WHAT IF OBAMA CRASHES? September 15, 2008
Posted by wmmbb in US Politics.trackback
Some see the slow motion train wreck in motion ever since Sarah Palin stepped into the spotlight. Advising any politician in any country or at any time to stand on principle is probably expecting too much and should not be offered gratuitiously.
While it alright for Sarah to be the conservative woman candidate, it is not alright for Barack to be the multiracial, or even Afro-American candidate. I suppose that Obama has got to accept the situation he finds himself in as a challenge, and his response will have special meaning for African-Americans.
Randall Kennedy addresses the issue of what if he Obama loses. In The Washington Post, he writes:
If Obama loses, I personally will feel disappointed, frustrated, hurt. I’ll conclude that a fabulous opportunity has been lost. I’ll believe that American voters have made a huge mistake. And I’ll think that an important ingredient of their error is racial prejudice — not the hateful, snarling, open bigotry that terrorized my parents in their youth, but rather a vague, sophisticated, low-key prejudice that is chameleonlike in its ability to adapt to new surroundings and to hide even from those firmly in its grip.
If Obama is defeated, I will, for a brief time, be stunned by feelings of dejection, anger and resentment. These will only be the stronger because the climate of this election year so clearly favors the Democrats, because this was supposed to be an election the Republicans couldn’t win, and because in my view, the Obama ticket is obviously superior to McCain’s.
But I hope that soon thereafter I’ll find solace and encouragement in contemplating this unprecedented development: A major political party nominated a black man for the highest office in the land, and that man waged an intelligent, brave campaign in which many millions of Americans of all races enthusiastically supported an African American standard-bearer.
I hope that I’ll take to heart the wisdom offered by two of my students. “Obama losing,” one wrote, “would be hurtful, but it still spells substantial progress. . . . Change WILL come — the wheels have been set in motion.” Declared the second: “Sometimes you have to believe in the change before it comes (and in the face of its apparent defeat) for the change to be possible.”
ad_iconEven if Barack Obama loses in November, he will have bequeathed to all America something that should bring comfort and pride to even the most disappointed of his followers. He has reached the edge of the pinnacle. And shown that we can stand atop it.
How forty million Americans might feel because of a history of racism, which has not been acknowledged, there is no intention that it be so, and as far as I know, much like the dispossession of native Americans, is of no small significance, nor is it not significant that some among them have achieved success through personal ability.
Still I think the election will be more significant than that. The choice is stark. It is going to be either McCain or Obama, with policy implications that will affect people across the planet, most particularly in relation to addressing the problems of climate change, and to a lesser extent the question of attitudes to war and peace. Whether McCain or Palin is the lead act is something that the electors will have to sort out.
If Obama fails, then it will not be throwing a pebble in a pond, it will be more like a landslide in a lake. The repercussions will, I am guessing be mitigated by the what happens in Congress. I can envisage an implosion of the sacred two-party system with the two major parties falling apart. The Supreme Court appointments will be landmarks.
McCain may be a maverick in a special sense that he not campaigning on identifiable public policy positions. For example, McCain identifies the need to act on global warming. If McCain is a maverick, Palin is not. The Republican campaign might be described as smoke and mirrors framed by unrestrained, unconscionable lies.
In this movie, the guys in the White Hats will have lost. Then again, the plot might turn out differently.
UPDATE:
Commenter James prompted me to find out more about Green Party candidate for President, Cynthia McKinney. Here she is speaking via You Tube:
This relatively brave woman shudders to even think of such an outcome. Hence, today, at this moment, I have not read the post. Maybe tomorrow…
Well, Judith and myself have intense disagreements over the small but significant issues that divide us. But via the automatically generated posts consider the views of Kyle-Anne Shiver.
I think we would easily find ourselves shouting down different canyons. Just to remind me, if nobody else, that democratic conversation has its challenges. We might easily be a little lost if we take down our paradigmatic glasses and our cultural assumptions.
At some point we have to acknowledge with regard to Kyle-Anne these are not just differences, one of us have our facts wrong, and one of our perceptual/ideological filters is not working.
