White Men Seen All Wrong
Washington analysts are beginning to notice a curious fact of the Democratic race. In a primary contest between the first black or female nominee, white men are the critical swing vote. Yet despite white males still disproportionately representing us in politics, we still misunderstand them as voters.
There remains a chasm between our conception of the powerful executive and the reality of the everyman. Our culture continues to define the typical white man more for his vice than virtue. The perception of the "angry white male" has not left us. Many still remain apprehensive to discuss white men as a constituency. They are, after all, supposed to be the reason we have to focus on constituencies. Even many pundits who viscerally understand these men, like Chris Matthews, have recently misperceived what motivates this bloc's choice between Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama.
This past weekend, on his weekly Sunday morning show, Matthews asked writer Gloria Borger: "Is there a resistance to an African-American candidate by white men? Is there resistance to Hillary?"
Borger replied: "...I think the answer is yes and yes."
The facts demonstrate otherwise. In the Democratic primary white men have been the most willing to shift between the two candidates.
In the two-dozen Democratic primary contests where delegates were at stake, and exit or entrance polls took place, Clinton lost Latinos twice and white women three times (all by narrow margins). Obama, meanwhile, has never lost blacks. It has only been white men who have consistently swung between Obama and Clinton.
White men have backed Obama in 10 contests, most recently in Wisconsin. They supported Clinton in 12. More importantly for Obama, the momentum is with him.
Obama has won white men in the past three primary races. Yet his strength with white men did not wholly follow John Edwards exit from the race. Obama won the most white men in New Hampshire and Iowa. Nationally, however, Clinton was still holding a steady amount of support. By February, Obama began to overtake her.
The Gallup Poll has found that Clinton's support has hardly shifted among white men or women since mid January. In comparison, Obama has improved 23 percentage points with white men and 15 percentage points with white women. Clinton now wins white women by 11 points over Obama. But Obama wins white men over Clinton by 17 points. End result: nationally Clinton went from a double-digit lead over Obama to a double-digit deficit. Obama has captured Edwards and other Democratic candidates' supporters.
In a turn of fate, the candidate whom focused on women will have to win more men to revive her candidacy. And her chance is swiftly fleeting.
Two surveys out this week by Public Policy Poling demonstrate how crucial white men will be in Texas and Ohio this Tuesday. Even Clinton's husband acknowledged she must win both states to remain seriously competitive.
Clinton leads Obama 64 to 31 percent among white females in Ohio, while white men split evenly between the two. In Texas, Clinton leads with white women 50 to 45 percent while Obama leads with white men 58 to 37 percent. Both reflect his recent white male support in Wisconsin and Virginia.
The steady stream of Democratic white men away from Clinton's candidacy is forcing her to win a remarkably high amount of Hispanics and white women. That strategy is now failing her. Obama has won 10 contests in a row. The month didn't begin this way.
White Men as Swing Voters
At the onset of February white males were the sole constituency split between the two candidates (little more than 45 percent support for each). For other groups in the coast-to-coast primary on Super Tuesday, six in 10 Hispanics and white women backed Clinton.
Only 35 percent of both groups voted for Obama. Meanwhile, at least eight in 10 blacks have backed Obama. The gender gap for minorities is negligible.
In effect, the largest swing vote in this race has been talked about the least. Representation is not conversation. Simply because white men are talking on television doesn't mean white men are being discussed. A Nexis search of the past two months of news transcripts from CNN, MSNBC, and Fox News showed Hispanics or Latinos came up 851 times in the context of the names of Clinton and Obama. In that same context and time span, white male or white men came up 127 times.
The central problem with much of the analysis is not that white men are the only group shifting toward Obama. He has improved with white women and Hispanics. But white men have been essentially left out of the Democratic conservation, despite them constituting a larger share of Democratic voters than all Hispanics and blacks combined.
