make them part of his broad political fold, and is still using the internet as a major means to finance his comprehensive political operation and objectives, raising $52 million in June.
What is necessary to note is that political observers have not discerned that Senator Obama has his own political center or grounding. His preference for principled political thinking and political action, and providing people with knowledge and explanations, his holistic, flexible political thinking that enables him to draw on diverse ideas or programs, his national broad coalition, and his national political movement constitute his center or grounding.
Something else that is a part of it, is his thought that as President, he would establish a strong working relationship with his broad base of supporters to draw on them as additional clout to help him get his agenda passed in Washington and implemented at the state and local level.
All the political features just alluded to also constitute Senator Obama's political model that he, with help, has created over the past 18 months.
Political observers have perceived neither Senator Obama's own political center or grounding, or the political model that he, with the aid of others,has fashioned, which can be of use to individuals in the future who might wish to run for the White House. The observers are tied to the old model in trying to view him, and they keep coming up short in their observations.
Senator John McCain, his surrogates,and the Republican Party are also showing their difficulties trying to deal with Senator Obama, and even mounting a campaign against him. They keep trying to attach a single political label to him, namely, the label of liberal, but it does not work effectively, because Senator Obama is complex in his political thinking.
He often talks like a conservative, indeed, a Republican conservative, when he emphasizes the themes of "the American people," and "American values," patriotism, family values, and argues that politicians should not be afraid to express their religious beliefs, or regard them as a source of moral guidance for their political thinking and practical politics.
Senator Obama has no more difficulty adhering to and expressing these conservative ideas, than he has difficulties embracing and expressing the liberal idea that the U.S. government should help needy and poor people in the country, or the liberal idea that there should be government mandated health insurance for children, or the liberal idea of increasing the minimum wage, which he says he will do annually as President.
The Senator easily accepts the moderate idea that the Constitution legitimizes individual ownership of firearms, but that there should be some legal restrictions on the kinds of weapons that can be owned, and the ability to gain access to weapons. He accepts the moderate idea that the U.S. government has to find a balance between protecting the rights of American citizens, and gathering intelligence on terrorists. Also, the moderate idea of maintaining a balance between the use of military force and direct and effective diplomacy and negotiations in conducting U.S. foreign policy.
In addition to having to deal with this Obaman complexity, Senator McCain, his surrogates, and the Republican Party have the daunting task of trying to confront the Senator on the hot-button issues of the day, such as Iraq, Afghanistan, national security, the economy, health insurance, taxes, and other issues. They actually don't feel comfortable, or confident about being successful here because of Obama's capabilities with dealing with these matters, but also because Senator McCain sounds too much like President Bush on all of them, whose popularity rating presently stands at 28%.
The Republicans are increasingly showing, despite their ready public denials, that they are going to rely heavily upon the traditional Republican tactics of lies, distortion, character assassination, misrepresentation, inuendo, smearing, i.e., guilt by association,belittling, and stroking racist fears to combat Senator Obama, and hope that white American voters especially are amenable to this behavior; this corrupted and unethical method of trying to get John McCain into the White House.
In short, they are increasingly showing that they will make extensive use of the sixth component of the traditional political model, which calls for separating morality from politics, which would also lead to separation in a presidential administration, that would occur in the conduct of domestic and foreign policy.
Senator Obama has already been depicted publicly, in commercial items, as a monkey, which is akin to the blatant racism of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. He has been the butt of racist jokes, one dished out by the former governor of Arkansas, Mike Huckabee, before a National Rifle Association meeting.
The Senator and his wife Michelle have been accused of not being patriotic and loyal to the United States, a racist slur against Black people that also goes back to the nineteenth century. The Senator's wife has been portrayed as "the mean Black woman," replacing the racist image of "welfare queen," that Ronald Reagan himself had devised and employed in Presidential campaigns.
Senator Obama is the butt of the lie that he is a Muslim, even though Republicans criticized him in a severe manner for months for being a member of Reverend Jeremiah Wright's Christian church in Chicago, and thus, a Christian for twenty years. How can one be a Christian for twenty years and simultaneously a Muslim during the same time period?
