ABoT Vote Nowurbatulsaclassifiedsbutton
  TULSA METRO'S ONLY INDEPENDENT NEWSWEEKLY
UTW Reader Comments  |  Has Something Made You Mad? Tell Us!    
Home » Columns » OpEd
  RSS XML

No We Didn't

Obama win more hysterical than historical


BY TED RALL

Share this article:
 
Google Bookmarks  digg  Del.icio.us  reddit  Yahoo My Web  Newsvine  MySpace 

Comments (3)
mail this article Mail Article
print-friendly formatPrint Article
Add to favorites
Easy, Tiger. But no one should delude themselves into believing that racism or its kissing cousin conservatism are dead. Barack Obama, after all, is only half-black, and not even half-African-American at that.

Easy, Tiger. But no one should delude themselves into believing that racism or its kissing cousin conservatism are dead. Barack Obama, after all, is only half-black, and not even half-African-American at that.

There is less here than meets the eye. Yes, the election results are notable. But they don't mean as much as people think. First, the important stuff: The first black president has been elected. And not just elected by a majority of voters, many of whom were black and/or first-time voters, but by nearly half of white voters. Twenty-eight years after the Reagan Revolution, the electorate has repudiated Republican inaction -- on Iraq, in New Orleans, most of all on the economy -- to an extent not seen since Watergate. Americans delivered a proxy impeachment of George W. Bush, holding McCain less to account for his policies than his association with a (cough) leader they blamed for their troubles.

It isn't quite fair. George W. Bush, lest we forget, had a 90 percent approval rating during the fall of 2001. Now that Bush's support is down to a Carrot Top-like 22 percent, it's only fair to remember that he's the same guy in 2008 that he was in 2001. And, for that matter, when a majority of Americans thought he was doing such a good job that they voted for another four years in 2004.

Nothing much has changed. The economy sucks, but that's been true since 2000. It's been one continuous meltdown since the dot-com crash. We lost Afghanistan the day we invaded it; ditto Iraq. Doing nothing to help New Orleans during Katrina -- well, that was just Republicans being Republicans. The difference now? There is no difference.

Don't be fooled by the Electoral College rout. The popular vote reveals that United States remains a deeply divided country. Bush got 51 percent of the vote in 2004; Kerry drew 48 percent. Obama defeated McCain 51-48. A surge of newly registered voters, including many African-Americans energized by Obama's candidacy, accounts for the three percent difference.

No one's mind has changed. People who voted for Bush in 2004 voted for McCain.

If everyone who voted for Obama had shown up at the polls four years ago, John Kerry would have been president. Obama's victory is the triumph of retail fundraising, computer metrics, and a team of smart, focused advisors who knew how to exploit them.

It helped to have a weak opponent. McCain ran as the new Bob Dole--cranky, out of touch, and untelegenic. "That one" was a terrible speaker. Every aspect of his campaign, from his fascism-influenced slogan ("Country First"), to a Silver Star logo that riffed on his POW experience to a public tired of war, to picking a vice presidential running mate with whom he'd spent 15 minutes (less than you'd need to get hired at Wendy's), was tone deaf. As so many American elections do, this one came down to fear. People were scared of losing their jobs, their homes, and their 401(k)s. McCain, his mindset stuck in the '60s, thought they were more worried about the Weathermen and the SDS.

All things considered, McCain did well.

If he follows his win by closing Bush's gulag archipelago of black sites, secret prisons and concentration camps at Abu Ghraib, Bagram, and Guantánamo (and don't forget Diego Garcia and the prison ships), if he quickly orders a withdrawal from Iraq and reconsiders his foolish campaign pledge to double down against Afghanistan, Obama will be good for the United States' international image.

If he acts to restore economic confidence with two vast infusions of federal money into people's pockets--first, with a new WPA-type national infrastructure program to create jobs and, second, with a bailout of homeowners and renters in danger of foreclosure and eviction, he will still have something of a country left to run four years from now.

But no one should delude themselves into believing that racism or its kissing cousin conservatism are dead. Barack Obama, after all, is only half-black, and not even half-African-American at that. Jeremiah Wright aside, Obama had a white upbringing. A product of the elite, he went to an Ivy League college (the same as mine, at the same time). If we were looking at President-Elect Sharpton, I'd believe in this change. (Too scary? Exactly.) As things stand, the rich white people who own and run the country have little to fear.

Meanwhile, very nearly half of the American electorate voted Republican. After seven years of not finding (or looking for) Osama. After five years of horror in Iraq. After eight years of shrinking paychecks. After everything that's happened, nearly half of voters wanted more of the same.

