Rethinking the American Electorate after an Obama Victory
We are on the cusp of a very special moment in the US. Barring extremely unusual or dramatically unforeseen circumstances, we are less than two weeks away from a great day for the United States as we definitively close the book on the dishonesty, incompetence, belligerence and ignorance which has characterized the Bush administration. Election Day will not just mean the end of almost a decade of dysfunctional Republican governance, but will also show that Americans are ready and anxious for progressive and thoughtful leadership.
November 4th will also be a great day for democracy as millions of people will join together and through the simple act of voting change their country and the world unequivocally and for the better. The world has rarely seen the people of any democracy rise up peacefully and send such a clear message. All those who don't believe that democracy can work or that voters are only driven by their baser instincts will have to wrestle with the message the people of our country will send on Election Day.
It ain't, as the famous American philosopher Lawrence Berra would say, over until its over, but if I may continue the baseball allusion, we are now up by a few runs with one out in the 9th and have Mariano Rivera on the mound. I recognize that, even the great Rivera blows a save every now and then and than in order to ensure victory we all have to continue to work, volunteer and, of course, vote, but having said that, I am going to address some of the often overlooked issues which an Obama victory would raise.
One of the great things about an Obama victory is that it will force a lot of people to rethink a lot of things. People outside the US who have bought into the appealingly reductive anti-Americanism rhetoric of recent years, will have to rethink some of their basic assumptions about our country. This will be particularly true among those on the European left who may want to stop and ask themselves what it tells them about the US, and their own countries, that somebody like Barack Obama will be our leader. Others in Europe and elsewhere who perhaps pay less attention to the US will have to rethink their view of the US as a conservative country which likes to elect cowboys and bubbas, as we have in recent years.
Right wingers in the US will have to revisit their assumptions about the inherent racism and conservatism of the American people as well as the power of wedge issues to divide people and lead them to vote on their fears. Emphasizing bizarre issues such as Obama's acquaintance with Bill Ayers, or calling Obama a socialist because of his notion that tax policy should not simply redistribute wealth upwards, failed to influence more than a few voter this time. This should suggest to the operatives of the right wing that they their cynical understanding of America can be trumped by a more affirming and progressive sentiment in the electorate.
It is, however, the American left which will have to do the most intriguing and challenging rethinking of basic assumptions when Obama wins. For years now a central piece of the progressive worldview is that progressives are enlightened Americans in a sea of their ignorant, bigoted and narrow-minded compatriots. If you don't believe my assertion, see how many times in the comments section of a progressive blog, Americans voters are referred to as ignorant or uninformed, or eavesdrop at any progressive coffee shop or other hangout. Opposition to progressive causes is often explained away by saying that Americans are bigots, or somehow stupid. This demonstrates an ugly contempt for voters, and in fact for democracy, that should have no place in progressive politics.
Nonetheless, this feeling of specialness is a central part of progressive identity for many. For example, the tone often used to express disbelief that Obama could win, particularly early in this campaign, was often a mixture of anger with racism and a sense of self-righteousness from the speaker for being above that racism.
November 4th will almost certainly show these beliefs to be the nonsense that they are. After November 4th, whenever somebody belittles the intelligence or tolerance of the American voter the proper response will be "What about when we elected Barack Obama?" I hope for many this will be understood to be a sign that American voters can be more progressive, enlightened and thoughtful than had previously been believed. Obama will win because willingness to vote for somebody who looks different, and whose name sounds unusual, simply because he is the best candidate, is no longer the province of elites or an educated minority. This may cause progressives to rethink much of what they thought they knew about America, but it seems a small price to pay for an Obama presidency.
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 dems do indeed look to achieve a great victory this Nov 4. But I beg to differ with some of your conclusions. This victory will be in no way an indication of a great rise in the intelligence level of the average American voter. The time is ripe for a dem takeover given the immense failures of Bush & co, and let's face it, McCain/Palin are completely outclassed by Obama/Biden.
