Obama’s win in the Democratic primary showed him to potentially be one of the most gifted politicians in American history. Yes, he gives a good speech — something that is underrated, particularly after the embarrassingly inarticulate George W. Bush. If we’re to have any chance to address the historic challenges facing the country, we’re going to need an inspiring leader at the bully pulpit.
But he also ran a great ground game, outflanking Hillary’s admittedly badly run operation, and showed he could push back effectively against Rovian tactics. After the disaster of conservative government on display everywhere and every indication this should be a Democratic year, why can’t I come out an admit I was wrong about Obama?
I hope I can. Unfortunately, he has several things going against him, which may prove insurmountable. Remember, Michelle said, "this is it, one campaign and no more," or words to that effect. If Nancy Reagan had said the same thing in 1976, no book would be called "The Age of Reagan," however gifted that orator and politician was.
Rachel Maddow has articulated one of the biggest roadblocks. The national media continue to be in love with McCain, resulting in wildly misleading coverage. McCain’s close ties to lobbyists; his history of voting against proposals he now trumpets to voters; his mysogynistic streak; his 90-percent voting record with the hard right (no maverick here); Phil Gramm’s outrageous statements and even more outrageous conflicts of interest; McCain’s flip-flops, including now changing course to agree with Obama on Afghanistan. All these get only passing attention from the media. Bush abruptly decides to negotiate with Iran — after saying in the Israeli parliament that anyone who would do so (obvious e.g. Obama) is a Nazi appeaser. The media ignore this. Three major anchors are traveling with Obama overseas — while McCain’s heavily protected "stroll" through an Iraqi market he claimed was safe got little scrutiny. In other words, the election will be a referendum on Obama, not a referendum on Republican misgovernance.
Secondly, issues continue to be framed in the tired old "right" vs. "left" rhetoric. McCain says "he doesn’t know" of Obama is a socialist. Blah blah blah. Rigid ideology got us into this mess, and conservatism has shown itself incapable of addressing complex issues. So for many people, the election won’t be about issues, it will be about Obama being a "liberal." Dear God, if we taught history in schools, these people might understand we are a liberal democracy, founded by liberals. George III and Lord North were conservatives. F.A. Hayek, the economist lionized by conservatives, said he was not one, because conservatives tend to be too comfortable allying themselves blindly with those in power. Socialists believe in state ownership of the "means of production" — a 19th century concept. When these ignoramuses say "liberal," they mean "social democrat. This is why even back in my right-wing columnist days, I deflected complements about being a "conservative" by saying I was a liberal. Now I am more of a social democrat. Obama is not one. But who cares? A "conservative" administration just used a dose of "socialism" on Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae to avoid a collapse of the financial system. The real American economy, society and challenges defy ideology.
That brings me to my third concern. The American people are less educated today. Many may be well-trained in narrow, narrow fields. They are trained to serve the corporate Matrix. But they know less history and literature than probably any cohort of Americans in history. My grandmother, who was raised on the frontier and never went beyond high school, could in her 80s discuss American history in depth and quote the great poets at length. In place of the essential education required for the electors of a republic that has a future, we have distractions. A three-hour wait for an iPhone. The new version of Grand Theft Auto. American Idol. Madonna’s divorce from Christie Brinkley’s porn-and-teen-girl-loving husband to live with A-Rod and Britney, or whatever.
This is the 20 or 30 percent of undecided voters. How the hell could you be undecided after nearly eight years of George W. Bush and a GOP candidate who promises more of the same? Yet they will decide the election.
Fourth: Corporate America and the elite represented by Phil Gramm and Carly Fiorina, which control the government to a degree not seen since the 1920s or Gilded Age, will fight even the chance they might lose power. The result: Republican Party coffers are swelling, however much or little McCain himself raises. Obama has to be taken out.
Finally, among those swing voters are many people who won’t vote for a black man. How sad.
Thus, President-elect McCain. Prove me wrong, Sen. Obama. Prove me wrong, America.
Your best paragraph in my several years of reading you…..and agrees with my observation from one of America’s major state universities too.
That brings me to my third concern. The American people are less educated today. Many may be well-trained in narrow, narrow fields. They are trained to serve the corporate Matrix. But they know less history and literature than probably any cohort of Americans in history. My grandmother, who was raised on the frontier and never went beyond high school, could in her 80s discuss American history in depth and quote the great poets at length. In place of the essential education required for the electors of a republic that has a future, we have distractions. A three-hour wait for an iPhone. The new version of Grand Theft Auto. American Idol. Madonna’s divorce from Christie Brinkley’s porn-and-teen-girl-loving husband to live with A-Rod and Britney, or whatever.
If Obama loses, I’ll use your post as the best explanation. I agree entirely with its bill of particulars. I disagree that this sad reality will suffice to perpetuate this reign of scandal and extremism.
