Hey Joe!
In response to the anonymous political consultant ("Life in the Post Political Age") who believes the United States public is supporting Obama because we are in a "post-political" era where style matters more than substance, I begin with a few choice quotes before more general analysis.
"How valuable an asset can experience be in a culture where knowledge, wisdom, and history are frowned upon?"
"His very presence, the color of his skin, the very strangeness of his name is the best guarantee of his betrayal of the expectations of the constituencies that will vote to elect him."
Wow, bitter much? If I had to hazard a guess I'd say that anonymous is either a former Hillary consultant, or a REALLY disappointed Republican consultant whose trove of Clinton attack material has become so much paper. When the American population fails to synch with the stories that Beltway insiders tell themselves about that population's world view, it's the masses who must be wrong, not the pundits.
"African Americans (whose support needs no explanation)"
So, black people are racist, and support a black presidential candidate regardless of that candidate's policies? Really? And that assumption isn't racist?
"The truth violates the primary narrative that our elite use to justify their legitimacy, which is the supposed meritocratic nature of American society."
Yes, but this is cliche. Race, for example, has been mapped onto class for a long time in order to misdirect the national dialog and divide the working class. We pretend that the poor are poor because they are morally flawed (too lazy, etc.), and that the disproportionate number of minorities in poverty is due to a greater occurrence of moral failings in those communities.
I agree that our national dialog refuses to acknowledge class, but I don't agree that addressing class is simply taboo. What undermines class consciousness is the comfort of the working class. As long as food is flavorful and plentiful, as long as work is available, as long as entertainment is abundant and adequate, then talk of class will ring hollow. The rich may continue fleecing America as long as the average person is not inconvenienced by this theft. Indeed, any look at at wages since the Seventies demonstrates this: the average person lives pretty much as they did in the Seventies -- the wealthy are phenomenally better off.
That's why we can't get a discussion of class going in this nation -- because the workers are not yet unhappy enough to care.
But we may be on the cusp of change. Gas prices have tripled in a very short time, and the economic impacts of this will continue to play out across the next few years. Combined with the precarious state of our national budget, we may be facing a real depression.
When unemployment climbs, when economic injustice finally impacts the working class, then talk of class will gain more traction. The wealthy will be obviously enjoying a better life than their neighbors and employees, and building resentment will drive class awareness.
Barack Obama has already demonstrated with his FISA vote that he identifies with the Beltway insiders, regardless of how briefly he has been in their company. His soaring rhetoric aside, he is clearly a "safe" candidate from the point of view of the economic elite. He will redeploy Iraq's troops to Afghanistan, but he will not slash the bloated military budget in half. He will support raising taxes on the wealthy, but he will not investigate the Bush Administration or call for campaign finance reform. For all his talk of Change, no rational person expects a Democratic or Republican presidential candidate to threaten the status quo.
That's not a "betrayal," that's reality.
What Obama brings a lot of us is freedom from the shame of having an obvious imbicile for president, something that McCain certainly doesn't offer. And Hillary? Here are three problems I had with Hillary: first, the right had their guns locked and loaded for her, and her presidency would have been a tiresome repeat of the same crap I had to live through during the Nineties; second, while she represents a much better past than the present, it's still the past, and I'd rather look to the future; and finally, her voice was like nails on a chalkboard. I'd rather listen to Barack's measured cadence for a few years than be perpetually reminded of the ruler wielding nuns of my elementary school years.
I don't agree that we live in a "post-political" world. I believe we live in the denial-based final days of a crumbling empire, a nation which is going to have to reinvent itself or fall apart. We are no longer the World War II saviors of the world; we are no longer the Cold War guardians of freedom. We are not even the late Nineties economic powerhouse. After 9/11 we gained a new national image -- that of a victim who lashes out viciously and recklessly in response to being attacked.
Obama offers a national narrative of America as an important member of a world community. This new vision, and the desire to move forward rather than back, is why his campaign appeals to so many people. That doesn't change the underlying reality that he's not going to shake up the status quo, but it credits his supporters with craving vision and leadership, rather than reacting to race, or a marketing campaign.
Bob
Robert M. Alberti is the author of 'Mitlanyal,' exploring the world of M. A. R. Barker's 'Tekumel,' available at http://tinyurl.com/32hb53.
------
Bob,
Thank you ever so much for contributing real observation and thought to our website. Ken and I try to do two things:
1. Let the average guys have a place to talk about his or her experience as an American, and
2. Bring in some of the best thinking people we can. And I mean thinking and common sense combined.
Anyway, I am grateful for your help with our efforts.
In friendship,
Joe Bageant and Ken Smith