What this does is give us time. Time to inject some sanity into our health care system, repair our broken economy & infrastructure, mend our relationships abroad, improve education, fight corruption, and take steps to avert potential global environmental catastrophe (among others). If the dems don't deliver, if they don't put forth exceptional candidates, if they forget how to fight the hard fight and win.. this victory won't last. Let's see that it does.
well-stated. Much of Obama's attraction is McCain's affiliation with the failed policies and arrogance of GWB. It appears that the Dems will win a "filibuster-proof" Senate majority in the Senate as well. Its either an opportunity or their death knell.
The Dems (OK WE Dems) are going for a scorched earth win . If they do get a clear majority, they will then have to prove that they are bigger souls than any partisan has been in the last 35 years. They will have to show that they can reach across the aisle and be better than what they are replacing, not just the other version. They will have to celebrate and not gloat because the issues are far too serious for more of that kind of silliness.
You saw the real "Right" when Michele Bachmann, a female congresswoman from Minnosota, state on national TV, that reporters should do exposeses on all those "Anti-American" liberal democrats in congress! When i was listening to her I heard McCarthy roll in his grave!
Make to bones about it - the right really, really believe, that the left and democrat really mean anti-american and communist! There are really 2 Americas and the one on right is really really ugly!
And even if Obama wins, that ugly America will still be there in the future. They will simmer in their irrational anger, and reappear again, sometime in the future, even more full of rage and hate. They will not stop until they bring this whole American expriment toppling down on everyones head.
There are ALWAYS a few radical and sometimes destructive points of view on both sides. They should be diminished by the middle opinion , but sometimes they are deliberately echoed and encouraged for political and monetary gain. People like ann coulter, bill oreiley and rush limbaugh have made millions from repeating this vitriol and spite. mccain's campaign has used these messages continuously till this tactic blew up in his face at a recent rally. The one common thread is civility; either you have it or you are an ape.
"spite"? You mean how the mostly liberal news has been all over Palin? They give that women NO RESPECT even though she is the most popular GOVERNOR in America. She is a Governor and is more successful than her critics. I feel like the news media try to brainwash people. You are complaining about 3 people?????
"we are now up by a few runs with one out in the 9th and have Mariano Rivera on the mound."
Ouch - I would like this metaphor a lot more if McCain wasn't from Arizona (see: 2001 World Series).
See Lincoln Mitchell's Profile
I agree and I realized that as I wrote it...but, Rivera won't blow it again.
If Obama was only a tiny fraction less wonderful than he is (organisationally, verbal ability, demeanour, and yes, even appearance) I fear McCain would win. I truly hope that the U.S. is about to make the right decision. And I hope the numbers are overwhelming. Otherwise.....well......there won't have been a sea change....just a lot of older conservative people died in the last so many years. It is demographics, not sudden enlightenment.
What you write is only true if Obama wins by a LANDSLIDE. And what constitutes a landslide? He can carry 40 states with only 60% of the popular vote. That still means that 40% of voters fit all those negative characterizations. And how many of the enlightened 60% would still have voted for McCain without the economic meltdown? Obama is an excellent campaigner and he has been very lucky.
"cowboys and bubbas"
How could you put Bill Clinton and W together in a sentence like that? Bill Clinton is highly intelligent--a Rhodes Scholar--and was a great president. George Bush is nothing but an ignorant, fake cowboy and the worst president this country has ever had.
With regard to the theme of your post--YES! I can't wait to say President Obama. I can't wait for this Bush/repugnican nightmare to be over.
Not saying that Clinton wasn't better than his successor, but before you canonize him, check out a few of the things he let slide during his term. In the last couple months, he pretty much abandoned responsibility for any number of things, news of which was given a pass by MSM. Like CAFE standards, for instance.
optimism is great and important here I agree, but the landslide it's true is needed or the electoral college is still at the crux of the win and the reason people have doubts....it's not necessarily a mandate otherwise....thus, although we "liberals" who criticize not only the voting populace, but more fairly the system overall will have to rethink it's true how we position our feelings, but not until the mess that our democratic system has become is truly cleaned up. Obama is the start, and if he wins, the beginning of a long hard stretch of work to take our country to the brilliance it truly deserves.
