It's always nice to get feedback and so when someone as prestigious as MP Dai Davis writes in to the Morning Star to agree with something I wrote there it warms the cockles of my heart. Here's my citation in full;
I agree with Jim Jepps (M Star October 13) that President Obama merited the Nobel peace prize.
I have submitted an early day motion in Parliament that warmly welcomes the award of the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize to President Obama.
It also welcomes his announcement on September 17 that the United States was cancelling the deployment of missile defence technology in Poland and the Czech Republic and the positive response from the government of the Russian Federation.
It also recognises the historic UN security council session that committed all member states to resolve to "seek a safer world for all and to create the conditions for a world without nuclear weapons."
Dai Davies MP House of Commons Westminster
Thanks Dai.
One thing though, when I say things like "He did not deserve the prize... But we should not allow any cynicism at Obama's achievements to date to obscure the fact that the prize is being used to promote peace rather than reward it." It does tend to imply that I don't think he merited the award.
However, pedantry aside, the EDM is a good one (here) which does exactly what I'm advocating - using the Peace Prize to promote peace by holding Obama to its aspirations regardless of what we might think of his achievements to date.
What's even more interesting is the list of signatories so far. Anyone who can get Bob Spink (UKIP), Peter Bottomly (Tory) and Jeremy Corbyn (Labour) to put their names to the same document has some very special powers indeed. Kudos to Mr Davies and keep up the good work.
Did you hear I won the Nobel Peace Prize today? I know, cool isn't it!
Well, technically it was actually that nice Mr Obama that collected the award but we're like that. I'm the one on top.
It's great to receive awards don't you think? Especially when you haven't done anything to deserve them.
He's been in office for less than a year, he hasn't even got his seat warm yet. I guess the committee are giving him the award for what he's going to do... let's hope he plays nice, eh.
For my money I think Obama has some way to go before he's as brilliant at peace as some of the former recipients, like Henry Kissinger, who were simply marvelous at the old making the world a safer and more just place thing.
I haven't heard but I was wondering whether he got the Nobel Prize for Physics too... come on - he deserves it!
There are some commentators saying that Obama is letting the side down by not throwing his weight behind the protests in Iran. Surely he could swat the regime like a bug, so what's he playing at being all cautious and inscrutable?
For example, Simon Tisdal in today's Guardian rebukes Obama, saying this hands off approach is at odds with his recent Cairo speech. I'm sorry but I completely disagree. Tisdal quotes Obama's speech;
"America does not presume to know what is best for everyone, just as we would not presume to pick the outcome of a peaceful election... But I do have an unyielding belief that all people yearn for certain things." These included the ability to speak freely and have rulers who did not steal from the people. "These are not just American ideas; they are human rights. And that is why we will support them everywhere."
Tisdal then says "Obama's refusal so far to support Iran's anti-government demonstrators... sits uneasily with his Cairo pledge." So a speech where he is clearly pledging that America will no longer be a heavy handed meddler in Middle Eastern affairs is held up as an example of why he should be meddling in the Iranian election - I don't think so.
Tisdall continues, "The problem with these and other defences of inaction is that a hands-off policy is impractical and will not reap dividends. Obama's apparent wish to stand above the fray is both unrealistic and undesirable".
Au contraire - the idea that the US President's could positively influence events by throwing his weight around beggars belief. It's a complete nonsense that Tisdall doesn't even try to justify.
The moment Obama gives explicit support to the protests is the moment that the regime can unleash a real massacre - and Obama knows it. Far from strengthening pro-democracy tendencies in the protest movement it would help to crush them.
Tisdal puts it down to Obama looking out for the "US national interest" and whilst I'm not saying this more cautious approach is opposed to such interests, Obama has a far wiser and more long termist approach than his predecessor, is it in the interests of Iranian democracy for Obama to make some statement or other supporting the overthrow of Ahmedinejad?
The last thing the protest movement needs is to be labelled as a stooge of Western interests. High profile support from Obama would undermine the arguments of the protesters who want Iranians to have their say in who runs Iran. More than that it hands the state not just a propaganda coup (which I've no doubt they would use to full effect) but legitimises even greater use of force to suppress the remaining protesters.
Simon Tisdal might like to think that posturing is more important than the lives of Iranians fighting for their votes to count but we have an intelligent US President now who sees macho soundbites for the blunt tool that they are. I for one am glad that Obama has a cool head and isn't flouncing about like an over excited teenager putting people at risk in order to feel good about himself.
OK, I managed not to cry during Obama's inauguration address (pdf) - helped by the fact that as a male it's simply genetically impossible for me to cry unless my football team loses. Apparently.
Anyway, he's been signed in (video) and that's all that counts for now. Nice new Whitehouse website by the way.
The speech got off to a shaky start, what with thanking Mr Bush and everything but seeing as the rest of the speech contained so many coded attacks on his predecessor I'll let that slide.
I recommend reading the whole thing at the link above - but here's my highlights. I wanted to do a bit of a commentary on each part but I'm off to celebrate so don't have time. A jar of homemade chutney to the first person to guess where I almost cried. Remember this is the President of the United States saying these things - compare and contrast to Bush.
"I thank President Bush for his service to our nation, as well as the generosity and cooperation he has shown throughout this transition." [JJ - tut]
"That we are in the midst of crisis is now well understood. Our nation is at war, against a far-reaching network of violence and hatred. Our economy is badly weakened, a consequence of greed and irresponsibility on the part of some, but also our collective failure to make hard choices and prepare the nation for a new age. Homes have been lost; jobs shed; businesses shuttered. Our health care is too costly; our schools fail too many; and each day brings further evidence that the ways we use energy strengthen our adversaries and threaten our planet." [JJ - the ways we get our energy threaten our planet? He... means... oil... woop!]
"On this day, we gather because we have chosen hope over fear, unity of purpose over conflict and discord. On this day, we come to proclaim an end to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn out dogmas, that for far too long have strangled our politics." [JJ - just as well he thanked Bush earlier then :)]
"In reaffirming the greatness of our nation, we understand that greatness is never a given. It must be earned. Our journey has never been one of short-cuts or settling for less. It has not been the path for the faint-hearted - for those who prefer leisure over work, or seek only the pleasures of riches and fame. Rather, it has been the risk-takers, the doers, the makers of things - some celebrated but more often men and women obscure in their labor, who have carried us up the long, rugged path towards prosperity and freedom." [ JJ - that's right, he's not going to do it for you - in your face playstation generation!]
"We remain the most prosperous, powerful nation on Earth. Our workers are no less productive than when this crisis began. Our minds are no less inventive, our goods and services no less needed than they were last week or last month or last year. Our capacity remains undiminished. But our time of standing pat, of protecting narrow interests and putting off unpleasant decisions - that time has surely passed. Starting today, we must pick ourselves up, dust ourselves off, and begin again the work of remaking America." [JJ - it's the market that's fucked, not us. Just saying is all.]