That chasm between influence and attention is a bad omen for the political left. Democrats need to narrow the white male gap in the general election. Demographics are simply not changing fast enough to ignore these men, as Democrats have strategically done since at least 1984.
"We should have a candidate who actually appeals to white independent men," Obama pollster Cornell Belcher told me in a recent conversation.
Indeed. White men are so critical in the Democratic race because they are so heavily represented among independents. On Super Tuesday, white women were 35 percent of independents and an equal share of Democrats. White men however were only 24 percent of Democrats. But they were 36 percent of independents. Within the overall electorate, white men are, by at least 5 percentage points, the largest portion of all independent voters. They are the untold swing vote.
White Men, Obama, and the Democratic Past
That Obama has proven more capable of winning white men of late, particularly independents, is germane to the general election ahead. Overwhelmingly, the voters who left the Democratic Party in the past half century are white working and middle class men. The outcome of the 2008 presidential race will depend on whether Democrats can win a portion of these men back.
"The irony is whether its Clinton or Obama, the big swing group in the fall is going to be white independent men," Republican pollster Kellyanne Conway told me. "I wrote a book called What Women Really Want and I'm the first to admit it's going to be about men."
Many political reporters, a good portion of which are white men, have become so accustomed to seeing the world in the constituencies of identity politics that they often fail to identify the constituency that still shapes our politics. And when they do notice white men, reporters all too often get it wrong.
The media only recently began to take note of white men after a front-page story last week in the Wall Street Journal. The article correctly explained that many of these white men left the Democratic Party in the Reagan era. Then it erroneously stated that Bill Clinton "won many of them back to the Democratic Party in 1992."
In fact, Clinton did not. Exit polls actually show that in 1992 Bill Clinton won essentially the same portion of white men as Michael Dukakis in 1988. It was Ross Perot who siphoned off these men, as well as a lesser portion of white women, and undid George H.W. Bush.
History matters because it shapes our conception of the present. Democrats have not competed for white men since Watergate and the Ford-Carter race. But in a year where the Republican Party and its standard bearer remain remarkably unpopular, as a war led by Republicans is out of favor with the public, during a struggling economy stateside, and at the 40-year mark of the Republican majority (no presidential coalition has lasted more than four decades), Democrats have their best opportunity since Carter to regain a majority. Yet that grand Democratic ambition will only be realized by winning more white men.
Not Only a Southern Problem
Before any relationship can be mended the breakup must be properly understood. The bulk of the white men voting in Democratic primaries are not the same white men who migrated from the Democratic Party in the last half century. Those men left Democrats and took a presidential majority with them.
As I discuss my book, The Neglected Voter: White Men and the Democratic Dilemma, with readers I continually run into one common misconception. It was born of a Paul Krugman column. In it he argued that only Southern white men left the Democratic Party. In short, the New Deal coalition collapsed because Democrats lost hick sexist bigots.
Of course bigots left Democrats, but not all of those who left Democrats were bigots. Let's finally put this factoid to rest.
In more detail online, Krugman referenced correspondence with Princeton's Larry Bartels on white men. Bartels wrote: "unless you have a peculiar nostalgia for the racially coercive Democratic monopoly of the Jim Crow era, it makes sense to focus on the rest of the country. There, the Democratic share of the two-party presidential vote among white men was 40% in 1952 and 39% in 2004." Krugman added: "White men didn't turn against the Democrats; Southern white men turned against the Democrats. End of story."
But it was not the end of the story. Soon many of the political left, like Nation editor Katrina Vanden Heuvel, accepted this fiction as fact. Why? It felt right: liberals lost white men for fighting the good fight on civil rights. Therefore, Democrats could feel good about losing. Yet as I have written, even in the South that explanation is simplistic. But the theory that Democrats problem with white men is merely a Southern phenomenon is more problematic.
