Scary Story
Jeff Alworth
I know the polls say Obama is a shoo-in, and I know that I've maintained all along McCain would lose, but I'm feeling inexplicably unnerved this morning. Things seem to be going a little too well. I am reminded of a moment on the Friday before the Super Bowl. Perhaps you recall the set-up. The 18-0 Patriots, purported at the time to be the finest team ever fielded, were matched up against the 13-6 Giants, who some regarded--if at all--unworthy of being beaten by such a team. My co-worker, a Bostonian and the biggest Patriots fan in the Oregon, was in the kind of mood you get after you go 19-0. I suggested to her that she might leave open the possibility of a Pats loss, just so she wouldn't go insane if they did lose. "Impossible," she said. So on this Friday, I'm leaving open the possibility.
When my mind goes there, I don't like what I see. Americans know who the best choice is. Given a list of issues, voters almost uniformly select Obama as the most qualified to handle them. They favor him by an average margin of 14 points on fourteen separate issues, favoring only McCain on "defending against terrorist attacks." They like Obama on economic issues, foreign policy, social issues, health care, education, the environment, immigration, corruption, and judicial appointments. Americans know who the best man for the job is; if they vote for the worst man for the job, what would it say about the health of our democracy?
One thing it wouldn't say is that America is racist, at least not in the aggregate. Race is playing a big role in the election, but not a definitive one. Obama's race will tip the scales against him for some voters, but I believe it will tip the scales toward him among an equal or greater number. So if Obama loses and the narrative becomes one of race, we'll have missed a larger and more disturbing phenomenon.
Instead of thinking of race, do a thought experiment and imagine
Obama as a white man--engaging, energetic, youthful, relatively
inexperienced, and inspiring. Now imagine what the GOP would do to
him. It didn't help Kerry or Gore to be long-serving public servants and war heroes. By
the time Rove was done with them, these guys looked like traitorous
royalists from some secret, anti-American monarchy. The GOP has been
labeling their foes as terrorist sympathizers since 9/11; it's hard to
imagine that the Ayers assault is anything but standard boilerplate
that would have been reconfigured for any Dem. If Edwards had beaten
Obama, do you imagine he would escape this assault? In fact, this
demonization goes back well into the 90s, when Republicans called
Clinton everything from a liar to a murderer.
What's different this year is that Americans know it's bullshit. They are looking at the wreckage of the Bush years, the deep corruption that pervades the Republican party, its intellectual vacuity in the face of mounting crises, and they know that the party is incompetent to lead. As the polling results show, they don't really think McCain's up to the job of fixing the problems.
So why would they vote against Obama? It's this idea that he's "risky." This is code, I think, not for his race or religion, but for a general cultural distrust of a well-educated, well-spoken, urban liberal. He fits into a slot that has been systematically demonized for two decades by the right-wing culture warriors. It's a complex typology, and so much has been written about it that I don't need to go into it here. But it's clear that the selection of Sarah Palin was designed to stoke these resentments. Joe the Plumber continues them. The talk of "socialism" is supposed to be some kind of code for what they do in that other, unreal America--you know, where they pal around with terrorists.
The effect has been to create a cultural terrain where the real America is under constant assault by this scary America Democrats inhabit. The incoherent rationales against Obama suggest that what scares real America about scary America isn't well-understood. They are capable of anything in scary America, not unlike Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. In fact, they are so scary in scary America that they are capable of acts more threatening than the actual crises currently confronting the country. What acts? Hard to say--we just don't know enough. But damn, it sure is risky.
If America eschews Obama for McCain, I fear it will represent the ascent of tribalism in America. We will have reached a level of toxic saturation so profound that voting for Obama seemed more dangerous than the economic crisis, the failure of the health care system, dealing with terrorist states, etc. We've seen this kind of death spiral in other countries, and it always mystified me how citizens would choose tribe over country. In my irrational panic on this dark and rainy Halloween day, I worry that we may be looking at such a reality.
But maybe the polls are right. Maybe this is just a weird panic. Maybe I'm being melodramatic. I guess we'll know in four days.
 |
More Recent Posts | |
Albert Kaufman |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
Kari Chisholm |
Final pre-census estimate: Oregon's getting a sixth congressional seat |
Albert Kaufman |
Polluted by Money - How corporate cash corrupted one of the greenest states in America |
Guest Column |
|
Albert Kaufman |
Our Democrat Representatives in Action - What's on your wish list? |
Kari Chisholm |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
connect with blueoregon
Oct 31, '08
I really don't see how Obama can lose this. With his ground game operation he has all the Kerry states plus IA, NM and CO in the bag (given the early voting, I mean that literally). That's all he needs.
Not to mention at least VA and NV seem like pretty sure things as well. Just the fact that we don't have to fret over the fickle FL and OH voters gives me peace of mind.
I'll save my worry over the MN, NC and GA senate races.
Oct 31, '08
More concern trolling, Jeff. Get a therapist and stop using the blog to deal with your irrational anxiety.
11:16 a.m.
Oct 31, '08
Nah, don't need a therapist. Just head on over to your local Obama/Merkley office and start making phone calls or knocking on doors.
Action is the antidote to anxiety.
Oct 31, '08
This election needs to SOOO badly to be over for me. I'm about to lose my mind. If Obama doesn't win, next stop: medication.
11:44 a.m.
Oct 31, '08
Bill, you miss your morning coffee? You seem as cranky as I am anxious. Kari, you're right, and also, your post about ballot returns was a balm that maybe even Bill's therapist couldn't equal.