"We will restore science to its rightful place, and wield technology's wonders to raise health care's quality and lower its cost. We will harness the sun and the winds and the soil to fuel our cars and run our factories. And we will transform our schools and colleges and universities to meet the demands of a new age. All this we can do. And all this we will do." [JJ - US President plus renewable technologies = woop woop!]
"Now, there are some who question the scale of our ambitions - who suggest that our system cannot tolerate too many big plans. Their memories are short. For they have forgotten what this country has already done; what free men and women can achieve when imagination is joined to common purpose, and necessity to courage. What the cynics fail to understand is that the ground has shifted beneath them - that the stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long no longer apply." [JJ - that's right. The age of pessimism has to die. The age where it's always someone else's fault will kill us if we don't kill it.]
"Nor is the question before us whether the market is a force for good or ill. Its power to generate wealth and expand freedom is unmatched, but this crisis has reminded us that without a watchful eye, the market can spin out of control - and that a nation cannot prosper long when it favors only the prosperous. The success of our economy has always depended not just on the size of our Gross Domestic Product, but on the reach of our prosperity; on our ability to extend opportunity to every willing heart - not out of charity, but because it is the surest route to our common good." [JJ - The market can't run riot. Are we sure this guy is President?]
"As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals. Our Founding Fathers, faced with perils we can scarcely imagine, drafted a charter to assure the rule of law and the rights of man, a charter expanded by the blood of generations. Those ideals still light the world, and we will not give them up for expedience's sake. And so to all other peoples and governments who are watching today, from the grandest capitals to the small village where my father was born: know that America is a friend of each nation and every man, woman, and child who seeks a future of peace and dignity, and that we are ready to lead once more." [JJ - you hear this Bush? Civil liberties are part of making a better world, not a barrier to it.]
"Recall that earlier generations faced down fascism and communism not just with missiles and tanks, but with sturdy alliances and enduring convictions. They understood that our power alone cannot protect us, nor does it entitle us to do as we please. Instead, they knew that our power grows through its prudent use; our security emanates from the justness of our cause, the force of our example, the tempering qualities of humility and restraint." [JJ - there are no military solutions, I'm going to do things a different way. Thanks Bush.]
"With old friends and former foes, we will work tirelessly to lessen the nuclear threat, and roll back the specter of a warming planet. We will not apologize for our way of life, nor will we waver in its defense, and for those who seek to advance their aims by inducing terror and slaughtering innocents, we say to you now that our spirit is stronger and cannot be broken; you cannot outlast us, and we will defeat you." [JJ - was anyone expecting him to talk about nuclear disarmament? Cool. And he's banging on about climate change again - he wont shut up about it!]
"For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus - and non-believers. We are shaped by every language and culture, drawn from every end of this Earth; and because we have tasted the bitter swill of civil war and segregation, and emerged from that dark chapter... as the world grows smaller, our common humanity shall reveal itself; and that America must play its role in ushering in a new era of peace. To the Muslim world, we seek a new way forward, based on mutual interest and mutual respect." [JJ - hold on, did he just say that America has like, atheists and Muslims in it? The fact he choose not to define America as a Christian nation but a nation of many faiths and none, that, my friends is a bit a progress that might go unnoticed.]
"To those leaders around the globe who seek to sow conflict, or blame their society's ills on the West - know that your people will judge you on what you can build, not what you destroy. To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history; but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist. To the people of poor nations, we pledge to work alongside you to make your farms flourish and let clean waters flow; to nourish starved bodies and feed hungry minds. And to those nations like ours that enjoy relative plenty, we say we can no longer afford indifference to suffering outside our borders; nor can we consume the world's resources without regard to effect. For the world has changed, and we must change with it." [JJ - bloody wonderful. The door just opened to a sane foreign policy - let's hope we all step through.]
"In the year of America's birth, in the coldest of months, a small band of patriots huddled by dying campfires on the shores of an icy river. The capital was abandoned. The enemy was advancing. The snow was stained with blood. At a moment when the outcome of our revolution was most in doubt, the father of our nation ordered these words be read to the people: "Let it be told to the future world...that in the depth of winter, when nothing but hope and virtue could survive...that the city and the country, alarmed at one common danger, came forth to meet [it]." [JJ - revolution! woot! Let's all work really hard because times are really shitty - crowd roars in approval.]
"Let it be said by our children's children that when we were tested we refused to let this journey end, that we did not turn back nor did we falter; and with eyes fixed on the horizon and God's grace upon us, we carried forth that great gift of freedom and delivered it safely to future generations." [JJ - it's up to us all, and future generations are depending on us.]
Pics: top - Obama takes out the White House trash, below - wordle word cloud of Obama's speech (click to enlarge).
The whole pomp around ushering in the new President has begun and by the end of Tuesday we'll be bidding a fond farewell to our favourite Sith Lord Bush and welcoming in the head of the Jedi Council, Barry. I intend to cry at the appropriate moment and a pox on anyone who sports a dry eye with anything remotely resembling cynicism.
Not everyone on the left will be welcoming in the President however. Sadly few of them will be expressing themselves as humorously as the Weekly Worker front page this week (pictured). Soon Obama will be being held responsible for every storm, war, bust bank and racist cop that happens under his watch and he's already been seen as complicit in the Gaza crisis and he's not even got the keys to the White House yet.
I think people need to remember - he's only the President and he's never promised to sort out the world's problems single handedly. Never.
It seems to me that some on the left have mistaken his supporters enthusiasm with Obama's own understanding of his capability to change the world. He understands that climate change wont be addressed without creating a movement on the ground and if the world's population sits back and thinks Barry's going to sort it all out for them then it's not Obama's failure but theirs. He's been pretty open about what's needed.
We have reached an historic opening. The government in the USA has been been a force for, well, evil in the world for a long time now. Pestilence, starvation and war have been actively promoted and approved by Presidential decree, now there is an opportunity to start turning that around. Starting from the assumption that Obama will be identical to Bush lacks a certain sense of perspective.
Obama's team is head and shoulders above anything Bush or Clinton before him assembled and on climate change in particular he looks set to reverse eight years of obstructionism and oilocracy. On Israel and Palestine the left have done nothing but denounce Obama but the objective facts are that the next few years *could* see a massive leap forwards in the region that would have been unthinkable under Bush. Are we going to help make that happen?
I'm deliberately holding back on commenting on Obama too much until he's got at least a month or two of Presidential power under his belt. Partly because the speculation overdrive has largely tended to be reaffirmations of the commentator's previously held beliefs - and I've wanted to avoid repeating that cycle. Also I'm holding off because I want to cleanse my palette a bit after the very long Presidential elections.