Bartels uses 1952 as a starting point. That was the first year regional presidential election breakdowns were possible with polling. Yet in 1952 both parties attempted to convince Dwight Eisenhower to be their nominee. And for good reason, as the Republican nominee Ike won every state in the non-south. 1952 was an outlier. Bartels missed the real picture.
In general terms -- no pun intended in Ike's case -- white men were an unusually low share of the Democratic vote in 1952. That year, Republicans nominated a centrist who was the hero of the Second World War. The result was humiliating for liberals. The GOP trounced Democrats by a striking double-digit margin.
The 1960 race is a far more accurate starting point. It was a narrow contest and prior to the modern paradigm shift -- between 1964 and 1972 -- that defines presidential politics to this day. Between 1960 and 2004, Democrats lost 12 percent of the non-Southern white men and 17 percent of white men in the South. For once and for all: the Democratic decline was not merely due to the "Southern Flip." Conventional wisdom is easily born and dies hard in presidential politics.
The Other White Man
The Southern misconception is often used to prove this blowback thesis, epitomized in Matthews' question. That so many continue to explain white men's vote in terms of "resistance" to a woman or a black man -- especially in the framework of the Democratic race -- demonstrates how deep our biases run with the same group said to be most biased.
The Journal article also captured this impulse to assume the worst in white males. One theory floated: because white males are trending toward Obama it proves that they are more sexist than they are racist.
If that speculation holds, why were white men initially with Clinton? Prejudice is, after all, a vice of instinct.
Like all Democrats -- female, male, black, white, brown -- Democratic white men's first instinct was to be with the frontrunner. But unlike white women, as Obama became more widely known, white men had no stake in the symbolism of her candidacy. Therefore, they were more willing to swing to his electoral coffer.
Many of these men casting Democratic ballots today are of the 37 percent of white males who voted for John Kerry in 2004. Yet neither campaign understands exactly how to reach out to them. This is true in part because Democrats have largely ignored white men as a constituency.
But if broad swaths of the population like Hispanics or women are a constituency, surely white men are as well. And a look at the 2004 Election Day exit poll provides a telling lesson for Clinton and Obama.
Those white men who voted for George W. Bush in 2004 said the "issue that mattered most in deciding their vote" was terrorism (35 percent) or moral values (31 percent). Yet among the minority of white men who voted Democratic, only five percent said terrorism and 10 percent said moral values. In other words, Clinton's muddled stance on Iraq and hawkish stance on Iran was wrong for most Democratic white men.
For those Democratic white men, the foremost issue in 2004 was Iraq (26 percent) and economy/jobs (35 percent). Clinton's recent effort to mount a broad economic appeal may prove too late.
Clinton failed to consider white men in her strategy. She is reaping that whirlwind today. It is not, however, that Obama's campaign did study these men. His was a broad appeal, less obsessed with individual groups. He reflected the overall framework of the Democratic mind. Therefore he attracted white men sympathetic to that mind.
Consider when 2004 voters were asked what issue mattered most in deciding whom to support. White men who voted Republican said they supported the candidate who "has clear stands on the issues" (30 percent), is a "strong leader" (31 percent), or is "honest and trustworthy" (18 percent). This is why I emphasize in my book that "grit" is the value underlying all values politics. This is especially true for the white men who Democrats lost.
Meanwhile, of those white men who voted for John Kerry: five percent valued that their candidate was a "strong leader," 10 percent valued most that he had "clear stands on the issues," and nine percent said is "honest and trustworthy." White men, like white women, are not one monolith. Yet in the general election, the patterns shared by all those white men who left Democrats will have to be considered by the political left.
Those white males who supported Kerry most valued the personal qualities of a candidate who "will bring about needed change" (47 percent), is intelligent (17 percent), and "cares about people like me" (13 percent). That "change" ranked so high on the list explains Obama's appeal, at least in part.
