McCain: Obama Decent, no Arab
John McCain quickly shed his last vestiges of decency when he allowed his campaign to try to smear Barack Obama for having been in the same room with Bill Ayers, who had been a Weatherman in the 1960s when Obama was a child. McCain knows very well that Obama is a centrist, not a radical, that Ayers had long since been rehabilitated and has ties to the Republican governor of South Carolina, and that Obama had very little to do with Ayers. The 'terrorist' charge is supposed to work subliminally, and to subconsciously suggest other smears. In contrast to Obama, McCain was closely associated with an extremist organization, the US Council for World Freedom of John Singlaub. I showed that he went on associating with it long after he claims to have resigned.
So having created this foaming-at-the-mouth mob, McCain finds himself booed by it when he offers some pro forma boilerplate about Obama being decent and a family man. But his campaign ads haven't been alleging decency, they've been alleging "terrorist ties." You can't wave raw meat dripping blood at Doberman Pinschers and then suddenly pull it away without producing snarling, baring of incisors, and straining at the leash.
The McCain attempt to connect race and terror on a subliminal level in his advertising, while projecting an image of taking the high road in his public appearances crashed and burned on Friday when he did not notice he was engaging in racist hate speech:
' Later, another supporter told McCain, "I don't trust Obama...He's an Arab."
McCain stood shaking his head as she spoke, then quickly took the microphone from her.
"No, ma'am," he said. "He's a decent, family man, a citizen that I just happen to have disagreements with." '
McCain should have said, "there would be nothing wrong with being an Arab, but Obama is not." The way he put it strongly implied that he had a low opinion of Arabs.
An Arab is a native speaker of the Arabic language, which is akin to Hebrew. The Arab civilization is one of the more glorious in world history, having bestowed on the world great scientific and cultural achievements. Arabic is spoken in North Africa and West Asia by approximately 250 million people, a group only somewhat smaller than the population of the United States.
Arabs began immigrating into the United States in the 1880s from Lebanon, and have been an important ethnic group during the past over a century. They provided everything from auto workers to physicians and comedians. There are probably three million self-identified Arab-Americans, and as a group they are slightly wealthier, younger and more educated than Americans in general. (If we counted everyone with at least an 8th Lebanese ancestry as Arab-American, they would be many millions, but most don't self-identify that way). Arab-Americans are more likely to own a business than the average American. Until very recently, they were slightly more likely to vote Republican than Democrat (they are now trending Democrat). They are potential swing voters in Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Florida.
Here is the video.
That confused woman probably did not mean "Arab" but "Muslim." (She later said she was afraid America would become a Muslim country.)
But Arab is a linguistic identity whereas Muslim is a religious one. Not all Arabs are Muslims. The Copts in Egypt (6% of the population) speak Arabic but are Christians. Likewise the Maronites in Lebanon and many Chaldeans and Assyrians in Iraq. About 7,000 Jews living in Morocco speak Arabic at home.
If not all Arabs are Muslims, only a minority of Muslims is Arab. Iranians (70 million strong) are not Arabs. Turks are not Arabs. Pakistanis are not Arabs. Malaysians and Indonesians are not Arabs. Nigerians and Senegalese are not Arabs. But all these national or ethnic groups are predominantly Muslim.
Worse than the lady's confusion between Arab and Muslim were her further obvious confusion between Muslim and dangerous.
Mr. McCain, Arab-Americans and Muslim-Americans are decent, family-oriented citizens. The only thing wrong with calling Obama by either of these modifiers is that it would be incorrect. He is not an Arab ethnically, but rather northern European and Luo (Nilotic). He is not a Muslim but a Christian.
McCain's insinuation that "Arabs" (whether he and his friend actually meant "Muslims" or not) are not decent and not family-oriented and not citizens is obscene.
Ralph Nader, one of McCain's rivals for the presidency, is an Arab-American, and McCain owes Mr. Nader and all Arab-Americans, indeed, all Americans, a huge apology.
As with his self-professed "hatred" of "gooks," McCain's suddenly revealed attitude toward Arab-Americans is extremely troubling.
posted by Juan Cole @ 10/11/2008 12:51:00 AM
|
Facebook
42 Comments:
Minor correction: the Assyrians and many of ancient Christian sects in Iraq have their own Aramaic languages. These are still spoken at home, and include a wealth of literature going back thousands of years. They justifiably consider themsleves the original Iraqis, predating the Arab presence in Iraq.
The Arminians, mainly in Lebanon and Iraq but also elsewhere, see themselves as outsiders but are more happy to stay rather than move to Armenia.
thank you!
whether someone be arab or muslim, both of these words or people should not be insulted. It is an outrage that we don't understand the difference and equate these words to terrorists, especially being a part of the free world.
Well said brother! Thanks.
I read that the woman actually said "Arab terrorist", though the latter word is entirely inaudible on the video. If this is true it would make McCain's reply marginally better, but Juan is absolutely right that he should have squarely and directly taken issue that any use of "Arab" as a slur or attack is wrong. Had he not already given up on Michigan, he surely can do so now.
You've exaggerated this point to its max. Implications aside, he had to work with the moment he had in order to settle a crazy woman.
He didn't have time to go grab his copy of "Orientalism."
I wish I could shake the suspicion that this will end in violence.
That confused woman probably did not mean "Arab" but "Muslim."
