« A Bit of Optimism Best Expressed Before I Come To My Senses | Mark Lazen's Blog | A VP's Only Job: Rule the Universe! »
America: Right of Center or South of Stupid?
Obama devotees may be inclined to see the ascendancy of their favorite
as a great reawakening of the American body politic to its true self.
But I'm not so sure.
It's been 40 years since a significant portion of the populace shook off their torpor to inquire what the fuck, exactly, is going on here?! It was a volatile time, but that's not a bad thing. As lawful and tolerant as this country has typically been compared to just about anywhere else in the world you can think of, there's never been a shortage of black folks hanging from trees or support for murderous repressive foreign regimes. Rioting in the streets is an indication that at least somebody notices.
But that brief interval of optimism dissolved into successive decades of cynicism, jingoistic belligerence, superficial materialism, and finally--icing on the cake--the last eight years during which our country turned into your reprehensible cousin Todd, who lies, cheats, molests children, hits his mom and manufactures meth in the garage. Or at least that's what he was doing last time you visited and he stole your credit cards and ran up all those Internet porn charges.
So it's only natural that anyone eager to see the nation embrace ambitions loftier than gettin' rich and killin' A-rabs would speed to lash their dreams to this Democratic star from the windy city. That they would squint to see in this moment just what they so desperately want to see: the return of the true America of tolerance, moderation, compassion, and respect for intellect and accomplishment. This, they imagine, is not an America rendered temporarily placid by the anti-psychotic medications the international community begged her for years to take, but America casting off an evil magic spell and being itself again.
How very charming.
But forgive me. That's not what I see.
Perhaps I'm embittered beyond salvation. Give me lemons and I will take the seeds and the pith and make something so sour and rancid that it will blister your lips before it even hits your tongue. Or perhaps it's the profound discomfort with which I regard good times. When society is at rock bottom, there's nowhere to go but up. But if this is a shining renaissance, duck and cover, baby.
No, the thing that I find so striking about America inviting Obama into their living rooms is the mind boggling degree of coercion that was required to get them to unbolt their front doors.
I mean, yes, it looks like he's going to be President. But he's been staked to such an overwhelming advantage that it seems a bit odd to call what he's doing "winning."
How stacked is the deck in Obama's favor?
To the extent that all elections are a referendum on the party in power, the Democrats should be able to store the public disgust with the last eight years and use it to hold the executive branch for the next half century.
Is their anything the Bush administration hasn't bungled catastrophically?
The war in Iraq is an unqualified failure. Don't waste my time with some crap about the surge. Is that shiny penny supposed to distract us from the fact that when it's all over, what we will have obtained for our trillion dollar investment is a distinctly less-desirable strategic position in the middle east, responsibility for thousands if not millions of lives destroyed, and an indefensible squandering of our international prestige?
And maybe it's because we focused all our energies and resources on Iraq that the fabric of our foreign policy is in tatters. Truly critical issues of national security like the Palestinian situation, nuclear proliferation, and global warming have been either ignored or addressed only with the administration's favored pour-gasoline-light-match tactic. Or maybe we should be thankful for the Bush administration's absurd obsession with Mesopotamia. Can you imagine what disasters would have befallen had they reserved more of this monumental incompetence and applied it to countries that matter?
Our Republican-led international failures are, if anything, exceeded by the swath of their domestic destruction. Let's set aside the torture, the domestic eavesdropping, the politicization of the justice department, and the alteration of the balance of powers so that our federal structure more nearly resembles the dictatorship our founding fathers always envisioned. Set them aside because, by modern conservatives, these are counted accomplishments. There's no point in arguing about it here. But what about the things Republicans are supposed to be good at? What about the ballooning size of government? What about the deficit? What about the economy, for chrissakes!?
OK. We know the Bush administration is awful. Maybe the worst ever. But John McCain is a man who has bucked the Republican party time and again, a war hero with a Roman sense of honor and public virtue. No wonder then that, despite our pitiful circumstances, more than 40% of our populace will vote against Obama.
Please.
The whole idea of John McCain as a formidable candidate has never been more than wishful thinking. He is no more than a distillate of his party's fragmentation. Events have shattered the tenuous alliance between social, political, and fiscal conservatives. To say that John McCain represents all these groups is to call half-full a glass that is all but empty.