When he's in the wrong, and he will be many times, I want to be able to say it loud and clear without feeling the need to justify my support for him. When he's right I want to feel that I'm not just waving a flag for the guy but have made a real assessment. I know some people have decided to get their disillusion in early (and frankly I treat with skepticism anyone who claims to be disillusioned in Obama before he's even President, twits the lot of them).
The opportunity is there and we have to seize it with both hands. One of the greatest barriers to a sane policy on climate change, the economy and global conflict has just been removed. They say all political careers end in failure, but when Bush goes we all win! It's my opinion that this is not the moment to prepare the case for how disappointing Obama is, but to help build a series of movements that constructively address the fundamental problems the world faces.
Sometimes those movements will need to oppose Obama tooth and nail, sometimes they'll need to fight for influence and sometimes we will need to reinforce, enthusiastically, his administration's policies. We have to be able to do that in an open way, without the sectional impulse to always claim we know better - even at the price of distancing ourselves from the very people we have to win to active involvement in campaigning work.
No one will sort the world's problems out for us. Not Obama, not Superman, not Nick Clegg, not Ed Miliband and not Caroline Lucas - they're all busy playing poker with each other anyway. It's us or no one and, no matter how tempting it is, if we allow ourselves to fall back on relying on or blaming the great and the good we've abdicated our responsibilities and left our parsnips well and truly unbuttered.
With great excitement sections of the press have "revealed" that the President elect's grandfather, Hussein Onyango Obama, was tortured by the British. Whilst I'm glad to see this in the papers, seeing as Obama Jr published this himself in 1995 I'm cringing slightly at the word "revealed" here. "Revealed again" might be a bit more more appropriate.
The Guardian concedes in a rather straight faced way that "Obama, with more pressing contemporary problems on his plate, is unlikely to be fixated on extracting revenge from the UK." Well, I think they might be right on that one, but Brown better watch it just in case.
One good thing to come out of this rather old story is that the press has been publishing potted histories of the resistance movement in Kenya that led to Obama snr's arrest. It's worth remembering that during the Mau Mau phase of this resistance ('52-'60) between 11 and 30 thousand Kenyans were killed, 80,000 imprisoned and around one and half million Kenyans were "resettled"by the British (Ken Olende).
According to Dreams from my father prior to his arrest Obama's grandfather had been known locally as a great admirer of the British and had proudly served in the British Army. Arrested for a connection to the resistance that he always denied Hussein Onyango Obama was imprisoned without trial and tortured - an ordeal from which he never recovered either physically or psychologically.
According to The Times “The African warders were instructed by the white soldiers to whip him every morning and evening till he confessed,” and he'd recalled how “they would sometimes squeeze his testicles with parallel metallic rods. They also pierced his nails and buttocks with a sharp pin, with his hands and legs tied together with his head facing down”.
The alleged torture was said to have left Mr Onyango permanently scarred, and bitterly anti-British. “That was the time we realised that the British were actually not friends but, instead, enemies,” Mrs Onyango [his wife] said. “My husband had worked so diligently for them, only to be arrested and detained.”
Whilst the paper is horrified that "Mr Obama has nothing good to say of the colonial era, which he summarises as “the manipulation of colonial boundaries, the displacements, the detentions, the indignities large and small”" The Times still does not flinch when it comes to eye witnesses, which include rebels of the day, one of whom recalls of his own ordeals;
First he was pushed through a cattle dip. Then he was beaten around the back of his head until he fell unconscious. “But the worst punishment was carrying overflowing buckets from the cells,” he said, in the Kikuyu language of his tribe. “We were made to carry them on our heads. The guards would make us run so the excrement would run down our faces. It stank and made our eyes sting. We were all ill, all the time.”
In a sworn statement collected by human rights activists, he details other abuses at Manyani, which he described as “hell on earth”. The screams of other inmates turned the camp into a lunatic asylum, he said. Their days would be spent digging rocks from the ground. One of the white guards would force young inmates to carry him on their backs, as if they were horses.
If anyone were tempted to say that Abu Graib or Guantanamo were uniquely American institutions they should consider some of the barbarities British colonialism inflicted upon its subjects in order to keep Kenya British.
One British officer recalls being horrified when he first arrived when his superintendent outlined what they did in the camps. “He said, ‘I don’t know why you’re looking so queasy about this, it’s just like a good rugger scrum’.” The officer went on “The war in the forests lasted for maybe two and a half years. The more serious situation was created by the operation to sweep Nairobi clean of anyone who was black — or that’s how it seemed.” To his credit he eventually refused to continue to take part in the British offensive.
Even The Mail has a potted history which concedes that the British response in Kenya "only radicalised Kenyans who may otherwise not have felt as strongly about the violent path to independence." Which is a lesson worth learning time and again for any budding ruler of an Empire.
Obama never met his grandfather and whilst it seems he found these stories instructive and moving he's hardly emulated the politics of the Mau Mau or Fanon in his meteoric rise but his determination to close down Guantanamo, and end US sanctioned torture may well be a fitting tribute for his grandfather and those who, like him, suffered under the misrule of the British Empire.
In general I'm withholding judgement on Obama's new Presidency, at least until starts. Otherwise I'll get very confused, each news scrap given a significance beyond the sweep of events. Partly this is because I believe policy matters more than the personnel, but also because I need to ensure I've got enough distance not to retrospectively justify my decision to support Obama.
However, it's difficult not to comment on Hillary Clinton's political resurrection as Secretary of State. Those who know me will understand I am unlikely to greet this news with unbridled joy. In fact I need a little cuddle, right now, to shield me from a world that just became a slightly colder place.
Clinton undoubtedly has a constituency, but there is also a large pool of people who, frankly, can't stand her. As part of the political elite who's Presidential campaign conveyed an arrogance and indulged in dirty politics Clinton is someone whom Obama could easily leave out of his administration without recriminations. She certainly wouldn't have returned the favour if the shoe was on the other foot, that's for sure.
For me, there are three key questions this appointment raises;
Does this represent the change people voted for?
Who's foreign policy will the administration follow?
Who'll be the big cheese in the White House?
There will be a number of people out there who will have concerns about one or more of these questions and so I thought I'd start to explore them a little, albeit in a slightly more positive way than you ight expect;
Does this represent the change people voted for?
To answer this question we have to unpick why people voted for Barrack Obama. I believe that over arching theme was fairness and change, but what kind of change? Well, one way of looking at his new gang of front line politicians is to compare them to the United Colors of Benetton. There's certainly a freshening up going on right now.
However some are confused by the fact that instead of a left field, liberal cabinet Obama is creating a government "of all the talents" from the right and left of center. When he talked of unity he did not simply mean everyone should unite behind him - but that he was going to attempt to unify different strands of opinion, which is what he's doing.
For eight years America's top officials have been placemen, yes men, those hewn from the same stuff as Bush. Obama has refused to fill the top levels with Obama clones (if there could be such a thing) but has taken a more inclusive approach, which will inevitably mean including people I'm far less comfortable with.
