"And the root of it is probably this: Obama has been a sojourner.... There is a sense that because of his unique background and temperament, Obama lives apart...As a result, voters have trouble placing him in his context, understanding the roots and values in which he is ineluctably embedded."Brooks continues along this path of argument for another dozen paragraphs until his summation, in which he indicates that Obama should be winning in a "landslide", but that voters are preventing the what he deems as "to be expected" from transpiring, because they are resolutely wary of him "as a sojourner."
Notwithstanding the fact that Brooks' preferred candidate John McCain lived apart from the public in the same way as Obama, and yet mysteriously does not have a similar predicament, Brooks argument is wholly flawed because he recklessly overlooks the main reason that Barack Obama is not winning in a landslide: he is black, and American still retains a racist component within the electorate.
To that end, earlier in the year, Rasumussen Reports issued the results of a poll that indicated only 73 percent of registered voters would vote for a black candidate. In the same poll, it was revealed that senior citizens (who flock en masse to the voting booth when compared to other demographics) believed that only 49 percent of their peers would vote for a black candidate. The reality is that a demonstrable sect of the likely voters have grave reservations about voting for Barack Obama simply because of the color of his skin. This factor will be far more critical to his success than any sort of nebulous, contrived notion of voters perceiving Obama as some how "a man apart", as Brooks theorizes.
Recently University of Virginia political scientist Vesla Weaver conducted a study which vividly illustrated how pervasive a candidates race remains in the decision making processes of the average voter, despite demonstrable progress having been made in the last 40 years.
Weaver created 4 fictional political candidates; 2 white candidates, a light skinned black candidate and a dark skinned black candidate. Through the ingenuity of computer software, Weaver managed to ingratiate common physical features into each candidate to the point where their physical resemblance rendered them tantamount to "being like brothers."
With all other factors controlled via the standardization tactics of the software, race became the sole difference between the quarter. From there, she tested voters responses to each candidate on qualities like trustworthiness and intelligence. Her results are emblematic of an electorate that still has implicit racist tendencies. The white candidates crushed the black candidate when scoring for the aforementioned factors. In a surprising wrinkle, the light skinned black candidate actually scored worse than the two darker skinned candidates. Guess who is the light skinned black man running in the 2008 Presidential election?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As a columnist for the paper of record, Brooks ought to be cognizant of the reality that American, in some regions, still remains a patently racist nation as the UVA study, and a preponderance of other evidence indicates. And yet there is merely a singular, almost dismissive mention of the racial component in explaining Obama's inability to win in a landslide in Brooks' column.
How can Brooks, a man of impressive credentials and decades of experience within the American political milieu make such an egregious oversight in assessing Barack Obama's electoral prospects?
Once again, it cannot be overstated that it doesn't take a seasoned political operative to realize that some voters steadfastly refuse to vote for a person of African descent. And yet, judging by this column, Brooks appears to be profoundly oblivious to this notion. More over, one of the core premises of this particular piece, which states that Barack Obama should be winning in landslide because of the favorable political climate, also espouses a profound ignorance of American political history. Brooks knows better than this, but, as I'll deal with later, these truisms of American political history conflate with his central argument, which conveniently ignores race.
For Brooks to assert that a black candidate could even plausibly win in a landslide in an American presidential election, despite the fact that America has an atrocious history of racism (which persists today in some areas) and also that a black candidate had never made it past the primaries, is pure casuistry. In a feeble attempt to justify this argument, Brooks cites the "prevailing winds" that are leaning voters away from the GOP.
However, as Brooks ostensibly knows, voters deem their vote for President as their most personal and intimate choice, and therefore, are often swayed by considerations that are tangential at best to the issues of the day. History has shown time and time again that voters choose their candidate more on personality than issues, a fact which thereby neutralizes Brooks assertion that issues would be the casus belli for voters in 2008.
Brooks' concerted effort to eschew personality factors, race in this instance, is intellectually ignorant at best, and maliciously disingenuous at worst. And one must personify those traits to even make such an argument as Brooks does in this column.
Remember, we've already established that Brooks is essentially the antithesis of political ignorance.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Given all that we detailed above, how can we explain Brooks' refusal to acknowledge the reality of racial politics in this column, something he undoubtedly is abreast of after decades of covering Washington?
It's simple really: To recognize the pernicious forces of racism within our electorate would prevent Brooks from leveling another one of his patented, amorphous, personality based critiques of Barack Obama.
And that sort of criticism is what Brooks, and the rest of the "mainstream" media has specialized in for years now. In 2004, the media managed to paint John Kerry as effete, and out of touch, despite the fact that he was a genuine war hero. They are adopting the same sort of tactics with Barack Obama in 2008, with Brooks leading the charge. From specious questions about his patriotism, due to a lack of flag pin, to this new critique which gives Obama the imprimatur of "apart from the norm", Brooks and his cadre have yet again tried to make this election on the contrived personality peccadillo's of the liberal candidate, instead of substantive issues.
As an avowed McCain supporter, Brooks realizes that this course of action is his only choice in getting his man elected. Like his Republican predecessor, John McCain gets trounced on many issues in generic polls, particularly when it comes to the economy. To combat this disadvantage, Brooks knows he must concoct a false narrative in order to deflect that reality away from his surrogate, John McCain.
Only with this mindset can the borderline farcical notion that Barack Obama could actually win in a landslide be offered. Brooks, like his preferred candidate, has decided that an election based on the issues is a lost cause, and he thus chooses to distract the public by distorting the truth. In doing so, he willfully ignores the litany of problems confronting this country at present, and the country is done another disservice.
Let's hope that the electorate is smart enough not to fall for this personality based canard yet again.
No comments:
Post a Comment