The Senator is portrayed, as another lie has it, as a "secret terrorist." Indeed, just recently, a political ad ran in Florida saying not to vote for a Democrat, with the twin towers burning. What Democrat could this ad be talking about other than Senator Obama, the Party's presumptive Presidential nominee, who has the middle name Hussein, and which insinuated that he was an Islamic terrorist, and that this is what the American people would be electing to the White House?
This is also the message conveyed when Senator Obama is referred to as Osama Bin Laden, or when he is shown in a picture along side Bin Laden with both draped in Islamic garb, with such a picture recently circulating in South Carolina, exhibiting the tactic of guilt by association.
These are all instances of blatant, unethical acts, and also gross attempts to stroke racist fears, similar to the way Republicans stroked these fears with the Willie Horton ad to help get George Herbert Bush elected in 1988.
The Republican Party, an overwhelmingly white party, with a strong southern White base, shows that it still has a significant racist orientation, and that it seeks to preserve, and perpetuate, as best it can, the lingering racist orientation of the South and country, and it obviously, or apparently, feels that Senator McCain, as President McCain, will help it do these things.
These realities have to become a concern of political observers and American voters. They both have to be monitors to ensure that the Presidential election has integrity. They have to decide whether or not they will tolerate the Republican Party (or its 527 surrogates) conducting a Presidential election on a significant racist basis, that not only separates morality from politics, but which inescapably shows disdain for American ideals and values, and equal disdain for democratic politics and democratic elections, and which can only add to the damage of America's image in the world.
And while this introspecting, soul-searching, and public scrutiny is occurring, Senator Obama and his surrogates will have their challenge before them, that of spelling out very clearly and forcefully, for political observers and the American people, what Obaman political thinking and Obaman politics are, and what both portend for an Obaman Presidency, for the fortunes and future direction of the country, and regarding the latter's relationship to the world.
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
McCain The Divider
One of the longstanding views of Republican Senator and presumptive Presidential nominee, John McCain, is that he is an independent thinker, reformer, and a political maverick.
These images seem no longer to hold the truthfulness and vitality they once held. Senator McCain will be the standard bearer of the Republican Party in the upcoming Presidential election. This party is not a reform, progressive, or maverick party, and while it shows some diversity within,such as what are called "conservative Republicans," "fiscal Republicans," or "evangelical Republicans," the unity of this party is stronger than its divisions.
The Republican Party is overwhelmingly a white political party. In the year 2008, this country incredibly has a national party, that is one of the stalwarts of the two party system, that speaks in behalf of and that represents a large segment of the white population of this country.
A very large portion, if not the major part of its white political constituency, is found in the South, in the states that had once constituted the Confederation of Southern States of the nineteenth century, and in states of the upper South, such as Tennessee, Kentucky, West Virginia, and Virginia.
Southern Whites are the dominant element of this party, and so many are particularly against any kind of extensive political, economic, or social change in their part of the country, or in the country itself, that drastically alters the relationship between Whites and Blacks in both places.
Senator John McCain is the presumptive nominee of an overwhelmingly white political party. A way he could be an independent thinker, reformer, and maverick at this moment would be for him to express his opposition to it being so white, and to encourage the party to reform itself and become more diversified, similar to the racial and ethnic diversity found in the Democratic Party.
But the Senator is not likely to do this, not only because he is the presumptive nominee of the Republican Party. But because he has never been an advocate of his party attaining this kind of diversity.
Even when Senator McCain, who is often referred to as a centrist or moderate - but in an overwhelmingly white political party, and because of this fact - thinks of reaching beyond the party, he primarily thinks of reaching out to white independents and white blue collar workers. He might reach out for the vote of people who are not white, but he does not give much or any thought to them becoming members of the Republican Party.