Still haven’t read the post. But I’ll get to it I suppose. Is that a link in your comment? I agree, by the way, that it’s just not merely that both sets of ideas are right. It’s not the we’re looking at the same thing through different lenses. We’re not looking at the same thing! There is something terribly sinister at play here which may be linked to our current financial crisis. (And this from someone who is not given to conspiracy theories.) I’m out for now. I’m not feeling terribly well today. Perhaps I’ll feel better tomorrow.
OK. Ms. Shiver website got me to read the post. It’s quite meaningful indeed. Thank you.
This is a very serious election with far-reaching implications that will affect many nations. I’m hoping that Barack will indeed win “handidly” as President Clinton predicted. But he will not win without a serious fight.
Regarding Ms. Shiver her extremist views are not in line with the American people and it is always most disheartening when we speak for God. These are often those who speak one way and live another.
May God bless us all…
There can be peace in personal religious differences. My belief in a loving God supercedes difference. The biggest problem here is one of policy that will govern a whole nation and influene the world. I believe in the “perfect law of liberty,” even if our decisions causeour personal liberty to be restricted.
There is a major lack of love in the most of the extremist rhetoric, including many avowed Christians. I am very much concerened about the lack of love present in the debate come from thos professing to be followers of Christ.
Please consider these words:
“Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels but have not love, I have become sounding brass or a clanging symbol. And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mounains, but have not love I am nothing. Love suffers long and is kind; love does not envy; love does not parade itself, is not puffed up, does not behave rudely, does not seek its own, is not provoked, thinks no evil, does not rejoice in inquity, but rejoices in truth; bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love never fails.” (1 Cor 13:1-8)
Now, do these words sound like those akin with the views of Ms. Shiver?
I was hoping someone would respond to the call you made on your blog Judith in relation to the meltdown on Wall Street. What happened? What are the implications and probabilities of the outcomes? What has to happen now?
I just strongly suspect that many fundamentalists are not being Christian. Judith, you have the quotes to prove it. In my mind in that quote love and the pursuit of truth are not seen at odds with one another, and I am not sure why one would think that anyway. Yet, I suppose that is what the materialist worldview is suggesting, but at this point onward I just not well informed. I suppose the developments in the understanding of Physics, the bedrock of the materialist philosophy, become important but my understanding about such matters is too weak to non existent to say much.
What I do recall is that the history of science is the history of accepted ideas being turned on their head, and resistance to their acceptance, not least by some scientists. Fundamentalism seems to me not to require its adherents for the fact they could be wrong, which on any realistic grounds, as likely than not.
What I do find offensive is the Manichean world view that, for example, claims that the Quo’ran is inspired by the devil. Aside from the question as to what they do such speakers know about Islam, it historical context which is very different from Christianity, and it many variations. It is hurtful to many good and decent people. I don’t see a place for hate talk in a democracy. Anger, I understand.
That said, my hunch is the economic state of play is the going to exercise most people’s judgment in the presidential election, and I would expect that Obama and Biden have now established a clear lead at this point in the campaign. Now, let us look at the polls.
I would agree with your assessment in that the discussion should now return to the issues; the fact that the conversation had been hijacked bugged me to no end!
You spoke of things being turned on their heads. It seems that McCain’s campaign is going through a bit of this. McCain and Palin’s negative campaigning and outright lies are catching up to them. Even Karl Rove spoke about their lies in the ads and with the record of Palin. McCain flatly lied about Palin’s record on The View when asked about her requesting earmarks as the governor.
There have been many lies, yes lies, no stretching the truth, outright lies that are now coming back to haunt the Republican candidates, leaving their strategists at a lost for words. It’s sad to watch these guys wiggle and defiantly swarm about. A little humility and repentance would be good–not a chance though The media I think has been annoyed, even angered, by Palin’s snub of them and by doing the American people. She’s answers no questions from the media at all.
The campaign may regret this decision late; this caused a back lash, a greater interest by the media to dig up any and everything, leaving nothing unturned. But I don’t really think the strategists had a choice but to keep her away considering her abysmal performance during the Charlie Gibson interview that showed complete incompetance for the presidency.
Did you see the SNL skit? I just posted it on my blog! I laughed so much watchcing it! It was a nice diversion.
Amazingly or not, I actually did see it. Pretty clever, that person could almost be Sarah.