Using education level in the Democratic field, as an indicator of class, also sheds more light on what's occurring today. Those white male Democrats without college educations were roughly three times more likely than those who graduated college to value that the candidate who "cares about people like me." In comparison, those who graduated college were roughly three times more likely than those who did not value that the candidate "is intelligent." White male Democrats who graduated college were also three times more likely to say the issue that mattered most was the war in Iraq, where Obama benefited from his early stance against the war. It is no surprise that they would be more sympathetic to Obama today.
Equally, that working class white male Democrats want to believe that the candidate "cares about people like me" certainly explains in part why Clinton has generally held on to their support.
It should also startle few that Obama's strategy to leave behind the cultural politics of the '60s and run a post-racial campaign -- when the burden of America's original sin of slavery and racism has fallen on white men today -- appeals to some independent white men. But in John McCain, any Democrat will find a daunting opponent with white men. He is the embodiment of much they admire.
What we can say, however, is that the 2006-midterm elections proved that white men are open to supporting Democrats, particularly moderates.
It will be this presidential election that tests whether Democrats can turn frustration with Republicans into a new majority. This is why the contest for white men is larger than the Democratic primary. It will not only likely decide the nominee. It may prove a harbinger for who becomes our next president.
David Paul Kuhn, a Politico.com senior political writer, is author of the recently published book, The Neglected Voter: White Men and the Democratic Dilemma.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
The White man's vote can be counted on to mean this: It can't be counted on for what you think it will be!
We are now a minority and the world is lovin' it! We have been marginalized by our own stupidity and liberal giveaways. The party is over for the WMV in America. We will not, as a matter of fact, cannot vote as a block vote. We are in disarray! The most popular and powerful conservative radio hosts in America have told you these facts for over three years. We the (WMV) can still make a difference in conservative vs liberal approaches; however, the black vs white or woman vs man issue is now mute.
The (WMV) crowd of today has in it's numbers the actual seed of victory for the candidate who pays close attention to the following facts: The (WMV) after seeing and experiencing a constant loss of medical benefits from his Corporate partner, Corporate retirement rescue net, and costs of medical benefits will vote for universal medical plans regardless of cost! Why? Because he sees his own children and grandchildren suffer these losses as well! All we want now, the majority of (WMV) is to be able to have medical care for themselves and spouses for 23 more years. We are to the point where we could care less if taxes on gasoline makes the price $8.00 a gallon; cause I want my wife not to suffer in her old age. Who's at fault? All members of Congress who allowed foreign competitors to take our local jobs/industry! Yes $8.00 per gallon and higher! It's the only way we can pay for it!
Pitch this program, mention the corporate take-a-ways in current employment and retirement benefits; and you will take the election by storm. We the "WMV" will now vote for this pitch as long as it's a reasonable, do-able plan that our chldren can have as well.
I'm so tired of listening to all these people whining about how Hillary is being treated unfairly because she's a woman. First, I'm against Hillary because she's part of a Dynasty, period. I wouldn't vote for Clinton again if he was eligable either. Enough is enough.
Secondly, the Republicans do have a point about identity politics being taken to far. Every woe is me I'm going home and taking the football with me argument from white women on this board obsessed with sexism (as opposed to those who support Hillary for reasons beyond her genetalia, which I can respect) can be used just as well by white men (Edwards) hispanics (Richardson) blacks (Obama) ect.
For the democratic party to even nominate someone besides a white man is a risk. But just like crabs in a barrell, I suppose the Republicans are going to get a chance to prove that really only a white man can run the country because of this.
Either way, It's vaugely amusing. I'm an independent, but for Obama. But it I do question whether or not democrats will be able to get over the pull of gender and racial politics. After all, if Clinton comes out on top, it will be amusing to watch all the hillaristas explain to the blacks, youth and college educated why they shouldn't take their ball a go home.
Let alone the day a hispanic might get a chance. What, can we now expect that the black vote in the primary is going to automatically go to the other guy if Richardson runs in 2012 or 2016?
