ELECTORAL HINGE
Hearing Barack Obama speaking on the radio, I had decided he would be the right person to engineer a transformation of American society back toward its democratic ideals. Seeing his recent actions on the campaign circuit, I no longer believe he is more likely to be elected than Hillary Clinton, though I think that if he were Commander in Chief and the one proposing a national agenda he would surprise many of those variously described as working class, middle class, middle-of-the-road, regular, ordinary, and lunchbucket.
First, his comments about the way people redirect their lack of power into various kinds of compensatory pride was sociologically spot on, but his statement of that concept was politically inept, both in the way he put it and even more in the fact that he said it at all. He should have been enough of a student of this country’s history to know that suggesting in any way that AMERICA is not The Greatest In the World is the proverbial third rail of political life, to use an urban metaphor in a heavily rural context. By the way, I fully realize that in putting it this way, I am betraying myself as an intellectual. No apologies. I worked very hard to become one. This country will never be truly first-rate until it takes as much pride in its intellectuals as in its athletes. Electing Obama would be most revolutionary in crossing that divide, in my opinion.
Then, even more importantly, he blew his chance to get truly, furiously angry at Rev. Wrongwright. Mark my words: this election will hinge on anger more than any declared issue. Obama was cool and calm, but because of that he won’t collect.
This is such an important matter than I need to say more. Ever since the Sixties, I’ve been dreading the consequences of two major forces in American life: the international wealth differential and the 80-20 divide. The former is easier to describe because we’re all seeing the consequences: we’re well-off, they’re poor, they think they’re just as good as we are, and they’re going to get their fair share. Nature abhors a differential (and currency traders or offshore outsourcers love one). Our blithe assumption that we continue to deserve a better life just because a series of historical accidents make it possible has about as much chance as rock salt in fresh water. We’re well into the siege mentality phase: everyone fighting everyone else for what’s left, blame flying right and left, and no one able to do anything about the stark reality that without substantial shared sacrifice then restoration of our work ethic, the American Way of Life will continue to be dismantled.
The 80-20 divide shows up most notably in two ways. That’s the split between those who finish college and those who don’t or don’t go at all. Likewise, and not purely coincidentally, it’s for many years been the split between those who raise their children democratically—treating them as equal beings although not equally responsible people, using discussion and reason first to change behavior rather than immediately applying disciplinary punishment—and those who favor the authoritarian model. It’s easy to spot the democratic ones: they talk to their babies in a normal, conversational tone of voice rather than cooing and blabbing at them.
The authoritarian model is what Americans prefer when the country is attacked. They want a leader who is a father figure, capable of the kind of towering, righteous anger that is the foundation of punitive discipline. They want the perpetrators of 9-11 punished, even if the effort has given al-Qa’ida an ascendancy in the Islamic world the tiny band would never have otherwise achieved. They see no merit in saying that before we can convince potential lslamists not to choose that form of righteous anger, we must reform American life and make it truly pro-family. And they ignore all the military history that suggests intelligence, in all senses, again and again tips the balance in warfare; and that sources of intelligence from within an enemy’s ranks have again and again been inspired to collaborate with us because they felt we could help change their country’s way of life for the better. As a country, we now seek to shock and awe more than to inspire, unless it’s commercially through advertising campaigns.
So anyone seeking to be President must display the ability to get royally angry. Hillary, anyone can imagine working up a towering rage, especially women who know what she had to go through with Bill. Obama I believe is capable of something far more targeted and deadly—along the lines of the old saying “Beware the wrath of a quiet man”—but I don’t think enough of my fellow Murkans feel that way.
The flip side of authoritarian anger is baby talk. Nixon, Reagan, and both Bushes learned how to talk to the American electorate in a patient, sweettalking sort of way, as if explaining something obvious to a child. You might think people would resent being talked down to like that, but oh no, that’s the confirmation that the strong parent is in a good mood. Hillary can turn it on or turn it off, she’s a master politician. Obama sounds too much like a keynote lecturer, though in doing so he is giving people a look at his true personality. If people thought there was something wrong that we needed to think our way out of, perhaps they would like his way of thinking, but under stress, it’s more important that the average person feels good. Did you hear the sound clip of the crowd at the bar roaring in approval when Hillary knocked back a shot of whiskey? A shot of, in plain truth, of a toxin that depresses the operations of the central nervous system. I hope I’m wrong, but so far, it seems as if the American Presidential electorate’s top question has been, “Would I feel comfortable having a drink with this guy?”
One last thought: if you don’t know the word, look up the German translation for “leader.”
Comments