McCain is the great compromise, wholly appealing to no constituency of his party. In fact, he doesn't have much in the "appeal" department at all. There are the physical tics. The explosive temper. The jokes that are--to put it generously--off-color. And the man can barely read off a teleprompter. Appropriately or not, these aesthetics impact electability. These things are McCain's "Kucinich ears."
So here is Barack Obama, running for office for the opposition party at a time of almost unprecedented public dissatisfaction, against a despised Republican President and the weakest Republican Presidential candidate in living memory. Yes, Obama appears headed for a solid, perhaps even a landslide electoral victory.
But given the circumstances--how could this thing be so close? It's as if Martians have come out of the sky and promised to infect every man, woman and child with syphilis unless they vote for Obama. And the people's response?
"Can we have a few days to think about it?"
Perhaps real change is coming for this right-of-center country, floating behind the cresting wave of the baby boomer die-off. But it's not here yet. The American majority may be settling comfortably into the Obama camp, but they had to be driven there at gunpoint.
This post is up for adoption at Only Sayin'. It's been neutered and had its rabies shots.
But I'm not so sure.
It's been 40 years since a significant portion of the populace shook off their torpor to inquire what the fuck, exactly, is going on here?! It was a volatile time, but that's not a bad thing. As lawful and tolerant as this country has typically been compared to just about anywhere else in the world you can think of, there's never been a shortage of black folks hanging from trees or support for murderous repressive foreign regimes. Rioting in the streets is an indication that at least somebody notices.
But that brief interval of optimism dissolved into successive decades of cynicism, jingoistic belligerence, superficial materialism, and finally--icing on the cake--the last eight years during which our country turned into your reprehensible cousin Todd, who lies, cheats, molests children, hits his mom and manufactures meth in the garage. Or at least that's what he was doing last time you visited and he stole your credit cards and ran up all those Internet porn charges.
So it's only natural that anyone eager to see the nation embrace ambitions loftier than gettin' rich and killin' A-rabs would speed to lash their dreams to this Democratic star from the windy city. That they would squint to see in this moment just what they so desperately want to see: the return of the true America of tolerance, moderation, compassion, and respect for intellect and accomplishment. This, they imagine, is not an America rendered temporarily placid by the anti-psychotic medications the international community begged her for years to take, but America casting off an evil magic spell and being itself again.
How very charming.
But forgive me. That's not what I see.
Perhaps I'm embittered beyond salvation. Give me lemons and I will take the seeds and the pith and make something so sour and rancid that it will blister your lips before it even hits your tongue. Or perhaps it's the profound discomfort with which I regard good times. When society is at rock bottom, there's nowhere to go but up. But if this is a shining renaissance, duck and cover, baby.
No, the thing that I find so striking about America inviting Obama into their living rooms is the mind boggling degree of coercion that was required to get them to unbolt their front doors.
I mean, yes, it looks like he's going to be President. But he's been staked to such an overwhelming advantage that it seems a bit odd to call what he's doing "winning."
How stacked is the deck in Obama's favor?
To the extent that all elections are a referendum on the party in power, the Democrats should be able to store the public disgust with the last eight years and use it to hold the executive branch for the next half century.
Is their anything the Bush administration hasn't bungled catastrophically?
The war in Iraq is an unqualified failure. Don't waste my time with some crap about the surge. Is that shiny penny supposed to distract us from the fact that when it's all over, what we will have obtained for our trillion dollar investment is a distinctly less-desirable strategic position in the middle east, responsibility for thousands if not millions of lives destroyed, and an indefensible squandering of our international prestige?
And maybe it's because we focused all our energies and resources on Iraq that the fabric of our foreign policy is in tatters. Truly critical issues of national security like the Palestinian situation, nuclear proliferation, and global warming have been either ignored or addressed only with the administration's favored pour-gasoline-light-match tactic. Or maybe we should be thankful for the Bush administration's absurd obsession with Mesopotamia. Can you imagine what disasters would have befallen had they reserved more of this monumental incompetence and applied it to countries that matter?
Our Republican-led international failures are, if anything, exceeded by the swath of their domestic destruction. Let's set aside the torture, the domestic eavesdropping, the politicization of the justice department, and the alteration of the balance of powers so that our federal structure more nearly resembles the dictatorship our founding fathers always envisioned. Set them aside because, by modern conservatives, these are counted accomplishments. There's no point in arguing about it here. But what about the things Republicans are supposed to be good at? What about the ballooning size of government? What about the deficit? What about the economy, for chrissakes!?