All and all, I think it far enough to suggest that you are getting back to an election campaign. I am thinking that maybe the television debates will prove more important this time, and that I suppose depends on the state of mind of the public in general and whoever might constitute the critical voting publics.
I took the dogs out today and got to thinking about your quote from Corinthians. I may be just stating the obvious to those who know about the Bible, but that quote by St Paul ( I presume) was probably originally written in Greek, which means in turn that the translators (Tyndale et al) probably got it right, while it was also easier to transmit and record then a very costly process. In that part of the world when first written, Greek was the language of philosophy and science.
Then it occurs to me that is an exemplar of the way that all human knowledge works, for example most spiritual traditions are kicked off by one exceptional individual and then carried on by others. The problem, as I see it, is that institutional arrangements, together with circumstances, are sometimes apparently instrumental in both overt and structural violence.
Furthermore, it seems to be
countercontra- punctual to those sophisticated Romans confronted by those crazy early Christians who chose martyrdom over accepting the divine authority of the Emperor. ( I don’t know much about music either, so I hope I got that right.)Great considerations. My brother who is a wonderful minister, singer, and businessman said something awesome the last year in a sermon that I have been considering almost daily in the way I treat others and in the way I understand knowledge. He said that “all scriptures are truly spoken, but not true.”
This is not a matter of symantics, but rather one that distinguishes how we come to know what we know and leaves us without judgment of others. The human element always imposes itself on truth, though never changing truth. Jesus, for me, is “the way, the truth, and the light.” He never missed the mark to show love.
He was truly an exceptional being. In fact, he is the only religious leader of any faith that spoke in humility yet saying that I and my Father are one. He is also the only one who said that we too can be one with the Father. This was considered heresy in his day, maybe today too.
I have no problem with people following their own spiritual path, and there are a number that could be taken, but I find “hate talk” dismaying and the any submission to a leader a worrying aspect in whatever belief system adopted or more likely inherited.
Mahatma Gandhi, for example, emphasized the importance of holding onto truth, but I was among those who did not get it. What I think it means is the knowledge we acquire by looking to ourselves, to our consciousness.
Judith, because I curious, what Christian tradition does your family follow? i hope that is not a rude question. I remember Dr King described himself at Riverside (1965?) as a preacher. I am interested since you mention your brother is a minister and businessman. I know something but not much about the anabaptist movement and its influence in Prague (Bohemia) and on Tolstoy.
We are all non-denominational, having been raised in the Pentecostal church. My paternal great grandfather was quite the theologian, scholar, author, hymnal composer and businessman all during a time that he could have been lynched for a simple stare. He had a church in Indiana of 1500 where the majority of parishoners were white. My maternal great grandmother was quite the seemingly irrevent speakeasy owner, though, she seems to have held close to her religion too.
She was quite the mover and shaker in Illinois.
My mother is a cousin of Richard Pryor. If you’ve ever heard Pryor speak of his family you would know my mother’s lineage, though my mother’s father saw to it that she and her siblings had little direct dealings with their grandmother. He was pious indeed, though it was her money and connections that supported his lucrative construction business. As some businesses never go under, especially with Black Book in hand, my grandfather did well, even during the Depression.
The African American religious traditions may not altogether follow those of our counterpart. Many of our preachers were community leaders in the sense that they sought to help their parishoners with all aspects of life and did not only deliver sermons on Sunday but were businessmen and educators as well. The tradition continues.
Obama should lose. He ruins any hope of real progress. If he wins, it means we are racist. “Reverse racism” is still racism. Being African American can’t be a gimmick, or it means our country’s thoughts of racism are infantile and insubstantial.
He is a politician, who rose to fortune selling the government out. Even the money he did make on his own with his books was during a time he was skipping and passing on important votes.
He took more money from Fannie Mae in his 4 years than almost every other politician in their entire tenure, this during a time when the Democrats were blocking legislation to regulate and avoid the current crisis.
He runs on a campaign of cleaning government up, when he was as corrupt as any, playing dirty Chicago politics to the bone.
He claims to be for the environment, but his corn ethanol subsidies and nuclear deregulation hurt the environment and put at us at risk as much as any Bush bills.