Or Kike, or Nigger, or Gook... McCain likes that one himself. The Republican Party is the Brown Shirt Party. They are bent on cranking up hatred and confrontation, hoping it will lead to some chaotic act... enough to declare "extraordinary circumstances" and the then to pull a putsch.
9/11 all over again.
And why not? They've gotten away with 8 years of lawless acts with impunity. There is no opposition. Hey... it worked for the National Socialist Party seventy-five years ago. It just might work again here, and now.
Who's gonna stop them? The Democrats? Hah!
Let's have the apology to all Arab-Americans, and all Arabs, for that matter. (I am not holding my breath while the McCain campaign works out the spin on this.)
McCain's bigotry is showing. This helps explain his choice of the obviously inferior Sarah "not as good looking as Tina Fey" Palin, as she is one who would easily step (back) into the role of extremest wingnut, Gospel spouting and abusing leader.
Is it possible that McCain's plan to provoke Obama into a public outburst of anger has instead led McCain into generating awkward expressions of his own true feelings towards most Americans? Most Americans are not elites even if they try to curry favor with the privileged sect of self-imposed aristocracy, but they do love to rub shoulders with them.
Bigotry is a symptom of a small mind. McCain reveals himself to be a bigot, thus, McCain reveals the shallows of his mind. As George Soros said yesterday on Bill Moyer's journal, the current credit crisis signals the end of an era. Not as severe as Putin's over-hopeful statement, but significant still. The transformation we must make requires a leader with vision.
Barack Obama has vision. John Palin McCain is a nightmare.
Cannot agree more. McCain's disgraceful behavior will only bring him closer to the new Nazis and further away from real Americans.
That confused woman probably did not mean "Arab" but "Muslim." But Arab is a linguistic identity whereas Muslim is a religious one.
She meant "Arab." People like her hate all Arabs -- even Arab Christians.
It is shocking, disgusting and dangerous that McCain/Palin campaign has reached this low level. Inciting a crowd to hatred and eventually to violence because of passions aroused should be a crime. They shame our country and are certainly not fit to run it.
John McCain wants to portray himself as one that reaches across the isle and works with others. His negative campaign though shows that he is more interested in his own agenda than that of the country.
Give McCain a break on this one. He was trying to be decent for a change. He obviously did not intend to insult anyone; just the opposite.
I think this is a case where people are trying to make an issue where there is none. McCain was not saying "he's not an Arab, he's a family man," but rather "he's not dangerous (which is what the woman was IMPLYING), he's a family man." To say that McCain was actually calculating this to try and smear Obama, Arabs and Muslims is just ridiculous. He was addressing the woman's implication that "Arabs are dangerous," and nothing more. While McCain's campaign is certainly not innocent of mudslinging, this incident isn't an example of it, and to say otherwise is just twisting his attempt at decency into something it wasn't.
"Give McCain a break on this one. He was trying to be decent for a change. He obviously did not intend to insult anyone; just the opposite."
Come on! What McCain was trying desperately to do was pathetically transparent. He was scrambling like mad trying, not every successfully, to dig his way out of the hole he was in as a result of last week's hideous campaign strategy - a strategy that several prominent Republicans publicly repudiated, and in some cases even declare their intention to vote for Obama.
At 10:37 AM, leoeris said...
I wish I could shake the suspicion that this will end in violence.
not to worry, Leoeris !!!
would simply result in a 'target rich environment', in the vernacular.
Thanks prof.
Keep calling the bigots for what they are. At least there is hope reading courageous people like you.
This hatred of Arabs and Muslims is a relatively recent phenomenon. It's been quite consciously - and cynically - got up. Deliberately pathogenic terms like Islamofascist have been invented and mainlined into the American "public mind" by the likes of Richard Perle and Co. I wonder why?
imho, It is interesting to note in many of the Faces In The Crowd, and of Mr. McCain in particular: the pleasure of torture.
It is also interesting to note this aspect, quite apparent in Mrs. Palin's character. That is to say (and this has been pointed out by many recognized "conservative" intellectuals as well), it is one thing to j'accuse! a U.S. Senator of "being un-American," but it is another thing, altogether to appear to enjoy doing so, rather than some expression of a profound sadness; That the reality of a political leader who would pervert core American principles is nothing to celebrate, to derive pleasure from all this pain.
Yeah, but I'm still mad at them for coming up with Danny Thomas.
"To say that McCain was actually calculating this to try and smear Obama, Arabs and Muslims is just ridiculous."
That's not what we are saying. McCain was simply trying to follow the current strategy of frantic backpedaling in a desperate attempt to undo the catastrophic effect of the extremely ugly smear tactics of the past week. He was trying, among other things, to stop the escalating stampede away from him.
"He was addressing the woman's implication that "Arabs are dangerous," and nothing more."
No, that is clearly NOT what he was addressing at all. In fact, it is completely obvious that what he was addressing was the woman's explicit statement that Obama is not to be trusted because he is an Arab. What is also obvious is that he left completely unchallenged her implication that Arabs are not to be trusted.
Watch the video. Watch McCain's reactions. The woman says Obama can't be trusted, McCain nods and smiles, and encourages her - until she says he's an Arab, at which point he immediately begins shaking his head, quickly grabs the microphone from her hand, and insists that no, on the contrary, Obama is a "decent family man citizen". The reaction is CLEARLY to the suggestion that Obama is not to be trusted because he is an Arab, not that Arabs are dangerous.
"to say otherwise is just twisting his attempt at decency into something it wasn't."