My post doesn't really answer anyone else's post, because my situation is so DIFFERENT! I am "more Black" than Obama, yet I LOOK White. I am the lightest in my family.
I see BOTH sides. I have had the dubious distinction of being called both the "N-Word" and "WH---TR".
I KNOW that if Obama gets elected president, it will improve our image in the world. After all, MOST of the Earth's population is non-Caucasian, or at least of a darker hue.
I hope that there will NOT be any violence as a result. It should be an educational experience for all.
Very thought provoking. I am one of those who often denigrate the right wing as ignorant or uninformed, but I"m equally guilty of feeling the same about many in the knee jerk left wing. I myself am a McGovern liberal and have always been proud of it.
Most people are ill informed regarding the issues. Either candidate or his running mate makes a comment daily which is immediately misinterpreted and repeated and "analyzed" ad nauseum. For example, Obama's "spread the wealth" comment, Palin's "pro-America" comment, Biden's "new president will be tested" comment, and McCain's " in Iraq for 100 years" comment. All of these were immediately twisted and misconsrtued out of context as soon as they were uttered. Of course if the remark is not controversial, there is no story. It takes a lot of stories to fill a 24 hour news cycle and to provide adequate fodder for a million blogs.
However, I'm not complaining. I have long argued that one of the things that makes American politics so interesting is that an ignorant voter's vote counts the same as mine. The American electorate is like the old theory of a thousand monkeys at a thousand typewriters -- eventually one is bound to type the works of Shakespeare. Eventually the electorate is bound to elect a great president. We've had a few. With luck we'll get another one.
Ditto to terryh46's comments, despite the fact that I fear overconfidence today can find us disappointed on November 5, 2008.
I've never bought into the monkey analogy. I understand the statistical point, but really don't believe that even if you had a million monkeys on a million typewriters for a million years one would eventually write a Shakespearian sonnet. You might get some legible words scattered about, but to think that random key punching would stumble on to genius is a little far fetched. Now if those monkeys kept evolving intellectually as they typed...
IT IS AMAZING WHY THESE LIBERALS WOULD CARE WHAT THE WORLD THINKS OF THEM. EUROPE WILL SOON SEE THE PRICE OF ITS LIBERALISM. YOU THINK THE BOMBINGS IN IRAQ ARE DREDFUL. IRAQ WILL BE CHILDS PLAY CONPARED TO WHATS GOING TO HAPPEN IN EUROPE BECAUSE OF THEIR LIBERAL POLICIES AND UNFORTUNELY AMERICA WILL SOON WILL FOLLOW IF OBAMA BECOMES PRESIDENT. I WILL PRAY FOR HIM AND AMERICA FOR NEXT FOUR YEARS.
"If by a "Liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people — their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties — someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say I'm a "Liberal."
THANK YOU, John F. Kennedy (1960)
Any problem with this, ANGEL53545 ?
Sorry MoniqueF, Angel53545 can't hear you for all the yelling.
Monique F. John F Kennedy was not a liberal, he was a conservative democrat. Thats what made him so great.
Liberals, almost by definition, concern themselves with others' welfare. Republicans, on the other hand, focus only on their own. Enough is never enough. They must have more and more, regardless of who suffers because of their greed. There is so fundamental a difference between these two extremes that I frankly see no hope of "reconciliation" -- unless, of course, Republicans' pocketbooks do suffer. Then they'll be for such reform as will restore their level of monetary comfort. I will never forget a live debate I witnessed years ago between Mr. Conservative himself, Barry Goldwater, and that grand old man of Socialism, Normal Thomas. The topic was welfare for the needy. Goldwater, relying heavily on the old Puritan ethic in this country, asserted that it was demeaning for people to get money for which they had not worked. Thomas, in rebuttal, said, "I've never noticed that inherited money is demeaning." Goldwater turned a deep shade of red, having, of course, inherited his fortune. Most of the people who are filthy rich in this country never did a day's hard work in their lives. So shut the f---k up about the "injustice" of having the wealthy share the spoils of their plunder (or inheritance) with the less fortunate. It simply won't wash.
priceless debate quote......thank you.......