One commentator said this was an "unruly roster of all-stars" and there is something consistent here. Whilst Obama's opponents tend to characterise him as someone who promises to single handedly deliver the promised land this was never the theme of his campaign. In reality the consistent refrain has been that of joint effort and the creation of a progressive movement from below.
A cabinet full of strong, independent characters is a risk - but one consistent with the message of empowerment. For a President to deliberately pick players who would be able to challenge him - that's an interesting move that displays a self confidence and a faith in the abilities of others that has been lacking over the last eight ideologically fallow years.
Who's foreign policy will the administration follow?
I think if Clinton had been given health they'd have been wide spread understanding of the move. Although a more minor role, Clinton's known for her passion on reforming health care in the US and, I think, she could have fitted with Obama's radical agenda in this area. Instead Clinton has been given a top foreign policy role, an area where the two had clear differences.
During the election campaign Clinton mocked and derided the idea of trying to build diplomatic bridges with those that Bush described as part of the axis of evil. Now she'll be in charge of doing just that. One of the most serious concerns will be whether we're getting Clinton's foreign policy or Obama's, and certain Joe Biden, who was chosen partly for his foreign policy expertise, will find it difficult to find a role in this picture.
However, in Clinton's acceptance speech she put an emphasis on diplomacy and creating "more partners and fewer adversaries" around the world. She added "The American people have demanded not just a new direction at home, but a new effort to renew America's standing in the world as a force for positive change," I'm reading that as a message to Obama's supporters that she is with the programme (now).
Given that one other option had been to have the lackluster John Kerry in the role I certainly have more faith in Clinton's greater ability to distinguish between her elbow and, cough, other parts of her anatomy, but it was never Clinton's competency that was my concern - rather her politics, her class and her instincts.
Who'll be the big cheese in the White House?
The very fact that Obama has gone through with this appointment when he didn't have to shows he's magnanimous in victory - can Hillary match that I wonder? This deal is certainly good for her, a leading role in Obama's administration is more high profile and powerful than being one Senator out of many.
Obama said that he was "a strong believer in strong personalities and strong opinions" and as one commentator said "It's a strong team – ideologically diverse, bipartisan, representative of a broad range of policy interests and for the most part committed to the goals that candidate Obama told American voters he'd pursue."
In this sense - because she's hardly the only controversial pick - Obama isn't creating a rival power base but a team of rivals over whom he will hold command. Bush could not have pulled this off, but it remains to be seen whether this works for our new President elect.
The Washington Post framed it this way; "Put simply, picking Clinton shows Obama's bigness - that his pledge to bring in the best and brightest regardless of their past political entanglements is more than just lip service." In a very real way any potential dissent that Clinton may have been willing to indulge over the next four years has been incorporated - making her implicated in the regime rather than an alternative to it.
I suspect this is a demonstration that Obama is, very much, the man in charge at the White House - what the implications are for policy, particularly international policy we shall have to nervously wait and see. It could be a good pick, but it's certainly a timely reminder that the progressive left can't sit back and wait but has to be willing to independently fight for what it believes in.
You may not have realised it but Obama is the first ever black President of the United States. What's that you say? People just wont stop saying it? Oh, OK.
Now, this is quite an important thing to happen, of course it is. It's difficult to overstate how important having a black President for the first time is, but there's a real problem with how the Obama victory is getting re-interpreted and, I think, we're in danger of rewriting history before the ink's even dry.
Anyone who saw the very poor BBC coverage on election night will know that a) the corporation doesn't seem to have a clue what they're doing and b) after the result was in the only thing they had to say about Obama was that he was black and he had won. Literally nothing else of substance.
Now this annoyed me at the time. It's one of the many things to say, but if you say it to the exclusion of everything else then you diminish what happened this Tuesday. People didn't just vote black - they voted for a specific political program that included pulling out of an unpopular war, investment in "green jobs", addressing the fact that millions have no health insurance and dealing with the economic crisis. Americans voted on those issues and many others, not just on race.
Republicans are slippery buggers
Some Republican pundits seemed to make out that "of course" the Democrats won, they ran a black guy. Which, if this had been such a sure fire electoral strategy it rather begs the questions why they didn't do the same. Maybe they're a bunch of... oh, I wont go there tonight. I even had the wicked thought that some Republicans thought the Democrats had cheated a bit by running someone who could mobilise black voters in historic numbers, don't they know they're disenfranchised?
The next thing that happened is that the Republicans began doing a rather magical thing. They started claiming the victory for themselves, in a weird sort of way. This proves, they said, that in America anyone can make it. This shows that America is not racist. This election showed that the American dream is real. The guy elected on a platform of addressing the inequality that the Republicans stand for somehow shows that, in fact, in America everyone is equal. Even Bush said it.
For them, after eight years of neocon governance Obama's win proves that society is, in fact, fair. It makes your eyes water to think about. Suddenly, because the only thing of interest about Obama is the colour of his skin, people didn't reject the Republicans politically, they just fancied a change of tone. Like changing the colour of your curtains for a bit of a freshen up. No, no, no.
Politics, politics, politics
Electing a respectable, well spoken, church going African American is a great and a good thing. The fact that he voted against the Iraq war and is committed to pulling out the troops is ever so slightly more important though. The fact that he is a hundred times more suited to dealing with the economic crisis than the McCain/Palin team is not an irrelevance, but central to why he got elected. The fact that he is the first President elected to take climate change seriously is something we should not allow to vanish within the hype.
I know this is really an ABC of anti-racism but it might be worth saying right now anyway... the most important thing about someone is never the colour of their skin. We should not allow the Republicans in particular to depoliticise this victory and we shouldn't allow progressives to forget that there was more to this election than colour.
In the UK Cameron, Salmond and Brown were all hoping some of the magic would rub off as they welcomed Obama's Presidency, but whilst many politicos will be trying to "learn the lessons" of these events what they'll in fact do is look at campaigning techniques rather than the set of progressive politics that mobilised millions. Not because they were tricked into it by clever spin but because there was an offer of something genuinely new.
What a wonderful night! I'm still recovering really but thought I'd better get my final election post done and dusted. It may well be slightly unstructured because I want to move on to other things blogwise, but there are still a few bits and bobs that I really want to say and I thought I'd pack them all into one super post.
The Presidential result is historic. Even at the beginning of this year who would have thought we'd see the highest electoral turnout since 1908? Although Bill Clinton received a higher level of electoral college votes in '92 and '96 (with Perot carving off a big slice of the Republican vote) the Democrats received their highest proportion of the popular vote at this election since 1964.
I mean this doesn't fit the media message that people are becoming less engaged with electoral politics. It's almost as if when people stay away from the polls it's because they are uninspired, and the reverse is true if it feels like they make a difference. If you have identical grey choices less people will feel politically motivated - but if you have an inspiring message, then something can happen.
