Wha’Happened?
October 21, 2009
(Below is the transcript of the October 21 edition of The Notes on Blog Talk Radio.)
On November 4, 1842, Abraham Lincoln married Mary Todd. On November 4, 1924, Nellie Ross became America’s first female Governor. On November 4, 1952, Dwight Eisenhower defeated Adlai Stevenson to become the first Republican President since Herbert Hoover. On November 4, 1979, the Iranian hostage crisis began. On November 4, 1980, Ronald Reagan conquered Jimmy Carter to become President.
And on November 4, 2008, Barack Obama defeated John McCain to become the 44th President of the United States, and the first African-American to secure that honor.
Obama ran an outstanding campaign, moving past the Clinton machine to become the Democratic nominee, and defeating McCain in one of the most intense contests in recent memory, second only to the 2000 Presidential election in terms of partisan heat. With 53 percent of the vote and 365 electoral votes, Obama’s victory signaled a desire for a change in direction from the previous eight years.
I did not vote for Obama, but I had to force myself to vote for McCain. In fact, I considered voting for neither candidate, regarding Obama as a man who looked to government first for solutions to problems, and perceiving McCain to be a worthless, wimpy candidate who would appoint decent judges but would otherwise be of no consequence or competence. I wasn’t necessarily heartbroken by McCain’s loss, and in fact, I was surprised that any conservative was depressed by his defeat.
Jonah Goldberg of National Review summed up my reaction perfectly. In a National Review Online posting the night of Obama’s victory, he wrote, “Obama ran a brilliant race and he should be congratulated for it. Moreover, during the debate over the financial crisis, Obama said that a president should be able to do more than one thing at a time. Well, I think we members of the loyal opposition should be able to make distinctions simultaneously. It is a wonderful thing to have the first African-American president. It is a wonderful thing that in a country where feelings are so intense that power can be transferred so peacefully. Let us hope that the Obama his most dedicated — and most sensible! — fans see turns out to be the real Obama. Let us hope that Obama succeeds and becomes a great president, for all the right reasons.”
Jeff Jacoby of the Boston Globe also struck a wise note when he wrote on November 5, “As a politician and policymaker, Obama distresses me; his extreme liberalism is decidedly not what the nation needs in its president. But as a symbol — a son of Africa elected to lead a majority-white nation that once enslaved Africans and treated their descendants with great cruelty — Obama’s rise makes me proud of my country. The anthem of the Civil Rights Movement was ‘We Shall Overcome.’ Impossible as it might have seemed scant decades ago, we have.”
Obama’s victory was historic, dramatic, trailblazing—and considering who he ran against, unavoidable.
____________________
In the months since Obama’s victory, I’ve often considered the notion that Obama effectively ran unopposed, that he did not have suitable competition. Certainly, he could have had better competition.
However, Obama’s accomplishment should not be undercut by such an argument. Obama was the strongest candidate the Democrats fielded since John F. Kennedy in 1960, a dynamic, compelling political figure with a fascinating personal story. His 2004 speech at the Democratic National Convention in Boston was one of the best political speeches of all-time, a declaration that we were all Americans despite our political and social differences. When he announced his candidacy for President in February 2007, most political observers didn’t give him a chance. He proved them all wrong.
In early-2008, Obama faced a significant obstacle in his campaign, as the mainstream media, presumably at the behest of the Clinton campaign, began to focus in earnest on Obama’s relationship with controversial Chicago religious figure Jeremiah Wright. (Of course, Fox News Channel star Sean Hannity was the first national media figure to highlight the Obama-Wright connection, and the last one to get any credit for doing so, but we digress). In order to bring the controversy to an end, Obama delivered the so-called “A More Perfect Union” speech on March 18, 2008. In the speech, Obama distanced himself from Wright, declaring that his controversial sermons “expressed a profoundly distorted view of this country, a view that sees white racism as endemic and that elevates what is wrong with America above all that we know is right with America; a view that sees the conflicts in the Middle East as rooted primarily in the actions of stalwart allies like Israel instead of emanating from the perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam. As such, Reverend Wright’s comments were not only wrong but divisive, divisive at a time when we need unity; racially charged at a time when we need to come together to solve a set of monumental problems: two wars, a terrorist threat, a falling economy, a chronic health care crisis, and potentially devastating climate change — problems that are neither black or white or Latino or Asian, but rather problems that confront us all.”