OK. We know the Bush administration is awful. Maybe the worst ever. But John McCain is a man who has bucked the Republican party time and again, a war hero with a Roman sense of honor and public virtue. No wonder then that, despite our pitiful circumstances, more than 40% of our populace will vote against Obama.
Please.
The whole idea of John McCain as a formidable candidate has never been more than wishful thinking. He is no more than a distillate of his party's fragmentation. Events have shattered the tenuous alliance between social, political, and fiscal conservatives. To say that John McCain represents all these groups is to call half-full a glass that is all but empty.
McCain is the great compromise, wholly appealing to no constituency of his party. In fact, he doesn't have much in the "appeal" department at all. There are the physical tics. The explosive temper. The jokes that are--to put it generously--off-color. And the man can barely read off a teleprompter. Appropriately or not, these aesthetics impact electability. These things are McCain's "Kucinich ears."
So here is Barack Obama, running for office for the opposition party at a time of almost unprecedented public dissatisfaction, against a despised Republican President and the weakest Republican Presidential candidate in living memory. Yes, Obama appears headed for a solid, perhaps even a landslide electoral victory.
But given the circumstances--how could this thing be so close? It's as if Martians have come out of the sky and promised to infect every man, woman and child with syphilis unless they vote for Obama. And the people's response?
"Can we have a few days to think about it?"
Perhaps real change is coming for this right-of-center country, floating behind the cresting wave of the baby boomer die-off. But it's not here yet. The American majority may be settling comfortably into the Obama camp, but they had to be driven there at gunpoint.
This post is up for adoption at Only Sayin'. It's been neutered and had its rabies shots.
Advertisement





Interesting post. But I wonder if your title will put some people off. It deserves a wide readership.
Rec'd.
October 19, 2008 6:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks T.
Yeah, I bet the title will put some people off--should have put a little more thought into that one. Lesson learned.
October 19, 2008 6:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
You can edit now. Click on my name. Then go back to the blog where I give pointers on the new system. It will tell you how to go back and edit your post. Including your title! I encourage you to do that. You've put a lot of thought into this. And it deserves a wide readership!
October 19, 2008 7:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
I LOVE the title. I didn't even have to read the post before I knew I'd be recommending it, for the title alone. (But then I did read it.)
I think the real truth of what's going on out there is somewhere between "America has a come to Jesus meeting" and "America has no choice because the Republicans are retarded."
I've been volunteering for the campaign and I've talked to a lot of people. Some of them are voting for Obama for the reasons you outline. But most of them are voting for Obama because of who he is and what he says, and they are truly thrilled to be doing so.
Only time will tell what's really happening, but I'm hopeful that it truly is transformational.
October 19, 2008 10:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
You caught it post-title change. We won't even say what it was before..
And I agree with all you say. One can only write from one perspective at a time, though there are provocative truths in many of them. I do think there is something truly transformational going on--driven by events and generational change. Probably a change for the better, cuz' it could hardly get worse, right?
October 19, 2008 10:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Earlier title better.
If America is South of stupid, that would make Canada. Yeah. you get the picture.
We think of it like this. We only have 10% of the population of the U.S. However, most human beings only use 10% of their brains.
Math. Irrefutable.
October 20, 2008 10:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
I've put a plug in for this post on stillidealistic's thread for Sat/Sun posts that need a closer look!
Good luck, buddy!
October 19, 2008 7:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
You rock T.!
Great to see that TPM has finally improved this system.
Thanks!
October 19, 2008 7:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
My pleasure. :)
October 19, 2008 10:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
So many of us have asked why the margin isn't bigger. We forget how little actual attention most people direct at real political information. Most people are not reading blogs like this, are not reading the New Yorker. Most are not even reading a major newspaper. Most don't even watch TV "news" with any attention to detail.
It's so easy to ask if people support the macho guy or the appeaser, and get the expected answer.
Remember that it had to get really, really bad, for FDR to get that large congressional majority.
October 19, 2008 7:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good post...I picked it up on the Community post after passing it by initially...Glad you took TheraP's advice...better title. Good work.
October 19, 2008 8:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good Post - I always enjoy a good rant. I do think it is important to realize that Obama's race (or otherness, if you will) is just a convenient club to attack him with.
It has been nearly sixty years since George Orwell wrote 1984, but America as a body politic is just catching on. I think even that is only because of the brazen arrogance of the people using our fear to rob us blind. (I think the bailout is one last caper.)
