Hopefully, the Rev. Wright sensationalism is behind us now. I think the media has squeezed every drop of rhetoric and doubt out of this “tidal wave”. Based on the latest polls, it's apparent that most of it has evaporated from the conscience of America - dismissed as political gamesmanship and fodder to keep ratings high. Unfortunately, even though the tidal wave has dried up, it has left some residue, a light dusting that’s akin to a "hint of this" or "pinch of that"-it's hard to describe it when you taste it, but you know something is in there.
Wright Turn
Earlier in the week, Larry King had a panel on to discuss (surprise) Obama's comments about Wright's "performance" at the National Press Club. One of the commentators was Jamal Simmons, who had a very insightful observation about Obama's relationship with Wright, and his need to repudiate this association going forward. His quote was simply, "I think what we are witnessing as a country right now is .....the very grisly process of a generation or mindset focused on past grievance that now has to pass the baton to a mindset that's focused on future performance. And so by watching this process, it's heart-rending. And it's sad to see a man have to walk away from someone who's so important in his life. But, clearly, Jeremiah Wright gave Barack Obama no option."
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0804/29/lkl.01.html
So, why does the conservative media in general have such a disbelief in the idea that Obama doesn't share Wright's views? Why do they try to dismiss Obama's repudiation as simple political expediency? Why do they try to protract Wright's words to the entire congregation - or to the Black Church as a monolith? My opinion is you simply have to look at their basis for comparison.
Black folks have a curious aptitude for being skeptical just enough in certain matters such to not be herded blindly by a single "shepherd". That's why you never hear of a mass suicide of Blacks, or a mass homicide of Blacks, or any event of broad tragedy with Blacks where the people involved have a choice of whether to follow a single person. That same volition allows Blacks to independently evaluate the Church (which is really the faith community/body created and supported by it's members collectively), and keep that separate from the leader. Religiously speaking, when you put all of your faith, efforts, and trust in a single man, you usually don't get a good outcome. Lest we forget David Koresh (Branch Davidians), Jim Jones (People's Temple), or Warren Jeffs (Fundamentalist Latter Day Saints)? Just a few contemporary examples of when the religious "flock" follows blindly. And these examples have several common traits, but the ones that stand-out most to me are: a charismatic leader; very strong unorthodox ideas; and an overwhelmingly majority of White followers. Black people generally don't operate like that. They can see the pastor for what he his - a mortal man who has been called to preach the gospel and bring people to Christ, despite his flaws, sins, and shortcomings. Who was the last Black cult leader you ever heard of? And Bishop Don “Magic” Juan doesn’t count! My point is it's easy for Black folk to understand how someone could go to the same church for 20+ years, but dislikes or rarely agrees with the pastor. That's the usually how it happens anyway. But White folks seem to be more "committed" to their spiritual leadership - and then they usually end up on the news with some crazy fanatical episode.
Gas Tax Holiday - The Pander-fest
Obama has taken the right stance on this issue, but sadly he's not capitalizing on this position. Why? He has pointed out this silly proposal won't work because gas is 100% subject to the laws of supply:demand. He previously supported a similar tax relief program in Illinois in the '90's when gas was much cheaper and the national economy was strong. The initiative failed to deliver any expected benefits for these same reasons. But Obama will lose this argument if he sticks with "it doesn't make economic or political sense." He needs to use his past experience to illustrate how his judgment is better than either opponents'. He needs commercials that say he will not lead America down a path that he knows is a dead end. He could show America that he has taken this risk, and knows well the implications. But he also needs to either say that the gas tax idea is baseless pandering and doesn't warrant an alternative idea, or he needs to provide a compelling, contrasting solution. Shooting down the McCain/Clinton proposal without offering a viable alternative is dismissive to the people who might still idealistically support the proposal for the symbolic satisfaction it brings. Again, some Americans will ask the question, "Does Obama really understand my situation?"
Super Delegates - short term vs. long term vision
The math says that these Democratic Party Leaders will most likely decide who gets the nomination. Superdelegates are given a lot of latitude because they are supposed to be independent thinkers, concerned with the best interests of the Democratic Party, and ultimately the American people. So the judgment call in my opinion really boils down to the question of "who can best lead the country in a new direction?" Recent polls say that over 80% of Americans think the country is on the “wrong track”. President Bush has achieved the lowest approval rating in the history of approval rating measurement. Over 50% of the people polled have said that Clinton is "un-trustworthy." How would SuperDelegates appoint Clinton as the nominee given these conditions?
The Clinton strategists have turned the conversation into a short-sighted debate about "who could best compete against McCain in the general election." If there is doubt that Obama can pull it off, the argument leaves you with Clinton and banking on experience as her advantage. But I'm still struggling to understand what specific accomplishments, policy changes, or implemented programs underscore this experience for Clinton.
http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1721966,00.html
Democrats are the odds-on favorite to win in November, and certainly represent a new direction given the bi-partisan abhorrence of the current Republican administration. But with 35 years of Clinton’s Washington insider experience, how much of a new direction do we realistically expect? These Superdelegates need to think beyond who can win in November, and focus on who can breathe new life into the American conscience and restore morale and values. Clearly Obama represents this approach. But clearly Obama is a "bitter" dose for those who have gained wealth and influence by supplanting the American ideal with the status quo.
Get Ready for another Tidal Wave, new and improved!
So, get ready for another "tidal wave." Those who can't bear the thought of Obama in the White House will find another "Wright" controversy, another "bitter" disconnect, or some ad hominem distraction that will be much stickier than the ones that have come before. It will again be superficial and irrelevant to fundamental American issues. But it will be extremely sensational and will add to the residue of doubt that has collected on the minds of those Americans who find it easier to be "against" something they don't understand than it is to be "for" something substantive. Hopefully the Superdelegates and the American people in general will be more discerning in how they evaluate character and choose our leadership.
Just One Man’s Opinion.
No comments:
Post a Comment