It's getting ridiculous. And if McCain does get into the whitehouse this year, it'll be mostly because it'll have shown that there's just too many little identity groups who'd rather there be no 'first' than the other folks get their 'first, first'. Quite telling.
Reminds me of the life of Brian. You guys should watch that movie. Where basically the Jews couldn't kick the Romans out because the only thing they hated more than the idea of roman (White Male?) rule was the idea that another faction of Jews (Blacks, Women, Hispanics?) would get the credit for kicking them out.
Republicans maybe won't look so bad in a couple of months after all...
As a part white, part black, inuit ,giant midget, Southerner from the northwest, fish monger, and hermaphrodite I protest all this categorizing and stereotyping! You racist sexist blogest!
How about considering that white men just don't vote as a bloc? You infer that blacks vote as a bloc and women vote as a bloc and one age or another votes as a bloc but it doesn't necessarily mean that white men vote as a bloc, for what it's worth I tend to believe white men think for themselves. The exception might be the Hollywood version of men but they are kind of different than men men, they are more into sensitivity, think Alan Alda here. Hillary Clinton will find no constituency in white men, most of us don't want to hear that shrill fishwife voice and nasty cackle for a news hour, much less the length of a presidential term. We don't want Bill Clinton back in the White House but we have a measure of sympathy for him, he has to be at an historic level for being henpecked.
By the way, I am an Asian woman who wrote this earlier -
Obama - lover of wisdom - goes by what is right and true
McCain - lover of honor - goes by loyalty to his party but not always what's essentially right or true
Clinton - lover of gain - goes by whatever and at all cost as long as it secures her personal gain
Congratulations, white males! You have proven to be more truthful - intelligent, logical, caring, and courageous.
(And here's to Harvard - Summers had his point!)
In fact, whoever goes for what's right and true should be considered as more intelligent, logical, caring, and courageous.
"The truth is not for all men, but only for those who seek it."
"Plato is dear to me, but dearer still is truth."
"Without truth, I know not how man can live."
"McCain - lover of honor - goes by loyalty to his party but not always what's essentially right or true"
You need to read up on McCain. He has been (and continues to be) vilified by the his party because of the numous times he's crossed the aisle and cut a deal with his Democratic Party colleagues.
That was then; this is now. McCain has been known as the "maverick" for often siding against his party. But McCain has become a different man during this election cycle. For example, he spoke out against torture at the beginning of the campaign; but once he realized that his arguments against torture could lose the support of conservative Republicans, he changed his tone. From this perspective, user168 is correct: he is loyal to his party but not always what's essentially right or true. Based on his recent transformation, from maverick to marionette, I can only conclude that McCain is willing to sacrifice his principles for politics, and much like Hillary, will do or say anything to win this election by any means necessary, which is something he wants more than anything, even more than what is essentially right or true.
He may be willing to cut deals with Democrats, that hardly makes him a liberal or even a moderate. His political views are still far to the right of center and anyone who thinks otherwise is delusional. He's a maverick only in his own mind.
WHITE MEN---BLACK MEN DO WHAT THEY ALWAYS DO. SUPPORT MEN.
WHAT IS DISAPPOINTING IS THAT WOMEN DON'T SUPPORT WOMEN AS EQUALLY.
iin 1869, when Congress offered up the Fifteenth Amendment giving only Black men the vote, AND betrayed women. AND , women had to wait another fifty years and some thought it was okay. That betrayal caused a split in the suffrage movement which is mirrored in today’s race vs. gender situation in the Democratic Party and in our current women’s movement.
If not for ourselves as women then whom are we for? If not us, who? If not now, when?