If the Republicans had picked a better candidate, they would have won. If Obama had presented a truly distinct alternative to conservatism--socialized healthcare, say, or opposing both stupid wars rather than the least popular stupid one -- he would have lost. Conservatism? Dead? Not a chance.

A change is gonna come. But this ain't it.


Share this article:
 
Google Bookmarks  digg  Del.icio.us  reddit  Yahoo My Web  Newsvine  MySpace 

COMMENTS
3 comments posted for this article
Michael Y.
 11/22/2008 - 9:22pm
   Re: Dan
   
   When Ted Rall refers to Obama being "half-black", he refers to the fact that Obama's mother is white; when he says Obama is "not even half-African-American", he refers to the fact that Obama's father is not a descendant of Africans brought to the Americas as slaves.
   
   And, Dan, I do believe you forget yourself; you speak of "negative attributes such as his association with Rev. W[right]". Therein lies the racism; it lies in the very fact that Jeremiah Wright and others like him (hypothetical president-elect Sharpton, as Rall mentions) do indeed "evoke some level of fear in a wealthy white audience". The history of African-Americans is a history of economic exploitation by "wealthy white" people; as such, any attempt to right those wrongs must needs, well, "evoke some level of fear in a wealthy white audience".
   
   That said, the reason Rall says Obama had a "white upbringing" is because, yes, Obama is "[a] product of the elite", and the elite just so happens to be, not coincidentally, a white elite, one that does not (for obvious reasons) support a redress of African-American grievances. Obama does not "evoke some level of fear in a wealthy white audience" because it is clear that he will not make waves, as, again, someone like Sharpton would; the racism is, again, the fact that someone like Sharpton is 'scary' in the first place.
Report this comment
Dan, Midtown
 11/14/2008 - 11:23am
   "But no one should delude themselves into believing that racism...is dead."
   
   Of course not, it's alive and kicking in the same paragraph: "Barack Obama, after all, is only half-black, and not even half-African-American at that. Jeremiah Wright aside, Obama had a white upbringing. A product of the elite, he went to an Ivy League college...If we were looking at President-Elect Sharpton, I'd believe in this change. (Too scary? Exactly.) As things stand, the rich white people who own and run the country have little to fear."
   
   What exactly, kind sir, is a "white upbringing"? For a man to be black, must he speak like Al Sharpton? Must he evoke some level of fear in a wealthy white audience? Is Obama "more black" due to negative attributes such as his association with Rev. White and admission of using drugs as a youth; or "less black" because of positive attributes such as an ivy league education, inspiring a record number of voters to cast their ballots, and, of course, being our President-elect?
Report this comment
Mr. Burns (mrburns918@gmail.com), Tulsa
 11/12/2008 - 3:27pm
   I'm sorry but does this story have a point? Who said "Conservatism" was dead? Kissing cousin neoconism is the reason for Obama's win. The Republican party has become fragmented because it has turned it's back on the principles that Goldwater and Reagan espoused, principles that appealed to blue collar Democrats.
   
   Neocons have forced a "fear" platform instead of focusing on the issues. How could Americans be any more afraid? What Americans were looking for was "hope" during these scary times.
   
Report this comment

Post a comment




MORE BY TED RALL
Investigating the Investigations
IRS targeting: scandal. CIA targeting: business as usual [May 22, 2013]
War and Wordplay
Not-so-secret "secret bombings" [May 15, 2013]
Why Closing Guantánamo is Easy
Obama doesn't need Congress, he needs Travelocity [May 8, 2013]
My Profile | My Settings

Subscriptions Available at $124/yr.

Please allow 4-6 weeks for processing. No refunds are issued. Back issues are available for $10/copy.

We accept Visa, M/C, checks and money orders. Call to charge by phone 918-592-5550. Enter your contact information in the form below and we will contact you.

If ordering by mail, make checks and money orders payable to Urban Tulsa Weekly. Send your payment along with your complete postal delivery address to Urban Tulsa Weekly, Attn: Samantha, PO Box 50499, Tulsa, OK 74150

Name:
Address:
Address2:
City:
State:
Zip Code:
Email:
Phone:
Comments:

 

Urban Tulsa Weekly
1924 E. 6th St.
Tulsa OK 74104
Phone: (918) 592-5550
Fax: (918) 592-5970
e-mail: Subscriptions

Powered by Gyrosite © Copyright 2013, Urban Tulsa Weekly   RSS