Death By Symbolism
OttO on Apr 16 2008 at 8:30 am | Filed under: Election 2008: Jihad Watch, Politics
Racialism in 2008 is becoming to the Obama campaign what the military was in 2004 to the Kerry campaign.
In the first post-war presidential election following 9/11, Democrats put forth John Kerry as their nominee based on the notion that his military background made him the most legitimate Democrat to lose the war on terror. Kerry had spent four months in a war zone some 35 years earlier and the American Left - who we count on to win wars only where there is little to no combat involved - insisted that that alone meant that Kerry should be elected on the premise of providing strong military leadership.
From the moment Kerry left Southeast Asia in 1969, he has had to balance his contempt for the military with the reality that he would never achieve his ambitions if American voters knew that about him. So he walks the fine line between opposing all things military while pushing a contradicting perception.
This has led to numerous 'misstatements' about the military, the soldiers, the war. The American Left is awash in positions that they are constantly convoluting in efforts to remain politically viable. They will extract three words out of context to prove that a Conservative, life-long passionate supporter of the military is really anti-military yet have volumes of ways to show that every anti-military statement made by a Leftist is misunderstood, misinterpreted, misspoken, a botched joke or is - how can you not see it? - completely pro-military.
Fast forward four years later. The military stumbles on the part of Democrats was just show prep for the coming campaign based on the Holy Grail of leftist causes - race.
Now I have to admit that it's rather cute to watch Democrats eating their own. Nothing could be more troubling for a Party that exists solely for aggressive and shameless power grabs than to have two powerful warring factions in their own party, neck and neck and tooth and jugular. We have high-profile Democrats making statements that seem will be hard to take back when the nominee is finally decided. The term 'poetic justice' comes to mind when I see a Democrat become victim to the very PC, left-wing monster they have created.
This campaign represents the epitome of symbolism. The first vagina vs. the first afro. Substantively, does it really amount to more than that? These ideas truly excite people. It would be like me getting excited over the prospect of electing the first healthy, handsome German-Indian-American. At least the Indian part must be a qualifying factor for president.
Going beyond that, Barack Obama is the -ism in symbolism. Professor Charles Kessler wrote in Hillsdale College's Imprimus:
OF ALL of the presidential contenders’ slogans this year, Barack Obama’s have been the most interesting. His campaign creed is: “Yes, we can.” To which any reasonable person would ask: “Can what?” The answer, of course, is: “Hope.” But again, a reasonable person might ask: “Hope for what?” To which the answer confidently comes back from the Obama campaign: “For change.” Indeed Obama’s signs say: “Change We Can Believe In,” as opposed, one supposes, to the unbelievable changes.
The Left's zeal for exploiting all things symbolic about race has them hyperventilating over the prospect of an Obama presidency. Obama has about as much legitimacy as a black candidate as John Kerry did as a military candidate. Both candidacies have been about a candidate stepping into character. A majority of voters in 2004 were sensible enough to not let John Kerry's posturing fool them into putting him in the White House at the height of a war. While a Kerry presidency in 2004 was a troubling thought, the Obama campaign will surely go down as the more obnoxious campaign.
If Americans have to put up with the politics of racial-gotcha! for the next six months they may be wary of setting up the country for four additional years of it. It's already snowballing - it's no longer a question of whether or not the race-card is going to be utilized in this campaign but rather a question of what this week's racist accusation is going to be.
That's ultimately the problem with basing politics on raw symbolism. Words are always just words away from becoming self-destructive when words are all you have. Obama may have an interesting life story but let's face it - as a presidential candidate, he is an underachiever. He has no background that in any way makes him qualified to be president. But he has the race issue. Obama can link arms with anti-American race-baiters, he can make bigoted statements about gun-toting Bible-thumpers, he as the black, post-racial candidate, can call for a national dialog on race but when Geraldine Ferraro makes an obvious observation about race and the Obama campaign, suddenly the dialog is over.
The use of symbolism of race of course is not solely an Obama issue. It leads pundits to be simultaneously excited and outraged over the insignificant meeting (or "revolution" depending on your point of view) between a descendant of a slave and a descendant of his slave-owner. Stop the presses! A black man and a white man had a discussion about…race! The "unity" is on! But the historic event was tainted by the fact that most people don't care.
Much in the same way the Left emboldens our enemies abroad and pro-longs our conflicts, they also perpetuate racial divisiveness and pro-longs that conflict. The worst thing that could happen to the Left would be for racial unity and harmony to sweep the nation. Of course they will see to it that it never happens because anything can and will be spun into racist hostility. Unless it's the words of Jeremiah Wright.
My own observation is that the Democratic campaign theme of 2008 is Big Symbolism. And I have six fun-filled months ahead to build my case.
