It seems like Obama's thrilling rise to political stardom was mainly due to his timely and attractive platform of change, hope, something new, etc. A subset of America really embraced his message and even worshiped him for embodying those qualities so well. But now that he is the presumptive candidate, he must court the "mainstream" too. So that means convincing America that he's actually not that different than us (i.e not Muslim, not black). He's distanced himself from his controversial preacher, and tried to show off the white American side of his family more than his Kenyan side, unless he's visiting Africa. He's been filmed attending church (Christian church) and often touts the modest childhood origins of his American Dream narrative.
So what gives - some people love him because he's a breath of fresh air, and others are uncomfortable with him specifically because of it? In order to please everyone, I guess he has to act just like the rest of us, but be willing to make changes in Washington that other politicians wouldn't. I guess people will always look at a certain issue/person with different lenses, but come on. He is who he is. The job is president of the US, not the "most American" contest. We live in one of the most diverse and dynamic societies in history, so what exactly constitutes American-ness anyway? Baseball, machismo, and complacent ignorance? I guess that's why we got Bush instead of Gore for 8 years. Frankly I would trust a lot more foreigners with the POTUS job than many Americans I know.
Yes Obama has a strange name and yes he is half non-white. Yes he has progressive views and would actually talk to enemies before bombing them (Bush to Israel: talker = appeaser = Hitler lover). But that doesn't mean he's an "unpatriotic Muslim". It's really sick. And even if he was Muslim, WTF does that have to do with anything and why is that a character flaw? There are over 10M Muslim Americans who are good people by most accounts, at least compared to "regular Americans" like Britney Spears and Roger Clemens. Frankly I would prefer a leader who can relate to other cultures/religions in order to improve foreign relations and American sensitivity. I'm fairly sure that Bush didn't know the difference between a Sunni and a Shia until 2005 or so, and frankly I didn't either. Oh wait I forgot, sensitivity = weakness to the hawks.
I hope Obama would try to respond to such personal attacks by stressing the advantages of a mixed-heritage background. Why is Turkey such an important global player, even though many aspects of that country are fairly backwards? They span the gulf between the Muslim world and the West. They have respect for both sides and are a mix of both, even though the secular and Islamist Turks often clash. Because of that, they have credibility with both sides, something America severely lacks. And if their government functioned properly, Turkey would embrace the positive elements of both, and they do in many ways. Obama can be that type of special leader too, if given a chance. That's a personal quality that Hilly and J-Mac can't match.
I don't know why voters need to see themselves in their leader (their flawed, mediocre, narrow-minded selves), instead of seeing what they could be or aspire to become. If you want your president to be just like you, then why aren't you president? Oh yeah, too gutless to take on such a huge responsibility, so you pass the buck to a person like Bush. Your leader should be someone you look up to, someone you could be if you applied yourself and worked hard. I don't know why Obama has to "prove" to America that he is American enough to be our president. He's a US Senator and US citizen who obeys the laws, loves his family, and pays taxes. That's better than 99% of us. What does it mean to be "American" enough to some people? Wear a $1 flag on your lapel that was made in China? Be a WASP? The sad part is that many voters interviewed will cite some lame excuse for why they won't vote for Obama (he's an unknown, he's too inexperienced, he's not tough, etc.), when it's fairly clear from their behavior that their main reason is xenophobia or other bigotry. Why do we have to know the ins and outs of a leader before we vote for him/her? It's not e-Harmony.com. But unfortunately, if Obama doesn't disclose his candid life story before November, it seems character assassins will fill the public's head with all sorts of libelous garbage, like in these links below.
Some typical defaming email allegations in circulation, with many claims debunked:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/muslim.asp
http://www.barackobama.com/factcheck/2007/11/12/obama_has_never_been_a_muslim_1.php
Interviewing West Virginia voters prior to their primary:
http://therealnews.com/t/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=1507
---------
"Conformity is the jailer of freedom and the enemy of growth."
"For time and the world do not stand still. Change is the law of life. And those who look only to the past or the present are certain to miss the future."
"I hope that no American will waste his franchise and throw away his vote by voting either for me or against me solely on account of my religious affiliation. It is not relevant."
"The problems of the world cannot possibly be solved by skeptics or cynics whose horizons are limited by the obvious realities. We need men who can dream of things that never were."
-----------
An interesting report about the racism that Obama faces (careful, it's from English Al Jazeera, may end up on the TSA watch list for this!, although, I think they actually tend to do better, more in depth interviews than any American source):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8J9laUNgL4
In some ways, I don't really blame the people in Appalachia for their fear of voting for Obama; the country has more or less turned their back on helping these groups of people for generations so you can't really expect them to be the progressive and enlightened ones after an experience like that.
If you read V.S. Naipaul's great great book, A Turn in The South, about his de Tocqueville-esque journey through the South, it's pretty clear that racial issues are deeply imbedded within the fabric of society in these areas. And in most cases it's not really white power keeping the black man down (although that does happen), it's decades and decades of racial mistrust, lack of education, and poor opportunities for economic advancement keeping both sides down. It's a vicious cycle.
What is shameful is Clinton's occasional framing of the issue as "Obama can't appeal to poor, white, hard working Americans means he's unelectable" (I guess black or asian hard working people don't count?). It suggests a sort of passive acceptance of the situation that breeds this kind of attitude - the desperate poverty, racial hard feelings, and lack of education; that these are the people that ought to matter most in selecting a president. I don't say it to look down on these people at all - it is the government that has first and foremost failed them, but the solution is not to allow their prejudices to continue to dictate our leadership but instead be a sign that the dramatic income inequality and failure of government for them is unacceptable. The argument shouldn't be "poor, economically-disadvantaged whites won't vote for a black person, so let's not choose him," but "the factors that give rise to this racism mean that we've got a real issue here that has to be addressed." That Clinton makes the former without saying the latter is really offensive.