What if it had been Clinton?
I've been thinking about what would have happened if Hillary Clinton been the Democratic candidate, but the election would have been so different it's just impossible to tell. No historical grass roots mobilisations, no plausible message of change, a completely different approach to Iraq, no Sarah Palin gosh darn it, quite different lines of attack from the McCain camp, a dirtier Democrat campaign (to substitute for lack of new political direction), and would he have laid out as bold a political prgram - well it seems unlikely.
I believe she might have have been able to win, I think the time was right for the Democrats, which would have created twenty plus years of US rule by just two families Bush Snr x1, Bill Clinton x2, Bush Jnr x2, then back to the Clintons. Shudder. In fact this was the first election since 1952 when neither a serving President nor Vice President had been on the ticket (and the first time in history that both main contenders were serving senators) instead we had a maverick and a new kid on the block.
Hillary's arguments about how Obama "couldn't win" have rumbled through the whole campaign and turned out to be, well, rather stupid in hindsight. Not that I ever believed them, but you still had people banging the bullshit out on election day itself.
He'd be too divisive? Yet the Clintons have allowed their bitterness at defeat to create a sour taste for the Democrats in way that it's extremely unlikely that Obama would have allowed. Add to this that the defining feature of the Republican campaign has been personalised and polarising attacks Obama has become a figure of unity, healing and coming together - far from the divisive figure he was made out to be.
Would Hillary have won as many endorsements from the highest level of the Republican Party? Would she have won the enthusiastic support of the left? No, no one could pull that trick off surely - except of course they just did.
Women would desert him, we were told, because they were too disgusted by Clinton's defeat, well, it turns out women don't just want someone in the Presidential office who can wear a fancy dress, they actually think when they cast their vote - who would have believed it? 56% of women voted Obama in the end, which I guess means that that was pretty much a fallacy that took women for a bunch of knuckleheads who'd just vote for any woman - in much the same way that some Republicans have been touting the rubbish that black people voted for Obama just because he's black. Well they can try it next time and see how far it gets them.
Also we were constantly being told that white workers wouldn't vote for him - as if somehow white workers are more important than black workers - at least in the voting booth we're all equal. Whilst I've never been certain about the subtext to that, as I suspect it was partly geek style wonkery, it was certainly taken as coded racism in some quarters - that Obama was too black for a white electorate. Turns out he wasn't.
Despite his inexperience, a key plank of the Clinton/McCain argument, at least until Palin came along, Obama's judgement has proved to be exceptional and well above and beyond both of his more seasoned opponents. This was shown in two key places. Firstly, alone of all the major campaign teams he has retained the same personnel from the very beginning. McCain and Clinton had fractious, over paid, overly cynical ego-staff on their campaign teams and so at least they developed a theme of change among their people never settling on one core set - Obama had absolute continuity.
Secondly there was the economic crisis. McCain tried to call off the debates and started rushing about like a headless chicken. Obama told him to pull himself together and get back on the campaign bus - which he meekly did. Isn't it the newby that's meant to make idiotic and impetuous errors like that? Turns out experience without judgement ain't that great.
What about the other elections?
I was disappointed at how little time the election coverage I saw gave to the other elections and referenda. In both the House of Representatives and in the Senate there have been important, if modest, advances. The House of Reps is now 252/173 Democrat (that's 17 up) and there have been, I think, six gains in the Senate.
Whilst the Senate figures have improved with a tight gap between Dems and Reps becoming something more comfortable for the Dems, Al Franken is still unaware of whether he is a Senator in Minnesota yet, which would be excellent. When I was quickly checking the result I noticed that, unusually, there was a well polling independent in the race gaining 15% of the race, making the tiny gap between the big two more interesting to geeks like me.
Independent candidate Dean Barkley seems like a really interesting chap and from the looks of it mainly appeals to those of a progressive bent. My favourite quotes from his website... "I got into politics 16 years ago because I was mad" and "I don't need two guys from New York to tell me why the middle class is angry" although the bit on his TV ad where he pushes over a small pillar and storms away is a classic frankly.
All credit to him on a substantial vote, the best any independent received for a post in the Senate. I think that credit is particularly well earned when you glance through his manifesto and see that there are polices like open the border between the US and Mexico, a shared position with Obama on war where he's for a withdrawal of troops from Iraq and reinforcing Afghanistan, he's also for lowering the age limit on buying alcohol to 18. Nice.
Another independent candidate, this time for Governor of Vermont, Anthony Pollina, may not have won but he did beat the Dems into second place, with both on 21% of the vote, making him the only candidate outside of the main two parties to break that deadlock. His policies seem pretty progressive too (jobs, renewable energy, spits on big wall street banks) and he has impressive union backing as well as local legend Bill "Spaceman" Lee, man I'd kill to be endorsed by someone with "Spaceman" as a nickname. Pollina has an interesting radio ad you might like to listen to. I liked the phrase "please vote and bring a friend"!
The other great bit of news was Republican Senator Liddy Dole who was given the boot as a reward for a set of crass attacks on her Democrat opponent for being "godless". Far from being the pitchfork waving boobs she took them for, Dole's main demographic, in what had been strong Bush territory, took this as a sign that she needed to get some rest and elected the other candidate. Good work North Carolina.
What happens now?
Well, The Onion probably summed it up best with its headline Black Man Given Nation's Worst Job. Stuck in seemingly endless military conflicts, facing catastrophic climate change and all in a time of economic meltdown, it looks like there's quite a bit of work to be done. However, it's not up to him is it - and he's never claimed it is.
One of the interesting things about the whole tone that has encapsulated Obama's rise to the Presidency is the idea of social responsibility rather than individualist isolation. When McCain supporters chanted their man on election night they chanted his name. When the crowd rose up in support of Obama they shouted out "Yes we can". There's been an ideological shift there which is why when all the moaners that say that Obama is going to disappoint his supporters miss the point entirely.
Obama has never claimed he's going to do everything for everyone else and they can just sit back and do nothing. His demands are for an active movement, not passive support. The grassroots were responsible for this victory and if things don't go the right way in the future, that responsibility will be partly theirs too.
If there's no strong social justice movement or anti-war movement; If the unions don't mobilise, or if community activists don't get stuck in then, well, don't expect everything to be gravy. Obama can't make that happen, and sometimes wont even want to, but it's the one essential ingredient - and this Presidency is encouraging that social engagement. Yes it is.
Keeping the Democrat coalition together, with all its various elements and factions, will be a monumental task. The President will have pressure on him coming from all sides. If progressives aren't part of that pressure he'll inevitably be pushed to the right and backwards into the old way of doing things. If those movements can build their momentum he can be pushed further than he thought he might be going to go.