He voted for the war in Iraq along with others, until it became an election PR stunt not to do so.
He voted for the Bush 2005 energy plan, giving millions in oil and polluter subsidies, because his own “renewable energy sham” people got kickbacks too. At least McCain voted against it saying it had too much subsidies for big oil. Now Obama wants to blame McCain for Obama’s own legislation?
Obama wants to blame McCain for the housing crisis, when McCain tried to bring Fannie Mae back in compliance years ago, and the Democrats blocked it, when Obama was getting the second most money from them?
I do not like McCain, but Obama is a nothing loser, just a better liar. I would rather take a hothead over a scam artist. Luckily, I won’t be brainwashed to think either losers are the only choice. There’s always Nader or McKinney, if you want real change.
Appreciate your comment James.
I am not sure about the reverse racism, given it might be possible to the candidates on their own merits.
The winner take all electoral process in each of the States makes the presidential election, I would have thought, a two horse race. Ralph Nader’s site looks interesting. I do not know much about Cynthia McKinney, except that she is an ex-Congresswoman and a Green (See the video above).
Thanks wmmbb.
I do appreciate your perspective. The reason it seems like racism to me is even my white friends say how a black president represents progress in and of itself. It does not matter that he is against even studying the affects of slavery or possible restitution. It does not matter that his speeches whitewash the specific issues facing a disproportionate amount of minorities, partially because of disproportionate poverty. It does not matter that he voted against civil rights with his FISA vote, even after promising to filibuster it. To hear somebody tell me his race is progress by itself that I should be happy about just doesn’t make sense.
As far as merits, besides words, I don’t think there’s much to compare on. In his brief time, he has voted against the things he claims to stand for, and vice versa. McCain has done a better job fighting for Obama’s “platform” than he ever did. These are things of record and not just opinion. Obama voted for the Bush energy plan giving billions (not millions) in subsidies to billionaire oil companies, while McCain stood out against it and voted against it. Obama took more money from Fanny Mae in only 4 years than all but one representative in an entire 10 year study, and helped Democrats prevent regulatory crackdown on unsound lending practices. Add that his billionaire chief campaign finance chairwoman,Penny Pritzker practically pioneered the predatory lending booking practices, and walked away with federal deals, giving her even more money while people lost their homes, and it is hard to hear Obama decry McCain for these problems…
I know there’s room for differing opinions, but it is hard to see any logic where somebody is coming from, claiming Obama is superior to McCain in any light, citing only his words and overlooking his history. The only solid arguement I’ve heard for him is he’s young, black and sounds good. If there’s no more than that, we are being ageist, racist and superficial, I believe. Nader started out running last year because 4,000 Green Party members signed a petition asking him to run again. Since then, his supporters have fought to get him on 45 ballots. He fought to pass the Freedom of Information and to start the EPA back in the day. Recently he founded an information organization that fought the Clinton administration to help India use compulsory licensing to obtain cheap aids drugs.
I am sad that in such an important election, the media shuts him out and won’t even compare his platform, especially because he has the consistency of character to prove he means it and he’s more than talk. He’s currently third place, and by the polls represents millions of people currently. He’s done more for this country as a “consumer advocate” than most career politicians, and still, I can’t even see his platform compared in the news.
I should just say, James, by way of clarification that I am a person of European descent living in Australia – the Anglo-Celtic variety, so I do not have much direct or intimate experience as a minority group member. I do remember travelling in a bus when the most people insisted on talking Cantonese, while the other passengers, two Indonesians and myself, were left out. This you will appreciate is a rare experience.
Sure Obama is just another politician, as far that goes, but nevertheless he has an impressive story that suggest some talent, and it is true that politicians necessarily must negotiate and accommodate.
However, I would suggest that McCain is more unprincipled than Obama, and furthermore that Obama has the qualities that are more likely to make him a better president than McCain. For example, I would expect Obama to do better in defending the Constitution, in the nomination of replacements for Supreme Court and in the conduct of the Department of Justice.
Other than that, rather than putting all our faith in leaders, let us build organizations to promote our political agendas, perhaps in the first instance at a local level, or through traditional union or similar memberships.