I’m not by nature optimistic. Still, this coming recession will be so severe that it will test our strength as a nation. The risk is not that Obama will lose but that in winning he will lose by becoming the magnet for every embattled American’s righteous resentment.
If McCain wins, it may well serve to finally kill the Republican Party. There will be clear linkage between disastrous economic policies and disastrous reality. I’d rather err of the pro-active Obama side, but in this case, there would be a silver lining in disabusing Americans of their favorite right-wing fantasies.
McCain’s media pals will do what they can. It won’t be enough in the end.
Phuh-ill Guh-ram should be a nice target for the Dems. It would be difficult to pinpoint a single person more responsible for banking deregulation and fishy “conservative” economics than Gramm. A case could be made Gramm is the man responsible for the two most recent recessions!
And just as a post that I hear Gramm has resigned from the campaign. Coincidence? I think not!
I feel that Obama should firmly name Hillary as his choice of Vice President and I can name a bunch of reasons:
It was a close race in the primaries, yes Obama won but not a decisive victory. There are plenty of firm Hillary supporters out there and it makes sense to offer her (and her supporters) some sort of concession. If nothing else, it would be the sporting and decent thing to do.
It’s the best chance for a Democrat victory in a year where losing means serious bad news.
Obama is a high risk candidate, plenty of powerful people want him to lose. Hillary would mitigate this risk, and she is more likely to find compromise with the conservatives (because, let’s face it, she is pretty conservative herself).
The Bill Clinton factor might turn off some of the holier than thou voters on a moral high-horse, but these type of people are going to vote conservative in any case. Might as well write them off and get on with life. Lots of more down-to-earth people like Bill, don’t find blow jobs all that freaky and some solid economic credentials might be useful right about now.
The stated policies of Hillary and Obama are not all that different to one another anyhow.
Re the changing face of education, you’ll note that over the years the number and size of textbooks have increased, as has the quantity of homework assigned. Much of this involves information of such detail and breadth that in previous years it would have been left for universities or for college prep courses for those who knew early on what they wanted to specialize in.
About the best that can be expected, when bombarding kids with massive amounts of largely trivial information, is that they will memorize enough of it long enough to pass their tests. After that, its complete lack of relevance to their daily lives, together with the general absence of cultural and pedagogic reinforcement by their peers, elders, television, and their personal Internet experiences, all but insures that they will forget most of it.
The way to effectively teach the young is to: (a) always remember that a “liberal education” implies both culture and generalism: (b) concentrate on a core of important ideas and knowledge, in the arts and sciences, and give a digestable number of major examples for each subject, preferably of a concrete and relevant nature, all tied together by the fact that they illustrate these ideas; (c) teach students how to reason about these ideas; (d) limit testing to comprehension of these ideas, and whenever possible rely on free-form essay tests to determine students’ retention, comprehension, and communication skills; (e) reiterate these concepts throughout their educational experience. Reiteration means teaching a subject not just once, but over and over again, year after year; (f) bridge abstract concepts with the world and their personal lives by showing the importance of the subjects they are learning, in the professions and trades, and by showing (through history itself) how many of the same ideas and struggles recur, and how those who fail to learn from history may be doomed to repeat it (and not just in the classroom); (g) provide reinforcement, from elders and major institutions like television, making it clear that knowledge is a valued commodity.
Of these, I’d say that concentrating on a comparatively simple core, and repeating it throughout the years of grammar school through high-school, would be enough to produce citizens who: (1) have a working knowledge of math through the level of basic algebra; (2) have a working knowledge of U.S. history and of the development and function of U.S. institutions, including their federal government; (3) have a working knowledge of world geography; (4) have a basic idea of the forms of government in operation elsewhere in the world; (5) understand the basic principles involved in the major sciences; (6) are familiar with the major schools of thought (and well-known examples of each) in the fine arts; (7) have general reasoning skills and enough rhetoric skills to effectively express their own questions, ideas, doubts and conclusions.
I’d be a much better educated person today if I had been given such a curriculum, together with a safe and encouraging learning environment.
Well, Jon, I really didn’t think you were making a hard prediction all that time – I just thought you were throwing some reverse psychology into the ether.
Now that you’ve clarified – well, I hope you’re wrong, of course. But then again, I think you hope you’re wrong as well.
In any case – all of the (valid) negatives you’ve outlined will make an Obama win all the sweeter. As for the ignoramuses who look at this through a racial lens – history shows that they will be able to wrap their minds around a black president once we have installed one. Their lack of imagination works against them there.
Cheers.
I have the same fears you do, especially about the uneducated American electorate. They will vote without knowing the difference between a liberal and a conservative, a jerk and a change-agent. The polls scare the s**t out of me.
Jon great post. We hope for the best but after the 2000 and 2004 elections, we know that a President McCain is a real possibility.