The same politics of manipulation would have been used against Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, or anyone else who might have gotten the nomination. In fact given the incredible campaign that Obama has run,they might not have been as successful.
October 19, 2008 9:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sometimes I wonder if America's past greatness has not gone to her head. After the disasters we've been through, and the suffering, will we now learn and let go of the sense of exceptionalism as a nation?
I'm not even sure if that question fits with this post. But that's what comes to mind for some reason.
October 19, 2008 10:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
There are many reasons to believe that America's time in the driver's seat is passing--happened to Spain, to Portugal, to Holland, and most recently to Britain.
The question is whether our success is based on something a little more than natural resources and timing. We have a legal and cultural infrastructure for commerce and innovation that has reinvogorated us before when it seemed like our time was up. I'm slow to bet against us in this regard.
But a little humble pie would sure serve us well.
October 19, 2008 10:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great post Mark. Highly recommended. In many respects our time of economic and military greatness may be passing, but should we as a nation manage to choose a biracial, (Christian), president whose father was a Muslim just seven years after being attacked by Muslim fundamentalists, I would suggest that exceptionalism is not dead in the US regardless of the deck being stacked against the incumbent party/for Obama. My opinion is that there are few nations on earth as open minded as we will hopefully turn out to be on Nov. 4. I do think that many of our citizens constrain their vision of American exceptionalism to their xenophobic perceptions of the United States, (witness just about any McPalin rally and the moribund chants of 'USA! USA!' following anything said that doesn't conform to their 'values'). That said it is one of the ironies of a democracy that the intellectually challenged portion of the citizenry are the most susceptible to manipulation by hate/fear mongering by the campaigns. Not to mention bread and games at the coliseum all month!
October 20, 2008 1:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama could run against a rock (pretty close to doing so) and still have the opposition get at least 40% of the vote. I don't know why it's this way but it just is. Fundamentally there is a large swath of people who just won't vote for the other party. Actually the only Democratic president I don't think I would have voted for in recent memory was Jimmy Carter. Truly cared about the country but in my eyes a bit over his head.
October 19, 2008 10:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Too true. I'd love to study the psychology of contrarianism.
And poor Jimmy. I've written about why people hate him so before: http://onlysayin.blogspot.com/2007/10/has-jimmy-carter-been-raping-kittens.html
October 19, 2008 10:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mark Lazen,
I have read your posts before and like most am amazed at how well you write.
Just one quibble: we baby boomers haven't started a die off yet. Wait about 15 more years and we will start passing from the scene...at least as far as actuarial probabilities would predict. I am just turning 60 and am not the youngest of boomers by far......
Maybe the die-off you are thinking of is the "greatest generation".
Recommended.
October 20, 2008 12:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks so much for the kind words, Lux.
I think you're right about that die-off--I got the wrong generation...
October 20, 2008 8:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah: leave us alone: we're still older than you, this Boomer generation, and some of us (not I) have sufficent cash to find and hire someone to kick yer butt.
Excellent writing.
And recommended.
October 20, 2008 10:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Heehee...
Hey, hire me and I'll kick my own butt. If I'm going to take the beating, at least I'll get paid.
And thanks.
October 20, 2008 10:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wow! You could be a Republican candidate* for office, in the McLame tradition: Pay you enough and you'll kick YER OWN butt!
_____
*Who put the "candid" in "candidate"?
October 20, 2008 4:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wonder if the whole U.S. right-of-center thing is just a media myth. Sure, we elected Reagan twice and even followed him up with Bush Sr. And there's some possibility that W's 2nd term may even have been legitimate (by which I mean he may actually have won the election against Kerry, not that his policies are legitimate). But the thing is, when Republicans win, the press waxes poetic about their "mandate," whereas when Democrats win, the press talks about how it means Americans want to be governed "from the center." It happened during the Clinton win in '92, and it happened again in '06, because some of the Dems elected were considered moderate (never mind that moderate Republicans were swept out of office that year).
My own take on it is fairly simple: it comes down to charisma. If you look at the last seven elections, it comes down to a simple thing: people want a leader who looks like he's alive. Pure and simple. Reagan defeated Carter and Mondale on charisma, not on policy. Bush Sr. won because he was running against Dukakis, and Clinton won because he was Bill Clinton, running against first George Bush, then Bob Dole. Al Gore legitimately won the election on policy, but lost the post-election on charisma, and the Democrats were silly enough to think that the man to change that dynamic was John Kerry.
