Man Cannot Live on Pride Alone

Columnist Susan Estrich who worked for the spectacularly abortive 1988 presidential campaign of Governor Michael Dukakis (D-MA) rhetorically asks whether Barack Obama could be another Dukakis, then answers ‘no.’

[T]he most important difference between Obama and Dukakis has absolutely nothing to do with the two men, or their primary opponents, or the issues that did or did not get raised. It’s the difference between where the country was then, and where it is now. In June 1988, a majority of Americans thought the country was on the right track. Although the wrong track numbers had been higher earlier in the year, by the summer they turned around. Americans were pleased with the direction of the country. Today, the equivalent numbers are 80% wrong track. Ask any pollster and they’ll tell you that there is no better indication of which party will win an election than the right track-wrong track numbers. This should be a Democratic year. Obama, if he is the candidate, will face a negative machine. But in the end, that machine cannot change the way people feel about the direction the country is heading, or the party that is responsible for it.

There's much, much more to the differences than this.

I mean, come on. Dukakis had the Willie Horton issue.

Obama has…

• Jeremiah Wright
• Black Liberation Theology
• Michelle Obama’s attitude toward America
• William Ayers (Who?)
• Tony Resko (Who?)
• The Bitter, Clingy-ness of White People
• The Ignorance of American Presidential History and how such have deal with enemies
• The NAFTA oddity: being against it while being for it
• The Hamas connections
• The Commie connections

And...

• The possible Islam connections (Yes, I’m willing to allow a crack into my “no way has Obama been a Muslim” edifice, though I still scoff at the idea that Obama was, in some way involved in the Kenya crisis merely because of his blood relationship with (now) Kenyan Prime Minister Raila Odinga.) The alleged connections are interesting in light of
• The 57 states gaffe

"It is wonderful to be back in Oregon," Obama said. "Over the last 15 months, we’ve traveled to every corner of the United States. I’ve now been in 57 states? I think one left to go. Alaska and Hawaii, I was not allowed to go to even though I really wanted to visit, but my staff would not justify it."

This one is extremely weird, until it is considered that there are 57 nation-states in the Organization of Islamic Conference.*

And there are probably all sorts of things that I'm forgetting or don't feel like looking up.

The answer to Estrich’s question is indeed ‘no,’ but not because of perceptions regarding the "direction of the nation." If that were so, Hillary Clinton would have won the nomination by now.

Look. The sheer weight of the baggage which Obama carries along with his chronic trifling dwarf Dukakis’s issues and should have been enough to sink his campaign months ago. But it hasn’t been. And that's because Obama has something which Dukakis doesn’t have--brown skin. But consider this: the fact that his skin color is what's keeping him comfortably afloat isn’t a mere indictment of racism against those who still want Obama to be president while being aware of all of the above listed short-comings--at least it's not an indictment from me.

And consider this: Obama's brown skin is a symbol, one which has been planted into the minds of the unguarded; one which takes the place of rational-thinking and long-term planning (assuming that either or both ever had a place); one which plays on a singular emotion. That emotion is called pride.

A brown-skinned POTUS, especially one of African descent, would be the crowning achievement for an America which prides itself in being the beacon to the world, one of equal opportunity for all comers of whatever color or background. And it would indeed be a breakthrough. Oh sure we can truthfully say that this is the greatest nation on Earth, but if we had a black president, Holy Cow! We can thumb our nose at the nay-sayers with abandon.

For a little while. And then such symbolism’s value would recede and the value of the individual man—the content of his character, judgment, alliances and allegiances—would come to the fore. A country cannot survive on pride and symbolism at the expense of substance; at the expense of the well-being of this nation. And that’s what I and many others are afraid of.

There, I said it. I am afraid; for my country and my countrymen of all colors, but, most especially for my fellow black Americans. Because, while there are still a few people out there who believe in treating all others as individuals, there are not as many as I hoped, even on the Right. And, to be realistic, why should anyone extend the benefit of the doubt to a black American with regard to individualism when we all know that over 90% of black Americans will vote for Obama in the general election? (Yeah, I'm flip-flopping here. Sorta.)

If most black Americans aren't selling individualism, then how can our countrymen buy it? Then, when it becomes apparent that Obama is, at best, woefully under-qualified to be president, who will be blamed?

Live by the pride and the Group Identity Politics...

*(From my comments): Even I have a limit as to how many things--large and trivial--can be just a little bit off or greatly askew about one person before I cry "all foul." I guess Mr. Obama has reached it.

And something tells me that he isn't finished by a long shot.

Comments

[notropis]

OK, let's keep the serious separate from the silly. And by the "silly," I mean the "57 states" thing. A few weeks ago, he said it correctly: he's been to 47 states, with one more (South Dakota) to go, and he's not counting Alaska and Hawaii, since his staff won't let him go there. (47 + 1 + 2 = 50)

This time, he tried to repeat the same thing, started off by saying "57" instead of "47," and then hashed the rest badly.