Oct 31, '08
@ Jeff
Yes, I've had my morning coffee. I just find the victim psychology in your post, not only uninteresting but defeatist and unhelpful in content. I don't think public forums are a good place for individuals to deal with their personal angst. The post above is not about the election, it's about you and your mental coping, or lack of it.
Oct 31, '08
Jeff, good post. I hear and see the same reasons from people who are on the fence about Obama. And I don't believe it is code hiding their racism. The people who have yet to be 'closed' by Obama would still be skittish if Obama was all white instead of half.
I believe that you are correct about a McCain win not being about racism, but I think that you would have trouble with many progressives who would be too tied to that 'narative'.
And regarding Jim's comment about no chance of a loss, did not they say that (in Manhatten) about Bush? Both times? (How could Bush win? Nobody I know voted for him!).
But even I think that Obama will win a close (0.75% to 1.25% margin) popular vote win, and a large EC vote win. But what do I know....
12:07 p.m.
Oct 31, '08
Well man, you have the right to your opinion. And for whatever it's worth, you've offered it. I think there's nothing in this post--written in the hypothetical, reflecting on real phenomena in society--that can be described as "victim psychology." I've written thousands of posts about politics, and I have no regrets there, nor am I worried that I'm failing to "mentally cope."
Personally, I think one of the wonderful things about blogs, as opposed to the MSM, is that they do allow bloggers to put their feelings into the mix. I loved Karol's "O-motional" post from earlier this week. We're having conversations, and it's nice to have a sense of each other's personalities. You may regard this as "unhelpful." Now I know that about you.
And the other cool things about blogs: 1) they're free, and 2) you're free to skip posts.
Oct 31, '08
@ Jeff
A little antidote for your angst. Since you wondered about the impact of Obama's infomercial. Here's some interesting data: http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/10/31/142526/74 (Today's Gallup shows a marked uptick perhaps reflecting a positive impact from the informercial.)
"The final numbers are in and a whopping 33.6 million viewers tuned in to watch Barack Obama's prime time broadcast on Wednesday night. For reference, that's more than watched the final game of the World Series later in the evening and more than viewed the finale of "American Idol" last season. That prompts the folks at First Read to ask and answer: "Was the Obama infomercial worth the millions the campaign spent on it? It looks like it."
Rasmussen Reports, which seemed to have mixed up the lede in its coverage of the event, polled voters responses to the broadcast and also found that it was a genuine success. Check out what Rasmussen buries starting on the 15th -- 15th -- paragraph of the write up of its survey.
Oct 31, '08
I need it to be over before I lose my job. I'm wasting way too much time obsessively refreshing websites for the latest polls and news.
Oct 31, '08
Jeff-- I share the anxiety--and action won't cure it. I fear large-scale election fraud. Not voter fraud--that's a red herring--it's the cold, calculated techniques for casting confusion and chaos during vote counts and challenges to voters on a systemic scale that scares me.
It's been done before and it can be done again. What has changed that would allow us to stop it this time if not in 2004 and 2000? Scalia can say "Get over it" all he wants, but I just can't get over it when it's deja vu all over again.
I keep remembering a quote of Stalin's, "Who votes is not important. Who counts the votes is very important."
Oct 31, '08
Re: "They are capable of anything in scary America, not unlike Mahmoud Ahmadinejad."
Ahmadinejad is far less scary to rational people than the militarists who run for president every four years in this country. The belief that it is otherwise is a window into the minds of DP elites who are dragging us and future generations into the abyss.
"That Iran's president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad never threatened to "wipe Israel off the map" is of no interest...
"This progression of lies has brought us to one of the most dangerous nuclear crises since 1945, because the real threat remains almost unmentionable in western establishment circles and therefore in the media. There is only one rampant nuclear power in the Middle East and that is Israel. The heroic Mordechai Vanunu tried to warn the world in 1986 when he smuggled out evidence that Israel was building as many as 200 nuclear warheads. In defiance of UN resolutions, Israel is today clearly itching to attack Iran, fearful that a new American administration might, just might, conduct genuine negotiations with a nation the west has defiled since Britain and America overthrew Iranian democracy in 1953." (John Pliger, The Lies Of Hiroshima Are The Lies Of Today)
Oct 31, '08
Congratulations to Harry Kershner for turning Jeff Alworth's post about GOP stoking of the culture wars into something about Israeli nuclear weapons. That kind of changing the subject is masterful. Mr. Kershner, you definitely have a future in electoral politics.
Oct 31, '08
Jeff, Gary: I assume that rather than watching the election on TV and partying, you will be out at some poll somewhere WATCHING the process? And then, after this is over, we will run into each other somewhere on the beat doing what needs doing between elections to address Vote Fraud? That should help to calm the anxieties. A plan, and action that goes on beyond the moment.
Otherwise, I can offer you a lorazepam. That'll help.
2:34 p.m.
Oct 31, '08
Ahmadinejad is far less scary to rational people than the militarists who run for president every four years in this country.
Harry, sometimes you've gone so far around the bend, I meet you coming back the other way. The point was to select a bete noire the right invokes nearly as often as it invokes Obama. Since their failures to capture bin Laden make him a no-no, they now use Mahmoud as the stand-in bogeyman. The point is that they use both men to scare "real Americans." We're on the same team on this one, brother.
Oct 31, '08
Jeff: Thanks for the explanation. I misunderstood what you were saying.
Mr. Walls: Thanks for the compliment. I'll be running (for the hills).
<hr/>