Wow, that blows my mind! I had respected Warren Buffet's thoughts about inherited wealth (he plans to donate the bulk of his massive wealth). But this quote is such a great, succinct rebuttal to those crazies who rail against "welfare checks."
Thanks for the extremely topical flashback; very well done indeed (and all too true of course). I have always liked Goldwater though because he is the kind of man that WOULD blush at that point. He was a genuine person and a thoughtful conservative. If the republican party were filled with the likes of him, our choice in this election might not be so obvious, but then again bush would never have been our president either.
Marm, Communist Russia had the same ideas that you do. They took away from the rich. Unfortunately it didn't help the poor.
The biggest problem we face today is two candidates that most people I know don't like. I, like almost everyone I know was facing a dilemma, should I vote for the lesser of two evils, the most likely to win, or vote my conscience. When the VP candidates were announced, then I chose to vote for a major party candidate with the knowledge that the VP could carry the torch of reason and common sense. Our only hope is that the day of Lincoln can happen again. Lincoln was a third party candidate. We have two parties that have drifted far away from what they once were, it's time that the people have a candidate that wants what the people want and has a chance of winning. It won't happen this cycle, but my hope is that soon we will have a party that really has the welfare of the whole US population as their priority, not the party machine, not their financial givers, but real people.
Thank you, thank you, THANK YOU for this comment! Am so very glad to hear someone else say this. Given a feasible choice, I'd vote third-party, because neither leading party candidate is who I want to see in office. Am currently being raked over the coals by friends because I don't want to vote for someone I genuinely would not prefer to see in office. At this point, however, I'm scared enough by Palin to vote for Obama. Palin's selection as VP is the only thing that's forced me toward the Obama camp. Otherwise, I'd have voted third-party, rather than settle for the lesser of evils.
It's funny how we see things so differently, Palin doesn't seem as bad to me as Joe Biden. Go figure. No wonder we have such difficulties in this country. None of us think inside the same box.
Bernanke has endorsed Obama. Powell has endorsed Obama. Economics and defense. What else do you want? He is competent as George W. Bush was not and never wlll be, ditto Sarah Palin. Over and above all else, the man still has a conscience and a genuine concern for the welfare of us all. Republicans have never cared for anyone but themselves and the rich, not, at least, in the last century. To suggest that the rest of the world envies us our standard of living is to ignore the fact that there are other criteria for judging our reputation, which is not good by any stretch of the imagination. Al Qaida does not want to be like us. Osama bin Laden is, after all, pretty goddamned well heeled. He doesn't begrudge us our money. He hates the fact that we're occupying land he regards as sacred (just as Israel regards its territory as "holy land"), and all he asks is that we get the hell off it. Our moral standards are anathema to him, and he doesn't want Western culture corrupting what he believes is a higher Moslem one. Whether he's right or not is irrelevant. But don't mistake his motives. That's dishonest and, in the long run, counterproductive.
marm, you've written to well informed posts. Thanks. It is refreshing to read them.
Thank you, Lincoln Mitchell. You just made my day brighter!!
It is truly time to turn away from bitterness, negativity, and supercilious yet glum resignation to the hopeless idiocy of "everyone but us." I have heard this stuff from left, right, Dem, Repub, rich, poor, drunk, sober, educated, illiterate.......it is time to become again the UNITED people of the UNITED States of America.
What captivated my imagination about Obama was when he insisted from the very beginning that it would be impossible for him to bring about the change we need if he had to do it alone. He is ready to lead, but only those who are willing to look around at our homeland, crack open a chunk of ugly, and dig in to work hard to make it better for us AND them. (No, it doesn't matter which group we count ourselves in, or what group we consider to be "the other.")
Thank you for sounding the call again to see that there is work to be done, and we truly do need to all pull together, or sink in our separations.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
