CE Week #5: “Rationalizing Obama’s Defeat”
You must know the old joke:
A young man returns home from a job interview at a radio station, dejected. His mother sees his sunken face and understands immediately that something has gone wrong.
“My son! The sport’s announcer’s job—you didn’t get it? Nobody knows more about sports than you! How could they reject you?”
The son: “Mom, it was anti-sss …. anti-ssssssss … anti-sssssssssss … anti-SSSSEMMM-itism.”
Democrats are already preparing their excuses for the possible defeat of Barack Obama in November. That was an important column Bob Shrum just wrote. True, the column offers Barack Obama unfortunately little guidance as to how to win the election. But it does offer an all-purpose excuse if Obama should lose: racism. Some might say that five weeks in advance is a little early to be developing rationalizations for defeat. And others might say that a candidate who has consistently led in almost every poll since early summer has little need for rationalizations. But those who say these things do not know the Democratic Party!
Maybe I am unfair here, but to an outsider it seems that Democrats see these quadrennial presidential contests not as trials between two parties with the voters deciding, but as trials of the voters! Are the voters good enough, decent enough, unprejudiced enough to vote Democratic? Or will they succumb to their lower natures and vote Republican?
At the end of Hunter S. Thompson’s book on the 1972 campaign, Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail, Thompson listens to the news reports declaring Richard Nixon’s re-election and thinks: “Okay, we are a nation of used car salesmen.” Not for him the thought that there might have been anything wrong with George McGovern or the party that nominated him! If I fail … it shows there’s something wrong with you.
That mode of thinking is obviously very condescending. Less obviously, it is very self-defeating. Suppose the voters are just as lunk-headed as Thompson and (depending on the outcome) Bob Shrum believe. What follows? Yes, another couple of decades of massive illegal immigration may well create a very different electorate. Until then, however, these are the voters you have got. The only route to political power is through convincing them; abusing them does not help with that work.
Even more counter-productive, the blame-the-voters mindset relieves candidates of responsibility for developing and articulating acceptable policies. Barack Obama faces other challenges in this campaign than his race.
Obama is running as the more pacifist candidate in a country where the more nationalist candidate has won every presidential election since 1816. He is running as the more economically collectivist candidate in a country where the more economically individualist candidate has won seven of the 10 elections since 1964. He is a more remote and inaccessible personality and he has a radically less impressive resume than his rival. His personal story not only lacks the heroism of John McCain’s, but it is punctuated with odd gaps and unanswered questions. Obama still has not delivered a fully plausible account of his relationships with such figures as Bill Ayers and Jeremiah Wright. Perhaps the most immediately damaging fact about Obama’s candidacy, however, was his decision not to reach out to his principal party rival, even though she won very nearly as many Democratic votes as he did.
Obama may be The One. But he is far from a perfect candidate, regardless. And Democrats do neither him nor themselves any favors when the only flaws they can see are the flaws in this democracy’s ultimate decision-makers: their employers, the voters.
— DAVID FRUM, a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, is the author of 6 books, including most recently COMEBACK: Conservatism That Can Win Again. In 2001-2002, he served as speechwriter and special assistant to President George W. Bush. In 2007, he served as senior foreign policy adviser to the Rudy Giuliani presidential campaign. He blogs daily at Frum.NationalReview.com.
“But it does offer an all-purpose excuse if Obama should lose: racism.” Of course he should play that card. All minorities can play that card. But when it comes down to who has the best interest of the United States, Obama might lose just because he isn’t as good as McCain. He has no experience. And why are the democrats looking at his defeat, which is like 6 months away or something? Preparing for defeat comes with earning defeat.
“Perhaps the most immediately damaging fact about Obama’s candidacy, however, was his decision not to reach out to his principal party rival, even though she won very nearly as many Democratic votes as he did.” I think it is also because Hillary never really wanted him to reach out to her. Think about it, if Obama loses, he is out of the races, and Hillary Clinton has a perfect shot at being president next time. But if Obama gets elected, she is at least 8 years out, and by that time will be as old, if not older than, McCain (I would guess.) But yes, he should have definitely tried to gain support from his ex-rival, and that way he could have accumulated even more of the popular vote, because he could have almost been guaranteed Hillary’s portion.