I called "Foul!" when people overplayed Quayle's stumblings, I call "Foul!" when people come up with calendars of "Bushisms" supposedly showing the stupidity of the President, and I'll call "Foul!" on this one. He's been saying the same thing a lot, and sometimes he gets tongue-tied. In your brain you're thinking, "Of the 50 states...." and when you go to say "47," you say, "57."

I teach math. I talk numbers all day long. I commit verbal "typos" all the time. I hope it's not that I'm exceptionally stupid, or that I am suppressing some hidden agenda or childhood indoctrination or for some other sinister motive.

Let's stick to Michelle, Wright, Ayers, Rezko, Malley, Goolsbee .... the list of genuine concerns is already plenty long.

[baldilocks]

Perhaps.

But even I have a limit as to how many things--large and trivial--can be just a little bit off or greatly askew about one person before I cry "all foul." I guess Mr. Obama has reached it.

And something tells me that he isn't finished by a long shot.

[baldilocks]

And I don't know of anyone American who habitually makes that kind of mistake wrt to how many states there are.

It's sometimes as though he's playing a role "American human called Barack Obama."

[DarkStar]

And, to be realistic, why should anyone extend the benefit of the doubt to a black American with regard to individualism when we all know that over 90% of black Americans will vote for Obama in the general election? (Yeah, I'm flip-flopping here. Sorta.)

I didn't expect that comment from you.

Here's what I wrote about it.

When Al Sharpton ran for the Democratic presidential nomination and only won one majority Black voting district, were Black Democrat voters racist for voting against Sharpton and for the white candidates?

When Doug Wilder ran for the Democratic presidential nomination and registered as a blip on the radar for Black voters, were Black Democrat voters racist?

In Baltimore, when Martin O'Malley was running for the Democratic mayoral nomination, he received 30% of the Black vote. Blacks voted 70% for the other nine candidates and gave the top three candidates, including Martin O'Malley, 30% each. The Maryland press raved about "Blacks voting for the white candidate" but said nothing about the white voters who voted 95% for O'Malley. If you don't know, O'Malley is white.

In Washington, D.C., a white man named David Clarke ran for the at-large city council chairman seat. He received an overwhelming percentage of Black votes. David Clarke was white and he ran against Black opponents.

[DarkStar]

My point being, people are latching onto the vote for Obama as meaning something, meanwhile, they ignored other instances where things didn't align like they did now. The Sharpton non-vote is a big one.

[baldilocks]

Are you responding to a post other than the one I wrote?

[DarkStar]

I quoted what I responded to. If I wasn't clear, you brought up the individualism line. I had written on my blog, not in response to you but to others, that people are commenting on the 90% vote but ignoring when Blacks don't vote for the Black person. The standard line being stated seems to be Blacks will vote for Blacks no matter what. It didn't hold true for Sharpton or Wilder in the national races.

[baldilocks]

When you reread the post, try this: read *all* of it, to the end, *then* respond.

[baldilocks]

You appear to have ignored the four paragraphs preceding the one you're responding to. You also appear to be inferring things to me that *others* are implying. (I should expect this since you do it so often.)

I explained why *I* think that the vast majority of black Americans will vote for Obama *and* I've given anecdotes about it more than once.

The 90%+ number will look like groupthink and/or racism to an outsider. But I explicitly said that this was mostly not racism (though it is mostly groupthink). If you think that this phenomenon is racism, then that's your problem, but don't conflate your thinking or that of any other with mine just because you want to have a basis with which to argue.

[Samir]

I am voting for Obama, but not due to his colour but due to his character and leadership.

[waltj]

And Samir, I'm NOT voting for him because of his complete lack of those characteristics in my view. Someone who voted "present" more often than he voted "aye" or "nay"? That's not leadership. That's a complete abdication of responsibility. I've not seen anything else about his record in Illinois or the US Senate that would lead me to believe that he can actually lead when the time comes. It takes more than smooth words to be a leader. Y'know, I've always had a certain grudging respect for Muhammad Ali. Not because I agreed with his decision not to serve in the Army, quite the contrary for this old soldier. No, it was for his willingness to take a stand on principle and suffer the consequences. I've not seen any of that from Obama.

I have nothing to add to the character issue, since I think Baldi has pretty well covered it. Trust me, Samir, I'm no McCain drone. He's miles away from being my perfect candidate. But Obama isn't even in the same time zone.

[brotherbrown]

When you go to the poll to vote, do you really think about what the person in the next booth is doing?

Last time around, when you voted for Bush, your vote happened to be with the majority of voters. This time, when you vote for McCain, your vote will be with the minority. No need to analyze other people's vote.

[DarkStar]

though it is mostly groupthink

Ahem....
I. Don't. Think. It's. Group. Think. Either.

In fact, the concept of group think is nonsense given that so-called group think is the basis of all societies and cultures. Otherwise, the society or culture would cease to exist because of a lack of common bonds.

While my blog entry mentioned racism being charged against Blacks voting for Obama I pulled only what I wrote about contradictions to "individuality" or if you want, group think, which got no publicity.

