A New Albany resident was recently quoted, in the Chicago Tribune, to say he would not vote for Barack Obama "mainly because he's black." His candor has highlighted an obvious subtext for this presidential election. I don't believe most people are blatantly racist, but racism still flows through our society and every so often it percolates to the surface. Our antique dealer happened to bring it out into the open. For that ingenuosness, he is being held up as a poster child for atavistic rubes, hicks and lowlifes. If John McCain had a crack at him, perhaps he'd call him Joe the Antique Dealer.
This man's essential Joe-ness, spread throughout the land, is the reason why the presidential race has maintained some semblance of a real contest. On paper, Barack Obama outclasses McCain in organization, ideas, inspiration, character and vision for the country. McCain carries the genuine banner of failure, a handoff from the generally recognized holder of the title "Worst President in the History of the United States". He also carries the counterfeit banner of Maverick.
* Obama lives in a stable marriage. McCain dumped his wife when an automobile accident left her scarred and less attractive than she had been on their wedding day.
* Obama and his wife, in just the last several years, paid off their student loans. Cindy McCain recently ran up a $750,000 (that's correct, seven hundred and fifty thousand dollars) bill on her American Express account IN ONE MONTH. Her daughter, the piker (not a Palin child) ran up a $150,000 Amex bill.
* Obama had an outrageous pastor and served on a board with a sixties radical. McCain's vice, Sarah Palin, spoke to an Alaskan secessionist group which did and still does advocate the violent expulsion of the U.S. government from Alaska, Palin's husband was a member of the Alaska Independence Party; the motive of the group is to retain all the vast wealth of the state for the Alaskans themselves.
Many more of these couplets could be laid out to show the superiority of Obama over McCain, and yet the race remains tight. The wild woman from Minnesota had to be brought back to earth by McCain himself because she thought Obama was "an Arab". Some of Joe the Antique Dealer's less reserved brethren have shouted such bon mots as "traitor", "terrorist" and "kill him" when Obama's name is mentioned at McCain/Palin rallies. Why is it so hard to believe that a hapless antique dealer in New Albany, Indiana would be moved to say that he isn't voting for Obama, "mainly because he's black"? Would it be better if he weren't voting for him because he's a "terrorist", or a "traitor"? Is he not measurably more civilized then the dimwit who shouted "kill him", or the poetic dimwit who shouted "off with his head"?
The McCain campaign has set its sights on winning the presidency in the worst way. The campaign finds it necessary to distract, dissemble and divide in order to peel away voters whose interests are more naturally aligned with Democratic orthodoxy, from Obama and leave them in play for McCain. They can't do it on qualifications. They need a wedge. Obama, by his very existence, offers the biggest, meanest, most heinous wedge in the American electoral repertoire: his race; unfortunately, none dare speak the name openly. Better to be a stupid hick who confuses Obama and Osama, better to label, as Michelle Bachman did, liberals as un-American than to say you aren't going to vote for Obama because he's black. The modern-day Republican playbook has been discussed in Thomas Frank's "What's the Matter With Kansas?" Frank points out that on issue after issue Democrats offer real solutions of real benefit to the Joe's of the world and yet, at the national level especially, Republicans continue to rack up victories because, on gut-level, visceral issues such as abortion and gay marriage, voters say "they share my values"; translation: they are more like me. The reality is that the candidate who lives by the wedge issue almost never delivers the voter from the supposed plague the wedge signifies.
How many times have we heard that "my grandfather came here and he made it without any affirmative action", or words to that effect? How many times have we heard hateful words thrown out to describe people not like ourselves? How do we even decide which non-shared trait will be the one deserving our mocking, derision or hate? I'm sure Joe the Antique Dealer's prejudice does not actually reflect hatred of black people. I say that having never met the man. And yet the sentiment that he won't vote for Obama because, "mainly he's black" offend. They offend the ear, they offend people he has never met, they offend the very concept of this nation.