Blaming the voters is a very interesting technique. At first glance, I thought this article would be like the countless other pieces condemning the Democrats for playing the infamous race card. On some levels, it was. Yes, the Democrats will call racism if they fail, blaming the voters of prejudice and closed-mindedness. We can all see that coming. However, this article did make me think. Maybe the voters should be blamed if the outcome of the election leads our country in a dangerous direction. It is not the ignorance of racism and bigotry that concerns me; it is the ignorance that goes hand in hand with the paradox of American politics. The average American is ignorant. Many are completely uninformed on the policies the candidates intend to employ and are simply voting for the person who seems the most likable or who has one strong policy the media has made known. Both parties should stop wasting time encouraging the people to let go of prejudice, sexism, or racism, issues which really should not be made the focal point of this election. Instead, our political leaders should encourage the voters to let go of their political ignorance and embrace the knowledge that will help them to make the best possible decisions for our country.
Senator Obama is African-American. Big deal. Every Democrat in this country always seems to say, “I don’t see color; I see character.” This comment is extremely ludicrous. How can they not see color? Put on anti-black glasses to make all black colors go white? Everybody sees color; it’s the reaction that counts. Some, typically baby-boomers and older, still can’t get past the color issue. There is no doubt that if Obama loses, the Democrat will pull the race card. While unfortunately race may have some to do with the election, there’s no way to counter this. Judges in the Supreme Court can’t go to every voter and make them vote regardless of color. And, there’s no way to hide or “diminish” Obama’s heritage (somewhat like Franklin Roosevelt hiding his paralysis to make him look like a powerful leader to the public). What many Democrats fail to realize is that the Republican’s also have something working against their candidate: age. No one is slow to realize that John McCain is just old. But what if the Republican’s don’t win? Do you think they will pull a “he lost only because of his age and that’s unfair so we’re going to Court and wasting money which I said I would save for tax cuts and it’s all just unfair”? No, I don’t think so. But you never know what will happen next in politics.
This whole article is about Hardball’s “Hang a Lantern on Your Problem” and there is even some “Spin!” in there. The author is telling the reader all of the problems that Obama has. Such as: “Obama is running as the more pacifist candidate in a country where the more nationalist candidate has won.” “He is running as the more economically collectivist candidate in a country where the more economically individualist candidate has won.” “He is a more remote and inaccessible personality and he has a radically less impressive resume than his rival.” “His personal story not only lacks the heroism of John McCain’s, but it is punctuated with odd gaps and unanswered questions.” And lastly, “his decision not to reach out to his principal party rival, even though she won very nearly as many Democratic votes as he did.” Then the spin comes into play. The author spins the fault onto the voters. He says, “Democrats see these quadrennial presidential contests not as trials between two parties with the voters deciding, but as trials of the voters! Are the voters good enough, decent enough, unprejudiced enough to vote Democratic? Or will they succumb to their lower natures and vote Republican?”
I thought that this was a good move by the author. The only flaw that I found in the article was that it was backwards. The author throw the spin before he hung the lantern. It was a good approach overall though.
The author is right in one respect. The Democrats should not be saying if Obama loses the reason would be racism. He is also wrong in a sense; he is acting like US voters are the most informed and greatest citizens in the world. We are lucky if half of our eligible population votes. To give some random perspective, my haircutter was complaining that the vice-presidential debate was tonight because she couldn’t watch Gray’s Anatomy. She went on to tell me that she would go shopping instead. She also mentioned that she would cast her support for McCain. It must bother someone other than myself that people would rather watch a stupid TV show than decide who they want to elect the most powerful man in the world. I also found his comment on immigration rather distasteful. He can’t even whine, illegal immigrants can’t vote so why is he even concerned, he can’t blame the republican decline of power on people who are just searching for a better life. If he was referring to legal immigrants, he should be ashamed of himself. They are some of the most patriotic Americans, who does he think is making up the majority of our army in his Republican war? This author needs a little perspective. Obama 08’