While some conservatives, such as Charles Murray, praised the speech, the common reaction from the right was one of disgust. The late Weekly Standard writer Dean Barnett spoke for many conservatives when he wrote, “What the analysts who are gushing over Obama’s sentiments regarding race relations are missing is not only did Obama fail to accomplish the mission he needed to, he didn’t even really try. He made no attempt to explain his relationship with Wright and why he hung around a man who habitually offered such hateful rhetoric. Obama instead offered a non-sequitur on race relations.”
Many conservatives were mystified by the fact that Obama was able to successfully explain away his two-decade-long association with Wright–but this is not something that should have been all that surprising.
Two days before the “A More Perfect Union” speech, Religious Left figure Frank Schaeffer argued in the Huffington Post that Obama was being unfairly criticized for his affiliation with Wright. Schaeffer wrote that his father, the late evangelical leader Francis Schaeffer, was considered a hero by Republicans despite the fact that he used rhetoric every bit as controversial as Wright’s. Schaeffer wrote, “In the 1970s and 1980s, while Dad and I crisscrossed America denouncing our nation’s sins, instead of getting in trouble we became darlings of the Republican Party…We were rewarded for our ‘stand’ by people such as Congressman Jack Kemp, the Fords, Reagan and the Bush family. The top Republican leadership depended on preachers and agitators like us to energize their rank and file. No one called us un-American…The hypocrisy of the right denouncing Obama, because of his minister’s words, is staggering.”
The unfortunate reality is that Obama was able to explain away his affiliation with Wright in part because many Americans had become used to—and numb to—controversial rhetoric from religious figures. In other words, to many Americans, the crackpot comments from Jeremiah Wright were no big deal.
After defeating Hillary Clinton’s aggressive effort to prevent him from acquiring the Democratic nomination, Obama survived another controversy in August 2008, when he and McCain appeared at the Civil Forum on the Presidency hosted by Pastor Rick Warren. When Obama was asked at which point an unborn child acquires human rights, Obama responded that the answer to such a question was “above my pay grade.” Conservatives lashed out at Obama for his odd answer, and tried to remind voters about Obama’s track record on abortion. Unfortunately, this tactic also failed. Abortion was not going to be a defining issue in the 2008 election; therefore, Obama could have said whatever he wanted to at the event and he would have gotten away with it.
Obama was something of a Teflon candidate—and he did not become a Teflon candidate simply because of “media bias” or “white guilt.” He became a Teflon candidate…because he was a strong candidate.
Obama’s politics were liberal, but his character was conservative. He was a real-life Cliff Huxtable—a loving husband and father, a man who had seized his share of the American Dream. I remember watching some of his speeches and wishing that this man had been on the red side of the political aisle.
Back in January, I wrote a piece for Human Events Online analyzing why some right-leaning commentators were so fascinated by Obama. I noted that “Obama, of course, is the nation’s first black President—and while the conservative movement presents itself as color-blind, race has been a thorny issue for the right since the mid-1960s. Two events—Barry Goldwater’s misguided decision to oppose the 1964 Civil Rights Act and Richard Nixon’s 1968 effort to reposition the GOP as the home of middle- and working-class white Americans (the inaccurately named ‘Southern Strategy’)—led to a permanent split between the Republican Party and black voters. Despite the American right’s efforts to emphasize the critical role that Republican legislators played in passing the ’64 Civil Rights Act and the ideological overlap between Republicans and black voters on social issues, the GOP has performed poorly among black voters in Presidential elections since 1964.