It's not a question of whether Obama let's us down, but whether we let the hopes of this election down. He's already describing the government as "of the people, by the people" - that's a tall order in a capitalist democracy - but it's an expectation that's worth fostering and striving for. Only time will tell how hard a grip the dead hand of the past has on the living but the people showed this week they are not just passive observers of events when they mobilise and that's lesson we need to take into the future.
But before we get down to work - let's dance!
p.s. congrats to Ralph Nader who managed to increase his share of the vote to 0.5%
I'm mainly over at Liberal Conspiracy most of the night (on and off) but thought I might add a few bits and bobs over here too as the election night wears on. Feel free to treat as an election open thread if you like;
Obama: 338
Karl Rove says Obama is the most radical Democrat ever elected!
Terrorist fistjabs all round Obama is President!
Brilliant speech - all about unity and harnessing hope.
McCain: 155
Vote McCain or the cow gets it McCain HQ has turned off the news! Where are the pics of miserable reps - do not cheat me BBC!
McCain made an excellent concession speech. Shame his campaign couldn't have been so clean.
22:12 GMT Things looking good so far. Stroppy has a picture of her cat's reaction to the elections. You can feel the tension.
24:00 GMT Been listening to Howard Zinn and the Onion.
24:48 GMT Socialist Worker (US) says highest turnout since 1908 - definately high. 24:48 GMT The talk here is that all the BBC women are wearing red - bias!
01:59 GMT Been looking up Ross Perot - he got 18.9% of the popular vote in '92. No third party candidate will get even 1% this time.
04:30 GMT BBC coverage can't stop talking about race - what about the politics?
NB: my connection is playing silly buggers so I'll probably come and go and come back, etc.
For most of the left the range of support for Obama has ranged from a passive "I'd prefer it if he'd beat the other guy" to an over the top enthusiasm at an historic turning point (like me), but a small section of the left has a different take on the US elections, one that actively discourages a vote for Obama, no matter what the consequences.
Part of this attitude is best demonstrated by that brilliant Mao anecdote when an American (I think it might have been Nixon) rebuked him for China's one party system. He smiled and said "But America has a one party system too, but with typical capitalist extravagance you have two parties." I respect that.
It comes from years of Repubocrat policies where it's been difficult to slide a cigarette paper between the two parties. But right now you could park a bus in the gap between the tickets, and then some. The neo-conservative agenda of the Republicans isn't just a set of different flavour policies, like the difference between Coke and Pepsi, it is a fundamentalist agenda of war, privatisation and imperial dominance. Obama might not be a pacifist but he ain't George Bush neither.
When Dick Cheney described McCain as a "man who'd looked into the face of evil and not flinched" it's difficult not to smile and secretly insert your own joke. After all Bush and McCain were two men who publicly celebrated McCain's birthday as the worst excesses of Hurricane Katrina wreaked havoc in the south. There is something worth despising there and it's well past time they were gone.
The NObama left is intimately involved in the struggle for women's rights, but given the VP choice between an anti-abortionist who believes in abstinence only sex ed and a man who's helped draft some of the most progressive legislation on women's rights in his long years in congress there's just a shrug. No difference?
To the campaigners who have tirelessly campaigned against further military adventures into Iran there's a clear choice between candidates who sing "bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran" and a candidate that has consistently advocated diplomatic routes even when he was taking enormous flak for it. But no - to the NObama left it's all lipstick on an imperialist lapdog.
The Left Press
How does this section of the left try to relate to the new mood for fairness and change? By trying to spread cynicism. Now don't get me wrong - there's plenty to criticise, but there's a big picture too. If we look at this particular section of the US left press we see that their tone has been extremely negative with little emphasis on genuine alternatives.
The US paper Socialist Worker, which as it happens is often an interesting read, has shifted over the last few months from outright attacks on the Democrats (and occasional asides about the Republicans) to a more nuanced position around whether Obama will be able to "hold his nerve" when in office. I suspect the editorial line has had to shift because readers and sellers just weren't impressed. But when on their election night page they say "There isn't much suspense about who will win the presidential election" I mean - what?!?! On what planet???
The anti-capitalist magazine Left Turn takes that up a notch and says "As libertarian leftists, we view presidential contests as egregious reaffirmations of the state," and so the current issue literally has no coverage of the election at all. It just isn't important enough to warrant even a tiny articlette. That's pretty egregious in itself.
When Patrick Cockburn says of Biden (the third most liberal voting Senator) "In his single person is combined everything that is loathsome about the Democratic Party" it isn't simply a genuine political disagreement, there's a pathology that's removed the ability to make a proportional political analysis. So it isn't that much of a surprise when he goes on to say of Obama, "In the event of Obama’s victory, the most immediate consequence overseas will most likely be brusque imperial reassertion" which is mirrored by the likes of Ian Sinclair on Zmag who denounces "Obama's hawkish pronouncements". They don't think he might, if nothing else, be constrained by his base who want a withdrawal from Iraq then?
It's one thing to point to Obama's willingness to reinforce the troops in Afghanistan or his politically mainstream position on Israel and argue for more consistent peacenik policies but to paint him as the devil just doesn't make sense, and it certainly doesn't recognise genuine advances when they occur. A sense of perspective seems utterly foreign to these voices, and their reward is to become ever more marginalised.
So what of the progressive alternatives to Obama?
There are only two alternative candidates worth mentioning. First there's Cynthia McKinney of the Green Party. She made her name questioning the official story of the 9/11 attacks and her campaign disgraced itself when she claimed, with no evidence what-so-ever, that thousands of prisoners had been executed during Hurricane Katrina. Even large numbers of Greens aren't supporting her. She certainly is not a threat and not that interesting either.
Then we have the hardy perennial Ralph Nader who is in a no win situation. We're annoyed at him when he's irrelevant, and annoyed at him when he makes a difference to the outcome. That's a tough place to be, but he's got broad shoulders. He needs them with that big head of his that he has to carry around.
Both campaigns have been dominated by lack lustre, top down organisation in an election where the main news is the sheer scale of grass roots political participation and neither campaign has been able to impress with any strategic direction, essentially confused by a progressive mood that they've been entirely unable to understand.
The candidates have been posturing to the left but in fact they have fed cynicism and impotence, asking people to sneer from the sidelines as history happens, maybe you could put a hat on that stuff and call it radicalism but it don't smell right from here. I don't want to overstate this but they are doing a good impression of people who mistake being miserable for being left wing, or one's who are so concerned with never being wrong they end up never being right.
Whilst we're not talking big numbers here (last time Nader achieved 0.38% of the vote and the Greens 0.1%) this masks two important factors to the outcome. One is where those crucial votes are cast, which could make a real difference in tight states. The second is that this also hides the effect of having left candidates breeding indifference in the electorate. Whilst it's unlikely someone like McKinney will persuade many people to vote for her she can reinforce in people's minds the idea that there's no point voting at all in this election. That's extremely damaging to progressive politics.