The media shuts out the wider range of political opinion, including Ralph Nader and Ron Paul. It seems to have assumed the prerogative to itself who is to be heard, and what the frame of the political debate will be.
I suppose the rationale of the two-party system was to be a source of unity, so that migrants, racial identity, and class politics would not be too fractious. It seems to me that consensus has been destructive to real political debate and representation.
In Australia, while we have a two-party system, the use of proportional representation for the Senate means we have other parties represented, including the Greens.
When I was in High School I learned that “Ralph Nadar was a friend of the consumer.” I believed what I read. I must admit to listening to him since the 2000 election, he has become a bit of a joke. I do, however, honor his work of many years gone by.
James – Words matter.
McKinney is a bright well-spoken fearless woman. Again, words matter.
Hi WMMBB.
I agree with you that the media decides somehow it’s their perogative who deserves to be heard or not. It is odd how they all seem to jump the same bandwagon at once, regardless of public opinion. It’s like they decide what public opinion should be and go about trying to make it such.
I like McKinney.
I feel sad that somebody would call Nader a joke for for standing up for our right to be represented by somebody the corporate sponsors don’t bless. Judith. Can I ask what exactly about Nader’s current work or word you disagree with? Do you not think $$$ control of our government has gone out of hand? Do you not think we are sometimes aggressors, in order to make a few richer? I’d like to know where your idea that he’s a joke comes from, other than you don’t agree with him or he’s disagreeing with precious Obama. If words matter, his are truer, I would argue than most. Also, with Obama, his actions outweigh his words in the opposite direction. He voted for the Bush energy bill and he is decrying, because his own people got paid millions with it. He took mroe money from Fannie Mae in 4 years than all our other politicians, save one, could gather in 10. He promotes corn ethanal making his lobbyist buddies huge bucks, even though we end up paying twice for gas, the wasteful way they do it, and mixing it with our other gas reduces our milage and causes us to burn more oil. He voted for FISA spying on innocent citizens, although he VOWED to fillibuster it. He opted out of campaign financing, so he could spend more on ads than any other campaign in history, after he promised in writing not to stick to public campaign established limits. Words do mean something, but it’s hard to see how his matter when his actions weigh so much in the opposite he speaks.
Nader wants real peace, real people control of our government, real balanced action with Israel and the Palestaneans, real single payer health care, real, real, real. These are real lives, and I fail to see how it is a joke wanting to opt out of this Democrat/Republican good cop/bad cop charade.
We don’t legally have a two party system. It appears nowhere in our constitution. It’s just another illusion the mass media tries to brainwash people into thinking is law somehow. The only reference is where our framers warned us of factions. The Republican party started as the first 3rd party that stood up against and ended slavery. About 20 years ago, the DNC and GOP took over the debates from the League of Women Voters, who protested them staging who sat where and asked what questions. They called it a fraud on the American Public. Since then, the Debate Commission, founded and controlled by the DNC and GOP have silenced other voices. They didn’t even allow Nader into the building last time. That is probably why our Republic is falling apart, the removal of representative options and a media that plays along.
James – Words matter in that they are opinions; we all have them and they should be respected. You have stated your opinion here and it matters.
James,
My understanding is that you are correct that the two-party system arose independently of the Constitution.
Since 1918, Australia has had preferential voting for the House of Reps, which means in its compulsory form that all the candidates are voted in order of preference from 1 to the number of candidates standing. If this system of voting was adopted, there would be no wasted votes in supporting minority party candidates for President. The immediate effect would be to encourage these candidates, and there might a need to introduce threshold levels of support for candidates. Given quinquennial voting in the US and the use of voting machines there may be practical problems of accommodation. Would you then adopt preferential voting for Senate and Gubernatorial elections?
I understand that Alaska did consider preferential voting, but I suspect not well. The rule of thumb appears to be that the status quo prevails until there is a perceived crisis of such magnitude that change becomes imperative. Democratic initiative is usually not enough.
One of the problems with the winner take all voting in a two party system is that large demographic groups vote as a block, and the diversity within the communities are not represented. Hence there is a tendency for the Democratics to take Afro-American votes for granted (and I do prefer the term Euro-Americans as well). To illustrate the effect on a different voting system, consider the case of the more diverse voice of Maori voters in New Zealand following the adoption of a proportional representation system.
