|
January 15, 2007
It's not about Iraq. Or nukes. Or Iran....
For some people, the most important issue facing a potential United States president is, is... A prominent Christian leader whose radio and magazine outreaches are solidly in support of biblically-based marriages - and keeps in touch with millions of constituents daily - says he cannot consider Arizona Sen. John McCain a viable candidate for president.I have some serious problems with John McCain too (especially campaign finance reform), and I have discussed them. But in presidential elections, important issues like national defense tend to be more important, along with the ability to get elected. Guys like Giuliani and McCain are targeted by people obsessed with single issues, and it matters not at all whether these particular issues are within the scope of presidential authority. Thus, even if Giuliani and McCain were both in favor of gay marriage (which neither of them is), as president neither could do anything about it, because marriage laws remain matters for the states. Same sex marriage is a huge matter mainly for gay activists and antigay activists, and while the masses of middle class voters might have opinions one way or the other about it, unless I am reading them wrong it does not direct their voting patterns. They're more worried about economic security and national security. At the risk of sounding culturally insensitive, whether nutcases like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad are allowed to have the bomb is more of a worry than whether the two guys who bought the house next door have a government issued license for their relationship. As pressing presidential issues go, same sex marriage is barely on the radar. Whatever it is that gives the antigay radar so much power to determine who gets to be president is one of the contradictions of our democracy. But every time the antigay radar (or other single issue thinking) seems ridiculous, all I have to do is look across at the Democratic side. Right now, the big argument which is shaping up seems to be over whether Barack Obama is, to put it bluntly, sufficiently black. Veteran black activists like Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and Stalinist Harry Belafonte seem quite threatened by him, although they've stopped just short of issuing Dobson-style condemnations: Civil rights leaders who have dominated black politics for much of the past two decades have pointedly failed to embrace the 45-year-old Illinois senator who is considering a bid to become America's first black president.I think not knowing "what he's truly about" is code language for a growing meme articulated elsewhere -- that Barack Obama is not really black: Other than color, Obama did not - does not - share a heritage with the majority of black Americans, who are descendants of plantation slaves.In that respect, Obama may be more fortunate than Condoleeza Rice (labeled a "house slave" by Belafonte). Are activists in charge of American thought or do they only think they are? UPDATE: Jeff Goldstein has a great Martin Luther King Jr. Day post which explores the mechanism by which race has been redefined as culture. Concludes Jeff, ....to think of race as somehow socially constructed is to think of race, ultimately, as something essentially essential. Because what makes your memories yours, what makes your heritage yours, and what makes your culture yours is your insistence, ultimately, that it is yours by right, yours by birth, yours by essence. And so race, as it turns out, is either an essence or an illusion. Those who believe race to be an essence (say, the KKK, who base their ideas on bad science) have no need for a project of qualifying race as a social construct; and those who believe race to be non-essential have no grounds, theoretically, for promoting racial identity other than that same bad science (which, it turns out, underlies the constructivist argument), or else their social concern that we somehow need to continue the project of racial identity, for whatever the political reasons.(Via Glenn Reynolds.) Whatever happened to judging people not by the color of their skin but by the content of their character? Under the new "cultural" definition of race, such color blindness can actually be called "racism." I think Barack Obama is a lot closer to Martin Luther King's dream than Jackson, Sharpton or Belafonte. MORE: If you click on the link to Harry Belafonte's Wikipedia entry, you'll see this picture of Belafonte with Charlton Heston. I guess the country was naive in those days. AND MORE: Jeff Soyer is not going to vote for Obama or McCain. Or for that matter, Clinton, Kerry, Edwards, Dodd, Giuliani, Romney, or Bloomberg. I'd be delighted if none of them were on the ticket. But I still prefer Obama or McCain to Clinton. Simply because of his stance against identity politics, Obama breathes fresh air into the Democratic Party. I say this in full awareness of Obama's horrendous anti-gun record, including, I might add, his status as a Director of the notoriously anti-gun Joyce Foundation. (In general, politics simply consists of bad choices. I hope we'll never have to choose between Dobson and Clinton....) UPDATE (01/16/07): If Barack Obama is, as many have suggested, a stalking horse for Hillary Clinton, the attacks on him by longtime black leaders for being not being "really black" makes a lot of sense. The idea might be to limit the political fallout which might result if overwhelming black support developed, followed by entry of Hillary Clinton as a serious "opponent." Thus, preventing the emergence of solid black support might be a form of preemptive form of Clintonian damage control. Sheesh. How cynical can I get? posted by Eric on 01.15.07 at 10:07 AM
Comments
On the subject of Heston, I never understood how so many people thought that Charlie was a racist after Bowling for Columbine, considering his history in the civil rights movement. Jon Thompson · January 15, 2007 08:51 PM Ah, but guns are racist! (Never mind the racist origins of gun control....) Eric Scheie · January 15, 2007 11:34 PM Post a comment
You may use basic HTML for formatting.
|
|
January 2007
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
January 2007
December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
The ostensible lame duck's real lame duck that wouldn't duck!
Economics In A Free World No Word For Liberty My leetle fren' has more fun than Hugo and Mahmoud! I Found A Moderate Muslim It's not about Iraq. Or nukes. Or Iran.... Must have experience with diapers! I Believe In America Its Official The Word Is Father To The Deed
Links
Site Credits
|
|
I was eight years old when I turned to my father and asked why people who seemed to support the message of MLK Jr. supported affirmative action, judging people by their skin and not the content of their character. I was totally politically naive and uneducated, and it still struck me as a bit of madness.
So, obviously, I agree with you.