Whilst the Democrats have been trying to raise the expectations of ordinary people and empower them to be a motor for change the leftist candidates have concentrated on being special people "speaking truth to power", the isolated politics of the moral high ground. As voters literally queue for hours to cast their ballot inspired by the slogan "we are the change we've been waiting for" that momentum can and is being used for social good - but if the left wants to be part of that it has to make friends with it.
No previous presidencial candidate has been a community organizer, or anything close to it, and no recent presidential campaign has been as bottom up as Obama's. In a time when the political landscape is being reshaped the left candidates' campaigns reek of sterility and old style dogma.
I've no quibble with those who say Obama is not superman or Jesus, it's true, he's better than that. He's real and he opens up the possibility of change - I do have a problem with those who'd rather have clean hands, in order to be distanced from anything Obama does wrong than get their hands dirty and make the world a better place even by one degree.
Did it have to be that way?
Whilst Nader's campaign doesn't even have the pretence of building up an organisation he does have interesting things to say. In one third party debate (with the Constitution Party candidate) he rebuked left wing Obama supporters for giving away their vote too easily. In a nuanced discussion he stated that voting Obama was not wrong but that we should use that vote to pull him to the left, and that can only be done if you are prepared to vote against him. "Don't give them your vote too easily" he implored.
It seems to me that this points the way towards how an effective and relevant left liberal candidacy could have looked. Whilst Obama represents a real window of opportunity many of the other Democrats standing for election are just more meat for the grinder. A good presidential campaign could have been used to promote decent alternatives at the base - trying to build strong local hubs whilst supporting the overall message of change, and influencing it.
In much the way that Sian Berry's campaign for London Mayor successfully positioned itself as part of the big picture, essentially as a supporting candidacy for Livingstone and Green assembly candidates, it enabled the Greens to hold up their vote in extremely difficult circumstances where the left and Liberal Democrat votes were pulped between the two big hitters. A left third party candidate could have openly called for a vote for Obama where it matters (in my view almost everywhere) whilst generating real interest around local candidacies of good progressive independents.
The two independent senators, Joe Lieberman and Bernie Saunders, show that it is possible to get electoral success outside of the big two but neither of the left presidential candidates have a swath of local campaigns to support. They have no base and don't appear interested in developing one. Unlike for the Democrats for them it's all about the top job, and I tell you, it takes something to be more heirarchical than the Democrats.
A movement that can hold the government to account is more than a talking head - it has to be made up of committed and engaged rank and file activists. The anti-war mobilisations, the women's movement, the trade unions and all those other social currents are jam packed with talent but if the left doesn't orientate on them in a way that doesn't just disregard the big issues they'll never tap into that fantastic resource.
In the words of Joe Trippi "We are all busy with change today. But the status quo will not be wiped away with this election. The real work to change this country begins anew tomorrow. After today no one will ever doubt again that you have the power — so use it. Be proud of what your work has accomplished, but change is going to take more hard work from all of us."
Well, the McCain corporation like oil. That's their energy strategy. Mmmmm, taste it, drill it, burn it - it's all good compadre.
Our man Obama, now he think oil's OK, but maybe there's a bigger picture too. That's why he's calling for a "green jobs revolution". He's promising a one hundred and fifty billion dollar "Apollo Project" that would create five million "green collar jobs". As the Independent states "There is growing acceptance from economists in the US that a Green "New Deal" should be a fundamental part of the solution to the financial crisis and to America's long-term security concerns."
Obama wants to see the US drastically reduce the amount of oil it uses so that in ten years it has cut oil consumption by the amount that it currently imports from the Middle East and Venezuela combined. That's quite a bit, particularly as it involves turning a year on year increase in consumption into a year on year decrease.
Now, if you read the detail of the plan (factsheet, pdf), you'll notice two things, and depending on where you are coming from I guess determines which way round you'll notice them.
One thing you'll notice is the Blueprint for Change falls short of where we need to be. Well short. He does not commit to tackling capitalism, red in tooth and claw. He sees nuclear as part of the solution. He has no strategy for fundamentally addressing an oil economy, just managing it.
Hopefully you'll notice something else too, the scale of his ambitions. By the end of his first term he wants 10% of America's energy to be from renewable sources. That's quite a leap. By 2020 he wants to see energy consumption reduced by 15%, and by 2050 he wants to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 80%. It's all there in black and white, even though he's running for President of the United States.
When he talks about creating livable and sustainable communities, and a massive program of home insulation for low income families you know, I don't think that's nothing. There is a significant positive shift taking place.
He explicitly states that he wants to "make the US a leader on climate change" and I don't think he means that in the same way George Bush thought the US should contribute the most greenhouse gasses. The document's eight pages long so go ahead read it for yourself if you have a moment.
If you do I'd like you to notice that he wants to help fund his plans through windfall taxes on the oil companies and others and he wants to curb financial speculation in the sector. Both of which involve tackling powerful vested interests. That's quite an interesting move.
You might prefer to watch the blue print for change video (two and half minutes) which lays out the plan in a clear and simple way. These videos are a good idea that's worth copying incidentally. They are a series of twelve (I think) youtube videos laying out neatly and without fuss a specific policy area. Well, it really works for me.
Of course Obama's first organising job in the eighties was working for Ralph Nader promoting recycling in Harlem so he's not new to this green lark, but I think what's becoming clear is that Obama is more than just "not McCain", although that's really important too. His plans for a green jobs revolution is central to any strategy that's to combat climate change in an era of economic problems, let's hope he gets the chance to implement it.
Oh, Ted Stevens. Thank you, thank you, thank you. Never has corruption been better timed nor more welcomed. The countdown has begun for the most important democratic election in the world so it's always great to hear Republicans are being jailed for the occasion.
Things could only be better if Sarah Palin had lavished praise on the thieving... oh hold... this just in! What next, will she ask what the VP does? Or endorse Obama? Or support independence for Alaska? Who knows - we have days left in which she can disgrace herself a thousand times over.
I am glad Sarah Palin has nice clothes though, although apparently she'd already planned to give them to charity after the election's over - I guess that means she didn't have high hopes of needing decent clobber after the voting's done then. You just need plenty of jumpers back in Alaska I guess. Lying fuckers.
I'm also glad Obama loves pie. He can afford a lot of it after all those donations. Tips I call 'em, and not a single one from a Russian oligarch. I'm real glad that he's got lots of pals who've sent him good wishes. Even from people who wouldn't normally go with someone of his colour (blue). No wonder he's cocky.
I'm happy for McCain too who has won the support of robots who spontaneously started making calls for him. They obviously recognised his many talents. Even if he does have anunfortunateseriesoftics. Don't listen to 'em John - the cameralovesyou baby!