“As the mainstream press has often noted, it is virtually impossible to find an elected black Republican in a prominent position in Washington or anywhere else in the country. The GOP’s decision to overlook black votes in favor of working- and middle-class white votes occurred just prior to the era in which future black leaders became politically aware.
“Obama and other post-civil-rights-movement black leaders came of age in a time when they were told, in ways direct and subtle, that the GOP wasn’t really interested in them. Perhaps if the GOP had attempted to attract black support in those days, charismatic and gifted figures like Obama would have become conservative Republicans instead of liberal Democrats.
“Perhaps the conservatives who are sympathetic to Obama see a man who, under different circumstances, could have been on the ‘right’ side. It has been said that during his days at Harvard Law School, Obama demonstrated extraordinary open-mindedness, giving equal weight and respect to the views of liberal and conservative students. Of course, by the time Obama arrived at Harvard Law, he had come to the conclusion that progressivism was the more sensible worldview—a conclusion undoubtedly influenced by the way the GOP politically positioned itself in an earlier era. It’s not hard to imagine [some conservatives] thinking to themselves: If our guys hadn’t alienated thoughtful people like him years ago, he’d be one of us today.”
Last year, it got to the point where I was bitterly jealous of the Democratic Party for having a candidate like Obama. I didn’t want the Democrats to have the honor of placing the first “brother” in the White House; the Party of Lincoln should have had that honor, I felt. It had been an article of faith on the right for decades that the first black President would be a Republican—and now, the Democrats threatened to destroy that hope.
The night before Obama delivered his acceptance speech at the 2008 Democratic National Convention, Jonah Goldberg wrote: “I didn’t want to let it pass without saying that it is a wonderful thing that a black man can gain the nomination of a major American political party. The Democratic Party, which didn’t admit black delegates to one of its conventions until 1936 (the GOP did nearly a half-century earlier) has done a great and historic thing. It’s another example of America’s greatness many fail to appreciate: We are better at racial and ethnic reconciliation and assimilation than pretty much all of these countries that are supposed to be more enlightened than we are. I sincerely doubt the French, British, Germans et al. will be considering a candidate of African descent like this for quite a while.
“And, if Obama is elected president, on this narrow but important criteria, it would be a wonderful thing for the country to elect a black man.
“Now, I don’t think we should elect the guy, for all the obvious reasons and a few less-than-obvious ones. I don’t think you should vote for a man just because of the color of their skin (just as I don’t think you should vote against someone because of the color of their skin). And I don’t think having our first African-American president be a failed president (which I think he would probably be) would be a wonderful thing for race relations either. I’ve long thought the first black president would be a Republican. I still think it would be better for the country if that were the case, and if Obama loses I’m sure the next African-American with a shot at the job will be a Republican.
“But it’s worth taking a moment to say this is an exciting benchmark in racial progress.”
Of course, the GOP could have broken the political glass ceiling first if the party had been able to convince Colin Powell to challenge President Clinton in 1996. While Powell was certainly a left-wing, Rockefeller-style Republican, Powell would have generated the same momentum, the same desire for change, the same spirit of optimism that Obama generated twelve years later. He would have defeated Clinton in a landslide, restoring honor and dignity to the White House. More importantly, he could have destroyed, once and for all, the image of the GOP as a racially hostile entity. Unfortunately, he failed to run, the GOP failed to win in ‘96, and Clinton just kept on screwing around in the Oval Office.
____________________________
On August 28, 2008, Obama officially accepted the Democratic National Committee’s Presidential nomination. He delivered a strong speech, one damaged only by the ridiculous potshots against McCain. The Arizona Senator was already a weak, lousy candidate; Obama didn’t need to pile on.
The closing paragraphs of Obama’s speech were, even from a conservative perspective, eloquent and excellent. He declared, “This country of ours has more wealth than any nation, but that’s not what makes us rich. We have the most powerful military on Earth, but that’s not what makes us strong. Our universities and our culture are the envy of the world, but that’s not what keeps the world coming to our shores.