Now Australia has an electoral innovation that Americans may well consider, and that is compulsory voting. Just imagine the difference if the emphasis was not on reducing the votes, especially of minorities, but insisting that everyone should vote. We are constantly told that such innovation is too radical for trial in the American Union. It could be tried in Alaska for example.
I don’t know about compulsory voting. You cannot force someone to look into the issues, or candidates, past a certain level if they don’t want to, so forcing such a person, who doesn’t really care, to vote seems dangerous.
I like the runoff voting idea, proposed by Nader/Gonzalez,
One thing that Ron Paul mentioned was that the two Parties do not really represent a majority of people, and this reduces voter interest and turnout. Also, since the Commission on Presidential Debates is a DNC and GOP corporation that sets the rules against 3rd party participation, and confines who can ask what questions, the debates are just speeches and not really interesting either.
There are 10 public citizen groups trying to force the debate commission to disclose the secret agreements between Obama and McCain this round, http://www.opendebates.org/makecontractpublic.html .
The GOP and DNC legislatures passed laws biased against third parties, as there are stricter rules a third party must pass to qualify for ballot access, but Nader has qualified for 45 states this round, with the help of dedicated supporters. The main goal is to open dialog beyond the sound bytes of the two main party candidates, and give people a real choice if it is supported by the public, and not really found in the two parties. For example, they both have the assumption that Americans don’t know we fight some wars based on oil interests, etcetera. The two party system is not real, in that it is no law at all, but an assumption by the powers in charge, and perpetuated the media and by each and every one of us that doesn’t know better. It’s only a two party system if we think we’re stuck with it, no other reason. If we think we need to vote the lesser of two evils, it keeps us in check with no real hope for real choices of change.
I believe Matt Gonzalez, Nader’s running mate, led a successful effort to impletement rank choice voting, like you are mentioning, wmmbb, in San Francisco. You are right, such a system prevents the “spoiler” label of alternative options. http://www.votenader.org/about/matt-gonzalez/
Thanks for the comments James.
I get back on the issues you raise after some sleep. You are right run off voting is we call the preferential voting. I agree that the plurality of opinion is not represented by the two-party system, which is it’s implicit rationale. I will look at the San Francisco link tomorrow.
Later I thought I should have made clear that compulsory voting is a misnomer. What it means is that you have to attend the polling booth, and have your name crossed off and lodge the ballot papers (in our system which does not include voting machines or voting by computers). You can write comments on the paper. Problems are created if they are not lodged because they all have to be accounted for.
Thanks again James, I will get back tomorrow.
We really do not have compulsory voting in this country. We have compulsory attendance at a polling booth. You can do anything you like on the voting paper. I don’t really know why we have such a system as compulsory attendance . . . makes little sense to me.
Thank you for reinforcing the point Elwyn.
My understanding is that if voting papers are mislaid, as they might be lost in the rubbish bins, then is grief is caused to the poll workers who have to account for them. As you say you don’t have to make them in the prescribed manner (although it is apparently illegal to recommend a null vote). You can write an essay if you wished or make other statements.
Compulsory voting makes a lot of sense to me. Firstly, the principle that every citizen has a right to be heard. The laws are made and we are all subject to them. The electoral system operates to be inclusive and informative, no matter the person’s social background or geographical location. Provisions for special circumstances are made. For example, ballot boxes are flown to remote outback communities, and I am sure that people confined to nursing homes are given the opportunity to vote.
This situation is markedly different from the United States, where socio-economic status makes a difference in opportunities to vote, and where measures are consciously employed – remember Florida 2000 – to reduce the turnout and access to voting of people who wish to vote.
Other countries, I believe the UK and NZ, have a system of compulsory registration, but not compulsory voting, but achieve varying but consistently high turnouts. The same is true for many European countries.
The criticism is that compulsory voting negates the need to turn out the vote, and takes away a major role for political parties, increasing the level of “donkey votes” and other forms of non-engaged voting. My response is that we all should be responsible citizens, something that cannot be legislated for, and it is up to us to exercise our duties that entails.
I hope this is a basic, if not comprehensive, summary of the issues.