I'm so happy for Biden who's managed to avoid gaffing, mainly by not having any profile in the election what so ever. I mean less than that plumber guy even. I hope his inability to tap dance in front of crowds means he'll be a good Vice President. We'll see soon enough.
I feel consumed by the election minutiae which has a certain fascination, but, unless you're a pie manufacturer or make clothes in the very unAmerican New York this stuff is unlikely to sway your vote. The Republicans have been fighting hell for leather to pull attention away from the economy, the wars, anything that actually matters to people but the fact is I think the American population are going to do the right thing - and big style.
Not just electing Obama but ensuring that congress has got the kind of representatives that are for reversing the catastrophic Bush years. I know some on the left are, well, insistent that Obama is just the same as McCain, that there's no difference between 'em. I don't think that's right.
If we had the opportunity to campaign for the 'Not Attacking Iran Act' we'd go for it hell for leather and be as excited as anything. Well Obama is that act.
If we had the chance to vote for weak legislation creating progressive taxation or moving America towards renewable energy we'd fight like anything for that. Obama is that legislation. Not a magical fairy who'll sort out all our problems but genuine reforms that we explicitly call for day in and day out. It would be churlish to reject them on the basis that it isn't us delivering them when no one to the left of the Democrats has a cat in hells chance of building an alternative pole of attraction.
Voting is one political act out of the hundreds we should be making every year, but it's still an act of significance. We can save lives in Iran. We can save lives in the US, and make it a fairer place. I'm not turning my nose up at that, this is an historic moment. Yes McCain and Palin have to be stopped, but Obama and Biden need to win too. That doesn't mean I wont be criticising their administration - you can bet I will - but fostering the sneering illusion that there's no difference between the two camps now only favours McCain.
The death of Republican USA is drawing near. Let's prepare a world street party!
I don't normally cut and paste as it creates sloppy blog habits (which would never do!) - but I thought this piece from the excellent US sports writer David Zirin was worth reproducing. For English readers who may be confused when David refers to "sports" he is, in fact, referring to "sport".
Ever since Andrew Johnson welcomed the New York Mutuals to the White House in 1867, presidential politics has exploited professional sports. It's a foolproof way for politicians to show voters they enjoy competition, fair play and are salt-of-the-turf Americans.
Sports signifies different things to different voters. Football (JFK) and baseball (George H.W. Bush) are good. Windsurfing (John Kerry) and hunting "varmints" (Mitt Romney)--not always so good. And no candidate should ever bowl in a necktie, unless he can seriously roll.
Barack Obama's game is basketball. He shot three-point baskets with the troops in Iraq and his high school b-ball videos have become a YouTube sensation.
During the campaign Obama has appeared on sports radio, including a cameo last week on ESPN's Mike and Mike in the Morning. He earned cheers from co-host Mike Golic by saying, tongue-in-cheek, "I would have my attorney general investigate the possibility of instituting a college football playoff system through executive order. I'm tired of this nonsense at the end of every college football season."
A month earlier, John McCain made his own ESPN appearance. He's also known to work the crowds at NASCAR events. But no one in this election uses sports like Alaska Governor Sarah Palin. At times on the campaign trail, sports is her primary form of communication with voters outside of her narrow, Christian fundamentalist base. Communication is critical for Palin, since she mangles the English language so consistently that she's become the subject of ridicule. Talking sports--whether as a mom on the sidelines of her kids' hockey games or a as an outdoorswoman who loves to hunt and fish--gives her the opportunity to seem genuine, friendly and accessible.
Palin's politics may be beyond the fringe, but her sporting interests are effortlessly mainstream. In this sense, she resembles the current occupant of the White House. George W. Bush built his public persona as the owner of the Texas Rangers. When asked for an example of a political mistake, he would speak with a smirk about trading Sammy Sosa. The press and the public let him get away with this blather and the country has been worse off because of it. Palin has the most extensive sports resumé for a politician since former Representative Steve Largent. But unlike Largent, an NFL Hall of Fame wide receiver, Palin's sporting bona fides are more style than substance.
Palin was introduced to the country as "Sarah Barracuda," the former high school point guard who led her team to a state championship, a fact McCain actually uses as an argument to tout her experience.
She is, as Fred Thompson said at the RNC, "The only candidate who can field dress a moose." She worked as a sports reporter for KTUU, Anchorage's NBC affiliate, and once dreamed of being a reporter for ESPN (although according to the campaign, her daughter's name, Bristol, is not in fact a tribute to ESPN's Bristol, Connecticut, headquarters.) She told Katie Couric that her favorite movies were the sports flicks Rudy and Hoosiers, although she claims she only loved the endings. She likes to shoot caribou from a plane, a fact that made Chris Rock wonder why she walks free, while Michael Vick is in jail.
Sarah Palin has made every effort to embody all that is rugged and real. It turns out she is a breathtaking fraud.
Palin speaks about being Joe Six-Pack when in reality she's Jane Champagne, with a net worth over $1 million. As the Washington Timesreported, "A check of financial records...shows the Palins live anything but a common life when compared with their fellow residents of their hometown of Wasilla. Their combined income of nearly a quarter-million dollars last year was five times the median household income for Wasilla's 7,000 residents. They own a single-engine plane, two boats, two personal watercraft and a half-million-dollar, custom-built home on a lake that is worth three times the average of other homes in town."
Palin spoke at last Thursday's debate with a collection of folksy "you betchas," but, as conservative Obama supporter Andrew Sullivan pointed out, "Just compare this recording of Palin in Alaska in 2006 to what you heard last night. Ask yourself where the folksiness is. See how many times she says 'doggone' in 2006. Or 'betcha.' Or 'Joe Six-Pack.' "
Palin uses sports the same way she uses her looks and language, which have turned the blog corner at National Reviewinto something like the Penthouse Forum. The simple truth that Palin is Bush with lip-gloss, the only difference being that she was a better athlete than the former Yale cheerleader. She is still the same person who was the head of the Fellowship of Christian Athletes chapter at her high school. FCA is a group whose stated mission is to "use the powerful medium of athletics to impact the world for Jesus Christ." Substitute "politics" for "athletics," and we have Palin. But it isn't just about spreading the word of God.
It's about the right-wing edge of the fundamentalist movement that uses sports to mask a political agenda of creationism, bigotry, environmental catastrophe and deregulation. And if that leads to the "end-times," then so it was written. If sports teaches us anything, it's that you can disguise a lousy competitor for one round, one quarter or one inning, but the truth has a way of making itself known. There is a reason Sarah Palin hasn't done a press conference. In every conceivable way, she belongs in the minors: strictly Bush league.
Annie Leonard and co. (
Adrienne Mayor (
Ed Howker and Shiv Malik
Floella Benjamin (
Mark Watson (
Tim Jackson (
David Wilson (
Clive Lord (
Nickie Roberts