Thus, what Senator McCain does in the two major instances of reaching out, is to expand the size of the white population his party seeks to lead, speak in behalf of, and represent in the national government(and if possible with the aid of voters who are not white). Thus, diversity for Senator McCain and the Republican Party is primarily different kinds of white people.
But the overwhelming Whiteness of the Republican Party makes it a divisive party, and in five major ways. First, it promotes a racial division between a large segment of the white population and other races in the country. This also constitutes a national division.
Thirdly, this party promotes regional division, since its biggest and most important population base is found among Whites in the South. This division is captured in the "red state, blue state" dichotomy.
Fourthly, the Republican Party also divides the rich from the poor in the country, because it favors the kind of fiscal- -government spending and tax schemes- - and economic policies and programs that create enormous disparities in wealth between the rich and the poor, with the rich being mainly white, and the poor being found among Blacks, Hispanics, some Asians, and many Whites, located mainly in Appalachia and in the South.
There is a fifth division that represents a division between the past and the future: between an America that seeks to keep its feet planted in a fetid, discriminatory and suppressive social past; or rooting its feet in the new social context of equality of rights and opportunities that is presently being constructed in the country, and in which all Americans will live and participate.
The latter objective is not what the overwhelmingly white Republican Party, which was built by Barry Goldwater, Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, Jesse Helms, Strom Thurmond, Newt Gingrich, and others, envisions for the country, and has not envisioned for half a century.
This political reality has essentially been given an uncritical pass by political pundits and media political analysts for half a century, and it continues to be given one in the present Presidential contest.
This makes these political observers tacit surrogates or supporters of Senator John McCain, who is not being made to respond to this reality, which he himself helped to shape, as per his own confession of being "a disciple of the Reagan Revolution" of the 1980s that had a strong racist orientation, by his own voting record on civil rights in the Congress, by accepting the southern White view of "states rights," and by his association of patriotism almost exclusively with white people, as per when he makes a reference to it, which is invariably before a white audience.
It is a political/social reality that the Senator might be seeking to perpetuate in the White House, which many of his supporters hope he will do. The Senator has said on a number of occasions, dipping low in his political rhetoric, that the terrorist group Hamas, would like to see Senator Obama elected President, and that the American people could draw their own conclusions about that.
The position can be easily countered by saying that there are many white racists in the country who would like to see Senator McCain elected to the White House, and the American people can draw their own conclusions as to what this would mean in terms of the kind of policies, legislation, programs, and judicial appointments that would come out of Washington - and the backward direction in which it would take the country.
Republican Senator John MCain, will be the standard bearer of a national political party in the general election that consciously and deliberately seeks to promote and maintain multiple serious divisions in the country- - all public denials, party surrogates and strategists of dark hue, and token faces of dark color in the front row or backdrop of McCain's speeches to the contrary notwithstanding.
Senator McCain, as the emerging head of the present racially composed Republican party, and as President, would not be capable of ending serious political and societal divisions, and uniting the American people and the country. This takes much more than crossing the political aisle, or seeking to promote bipartisanship in Washington, D.C. Indeed, these actions can be used to perpetuate the fetid political/social dimension of American life of the last half century.
These images seem no longer to hold the truthfulness and vitality they once held. Senator McCain will be the standard bearer of the Republican Party in the upcoming Presidential election. This party is not a reform, progressive, or maverick party, and while it shows some diversity within,such as what are called "conservative Republicans," "fiscal Republicans," or "evangelical Republicans," the unity of this party is stronger than its divisions.
The Republican Party is overwhelmingly a white political party. In the year 2008, this country incredibly has a national party, that is one of the stalwarts of the two party system, that speaks in behalf of and that represents a large segment of the white population of this country.
A very large portion, if not the major part of its white political constituency, is found in the South, in the states that had once constituted the Confederation of Southern States of the nineteenth century, and in states of the upper South, such as Tennessee, Kentucky, West Virginia, and Virginia.
Southern Whites are the dominant element of this party, and so many are particularly against any kind of extensive political, economic, or social change in their part of the country, or in the country itself, that drastically alters the relationship between Whites and Blacks in both places.