It was not in any way an attempt at decency, it is an attempt at damage control. The McCain campaign's current "decency" is every bit as calculated and cynical as has been their recent gross and dangerous indecency. As a result of their hideous and unwarranted smears they are bleeding supporters, including a number of very high profile Republicans who have publicly decried their potentially dangerous smear campaign, and a few of whom have in the last few days declared their intention to vote for Obama. If their smear tactics had succeeded, they would be escalating them now, not resorting to attempts at "decency".
He was just trying his best to get past one old and crazy-sounding woman. For once he ran into a person more ignorant than himself.
McCain and Palin should have been disturbed that people in their rallies are chanting terrorist and kill Obama. But McCain is so desperate at this stage of the game that he has allowed all this to pass.
The questions yesterday by a couple of people seemed like a set up to me, just to make McCain look good. Increasing number of Republicans are telling McCain to cool it and some have even disassociated from his campaign. It may be this pressure that made McCain turn back from the dangerous road he had started to go down on. It is a shame that McCain is no longer the man he was over last 30 years.
This campaign has done nothing but whip wet-brained idiots into bigoted frenzies. Sadly, Arabic people are one of those shades of brown that have been deemed dangerous and untrustworthy. I cannot and will not vote for the "White is Right" team.
McCain and Palin have taken their campaign about as low as it can go. Racism, fearmongering, innuendo, stereotyping, and outright lies: it doesnt get any worse than that. Only the ignorant and the extremists will buy into it. However, they would never have voted for Obama in the first place. It is a sad commentary on our society that the "any means to an end" credo has come to completely define the Republican Party. I have lived in my neighborhood for 35 yr. I have never been bothered during election season. Now, I have had my Obama sign stolen from my yard. My campaign stickers have been ripped off of my car bumper. The Republicans are becoming vicious, when faced with the real possibility of ending their 8 very long and destructive years of total domination. I wonder what the next few weeks will bring?
I expect this behavior from McCain, what I would like to know is why the media (including the Maddows and Olbermanns of the world) have allowed this to go on? What I mean is, this is nothing new. They attack the GOP for insinuating that Obama is Muslim by responding "He's not a Muslim. He's a Christian" and leave it at that. My question is: Why? Why do they play into the right's hands by essentially accepting that "Muslim" or "Arab" are considered pejoratives?
The neo cons really have gotten their way, haven't they? The so-called 'liberal' media accepts that Arab or Muslim = terrorism/untrustworthy. The ignorant in this society do not scare me as much as the so-called "enlightened" ones who are clearly ignorant in their own right.
Shared Reflection of one Republican:
This letter explains how I as a Republican faithful arrived at the decision to support Obama. I discounted for years my fellow Republicans' ire over McCain, attributing it to his deviation from GOP orthodoxy. I honored his sacrifices as a POW. I celebrated what I felt to be McCain's more principled stands. I donated thousands to him and the GOP. Over the past several years, however, I have watched with concern as he made his peace with the more extreme elements of our party to seek the presidency again in 2008.
I'd like to address first the concept of strategy, because here is a big problem I have with McCain. McCain constantly needles Obama about his relative lack of experience (and I wish Obama had waited until 2012), yet when I listen to McCain and Obama discuss "strategy" what I hear from McCain are military, not presidential, strategies. Obama is dead-on right that the questions the PRESIDENT must ask are should we go to war in Iraq, do we continue down the path of open-ended engagement in Iraq, where is the most critical front for combat troops to be deployed for national security. Obama's first judgment opposing the war in Iraq was sound, although I still think there were many good arguments supporting war. Obama was tactically wrong in opposing the surge (and he should take sober note of this mistake), but he is strategically right that we must discuss a timeline in Iraq this is sound planning, not early admission of defeat. For McCain to say TWICE in the debates, that we must not abandon again Afghanistan as we did after the Soviets left, is ludicrous, given that he himself abandoned Afghanistan in 2003 and continued to advocate the total sidelining of that critical front of national security as recently as this year.
When I first heard attempts to criticize McCain's war record, I vehemently opposed what I viewed as Swift-Boat style tactics. Finally, however, I became curious and began to dig into his Navy record. McCain's record as a pilot is disputed. What emerges from public records is that McCain's own portrait of himself as an aggressive risk taker foots with his record of plane crashes, but he is disingenuous in obscuring that the Navy attributed those crashes to pilot rather than mechanical failure. McCain undoubtedly suffered much during his captivity in Hanoi, and I salute his stoicism, for I have never been tested in such a way. McCain hangs so much of his personal appeal on his "character" as evidenced by his military record that we should review carefully what that means. What I don't see in McCain's military record is the steady command presence of a leader who accomplishes his missions and takes care of his troops; if I compare McCain's military record against that of Senator and USMC Vietnam veteran Jim Webb, the differences are stark and disturbing.
There is a reason we in the military are at times cautious of the pilot as commander rather than the infantryman as commander the pilot despite flying in small teams reliant on ground support in essence operates alone, and there is a culture of pilot-as-superman that the USAF and US naval aviators foster; the infantry live and die with their fellow infantry in the mud this fosters a culture of teamwork, brotherhood and community responsibility that is often indescribable in its intensity. This is not to denigrate the extraordinary contributions, sacrifice, heroism and leadership of our many pilots over the years; this is simply a caution against blind, unquestioning reverence for one man's record as a frequently downed pilot and POW.