“Instead, it is that American spirit - that American promise - that pushes us forward even when the path is uncertain; that binds us together in spite of our differences; that makes us fix our eye not on what is seen, but what is unseen, that better place around the bend.
“That promise is our greatest inheritance. It’s a promise I make to my daughters when I tuck them in at night, and a promise that you make to yours - a promise that has led immigrants to cross oceans and pioneers to travel west; a promise that led workers to picket lines, and women to reach for the ballot.
“And it is that promise that forty five years ago today, brought Americans from every corner of this land to stand together on a Mall in Washington, before Lincoln’s Memorial, and hear a young preacher from Georgia speak of his dream.
“The men and women who gathered there could’ve heard many things. They could’ve heard words of anger and discord. They could’ve been told to succumb to the fear and frustration of so many dreams deferred.
“But what the people heard instead - people of every creed and color, from every walk of life - is that in America, our destiny is inextricably linked. That together, our dreams can be one.
“‘We cannot walk alone,’ the preacher cried. ‘And as we walk, we must make the pledge that we shall always march ahead. We cannot turn back.’
“America, we cannot turn back. Not with so much work to be done. Not with so many children to educate, and so many veterans to care for. Not with an economy to fix and cities to rebuild and farms to save. Not with so many families to protect and so many lives to mend. America, we cannot turn back. We cannot walk alone. At this moment, in this election, we must pledge once more to march into the future. Let us keep that promise - that American promise - and in the words of Scripture hold firmly, without wavering, to the hope that we confess.”
It seemed, at that point, that the election was essentially over. It was. Conservatives just didn’t realize it.
______________________
John McCain’s selection of Alaska Governor Sarah Palin breathed new life into his campaign—but, looking back, it was a form of CPR that failed to revive the body. Palin was seen as the second coming of Ronald Reagan, someone who could harness the power of conservative populism and drive the McCain campaign to victory. However, that did not happen.
Despite her political talents, Palin could not make enough Americans look past McCain’s fundamental flaws. The McCain-Palin ticket seemed disorganized and unfocused, while the Obama-Joe Biden ticket seemed to function as the proverbial well-oiled machine. It seemed that the McCain-Palin ticket could not handle the onslaught of the mainstream media, the mockery from Tina Fey of Saturday Night Live, the skepticism from prominent conservative commentators and, especially, the September 2008 economic meltdown. Once that meltdown occurred, the momentum McCain and Palin generated ground to a halt.
It’s almost too painful to recall the controversies surrounding the McCain-Palin campaign: “Joe the Plumber” and “Tito the Builder,” the bizarre rhetoric and offensive imagery at some of the GOP rallies, McCain’s odd-duck references to Obama as “Senator Government” and “That One” at the Presidential debates. McCain was, without dispute, the single worst Republican Presidential nominee in the entire 155-year history of the GOP.
It’s also too painful to rehash the circumstances surrounding McCain’s acquisition of the GOP nomination. Suffice it so say that had conservatives coalesced around one alternative to McCain instead of splitting their votes among different candidates, the nightmare that was the McCain campaign could have been avoided.
Just think about it. Think of all the things conservatives don’t like about the young Obama Presidency—czars, Obamacare, Van Jones, Kevin Jennings, Janet Napolitano, Eric Holder, Sonia Sotomayor. All of this could have avoided if conservatives had shown a little more brains back in 2007-2008.
It’s hard to look at Obama without imaging what could have been. What if this man had seen merit in the Republican Party as opposed to the Democratic Party? And failing that, what if conservative Republicans had their damned act together in the 2008 GOP primary, instead of acting stupidly by failing to unite around an alternative to McCain?
If only wisdom had prevailed back then. Conservatives would have been spared so much agony. Conservatives should have been spared so much agony.
The past cannot be altered, only remembered. Let’s hope conservatives remember what happened in 2008. Let’s hope they remember that one needs a strong candidate to fight a strong candidate. Let’s remember that it takes a competent campaign to defeat a competent campaign. Let’s remember that those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