But wait, the very concept of this nation is founded on inequality. The Constitution allowed slavery. Black slaves were counted as "three fifths" of a white citizen when doling out congressional seats. The Civil War was our crucible from which a new nation of equality was supposed to emerge. Look around. It didn't happen. This presidential race is the most potent ammunition we have to push racism further out on the fringe of society. Obama's presidency will be many things, but one of them will be a lesson that we have wasted far too many lives through bigotry and narrow horizons. I hope Joe the Antique Dealer is open to learning.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
14 comments:
Another strong statement, John. Thanks.
Can we expect the city council to take a collective stance on this?
And, is it not time to revive the moribune human rights commission?
That's "moribund". Geez, I wish I knew how to type.
The New Albanian:
I have not discussed this issue with the Council.
As for the Civil Rights Commission, yes it is timely.
We get home delivery of The Moribune but I think our subscription is up soon.
Whoa ... it even rhymes. I had no idea I was feeding you a straight line.
Coming soon: MC Gonder?
I do not understand people saying John McCain is not a maverick. He has made his existence around taking his own stands. He has a long history of being independent minded.
To accept the positive Obama image shoved at us by the media is one thing, but to accept the image they now portray of John McCain as another political cronie does not show one to be an independent thinker.
RR:
Check out McCain's voting record - especially since 2000 when he lost his primary bid to W. The old "maverick" has caved in (sold out) to the Bush agenda over 90% of the time - as is documented on videotape by McCain himself. He continues to support the Bush tax cuts for the top 1% - still clinging to a "trickle down" theory of free market prosperity that has obviously failed. He reversed his position on torture and Guantanamo to support Bush. He reversed his position on the Kyoto Protocol to side with Bush. McCain has voted against veterans' benefits 10 out of 14 times. He talks about family values, but has voted against children's health insurance.
The whole "maverick" schtick is so over. Fellow Republicans like Colin Powell, former Gov. William Weld, and uber conservative Christopher Buckley are supporting Obama because he "has shown himself to be calm and thoughtful and has sound policy proposals". McCain, on the other hand, appears to be fractious and erratic, flailing around from one campaign theme to another in search of a winning strategy. They question McCain's judgement in his selection of Sarah Palin for V.P., which was a completely transparent and cynical choice in order to energize the ultra conservatives in the Republican party. McCain talks about putting "country first", but his walk does not match his talk.
RR:
The particular point of this post was to respond to the controversy about some intolerant comments by a local "Democrat".
My view is that the local man is simply regurgitating talking points put out by the Republican party. That he is a putative Democrat means little since he has chosen to swallow the Republican swill of hatred, division, mistrust and fear.
Those have been the touchstones of the Bush junta. I think McCain running his campaign from the Bush playbook, and with the help of Rovian acolytes, primarily Steve Schmidt,under that banner robs him of any claim to maverick status.
If that weren't enough, the Maverick changed his position on the following issues (from a stance at odds with Bush to a stance, for political gain, in agreement with Bush):
Bush tax cuts, Border policy, Financial regulation, Torture, Lobbying reform, Gay marriage, Pursuing AlQaeda into Pakistan. One taking one position could be termed a Maverick, the other a Lackey.
Finally, I make absolutely NO claim to impartiality with regard to Bush or Bush lackeys. In voir dire to be on the Bush jury, I am an uncontested strike.
RR:
Upon re-reading my comment, I may sound too harsh toward all Republicans. That is not my view. I am proudly a Democrat, and I recognize the sincerity of many Republicans, Richard Lugar, Chuck Hagel and several with whom I am personally acquainted locally.
The fringe views of the Bush crowd have damaged not only our nation, but the Republican party as well. I shouldn't paint or taint all Republicans with his excesses.
Me thinks you may read too many Democratic blogs and listen to Keith Olberman a little too intently.
I believe Mr. McCain also supported Mr. Bush in his attempts to regulate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which was of course voted down by the Democrats. So supporting Mr. Bush is not always a bad thing.