When you look at Obama vs. McCain, the big difference between Obama and Kerry isn't his policies; it's that when Obama talks about those policies you still want to listen.
October 20, 2008 12:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great Post. Highly Recommended, if only because you managed to articulate my personal take on the situation (for the most part) way better than I could.
During the primaries I said, "I look forward to the time when the baby-boomers are no longer relevant." Your die-off comment is unfortunately true, and the "worst generation" has largely been responsible for all of it (with the exception of all the baby-boomers on this site, and select others).
I heard a British author speaking about the political differences between Europe and America and he pointed out the most conservative politician in Europe would still be to the left of the Democrats.
We Americans have fattened ourselves on a steady diet of lies. From Free Market, Trickle-Down Snake Oil; to "blame the tax man and not your employer" for falling wages; to the idea that abortion is a bigger threat to "life" than war; to the notion that health care is a privilege and not a right; and so on.
The debate takes place in Never-Never land, where you start from false assumptions and work your way rightward.
October 20, 2008 2:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm tired of being insulted. Get the facts straight:
1. It was the "Greatest Generation" -- or whatever the WW II generation is called -- that got the US ILLEGALLY involved in Vietnam.
2. It was the "Boomer" generation you bash that got the US OUT of that debacle.
3. It was the "Boomer" generation who warned about Iraq, inj advance. Instead of listening, we were bashed.
Those who wanted the US to stay in Vietnam -- while they cheered it on from afar -- were members of this "Boomer" generation -- but a minority. They were the ones who HATED us, and had a "better" idea: that handed down by the "Greatest Generation" that got the US bogged down in Vietnam.
I'm fed up with being bashed because my generation has a minority of assholes who refused to learn, and refuse to learn, and are causing the most of my generation a second round of anguish with their illegal invasion and bogging down of the US in Iraq. The latter isn't enough?
October 20, 2008 4:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
But that's just the point, isn't it? After Vietnam, the entire generation, it seems, moved on to other things such as creating the corporate state. I wish it was only that minority, but the whole lot, in subsequent years, seemed to be saying, "What were we THINKING?" Hippie-bashing is like a national sport, perpetrated by a lot of ex-hippies no less. It's like Dennis Hopper playing a general on that TV show (can't remember the name.) To this observer it seems like the Boomers came out so strong from the gate, only to give a collective "Naahh. Forget it."
But there are exceptions, and besides, you ARE on this site:)
October 20, 2008 6:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mark, that is an excellent rant, and I must admit I am at a loss for words about how to improve or add to it. I don't like being at a loss for words. Try to leave me a little room next time.
October 20, 2008 2:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Excellent post. Recommended!
I like what thunderpigeon had to add as well. Why is it that when George W gets elected by one of the slimmest margins in history he starts babbly about mandates and spending political capital. And already we are hearing that if Obama wins, they will expect (and desire) that he govern from the center. You know what I say to the jackholes in the media? Shutup. If Obama wins in a landslide, then that gives him the mandate to put together a truly progressive agenda. I am sick of being cornered by the mouths on the right who suggest that we can't put forth a progressive agenda and aggressively promote it for the next four (hopefully eight!) years.
October 20, 2008 4:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks yank, hoppy and ex for the kind words and the additional ideas.
This is a great community--strong opinions, but civility, sweet civility.
Very different than Daily Kos.
One last notion--if change comes here, and it is to be lasting, it will be because an Obama is able to shatter the typical liberal --> conservative tension by striking it in ways orthogonal* to its grain.
*Yes, I know, but this word kicks ass:
"The term is used loosely to mean mutually independent or well separated. It is used to describe sets of primitives or capabilities that, like linearly independent vectors in geometry, span the entire "capability space" and are in some sense non-overlapping or mutually independent. For example, in logic, the set of operators "not" and "or" is described as orthogonal, but the set "nand", "or", and "not" is not (because any one of these can be expressed in terms of the others).
Also used loosely to mean "irrelevant to", e.g. "This may be orthogonal to the discussion, but ...", similar to "going off at a tangent".
October 20, 2008 4:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey Mark:
The video comment on your blog covers up some of the text. At least it does on my computer. FWIW
October 21, 2008 3:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the heads up, ex. I'll get rid of it--just playing around with it anyway.
October 28, 2008 10:09 AM | Reply | Permalink