While I don't normally get into people's personal relations, I am discussing character because McCain and his supporters constantly play that theme as a McCain strength. McCain's relations with his two wives reveal much. Carol Shepp, the beautiful model unwaveringly faithful in her devotion to her POW husband, was tossed aside after her "disfiguring" accident in favor of the beautiful, younger and vastly richer Cindy McCain. The Reagans never forgave McCain for this callous disregard. I have great respect and sympathy for Cindy McCain; she is a compassionate and generous soul who loves and actively supports children and animals. I was appalled therefore when Senator McCain called her a "cu*t" in front of three reporters when she teased him about his thinning hair. McCain's partying and sexual escapades as a younger man no longer look like the long-gone history of a wild young man; they look like a continuing pattern of disrespect for women and an extreme degree of self-indulgence that holds to this day. His constant outbursts of profane invective against those who oppose him look like much more than the testiness of a maverick. In the context of his lifelong behavior and even of his blatant disrespect of Senator Obama during the debates, they start to look more and more like the anger of a man with a monumental, unbridled ego and boundless sense of entitlement. This is the "dismaying temperament" that George Will finds disturbing; I now agree.
I had always viewed McCain as a benign if vague influence on free market principles he obviously barely understood, but clearly supported limiting poorly conceived and drafted regulations that have more often been a burden than a boon. This year, however, I watched with bemused consternation as he lashed out at SEC Chairman Cox during the middle of the inferno, and as he found his inner financial populist, an aspect of his character that had been well hidden hitherto. Additionally, I watched with disgust as his campaign hired the former Rove operatives who had viciously and inexcusably attacked McCain's own family and watched as predictably enough they turned what had begun as a more high-minded race into the usual sewer of electoral politics.
Then McCain picked Governor Palin, or the GOP forced her upon him. This, combined with the ignominious defeat on immigration reform that he and President Bush suffered at the hands of our own Republican Party forced me to acknowledge that McCain has no leverage within his own Party. Those moderate and libertarian Republicans who believe he will be a moderating influence are deluding themselves. McCain has no capital to spend with his base. The Republican base votes for McCain/Palin because of Palin and in spite of McCain.
I withheld judgment on Palin until I could hear her thoughts and philosophy. Her GOP acceptance speech I found at times snide, but she has a sparklingly attractive persona and a rich and appealing life story. The Gibson and Hannity interviews left me wondering, the Bartiromo interview was good although she was too dismissive of the significant adverse impacts to the environment that opening up the ANWR will inflict, and the Couric interviews were a disaster. The left is wrong to deride Palin's education; if anything her undistinguished education reveals that she is very smart to have arrived at where she is. Where someone went to college is usually irrelevant after 5 years spent in the workforce. The left is wrong to seize on her prayer that Iraq be something God wants us to do; it was a prayer for guidance and reassurance, not a statement of fact. I admire her guts in taking on the Alaska GOP at the Alaska Oil & Gas Conservation Commission. I even like the fact that she runs; she is a great example to this obese nation.
Let's talk about what makes Governor Palin unfit for the vice presidency and the presidency in 2008. Looking at Palin's much-vaunted governance record yields insights. As mayor of Wasilla, she chose to erect a $15mm hockey rink from a town budget of $20mm. To finance this costly facility, she indebted the town with a $14.7mm bond issue. Palin and her administration authorized the bond issue before the town obtained clear title to the land parcel for the facility; as a result the town engaged in costly litigation, ultimately seized the land through eminent domain and paid a costly settlement. Much needed improvements to roads and infrastructure had to be financed with additional debt issuance of $5.5mm; had Palin focused on critical needs rather than the crowd-pleasing but very costly sports facility, those infrastructure needs could have been met from cash surplus. Although Mayor Palin reduced progressive property taxes, she increased a regressive sales tax that even included food items. During her six years as mayor, she increased government expenditures by approximately 33% and taxes by 38%; here I rely on figures provided by a Wasilla resident based on conversations with Wasilla budgeters. As a taxpayer, I shudder both at the improvident spending and the exercise of eminent domain, a government right that should be exercised only for greatest community needs such as critical infrastructure.
Despite Palin's personal support of Creationism over evolutionary biology, her lifelong attendance at an End of Days church, her decision (admirable in my view) to give birth to a baby with Downs syndrome (although I do wonder how she will care for that special needs infant and four other children while running for and possibly achieving the vice presidency), her disturbing interest in banning books, and what to me seem like too-frequent injections of what should be her private faith into the public realm, Palin's actual governance in Alaska was right of center and reasonably centrist, which helps account for her high popularity in Alaska. To support this view of her as not a right-wing ideologue, she was unable to name any Supreme Court decision that conservatives have opposed hotly: the 2003 ruling against a Texas anti-sodomy law, the 2003 ruling upholding the University of Michigan law school's affirmative action program, Bush vs Gore 2000, the Gitmo detainee decision?