In fact, I did read the entire thing, more than once as I generally do.

Thus my attempted clarification:

I had written on my blog, not in response to you but to others, that people are commenting on the 90% vote but ignoring when Blacks don't vote for the Black person. The standard line being stated seems to be Blacks will vote for Blacks no matter what. It didn't hold true for Sharpton or Wilder in the national races

Another point to consider: group identity politics is going after the evangelical vote, it's going after the Jewish vote, it's going after the white working class vote, when you tailor your message directly to those groups and this is something ALL politicians do.

It is also when you actively avoid addressing groups.

Now, how about being fair to me and re-reading what I posted before you respond.

OK?

[DarkStar]

In short, so what if 90% of Blacks vote for Obama? So what if 95% of whites voted for Martin O'Malley?

[brotherbrown]

The truly independent thinkers will vote for Bob Barr or Ralph Nader. That'll show the rest of us group thinkers.

[brotherbrown]

District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, Guam and American Samoa get me to 55. Any more protectorates who vote for POTUS?

Did group-think lead you to making hay about "57 states," or did you arrive at that conclusion independent of Rush, et al?

[baldilocks]

I. Don't. Think. It's. Group. Think. Either.

Okay fine, so you don't think it's groupthink. So why did you roll in here with a head of steam to counter a statement of mine with refutations of it being *racist?*

[baldilocks]

I said what I thought it was and why. As always you are free to disagree *with what I'm actually saying.*

What you did is frame an argument at your blog and try to impose that framing on mine. You should know better.

[baldilocks]

brotherbrown,

If Rush had that 57 states thing I hadn't heard it since I don't listen to him. Someone else pointed it out.

Here's a question for you: do you think that group think influenced my Kenya posting?

And here's some advice for you: if the rock didn't hit you, don't yelp.

[DarkStar]

So why did you roll in here with a head of steam to counter a statement of mine with refutations of it being *racist?*

In my 2nd clarification, I said that I was refuting your idea of group think, not racism. That is why I didn't include the racist angle in the quote I provided. I just provided information to counter the group think part of it.

Look, here is my first clarification: If I wasn't clear, you brought up the individualism line. I had written on my blog, not in response to you but to others, that people are commenting on the 90% vote but ignoring when Blacks don't vote for the Black person. The standard line being stated seems to be Blacks will vote for Blacks no matter what. It didn't hold true for Sharpton or Wilder in the national races.

One more time -- and I'm doing this to try to make sure you, personally understand -- why was Blacks not voting for Sharpton not seen as Blacks not voting in lock-step based on race while the voting pattern for Blacks going for Obama seen as Blacks voting based on race?

Let's concentrate on that question and move on from there.

[DarkStar]

What you did is frame an argument at your blog and try to impose that framing on mine. You should know better.

That is not what I did and I tried from the start to make sure it was not what I was doing. That's why I wrote this:

My point being, people are latching onto the vote for Obama as meaning something, meanwhile, they ignored other instances where things didn't align like they did now. The Sharpton non-vote is a big one.

I've tried to give 2, now 3, clarifications since then to say that was not my intent.

[baldilocks]

I'll answer later. I have to have time to read all these clarifications.

[Samir]

WaltJ I appreciate your concern but if I thought Obama was lacking in character even a smidgen I would cross him off my list of candidates to consider.

[waltj]

Fair enough, Samir. We can agree to disagree. But I am curious to learn what you see in him, since I'm clearly not seeing the same thing.

[brotherbrown]

I know the rule about the rock, that's why I yelped.

Are you telling me dissent is discouraged? I know how to move on. Won't even leave a stink-bomb.

No hard feelings.

[Samir]

WaltJ, since you asked: I support Obama because he inspires me and because his domestic and foreign policies are in line with my values. I also feel we will be more respected in the world once we have an intellectual in the White House again.

[waltj]

Ok, Samir, I see where you're coming from. That's about as clear a pronouncement as I've seen from anyone. Thanks. As I said, agree to disagree.

My view is that "intellectualism" in the White House will not do much, if anything, to earn America respect. As a civilian living overseas in a "developing country", who works with the locals, and also speaks the local language well, i.e., not in an expat bubble, I get asked about our elections a lot. Bread-and-butter issues predominate, and I've not heard anyone mention a candidate's intellectualism, or lack thereof; it simply doesn't enter into their thinking. They're interested first and foremost in what benefits our potential leaders will bring to them. We're still the rich uncle to a lot of people. Then comes trade. Everyone, it seems, from the Development Minister to the village farmer, wants to sell his country's products in the States. After that, they want to know what we'll do to help resolve regional disputes, particularly if they have a testy relationship with one or more of their neighbors. And in general, they want a President who will respect them and their culture, who won't needlessly hurt them.

[Samir]

Understood. Thanks for engaging me in an insightful conversation. You may not have changed my mind, but you addressed me without personally attacking me (a far too common trait of political blogs).

Peace, and may the best man or woman win!