-----------
Very well put and I'll check out that video soon.
Remember that scene in "The Departed" where Di Caprio picked a fight with the two Italian wise guys trying to shake down the Indian convenience store owner? As they're destroying his establishment he says, "What is wrong with this country? Everyone hates everyone!" (He also had a funny quote preceding the fight: "You keep calling me Babu, it's 'Singh' motherf***er!")
---------
As you said, many communities here and abroad deal with bigotry and inequality issues stemming from past problems. Actually true "community" can be hard to find in modern America, at least the kind depicted in Hillary's book It Takes a Village. I guess we often do resemble a salad bowl instead of melting pot; just a bunch of micro-communities looking out for their own special interests and intolerant or even hostile of others (Jena). Unfortunately, some politicians strategically play up these divisions, especially during campaign seasons. Is it coincidence that a gay marriage proposition might hit the CA ballot in November, when there has been very little buzz in that area for the last two years?
Of course some lower-income, rural whites have suffered their fair share of ostracism and injustice too. Probably their upper class white brethren up in Wall Street and Washington have marginalized them more than any uppity blacks, communists, Muslims, or Latino illegals ever could, but they've been conditioned to blame them nevertheless. I don't know why they love Hillary so much though, and think Obama (or even McCain) wouldn't fight just as hard to improve their situations. I know Obama's had his share of gaffes, and the propagandists' accusation of him being "elitist" may have gained some traction among certain circles. Obama was right that many Americans are nostalgic and bitter for a multitude of socioeconomic reasons, and they may project their frustration on other groups. I don't know if they seek "refuge" with "guns and religion", but even if it was true (doubtful, and hard to collect real data on it), I wouldn't have said it with mics around. But I really don't think many of them could articulate strong arguments for why Obama wouldn't be an effective president who could help their situations. If they think Hillary or McCain would do a better job, that is their prerogative. But how can they think Obama would be bad for working class America? Then it suggests they just don't like him personally or approve of what he stands for?
We are "products of our environment", and governments haven't done much to address reconciliation and progress among the groups. I guess we're not much different than Iraq or Lebanon, except that we're not so desperately poor and angry, so our citizens show a bit more restraint towards violence. I just think all of this is a shame, because Obama is one of those rare leaders who might be able to bring the sides together and actually achieve some tangible, meaningful racial/socioeconomic reconciliation, if he chooses to focus his campaign/presidency on it (which he won't, especially after the recent BS). He is running on a message of unity and togetherness more than any candidate since the 1960s, and I think he can really make things better. But I fear that the stigma and paranoia surrounding his "image/identity issues" will impair Obama's ability to level with us (and us with him), in order to persuade the nation to confront these problems honestly and show commitment towards sustained progress.
T
PS – It is funny how you said that Obama's overwhelming popularity among young people and working blacks/Asians doesn't seem to matter if he can't secure the "blue-collar white vote". I think it's ridiculous too, and it must be quite perplexing and frustrating for his camp. But unfortunately, the numbers are not in his favor. Probably for every one of Obama's black/Asian/student supporters, "distrustful" white voters (as depicted in the West Virginia video clip) may outnumber them 3-to-1. According to some demographics info on Wiki, America is about 72% white, 12% black, and 4% Asian. The working class to poor demographic in America is 50-60% of our population, so the ballpark figure is 40% of America is working class white. So even if Obama nets 30% of the working white vote and 70% of the black/Asian/student vote, he's still in a hole for this subset of the population. Of course these voters are not evenly distributed across states, and I have no idea how things will play out in November (though I doubt Obama will win as many Midwest/South states as he did in the primaries).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_demographics_of_the_United_States
But that's not to say that all blue-collar white Dems would suddenly jump ship for McCain. It's a long way until the election, so who knows?
------------
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080522/pl_afp/usvotestates_080522150227
here is another news. i guess they are all catching up. Now the big question is knowing all this, would the party choose obama or clinton. should they prioritize winning? racism still exist in america, no one denies that but does so in individuals and dark corners, usually not openly by an institution. so should an institution such as a democratic party acknowledge racism still strong in its people and yield to it or attempt a noble losing fight?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The poll also appeared to bolster Clinton's arguments that she and not Obama is the best bet for Democrats to take on McCain in states likely to shape the outcome in November's general election.
She led Arizona Senator McCain in all three states, in which she also won in primary votes against Obama. The former first lady led 48 to 41 percent in both Florida and Ohio and by 50-37 percent in Pennsylvania.
The poll showed that between 26 and 36 percent of Clinton supporters in primaries in the three states would switch to McCain if Obama, vying to become the first black US president, becomes the Democratic nominee.
Only 10 to 18 percent of Obama supporters would shun Clinton for McCain, the data suggested.
----------
Yes that is interesting data. Even though Obama is leading McCain by 8% or so in national polling, that doesn't account for state-by-state breakdown. So in the battleground states, if Obama loses, then it's over - and it seems Hillary is more likely to beat McCain in those states. It's a tricky situation. I don't know. Obviously Obama and his millions of supporters thinks that he is the best and he can win, even if he is black. But then if he loses, there is a lot of explaining to do.
------------
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=90694386
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/04/opinion/04rich.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
No comments:
Post a Comment