As a libertarian Republican who tends to care more about the economy and national security than about issues that to me should be a matter of private faith and personal choice, I'm actually pleased that Palin is not at all conversant with our own Party's more radical social issues. As a citizen, though, I'm alarmed because it tells me that, despite telling her friends years ago that she wants to be president, she has not spent any portion of her adult life learning anything beyond the confines of Alaska. Palin demonstrates an admirable quick-study ability to pick up on talking points; she performed well enough at her debate with Biden to handle the talking points she learned though she brazenly dismissed some questions from the moderator. Her supporters argue this is evidence of executive ability. I disagree. Most executives spend at least a decade learning the details of their trade before developing an INFORMED ability to discern the big picture and formulate strategy. Palin's knowledge is at best PowerPoint deep. The executive position that Palin is running to win is NOT the governance of a tiny town or a sparsely populated state with an economy fueled only by energy and federal government subsidies. We are facing the most turbulent times since FDR took office. We must face the fact that Palin could become president in the next four years. The reason I find her gaffes alarming and not the gaffes of Senator Biden is because Biden has several decades of public achievements and demonstrated knowledge to offset his minor gaffes; Palin has no context of national achievement against which to set her mistakes. We did a terrible disservice to her as a politician; if we had incubated her for 4-8 years in a national level position and then sprung her upon the national stage, she could have become a very credible Republican candidate, provided that she spent that time absorbing the issues at stake rather than politicking at a superficial level.
Now let me discuss a trend that I find distinctly disturbing within my Party. First I'll state my positions. I am a strong supporter of free trade, free markets and a strong national defense. For years I have railed against the Democratic Party's poor track record in these areas (excepting some of Clinton's decisions on trade and markets). I am a socially libertarian Republican. I'm a devout non-denominational Protestant. I personally oppose abortion as a choice for myself (although I've never faced it thank goodness) but would not want another woman's right to choose dictated by the government not least because of the difficulty in many cases of proving rape let alone incestuous rape. I am supportive of gay rights, which should be protected by law and as a Christian and human being am sick of the hatred and violence that this community endures from many. I have opposed race- or gender-based affirmative action since the 90s; it arguably served a good purpose in the 70s and even late 80s, but the landscape has changed we should instead be looking at race-blind socio-economic problems by region.
What is beginning to change my mind on the magnitude of racism in this country are the comments I have heard from my own circles of acquaintance, in many media and particularly on conservative blogs, that opposed the recent attempt at immigration reform and that attribute the current financial crisis to the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 and ACORN of all things. Yes, some Democrats opposed the immigration reform bill and Obama tried to insert some codas that I opposed, but the defeat ultimately rests with my fellow Republicans who allow fear and vengeance rather than opportunity and compassion to dominate our discourse. What I have heard in the conservative commentary about both these issues is a very disturbing racially-based fear-mongering. I had thought we as a country and party were better than that, but the subtext underlying so much of the fear of immigrants (both legal and illegal) and the grossly distorted effect of financial burdens that the CRA and ACORN placed on the residential mortgage lending space, is racist.
I'm no fan of the CRA or ACORN, nor do I think they are the giant bogeys my party would paint them. The CRA has no requirements and no penalties; it is a toothless piece of legislation. It encouraged, among many community-building activities including support of community churches, banks to set up deposit-taking branches and extend credit to neighborhoods where banks traditionally engaged in red-lining (avoiding borrowers with poor or no credit history, often racially categorized). The numbers of residential mortgage loans resulting from the CRA are a de minimis portion of the defaulted loans wreaking havoc in the marketplace (banks were not required to originate any loans the same loans and securities backed by them could be and often were traded and re-traded among banks to fulfill CRA credits). The vast majority of bad residential mortgage loans were originated by specialty finance companies that were not subject to the CRA with a smaller percentage coming from institutions that were only partially CRA-covered.
The idea that the level of residential mortgages exploded in growth due to pressure from ACORN or the CRA on Fannie and Freddie would be laughable if it weren't for the undertones of racism. Residential mortgages exploded due to a combination of low interest rates established by Fed Chairman Greenspan after the dotcom bubble burst, and a globally driven search for higher-yielding securities by investors worldwide who thought the higher yields of mortgage backed securities were safer because of this mortgage loan collateralization than unsecured corporate debt. I am NOT accusing all who blame CRA and ACORN for the financial mess of racism; I am saying that racism has propelled many of the grossly inflated estimates of the impact of the CRA and ACORN. Blame for the pressure to continue the mortgage lending bubble can be evenly apportioned to Democrats and Republicans alike.
Let's talk about taxes. As a top income tax bracket citizen, I undoubtedly will be soaked, and badly, during an Obama presidency; I am dreading that, particularly as I have watched my life savings drop to 20% of what they were a year ago. As someone who views my income and the opportunities I have enjoyed in this country as the blessings created not only by my hard work but also as a byproduct of an entire nation of tolerant hard workers, I have an obligation to my country that exceeds my desires to keep all of that income for my personal expenditures. This feeling of communal obligation drove my decision 20 years ago to join the military when it was not considered desirable for someone with an Ivy League degree and opportunities on Wall Street. Ronald Reagan, who in my view was a great American president, ushered in the era of anti-tax and small federal government Republicanism. This was in response to the economic doldrums of the 70s and specifically the failures of the Carter administration. It was the right decision FOR THAT TIME. Republicans now have turned that innovative era of tax cuts and attempts to downsize the federal government into dogmatic ideology regardless of changes in both our domestic and in the global economies. We need to understand better the exigencies of our times there is an asset side and a liability side to our ledger, and the liabilities today are monstrous.
