With all the BS so far about Obama's American-ness, patriotism, and all the associated quasi-controversies (and it's only July), do you think that this shows that mainstream America is just not comfortable or ready for a president like him? Even the New Yorker's attempt to satirize the lie-spreaders and fear-mongers will probably only serve to perpetuate incorrect stereotypes about him. He still might win of course, but people don't have to necessarily like it, and that may bode poorly for the prospects of accomplishing a lot during his presidency.
I don't know; it is all very discouraging and disappointing to me as an American.
---------
I tend to think most younger Americans are pretty comfortable with him. We all grew up in California and are used to multi-ethnic settings. I'd wager to say most of us probably knew a guy like Obama growing up or in college - somebody with an unusual background but was smart and hooped it up pretty well. In that regard, he's certainly more ambitious than many we know, but his experiences and background are not even the most unique that we probably know.
However, for the older generation, especially in states that do not have that same history, I'm not so sure. WVa, etc; these kinds of places are not exactly the center of melting-pot America. I think Obama tends to do well in the midwest because he's got some of that hard-work ethic and aversion to partisanship that most midwesterners find familiar. But in the heavily racialized areas of the country, and particularly among older voters, I think there's probably a lot of discomfort with understanding who, exactly, a guy like this is. Most voters in America decide whom to vote for based on the reptilian elements of their brain and then rationalize around that decision (the smarter among us just come up with better rationalizations), and so I think this plays a pretty big role.
---------
Yes I'd agree with that. Or at least it seems that educated younger people and urban people seem to focus on a candidate's platform and record when deciding whom to support, not necessarily stereotypes regarding his/her identity. The NY Post article below discusses the famous Bradley-Deukmejian race for CA governor, where the black man Bradley seemed to be well ahead in the polls, yet the white man Deukmejian won in a surprise result. It's not that white voters felt guilty or worried about being called racist, so they lied that they would vote for a black candidate (then chickened out on election day), but maybe the phone pollsters didn't evenly sample the population, with certain demographics (that may be most averse to a black leader) being under-represented in the polls - yet they still come out on election day and change the result. So I worry that the "Obamaniacs" may be over-represented in the media/polls, and the hesitant or reptilian type voters are under-represented.
Your mentioning of the "reptilian elements" of our judgment brought me to consider another related issue. There's nothing wrong with opposing Obama because of legitimate differences in viewpoints/policy issues/etc., but of course the "reptiles" will prejudge and dismiss Obama based on his identity and nonconformity with their comfort zone. Though maybe the "high school" elements of our psyche might produce the opposite, yet also dangerous, reaction. Some people just flock to the most popular, captivating figure, like moths to light, without really thinking their decision through.
If Obama is the best possible candidate who also happens to be hip and well-liked, then it's all good. Though prominent black conservatives like Colin Powell, Alan Keyes, etc. have said that they will endorse Obama (or at least the decision will be harder this time to stick with the GOP), partly due to the fact that we can "make history" by electing a non-white president (or at least a half-non-white one). While making history is definitely appealing, there's no benefit in making history by picking the wrong guy. Germans made history by electing the Nazis to power too. Of course I am not equating Obama with Hitler, but you get my point. As I said, if Obama is the best choice (which most of us believe), then there's no problem with supporting him AND making history. But I do believe that there are plenty of less-informed, superficial, sheep-like voters out there who would just like to see a cooler, younger guy and/or black man in office, and vote out of that impulse - which does no good for the country.
It's clear that Nixon had the experience edge on JFK in 1959, but he happened to be a lot less photogenic and youthful, and didn't come from a famous family. Actually Nixon did some very un-GOP things like engaging the USSR/China and creating the EPA (he also did his share of damage of course), while JFK was a former supporter of McCarthyism, Elanor Roosevelt didn't endorse him in the primaries, and his civil rights achievements have been overstated (RFK and LBJ cared a lot more, though maybe JFK would have done more if he lived past 1963). So when we vote based on associations and appearances, we obviously risk missing some of the picture.