Recently, a famous TV personality declared that the United States owed more to Black men than it did to women
In this year's Democratic primaries the average turnout is between 55 and 60 percent female. What is the complaint here? Would say that women should support someone simply because the candidate is a woman, irregardless? Phooey on that. Our Democracy is better than you think.
janmB is this a plant, because your logic is ridiculous".... a famous TV personality declared that the United States owed more to black men than it did women???" I'm sure that neither candidate thinks that they are OWED anything based on their race OR their gender. As a woman of color I can tell you there is much progress to be made on both front in terms of race and gender, but you do not make progress by oppressing others and that's exactly what your statements are doing. "White Men-Black Men do what they always do. Support Men?" I guess only women elected Hillary to Senate. The logic on this website is so ridiculous, I'm done with it.
Why not vote for whomever you think is best qualified? Just looking at race or gender is it racist and sexist.
Americans want to be saved--not to have to make even uncomplex, political choices. Accordingly, "identity politics" provides a very "DUMBED-DOWN" screed. Those unfamiliar with "the issues" should probably just stay home on polling day!
So, let's see here...
If a WOMAN was going to be the Republican candidate, and took all the positions that McCain is taking, you would voter for HER over a MAN running as the Democratic candidate who took all the positions that HRC is taking, right?
I forgot the end of the last sentence:
...if truly QUALIFIED (albeit "less interesting") candidates were in the forefront....Just MHO.
Speaking of white men, as much as I think it's past due time for a woman and/or a black POTUS, this time around the BEST candidates were CLEARLY a couple of middle-aged white guys: JOE BIDEN and Chris Dodd.
If you doubt that, just check out the video at CFR.org and you'll see why we CAN'T let the media or anyone else ever again force us into the arms of candidates that aren't the absolute best available... The kind of bullshit that is passing for news coverage/journalism wouldn't be tolerated (and probably wouldn't be as possible, for that matter).
The media(??) invented the catchphrase "identity politics," and then MADE it work!
Well, Senator Clinton's campaign just released a $35M fund raise for February. Poor management ya think? Time to max the Visa, mortgage the house, sell the dog, and raise more funds for Obama. Dig deeper all -- meanwhile toss some bucks into the economy too.
Obama - lover of wisdom - goes by what is right
McCain - lover of honor - goes by loyalty to his party but not what's essentially right
Clinton - lover of gain - goes by whatever and at all cost as long as it secures personal gain
Congratulations, white males! You have proven to be more truthful - intelligent, logical, caring, and courageous. (And here's to Harvard - Summers had his point!)
First I would like to state that I am a women but Angry white women have replaced the Angry black and white men. There is nothing more bitter than an angry white women.
Hi Irie. It takes courage on your part to step up and make this comment. I do agree with you though. I am a male and am not against the idea of a woman for president. Just not turned on by a bitchy angry Hillary. Right on with your comment.
List the 100 most notable accomplishments in the last 100 years, and the persons responsible. Sorry male hate mongers, but what you'll end up with is a long list of white males.
Take the nobel for DNA as an example - Watson, Crick... and that woman who was vital in the discovery but didn't get the prize. What's her name again? Rosiland Franklin, i believe. Your list is like listing most notable accomplishments in Germany between '39 and '45. Look, no Jews! All your list proves is that men hold the leavers of power. Well d'uh.
And the one greatest accomplishment since the outset of civilization is..... drumroll.......
Mothers who gave birth the great men and women.
"The hand the rocks the cradle rules the world."
Take note to remember this when you call your mother and tell her that you love her.
Men are voting against Hillary, because they're more easily fooled and manipulated. That's why we ended up with Bush. It was men's fault. Maybe men should be banned from voting.
I guess white women that voted for bush are just as foolish and easily manipulated. Like I said in my previous post there's some real hatred of men going on here.
And women were behind Prohibition getting passed to "Save Our Families". We all know how great a success that was.
Maybe women should be banned from organizing politically. Makes as much sense as what you suggested.
It's a fact that more women voted for Gore and Kerry than men did. Most of congress were men, who passed prohibition. Why.....because they were manipulated!