Both Obama and McCain are less than forthcoming about how they will pay for the programs they envision launching, let alone the sucking chest wound that is Medicare, but I see no way out of our morass of debt without raising taxes at some level, cutting spending and stimulating investment. Global growth is slowing dramatically and may stagnate for a significant period. Revenue must come at least to some extent from taxes on my fellow high income citizens and on corporations that have accrued large levels of cash over the past several years (now admittedly diminished because of the credit crunch). I think Obama should raise his tax threshold levels for instance from the joint married $250,000 number to say $500,000 (which still hits me badly) and increase his estate tax threshold, but these are nits. There is no way for McCain to avoid grossly inflating our national debt given his desire to cut taxes on corporations by hundreds of billions annually and individuals (by 7.8% for earners making more than $600k per year; Obama wants to increase taxes by 20.2% on those same earners), continue indefinitely in Iraq, finally increase funding for the war in Afghanistan, finance all of the other programs he espouses doing simultaneously rather than prioritizing and most importantly reforming Medicare. And what of McCain's proposal for the US government to buy bad mortgages is this the hallmark of a fiscal conservative? Who in government will administer this massive program of possibly more than $300 billion, oversee and audit it? We do know who will pay all the costs of it including surefire losses (losses that are NOT surefire under the Paulson plan, which may even make a profit for taxpayers) and receive none of the upside if any taxpayers. Lenders, investors and borrowers who made those bad decisions will get off unscathed under McCain's latest proposal. Those who dismiss the burden of a large national debt that is mostly owed to irresponsible spending, are themselves insanely irresponsible. I don't think that Obama has set forth a clear plan to solve any of this, but I do think that at least he has set forth one partial and responsible revenue solution, which is raising taxes, has at least generally discussed cutting spending programs that don't work and eliminating corporate tax loopholes that plunge our world's second highest tax rate among the 30 countries of the OECD developed nation economies to fourth LOWEST for federal and state revenue collection 2.2% of US GDP vs 3.4% of the OECD GDP average. While the tax question is undoubtedly complicated, not least because of thousands of loopholes and problems of double taxation, it must be resolved. The idea that taxes should never be raised and that we should always favor tax cuts is blind both to history and to currently building deficits.
My bottom line on McCain is that he has not set forth a compelling vision of why I should vote for him, and he has given me many reasons, not least of which is Governor Palin's current state of unpreparedness, not to vote for him.
Why do I now support Obama? What makes me hopeful that Obama is more than just a gifted orator, is that he DOES have a strong albeit short legislative record. After listening to and reading about Obama this past year and delving into his legislative record, I find in him a deeply cerebral, well-informed and compassionate intellect coupled with a dense legislative record given its relatively short duration. While his legislative record is clearly left of center, Republican claims that his accomplishments are non-existent and McCain's claim that he has never reached across the aisle are not true.
I think you should read the attached links on Obama's legislation that started as typical left-oriented bills and became bipartisan efforts through Obama's hard work. It's no easy task to get anything passed in state legislatures if anything it is harder than federal legislation because the politics are so close to home and become so immediately personal. This article in the Washington Post is a good discussion of how Obama started with a decidedly left-wing proposal and had to LISTEN to, compromise with and then persuade others who disagreed with him:
§ http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/03/AR2008010303303.html
§
And here is a link from the Illinois state government web site on Obama's legislative record:
§ http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/legisnet90/summary/900HB1757.html
I also think it's worth looking at Obama's US Senate legislative record. What I see throughout his time as both state and US senator is a politician who actively promotes the health and welfare of the citizenry, particularly of the disadvantaged and our veterans, protects consumer rights, protects the environment, promotes education of our children, promotes investment in our infrastructure and has taken a prominent role in nuclear anti-proliferation and monitoring issues and other foreign policy issues.
Obama has sponsored a significant amount of important US Senate legislation given both his short tenure and his presidential campaign. Many of these bills are pending calendar discussion, but nonetheless the effort to get these bills to a vote on the Senate floor is there
§ http://www.govtrack.us/congress/person.xpd?id=400629&tab=bills
Also, accusations have been flung by the right that Obama has missed an inordinate number of Senate votes. See the following nonpartisan website links to compare record Obama's missed votes vs McCain's; Obama missed fewer votes in the same period:
§ Obama: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/person.xpd?id=400629&tab=votes§ McCain: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/person.xpd?id=300071&tab=votes
Some of my friends have accused Obama of an unattractive degree of narcissism and promoting or accepting a cult of personality. Obama's publication of two books detailing his personal journey is out of step with our times and certainly no less narcissistic than McCain's own publications and Palin's by now threadbare hockey-mom, pitbull and maverick tropes. Obama's books interest me as he reveals an almost clinical detachment in describing his own journey that is at times blatantly unflattering to himself in their lack of sentimentality (for instance his description of his father's visit). Obama's prose is elegant, but it cannot disguise his at times unsettling severity. I think it is this lack of sentimentality that people compare with McCain's unabashed romanticism, often to Obama's disadvantage. McCain is often Don Quixote tilting at the windmills of earmarks; Obama is like a field biologist examining an anthill.
What is unclear to me is in what economic direction Obama will take his party to the center as President Clinton did and Obama's advisors Warren Buffett, Paul Volcker, George Soros and Robert Rubin would undoubtedly prefer, or to the more left of center vision espoused by Robert Reich who hardly qualifies though as the socialist vanguard and whose advocacy of expanded technological education for workers is something I would support. While Obama undoubtedly supports higher taxation on the individual rich and on corporations, he routinely has championed middle class families (albeit at lower income levels than all middle income families would like to see), who are the backbone of this country. His plan for taxation I think is both reasonable and responsible given our deficits. Obama's passionate support for a national investment strategy of comprehensive energy independence that decreases reliance on fossil fuels while protecting our environment is far more credible and again indicative of good judgment than McCain's very late-to-the-game embrace of energy independence and Palin's drill-at-all-costs mantra.