Senator John McCain is the presumptive nominee of an overwhelmingly white political party. A way he could be an independent thinker, reformer, and maverick at this moment would be for him to express his opposition to it being so white, and to encourage the party to reform itself and become more diversified, similar to the racial and ethnic diversity found in the Democratic Party.
But the Senator is not likely to do this, not only because he is the presumptive nominee of the Republican Party. But because he has never been an advocate of his party attaining this kind of diversity.
Even when Senator McCain, who is often referred to as a centrist or moderate - but in an overwhelmingly white political party, and because of this fact - thinks of reaching beyond the party, he primarily thinks of reaching out to white independents and white blue collar workers. He might reach out for the vote of people who are not white, but he does not give much or any thought to them becoming members of the Republican Party.
Thus, what Senator McCain does in the two major instances of reaching out, is to expand the size of the white population his party seeks to lead, speak in behalf of, and represent in the national government(and if possible with the aid of voters who are not white). Thus, diversity for Senator McCain and the Republican Party is primarily different kinds of white people.
But the overwhelming Whiteness of the Republican Party makes it a divisive party, and in five major ways. First, it promotes a racial division between a large segment of the white population and other races in the country. This also constitutes a national division.
Thirdly, this party promotes regional division, since its biggest and most important population base is found among Whites in the South. This division is captured in the "red state, blue state" dichotomy.
Fourthly, the Republican Party also divides the rich from the poor in the country, because it favors the kind of fiscal- -government spending and tax schemes- - and economic policies and programs that create enormous disparities in wealth between the rich and the poor, with the rich being mainly white, and the poor being found among Blacks, Hispanics, some Asians, and many Whites, located mainly in Appalachia and in the South.
There is a fifth division that represents a division between the past and the future: between an America that seeks to keep its feet planted in a fetid, discriminatory and suppressive social past; or rooting its feet in the new social context of equality of rights and opportunities that is presently being constructed in the country, and in which all Americans will live and participate.
The latter objective is not what the overwhelmingly white Republican Party, which was built by Barry Goldwater, Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, Jesse Helms, Strom Thurmond, Newt Gingrich, and others, envisions for the country, and has not envisioned for half a century.
This political reality has essentially been given an uncritical pass by political pundits and media political analysts for half a century, and it continues to be given one in the present Presidential contest.
This makes these political observers tacit surrogates or supporters of Senator John McCain, who is not being made to respond to this reality, which he himself helped to shape, as per his own confession of being "a disciple of the Reagan Revolution" of the 1980s that had a strong racist orientation, by his own voting record on civil rights in the Congress, by accepting the southern White view of "states rights," and by his association of patriotism almost exclusively with white people, as per when he makes a reference to it, which is invariably before a white audience.
It is a political/social reality that the Senator might be seeking to perpetuate in the White House, which many of his supporters hope he will do. The Senator has said on a number of occasions, dipping low in his political rhetoric, that the terrorist group Hamas, would like to see Senator Obama elected President, and that the American people could draw their own conclusions about that.
The position can be easily countered by saying that there are many white racists in the country who would like to see Senator McCain elected to the White House, and the American people can draw their own conclusions as to what this would mean in terms of the kind of policies, legislation, programs, and judicial appointments that would come out of Washington - and the backward direction in which it would take the country.
Republican Senator John MCain, will be the standard bearer of a national political party in the general election that consciously and deliberately seeks to promote and maintain multiple serious divisions in the country- - all public denials, party surrogates and strategists of dark hue, and token faces of dark color in the front row or backdrop of McCain's speeches to the contrary notwithstanding.
Senator McCain, as the emerging head of the present racially composed Republican party, and as President, would not be capable of ending serious political and societal divisions, and uniting the American people and the country. This takes much more than crossing the political aisle, or seeking to promote bipartisanship in Washington, D.C. Indeed, these actions can be used to perpetuate the fetid political/social dimension of American life of the last half century.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
