As is the case with the vast majority of modern Democrats Senator Obama is counting on the vote of racial minorities to get himself elected. He does this in the tried and true manner of a telling these voters that they need him to lift them out of their underprivileged position and that he will provide them with government handouts to do so. Because of this, he cannot truly address race as a candidate of unity.
The opinion page of the Wall Street Journal for August 28, 2008 headlined a piece by Juan Williams, a respected figure in the world of political reporting and analysis. The piece was entitled “Obama Needs to Take a Stand on Race and Other Issues.” I agree with Mr. Williams that it would be great if Senator Obama did so, however this is asking the impossible. Senator Obama cannot do so without shattering the image he has so carefully crafted from day one of his political ambitions; an image that exists because virtually no one is willing to look behind it to see the real man; a man who is not interested in the vast majority of what he speaks about. In short a man who is seeking personal power and prestige for its own sake, and who would throw the entire nation “under the bus” to get it.
In the middle of the first column appears a squib in large type: “The senator has been too evasive for us to judge the content of his character.” This is largely correct. Senator Obama does not want us to judge the content of his character because if we did so we would discern the truth; that he is just another corrupt politician from Chicago who will do anything to get what he wants; a man with excellent achievements in the college classroom, but little or nothing else. However, this has not stunted his ego. Unlike the Mayors Daley, Chicago isn’t big enough for him; he needs not only the whole state of Illinois and every other state as well to satisfy his ego.
But more to the point, as is the case with the vast majority of modern Democrats he is counting on the vote of racial minorities to get himself elected. He does this in the tried and true manner of a telling these voters that they need him to lift them out of their underprivileged position and that he will provide them with government handouts to do so. All the while he knows that this will breed more dependence on handouts for the next generation of candidates; dependence they will use as bait for more votes from people who have not yet realized that they have enslaved themselves to a political party that sees them only as a tool to stay in office; a captive electorate that votes for them as if there was no choice.
Juan Williams addresses two of the issues squarely: Failing public schools and “Affirmative Action” that is irrelevant to minorities who achieve, but which has failed to eliminate the 25% poverty rate in the Black population. But if the schools weren’t failing then it would eliminate the inner city islands of poverty that Senator Obama and others like him depend on for votes. Further, to do so would require taking on the teacher’s unions whose management cares little for the students and more about the power their unholy alliance with a political party has created. While 90% of the teachers probably do care about their students, those teacher’s sensibilities can be damned where political power is concerned.
As for the poverty level, again, the unspoken liberal viewpoint is that they need to maintain it in order to maintain their power base. Otherwise, armed with the knowledge that they can take matters into their own hands, these “urban poor” might rise up, engage in hard work, learn what it takes to be successful, and horror of horrors, discover that it isn’t found in the pages of a government handout program.
Senator Obama is caught in a dilemma. He can either call out African-American and Liberal politicians for their failings to truly address issues that they should, or he can pursue his own desire for political power. If he speaks the truth he will forfeit the backing of liberal politics. He will also likely lose the backing of the African-American power structure that feeds on its own while claiming that it seeks to liberate them. He can tell the members of the inner city culture that they are their own worst enemies when they depend on government handouts instead of on their own abilities, or he can be elected to office.
For one so wedded to a desire for personal power, there is only one choice and Mr. Obama will take it. He will hide his involvement in corrupt Chicago politics as much as possible. He will pose as the candidate of racial unity, all the while knowing that in order for him to be elected he must continue the policies of disunity symbolized by Jeremiah Wright.
A related concept that Juan Williams and others have mentioned on many occasions is “racial justice;” something that is supposed to figure prominently in this election. However justice does not demand that someone be given something they have not earned. Rather, it demands that people be given their proper due. As Patrick Buchanan put it, “No candidate has ever been nominated by a major party with fewer credentials or a weaker claim to the presidency…” I rarely agree with Buchanan. Here I must. Hilary Clinton was right when she said that Obama only had a speech he made in 2002. Racial justice and justice in and of itself demands that the first Black President of the United States be someone who has truly distinguished himself and has the knowledge, experience and capability to be Commander in Chief. It is not enough to say that it would be good for our children to see an African-American in the office of president. We must show them that he has earned the job and that he is capable of doing it once he is elected. Otherwise we risk teaching them that having a particular ancestry or skin color entitles them to preferences. Finally, racial justice, or any other concept of justice will not be served by putting a man in the oval office that will fail miserably in the job and make America a laughing stock or worse.
slaib@intellectualconservative.com
http://intellectualconservative.com
Read more articles by Steven D. Laib
"he is counting on the vote of racial minorities to get himself elected."
I don't disagree, but this is just a silly concept if you know any thing about mathematics. I suppose it could work in a place like Italy, or Israel, with multi-party systems where 30% wins and then you form a coalition with others to make a shaky government. However, here in the USA where every state is a "winner take all", getting 100% of the black vote is meaningless. Even Lenin learned that in 1905 when he appealed only to the industrial workers and lost. In 1917, he sought the support of the farmers with the hammer and sickle approach and won. But that makes me think of the question; What is the symbol of Obama’s campaign? Certainly not the hammer or sickle. Maybe it is the Food Stamp.
Comment by Ivan Ivanovich | September 3, 2008
Ivan Ivanovich:
"…here in the USA where every state is a 'winner take all', getting 100% of the black vote is meaningless."
You are forgetting that in a closely divided electorate, the loss of any voting bloc can spell doom for a candidate. All it takes to win a whole state is one vote more than your opponent. You don’t actually have to get everyone to vote for you in order to take all. In the current climate, blacks vote overwhelming for Democrats, and elections are won by a small percentage; the margin is much smaller than most ethnic groups. Suppose Hillary had won the nomination, and the majority of blacks boycotted the election in protest. Since the potential margin is small, it wouldn’t take many black boycotters to give the election to McCain.
Comment by sedonaman | September 4, 2008
Maybe I wasn't clear, but I think you are confirming my assertion. George Bush got 11% of the black vote. If McCain gets 1% of the black vote then he has lost 10% of 12% or 1.2% of the total. True, it’s not an insignificant number, but it can easily be made up by taking 1.0% of the remaining 88%. So a 10% lost among blacks is equal to a 1% gain among other voters. In 1972 Nixon took 60.7% of the popular vote and 97% of the electoral vote.
Of course, we will see in November how it all comes out, but I think the banning of the “N” word will be suspended in the minds of many of those 88% when the curtain closes on November 4th. It’s unfortunate, but OHB is not Nelson Mandela, who was imprisoned like John McCain, and the association with his pastor, a convicted real estate developer, and Weatherman terrorist don’t instill confidence in his motives. Nor is he a Dr. Heathcliff Huxtable who mixed “acting white” with a little jive and a lot of humor, to show the world what “Yes We Can!” means. Maybe that would be a good question to ask Mr. Obama. Do you see yourself more as a Cliff Huxtable or a Snoop Dog?
Comment by Ivan Ivanovich | September 4, 2008