So what of Obama's character? What of Ayers, Rezko and Wright?
After reading as much as is available in open press (I've spent considerable time on conservative, liberal and independent web sites as well as reviewing MSM) about Obama's associations with Ayers, Rezko and Wright, I would dismiss the first two as negligible given what has been revealed of the nature of the relationships (as repulsive as Ayers' unrepentant support for violent acts of terrorism and Rezko's corruption are) and the third as the most troubling given the duration and intimacy of the relationship.
The conservative attack wing has tried now for quite some time to find dirt on Obama for the Ayers and Rezko relationships. They haven't found much. This is not a conspiracy of MSM to keep unflattering stories of leftist politicians under wraps. The conservative right is now just as well funded as the left, and they have found little if anything but vague allegations with little substance to the Ayers and Rezko issues. Neither of these stories passes my smell test for malfeasance either in the context of what we have seen demonstrated in Obama's legislative record and what we know of his personal finances.
Obama has roundly condemned Ayers' history of violence that occurred 40 years ago when Obama was 7 years old. Ayers has been disturbingly unrepentant about his acts of violence, but he has also spent the rest of his adult life engaged in social programs targeting education of the underprivileged in our society and has been for at least 30 years a well-received figure in Chicago civics. Obama met and worked with Ayers when he was a respected and established academic devoted to educational projects not projects to inculcate violence in children. These educational proposals funded by private charities, while decidedly left-wing and possibly unpalatable to the broad middle of America, are hardly radical let alone violent in nature. Obama has downplayed the frequency and duration of their interaction dating back to 1995, which is unwise but unsurprising given the nature of Ayers' past. I'm not sure how this is worse than McCain's long-standing friendship with G. Gordon Liddy, or Governor Palin "pallin' around" with her husband's Joe Vogler/Alaska Secessionists Vogler who proudly and furiously states "I'm an Alaskan, not an American. I've got no use for America or her damned institutions."
The real estate deal with the Rezkos involved bad judgment on Obama's part, but I don't see evidence of anything more corrupt in Obama's dealings there. The $250,000 in campaign donations that Obama's campaign uncovered as sourced from Rezko and his known associates were contributed prior to revelation of the federal investigation; Obama's campaign claims 2/3 of those contributions have been donated since to non-profit groups (it would be nice if someone could verify that). The prices that the Obamas paid for their own house and the adjacent parcel generally seem to reflect market prices at the time, and the property's previous owner has corroborated Obama's account. What this story reflects to me is Obama's naοvetι in thinking that he could remain above the fray. Obama should have known that even if Rezko had not called in favors in the past, eventually there would be such a request, and a request from someone under investigation should have been something to be avoided at all costs. The real estate transaction was evidence of poor judgment, but I don't see other evidence of corruption in either this story or in Obama's history. This pales in comparison to McCain's active intercessions on behalf of the Keating Five, which I also don't think are worth discussing; this Rezko issue is even less questionable than Palin accepting travel per diem for 312 days that she stayed at home.
The hardest piece to resolve in Obama's personal association is the relationship with Reverend Wright given its duration and intimacy. I think it has to be placed in the context of what it means to be a black man and particularly a black politician in the US. Until very recently, it has been almost impossible for a black man in this country to repudiate the social orthodoxy of the Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton schools of racial politics. Look what happened to poor Bill Cosby.
When I read Obama's Audacity of Hope and his other writings, what strikes me is the severe honesty of observations and descriptions (in ways distinctly unflattering to him) of the agonizing choices he had to make as a young man in order to assimilate into predominantly Caucasian America, and the spiritual journey that he undertook moving into adulthood to understand better his mixed racial heritage. I can empathize with that journey but only to a degree the racism I faced as an Asian growing up in Florida, Texas and Virginia, and even now as an adult, has been negligible and benign compared to what the average black male endured and continues to endure. Friends from around the country who show affection and respect for me, openly admit they would never vote for Obama because he is a black man; these people are kind and good people but they cannot get past their pre-conceived notions and fears of what a "black American President" would mean to them.
As for what Reverend Wright has said: while I love my country passionately not only for itself but above all others and wholeheartedly disagree with the bitter hatred underlying Wrights words, I can also sympathize with the decades of frustration, anger and hopelessness that the Reverend and many of his followers have endured some of it their own making, some of it not. While I uncompromisingly condemn Wright's "God damn America," I would not completely disagree with Wright's assessment that 9/11 was "America's chickens coming home to roost." I do NOT excuse or condone the vile murders that violent terrorists commit, I still grieve for the victims both dead and living, and I put my Wall Street job on hold for nearly 2 years to fight the Taliban and Al Qaeda. We MUST be honest with ourselves, however, about the choices that we make and acknowledge that those choices will have consequences, some that are primary, secondary, tertiary or even unknown in effect.
Everything that we as Americans do, whether it is choosing political allies, economic or financial policies, social policies, even our choices of consumption, has consequences. Our size, wealth and history as a nation have meant that our actions have disproportionately large effects not only within our own communities but globally. This is why I feel so strongly that I want leaders who are capable of stepping outside of themselves and understanding not only their own world but the perspectives of others around them. I feel very strongly that Obama has this ability; I also feel very strongly that McCain and Palin lack it to various disturbing degrees for McCain it is his monumentally self-absorbed ego and temper that often (although not always) get in the way, for Palin it is not only her narrow life experience (rich as it undoubtedly has been in so many ways) but also her demonstrated lack of interest and knowledge in so many areas that we as American citizens should expect our vice presidential and presidential candidates to understand.