(And by the way, the Democrat tie to the subprime mortgage debacle is the biggest underreported story of the year. To state that the Bush tax policies are the cause of the current financial situation only supports my contention.)
May I suggest listening to NBC/CBS/MSNBC/CNN and then counterpoint that with Fox and Rush. Only by trying to sift what might be true from what is false and what is not even newsworthy can one attempt to understand either candidate.
That is my point.
You seem to believe the following:
Bush's tax cuts only benefitted the top 1%.
John McCain is George Bush.
Obama is only going to increase taxes on those making more than $250,000 a year.
(If you do the math on that last one, taking numbers from Mr Obama's web site, then that average person making $250,000+ per year will be paying $170,000 per year in additional taxes. Ouch!.)
I apologize for rambling. But I can honestly tell you that in July I was undecided who I would vote for. However, the completely one sided nature of the press coverage in this election has led me to Mr McCain. If the media cannot fairly cover both sides, than I will have to vote against the media.
With the Republicans in control six of the last eight years (and essentially still shutting down the Senate), it's a big stretch to make the case for keeping the same Party at the helm. But if you think the country is "better off", than go for it.
John McCain's "maverick" days are behind him. He is, frankly, visibly unsteady, rambles, and has aged considerably in just this year. Most of the intellectuals in the Republican Party have conceded that point. They are alarmed at the prospect of Sarah Palin a heartbeat away from the Oval Office. However, she continues to be red meat for the fundamentalist base whose low information status (could they be "dittoheads"?) keeps them focused on the usual wedge issues - dividing the country into the "real Americans" and the "others".
It doesn't matter who "caused" the financial crisis - the blame is widespread and includes lots of us who have been living beyond our means - as much as it matters who shows more aptitude for fixing it. McCain has been all over the map and, remember, is quoted as saying he doesn't know much about economics. Obama has been calm, thoughtful, and surrounded himself with advisors such as Warren Buffet, and Paul Volker. Of course, Colin Powell summed this up beautifully last Sunday in his endorsement of Obama.
P.S. I count on NPR, CSPAN, and public TV/BBC news, as well as CNN and MSNBC for news and opinion, and several newspapers on-line. Can't take Limbaugh or O'Reilly, as they both are way too proud of themselves and obscenely overpaid for shedding more heat than light.
Just one last comment.
I am sure it would matter who caused the financial crisis if the finger could be pointed as directly at the Republicans as it can be at the Democrats.
rr:
I can't get the tax numbers to yield the same amount you state. I'll stipulate that McCain will cut taxes more than Obama. In an economy burdened with, currently, over a ten trillion dollar national debt, I can't say that's particularly responsible; although you claim he's a maverick, so that might be just what a maverick would do.
Do I really think McCain is Bush? Probably not since I believe that picture of McCain hugging Bush is authentic. Do I believe the Bush infrastructure would carry forward into a McCain presidency? Yes. And I believe McCain would continue to push the Supreme Court rightward. So although they don't wear the same underwear, the erosion of the country on so many levels, which I see clearly as a result of the Bush presidency would continue under the Maverick.
An interesting take on the race was offered by Alaska's largest newspaper, the Anchorage Daily News. It endorsed Obama today citing the need for a "steady hand" in the presidency. Check out the Anchorage Daily News on line for the full story.
Ruthanne:
You know, it really DOES matter who created this crisis, because if we don't understand that, we're likely to put the same people in charge and they'll do it again.
While capitalism needs to transform, the lack of public regulation and private regulation (risk aversion due to greed) is what got the economy in a mess, and the bottom of society is going to be the hardest hit.
I find it interesting that Republicans have resorted to saying that Obama will raise taxes on the middle, even though his plan offers more relief than McCain's. In other words, Obama is lying.
Wow.
And who was that last president who said "no new taxes" and later reneged on the promise?
John Miller
hey what about obama's illegal alien aunt? at least mccain doesnt harbor illegal aliens.
mccain not hussein
Post a Comment