Don't Knock Barack?
I would really like to see Barack Obama win the presidency – though I know it will never happen. I will admit I am one of those who have been inspired by Mr. Obama's appearance on the American political scene. There are many, however, who are seriously questioning whether the Illinois senator would truly be a good choice for the Democrats, whether he would be, in a word, electable.
One might assume that the person who would be deemed most appropriate to hold the office of the presidency would have to possess the best qualifications to match the following job description: “Wanted: Experienced executive type, learned in American political history, demonstrated mastery of current affairs; a command of economics, international and domestic trade relations, business and labor policies; a thorough understanding of foreign relations and the dynamics of diplomacy; familiarity with military tactics, strategy and weaponry; prefer someone skilled with crisis management, temperate, compassionate and able to articulate a bold vision for the country.”
Certainly Senator Obama possesses many of these qualities. And what a great story an Obama election would be in the evolving drama that is the American experience: the nation’s first African-American president who hails from the home state of Abraham Lincoln; a man born of the union of a black man and a white woman; an embodiment of racial tolerance and healing; a chance at last for America to show that after two centuries it has finally taken the ultimate step to demonstrate that it has overcome the prejudice of its past. I know, however, that “President Obama” is not going to happen — not yet; not in America.
Why won’t the Illinois senator be the next chief executive? It’s not merely because he is black and that he has an Arabic sounding name; though these factors would be undeniable liabilities for any candidate hoping to win over small-minded voters in the key Red states that could determine an electoral victory. I would argue that the very qualities Mr. Obama needs to overcome the ghosts of racial prejudice in the minds of many voters may also be what could disqualify him in critical regions of the country - he is simply too articulate and intelligent.
I know what you are thinking: Delaware Senator Joe Biden got into political hot water when he described his senatorial colleague in similar terms. Biden’s comments seemed patronizing and appeared to betray the unacknowledged racism that festers in the residue of our 21st century cultural unconscious. The issue, however, is not that Mr. Obama is articulate and intelligent and we should be somehow surprised because he is also black. The issue is that deep down, America disdains articulate and intelligent leaders no matter what their race or ethnic background.
Think about it. There was a clear-cut opportunity in 2004 to select a man for president who possessed distinct intellectual skills and a superior ability to articulate complex geo-political and economic policy positions. In spite of his faults and the errors made by his campaign, John Kerry was a nimble thinker who could express himself profoundly on a variety of topics and do it all without cue cards. Instead of choosing Mr. Kerry, the country selected George W. Bush - a man for whom the English language clearly presented insurmountable obstacles. George Bush won two highly suspect elections that should not have even been close, because he was backed by a powerful political machine skilled at manipulating the outcome; but, most significantly, he was also a man voters felt comfortable with. Even after 9-11, even after two years of war, voters rejected the image of an urbane, sophisticated northerner in favor of the image of a gun-totin, plain-talkin Texan.
Though observers have evaluated Mr. Obama by comparing him with Jessie Jackson, Al Sharpton and other black leaders, the senator's situation might be better analyzed by comparing him to a fellow Illinois Democrat from another era: Adlai Stevenson. An accomplished lawyer and former governor, Stevenson's grasp of the issues and distinctive oratorical skills outshone any politician on the scene in the early 1950s. Running against Republican Dwight D. Eisenhower in the 1952 presidential election, Stevenson was derisively labeled an "egghead" by vice presidential candidate Richard Nixon. At a time when the country was in the grip of an almost pathological fear of Communism, voters sided with a comforting personality with whom they could feel safe, a highly decorated general who had never held elective office. The "egghead" lost by landslides in 1952 and again in 1956.
Mr. Obama does possess a large measure of charisma, an important quality that neither Mr. Kerry nor Mr. Stevenson had in abundance. The prospects of electing a "Barack Obama" for president in 2008, however, may be as realistic as the prospects of electing a "Vladimir Smith" in 1952. Democratic Party leaders would do well to keep in mind that the Bush political machine accomplished its objectives by skillfully manipulating the fears of the electorate during a time of extreme geo-political instability. That instability has been made decidedly worse as a result of the Bush presidency. The Iraq war may or may not come to an end before Mr. Bush leaves office, but the war on terror, the conflict that lingers in the mind of every American since 9-11, will continue, generating anxieties that will help voters determine how they choose their leaders. If they truly want the White House, perhaps the Democrats would be wise to consider more closely the value of a highly decorated general with whom the country could feel safe: Wesley Clark anyone?