And what about all the white men who have voted for HRC, including me, twice? I deeply resent the reflexive attribution of any vote made by some who happens to be male as being done out of "resistance" to either Blacks or women. It's absurd, and that point of view is itself no less racist and sexist than what white men are accused of in this sort of blanket statement.
And many white women won't vote for Obama. So are they sexist or racist? It must be one or the other, right? That's how white men are being characterized if the dare to vote for someone other than Clinton .
I voted for Obama iin the primary because Clinton voted to let Bush start his war, and then continued to support Bush's war. Same goes for my wife. That does not make me, or my wife, sexist.
I'm a white man that makes a great living in the service industry, I'm married, and I go to church every week. I own my own business, and I own rental properties. I was the first in my family to go to college, and I'm living the "self-made" dream. In other words, I'm at least statistically a Republican.
The reason that I don't like Hillary is that I just don't LIKE her. She is the epitome of what I do not like about the Democratic party and I never have. She says that she has finally found her 'voice', but that voice has changed so many times, you just don't know what you'll get anymore. Consistency is critical for world leaders, and she just doesn't pass my test.
Which leaves me a choice between Obama and McCain.
I am swayed by Barack's speeches, but I have actually done my homework as well. I've looked on the library of Congress' website, and I've seen that he passes meaninful legislation with bipartisan cooperation. If you have not, please read Mr. Obama's article in Foreign Affairs here: http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20070701faessay86401-p40/barack-obama/renewing-american-leadership.html
I think that David Kuhn has it right - white male voters like "grit" over "whineyness" and "entitlement". I also feel that Barack has a bit of a Hawk in him somewhere - calling to raise the troop levels in the military by over 50,000, while simultaneously defending his position that the war in Iraq was unjust and misplaced.
I am also sick of Bush's handouts and subsidies to the most wealthy. As a small business owner, I am keenly aware that small businesses need more tax breaks than large ones if we are to spur economic development at a grassroots level.
While McCain has more 'grit' than anybody could possibly be asked to have, and has shown his devotion to his country, I feel he operated in the politics of the past, and that perhaps it is best if we move on.
Just like I moved on from the Republican Party. Now I'm a delegate for Mr. Obama in Washington State.
What made me switch parties and back Mr. Obama? His character. I can see character in McCain, and I just think it's not a good match. Hillary has moved from character to caricature.
"I think that David Kuhn has it right - white male voters like "grit" over "whineyness" and "entitlement". I also feel that Barack has a bit of a Hawk in him somewhere - calling to raise the troop levels in the military by over 50,000, while simultaneously defending his position that the war in Iraq was unjust and misplaced."
That "Hawk" you see may prove troubling. Afterall, many support troop withdrawal and wish to end the Iraq war. Can't have it both ways -- then again, if Obama plays this route, then he's become the centrist or moderate as suspected. And is this such a bad thing? A peaceful dove morphing into a hawk?
I don't think being a bit hawkish is bad. He says that the war in Iraq is stupid (my comment not his), but that we need to bolster our military to be ready. He's also said that any other foreign "wars" would be waged with the support of the UN, EU, NATO, etc., and that it would be cause-based and not fear-based like Iraq.
Perhaps we have a presidential candidate who is willing to engage the military and step in during times of trouble in place that are not oil-producing? I know that if ANYONE had given a damn about Sudan, Rwanda, etc., etc., Having the US Military invade a soverign nation to stop genocide would be welcomed by the world. The problem is that no world-power leader has to date cared about anything other than war as a profit-making tool, and hasn't wanted to risk American blood in a country that is killing it's own people unless there is ulterior motive.
Personally, I think that George W Bush would have been supported and welcomed by the world if he wanted to invade Iraq primarily because Sadam had killed 400,000 of his own countrymen in an effort to "cleanse" the country from Kurds, and that he could not let it continue. Instead, we invaded for stupid reasons without the backing and faith of the world: something that Mr. Obama is not likely to do, even if he does want to reinforce our military readyness.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