I think the very long, thoughtful and candid first speech that Obama gave upon being confronted with Wright's more vitriolic speech is worth re-reading:
§ http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/18/obama.transcript/index.html
Yes it is full of rhetorical flourishes; no he does not repudiate Wright in this first public address on the topic. He DOES repudiate Wright's messages of hatred. What I found most revealing in this speech is that Obama has no rosy illusions about the range of emotions that underlie either the black or the white poor communities in this country. The most important part of what I see in Obama is that unlike some affluent middle-class blacks who left their roots and original communities behind (and other ethnicities who have done the same; this desire to move on is completely understandable), Barack and Michelle Obama chose to stay and fight for their fellow black citizens who have not lived the American dream. Michelle Obama admittedly makes me nervous, for I think she is an angrier person than her husband although probably not as angry as some fear. But it is Obama who would be president and in no way have I seen anger as a significant let alone governing part of his personality (I cannot say the same for McCain). This is why I am hopeful for when Bill Cosby told black men and families they needed to live up to their responsibilities he was excoriated and excommunicated by his own people; when Obama said essentially the same thing, they sat up, listened and chose to support him. This is not solely the doing of Obama. Times have changed, but the black community still needs a powerful leader who can wrest their social orthodoxy from the reactionary victimology that the Reverends Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton dictate and change it to a more constructive, integrated and responsibility-driven dialogue. I think Obama can be that leader.
Obama shows a masterful ability to inspire people. His opponents dismiss this as empty rhetoric. Yet Ronald Reagan had that same ability; his opponents dismissed it as empty rhetoric. Inspirational leadership is incredibly important, never more so than in times of crisis. The public lack of confidence in President Bush has emasculated any attempts he and his administration have made to lead the nation in these dark economic times. Obama has shown an extraordinary ability to inspire a very broad swath of the public young, old, Caucasian, non-Caucasian, rich and poor. My Republican Party is boxing itself into a narrow corner that espouses, not only an American Exceptionalism that is in many ways justifiable and in some ways not, but more troublingly, an increasingly strident xenophobia. I am willing to take a chance on the young Obama because he is clearly intelligent, well-informed, practical and inspirational.
For full disclosure, I am a Republican, Wall Street financial executive and US army veteran of OEF in Afghanistan. I am not ashamed of my life's work although I am deeply saddened by the disaster we as a nation are facing because of the "irrational exuberance" at so many levels of our national economy. I have faithfully voted the GOP ticket my entire life and donated thousands both to the GOP and McCain over the years. I voted twice for GHW Bush, for Bob Dole in 1996, and twice for GW Bush. I worked on McCain's 2000 campaign. In 2008 I'm voting for Obama/Biden.
thanks very much for opening up the issue.
Well written. I am not surprised to see the McCain campaign floundering around, lashing out and doing anything it can to 'shake things up' in these last few weeks. Like a fish getting plucked out of the river and frantically trying to figure out where all the water's gone. My question however, is more about Obama's heritage. I've read that technically speaking, Obama is 50% Caucasian, 43.75% Arabic, and 6.25% African Black. His father is descended from Arab slave traders but is from Kenya. Being of mixed descent myself, I am simply curious if this is true or if its more of the random garbage thats out there on the net.
Jeez, the far left of my party are no better than the far right of McCain's party. It is obvious to anyonw with an open mind that McCain's statements were specifically about Sen. Obama and not an insult or slur against the Arab world. Get a grip far left, the Democrats are going to win this election. We will have to govern "with malice toward none" and compromise with the vast majority of middle of the road Demos and Repubs. Think.
Saint Michael,
I'm not an American, but I am interested in what is happening in the run up to the elections. Your letter helped me understand many things. I hope you will post your letter on as many forums as possible. I suspect there are many Americans who will learn much from what you have written and appreciate your words as much as I did.
i personally think it is time to stop dwelling on the negative slurs from both campaigns. i personally am voting for mccain/palin becuase they are prolife and promilitary. I am apprehensive about sarah palin, but i believe McCain has the experence needed to end the war in iraq the best way, bring our soliders home without leaving Iraq to fall into Chaos. I think Obama does not have the military experience needed to lead our military. Too many veterans have sacrificed too much for him to turn around and apologize to the world for their sacrifice and say it meant nothing.
I do believe he will make a good president, one day, but not now.
The democrats are leading us down a path to mediocrity and celebrating the worst in life.
Thank you for all the positive comments. Please keep up the good work to bring America back!
Thanks for standing up for the truth. Not being swept away by the Tsunami of hatred toward Arabs and muslims. There are unfortunatly few real journalists who look ofr te truth, even if it is not popular. Keep up the good work
Thank you very much for this article.
I want to express gratitude for the article written by Mr. Cole. I can't believe the ongoing attacks on Arabs and Muslims. We are guilty until proven otherwise. So sad that there is so much ignorance and fear out there. Thank you for contributing towards peace and enlightening people.
Thank you.
atefeh naeemi
Fantastically written piece. Thank you.
Great and informative article. Thank you for clarifying these fact to the masses.
Thank you.
Thank you so much. We are finally seeing people coming to the defense of Arab and Muslim Americans. When protestants and catholics were killing each other in Northern Ireland they were not labeled Christian terrorists.
Post a Comment
<< Home