I would really like to see Barack Obama win the presidency – though I know it will never happen. I will admit I am one of those who have been inspired by Mr. Obama's appearance on the American political scene. There are many, however, who are seriously questioning whether the Illinois senator would truly be a good choice for the Democrats, whether he would be, in a word, electable.
One might assume that the person who would be deemed most appropriate to hold the office of the presidency would have to possess the best qualifications to match the following job description: “Wanted: Experienced executive type, learned in American political history, demonstrated mastery of current affairs; a command of economics, international and domestic trade relations, business and labor policies; a thorough understanding of foreign relations and the dynamics of diplomacy; familiarity with military tactics, strategy and weaponry; prefer someone skilled with crisis management, temperate, compassionate and able to articulate a bold vision for the country.”
Certainly Senator Obama possesses many of these qualities. And what a great story an Obama election would be in the evolving drama that is the American experience: the nation’s first African-American president who hails from the home state of Abraham Lincoln; a man born of the union of a black man and a white woman; an embodiment of racial tolerance and healing; a chance at last for America to show that after two centuries it has finally taken the ultimate step to demonstrate that it has overcome the prejudice of its past. I know, however, that “President Obama” is not going to happen — not yet; not in America.
Why won’t the Illinois senator be the next chief executive? It’s not merely because he is black and that he has an Arabic sounding name; though these factors would be undeniable liabilities for any candidate hoping to win over small-minded voters in the key Red states that could determine an electoral victory. I would argue that the very qualities Mr. Obama needs to overcome the ghosts of racial prejudice in the minds of many voters may also be what could disqualify him in critical regions of the country - he is simply too articulate and intelligent.
I know what you are thinking: Delaware Senator Joe Biden got into political hot water when he described his senatorial colleague in similar terms. Biden’s comments seemed patronizing and appeared to betray the unacknowledged racism that festers in the residue of our 21st century cultural unconscious. The issue, however, is not that Mr. Obama is articulate and intelligent and we should be somehow surprised because he is also black. The issue is that deep down, America disdains articulate and intelligent leaders no matter what their race or ethnic background.
Think about it. There was a clear-cut opportunity in 2004 to select a man for president who possessed distinct intellectual skills and a superior ability to articulate complex geo-political and economic policy positions. In spite of his faults and the errors made by his campaign, John Kerry was a nimble thinker who could express himself profoundly on a variety of topics and do it all without cue cards. Instead of choosing Mr. Kerry, the country selected George W. Bush - a man for whom the English language clearly presented insurmountable obstacles. George Bush won two highly suspect elections that should not have even been close, because he was backed by a powerful political machine skilled at manipulating the outcome; but, most significantly, he was also a man voters felt comfortable with. Even after 9-11, even after two years of war, voters rejected the image of an urbane, sophisticated northerner in favor of the image of a gun-totin, plain-talkin Texan.
Though observers have evaluated Mr. Obama by comparing him with Jessie Jackson, Al Sharpton and other black leaders, the senator's situation might be better analyzed by comparing him to a fellow Illinois Democrat from another era: Adlai Stevenson. An accomplished lawyer and former governor, Stevenson's grasp of the issues and distinctive oratorical skills outshone any politician on the scene in the early 1950s. Running against Republican Dwight D. Eisenhower in the 1952 presidential election, Stevenson was derisively labeled an "egghead" by vice presidential candidate Richard Nixon. At a time when the country was in the grip of an almost pathological fear of Communism, voters sided with a comforting personality with whom they could feel safe, a highly decorated general who had never held elective office. The "egghead" lost by landslides in 1952 and again in 1956.
Mr. Obama does possess a large measure of charisma, an important quality that neither Mr. Kerry nor Mr. Stevenson had in abundance. The prospects of electing a "Barack Obama" for president in 2008, however, may be as realistic as the prospects of electing a "Vladimir Smith" in 1952. Democratic Party leaders would do well to keep in mind that the Bush political machine accomplished its objectives by skillfully manipulating the fears of the electorate during a time of extreme geo-political instability. That instability has been made decidedly worse as a result of the Bush presidency. The Iraq war may or may not come to an end before Mr. Bush leaves office, but the war on terror, the conflict that lingers in the mind of every American since 9-11, will continue, generating anxieties that will help voters determine how they choose their leaders. If they truly want the White House, perhaps the Democrats would be wise to consider more closely the value of a highly decorated general with whom the country could feel safe: Wesley Clark anyone?
Comments