Racists may refuse to vote for Obama because he is black, but "pop culture idolizers" may want to vote for Obama just because he is fresh and cool (a few steps up from a protest vote). It's funny, the first compliment some politicians say of Obama when interviewed on the media is usually "he's a great orator". Like Colin Powell, who "speaks so well". While that is clearly an important political skill, it is not the whole story, and kind of simplistic/demeaning actually. Of course most of us believe that Obama is a good leader who also happens to give great speeches, but I worry that some voters pay more attention to how he speaks instead of what he is saying. And he has said some fairly dumb or un-progressive things in the last 18 months, but so does every politician, and 24-7 news coverage catches everything these days. I wouldn't go so far as Jesse Jackson, but I do believe that Obama changes his delivery and tone when he speaks to predominantly black crowds vs. his prime time interviews on the big networks. Some might call that "dumbing down" or "talking down", which is not becoming of a "uniter". Side comment: you can kind of understand why people like Jackson would lash out at Obama. He came out of nowhere yet people instantly love him, and really he hasn't done much for America yet. If you read the New Yorker piece about his Chicago roots (http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/07/21/080721fa_fact_lizza), you know how many lucky breaks (and hard work of course) it took to get Obama to the IL Senate, much less a White House bid. Jackson, despite all his flaws, actually walked and suffered with MLK. He didn't go to Harvard, but has been fighting grassroots-style for Black America for years, though he could never make it big in politics, and now he's an afterthought. There must be some frustration and jealously there.
But then again, Hillary and most others engage in pandering to some crowds also. Bush doesn't, because he talks dumb to rednecks and heads of state alike, haha (to Silvio Berlusconi at the G8 summit: "Hey Amigo!", but the word is "amico" in Italian). Obama makes people feel good about themselves by supporting/idolizing him, but that is kind of pathetic. He is a candidate for head of state, not a prophet. Fortunately he also makes people feel good about America and have hope that things can get better, which is important.
So on one hand we have the anti-Obama racists, and on the other, the cult of Obama. Neither is good for America or Obama. I guess I would like to see the national discussion get more concrete and rational, shifting from the existential "How cool would it be for Obama to be president?" to "In what ways will the Obama presidency make things better?".
NOT BLACK & WHITE
OBAMA POSES A PUZZLE FOR POLLSTERS
By CARL CAMPANILE
June 16, 2008
Barack Obama's historic candidacy is a potential nightmare for political pollsters who must confront how racial attitudes will impact their surveys. Can public polls tracking a race between Obama, set to become the first black major-party presidential nominee, and John McCain, a white candidate, be accurate? Pollsters told The Post they were definitely concerned. "It will be a challenge. The question is how much of a challenge," said Andrew Kohut, head of the Pew Research Center.
Said pollster Scott Rasmussen, "No pollster will be sure until the votes are counted on Election Day."
Historically, public-opinion surveys of voters in statewide races have overstated a black candidate's support and undercounted a white candidate's backing. The most egregious example is that of Democrat Tom Bradley, the longtime popular black mayor of Los Angeles who ran for governor in 1982. All the California polls had Bradley comfortably ahead right up until Election Day, and one paper even ran a front-page headline declaring him the winner. But when the votes were counted, Republican George Deukmejian defeated Bradley.
The conventional wisdom was that white voters lied by telling pollsters they backed Bradley but actually voted for Deukmejian. The misreading of voter sentiment in a black-white contest has been dubbed "the Bradley factor" ever since. "People should look at the polls with a large grain of salt," said University of Virginia professor Larry Sabato, who has analyzed racial impact on polling.
Kohut's contention is not that white voters lie to pollsters, but that pollsters fail to fully capture the views of lower-income, working-class and elderly white voters who disproportionately refuse to participate in telephone surveys, even though they vote on Election Day. Consequently, surveys end up skewed and prone to overstate a black candidate's support by not accounting for white "refuseniks." Rasmussen recently surveyed Americans on whether they would vote for an African-American for president. About four in 10 voters said either that family, friends or co-workers would not vote for a black candidate, or were not sure.
carl.campanile@nypost.com
No comments:
Post a Comment