President Obama has issued a call to his winning coalition of (in his words) “…young people, African-Americans, Latinos, and women who powered our victory in 2008 [to] stand together once again.” Some observers said he spoke with “unusual demographic frankness” – meaning that it’s usually considered indelicate to admit, out loud, that your appeal is to just a slice of American voters. Until now, The Great Uniter had preserved the fiction of having swept to victory on a broad base from all parts of the nation. He was the first “post racial” president. But now – wittingly or un – the truth has slipped out. (Mr. Obama even took care to pronounce “Latinos” with a distinct Spanish inflection to emphasize his special connection with those voters.)
Jews, an ethnic group who typically vote strongly Democrat, have been thrown completely under the bus in the reformed Obama demographic declaration. He didn’t mention them. This can’t be an oversight. It’s more an implicit recognition that Jews, who went for Mr. Obama (on faith) in large numbers in 2008, won’t be fooled twice. Mr. Obama has shown his true colors, and they are clearly not pro-Israel. Indeed, he has positioned himself, beyond question, as our first pro-Muslim president. Of course, this might still not keep Jews from voting Democrat in the 2010 Congressional and Senatorial races. (Go figure.)
Mr. Obama’s racial appeal is shockingly explicit. Of course, white men were already under the bus in 2008, although the more gullible ones voted for the warm fuzziness of Mr. Obama’s “hope and change.” In truth, Democrats have flagrantly thrown the “race card” around for weeks – even months. They have made a mighty effort to smear the Tea Party movement as a band of racist rednecks who, if they don’t actually wear white sheets and hoods, certainly have them stowed in the trunks of their beat-up 1947 Fords. Big Media – ever the slavering lapdogs of the Obama administration – have uncritically picked up the racist tea-partiers story and run with it. Whether this has truly convinced any voters is unclear, but the signs and portents – e.g., off-year elections in Virginia, New Jersey and Massachusetts – are not auspicious (for Democrats). The Big O’s brand of post-racialism is not selling this year.
Those 2009 and 2010 elections have obviously ramped up the tea-partier racism narrative to a new level. The tale of black congressmen being cursed, spit upon and called racial epithets by Tea Party denizens – as the former marched to the Capitol on March 21st for the health care reform vote – has been passed along as gospel by the networks, although no footage has been shown to support the charge. (My personal suspicion is that such footage has been found, but the spitters and cursers were easily identified as left-wing plants trying to discredit the Tea Party movement.)
Whatever the facts of that situation might have been, the “racism” charge has gained currency because Democrats have been allowed to define all opposition to Mr. Obama and his program as fundamentally racist. Big Media have taken this definition at face-value and shouted it from the housetops. This makes good political theater, but only Democrat congressmen and the pretty boys (and girls) of the media are buying it.
A companion-piece to the racism story is the more dastardly insinuation, lately spread by Bill Clinton and other Democrats, that Tea Party people are promoting violence in ways reminiscent of 1995. Mr. Clinton used the 15th anniversary of the Oklahoma City bombing (April 19) as a springboard to argue (again) that domestic terrorists McVeigh and Nichols blew up the federal building in response to conservative rhetoric – especially on talk radio – in the reactionary, anti-government political climate of 1994.
Still obviously stinging from the drubbing his party took in the 1994 elections, Mr. Clinton repeated the oft-flung (but never substantiated) charge that the chorus of disapproval of his administration “caused” the Oklahoma City violence. He compared that climate to the present, thus intimating that the tea-partiers have a causative linkage with violence that is fused and ready to explode. None has, however, except by liberal protestors, like those demonstrating against Arizona’s recently passed law on illegal immigrants.
These stories of tea-party violence and racism are insider tales that Democrats and Big Media shills like to frighten each other with – something like those scary stories we used to tell around summer campfires, in our wasted youth. Remember the one about the maniac whose hand-hook was found stuck in the door handle of the car that drove away, just in time? (I also heard a version where the maniac had the hook on his foot…) The modern scare-stories also furnish useful fodder for conservative pundits (including Yours Truly). They are par for the course in the slam-bang, live-on-the-razor’s-edge, laugh-in-the-face-of-death world of political hand-to-hand combat.
What I consider much more depressing about Mr. Obama’s appeal to his “demographic base” – as it is delicately being called in the media – is his assumption that “young people, African-Americans, Latinos, and women” are so dependably un-critical in their thinking that Democrats will still be able to count on their votes after 15 solid months of economic and political calumny that will scar the futures for persons of every ethnicity, gender and race in the country, for generations to come.
Mr. Obama ran on an explicit promise to women, blacks, young people and Latinos that they will be special, protected classes in his Fundamentally Changed America. This is a lie. They will not be “special.” Like other Americans, they will desire good, affordable medical care, a comfortable standard of living, and decent retirement. But a madly revamped system of medical care and insurance, out-of-control entitlements, galloping federal debt, and crushing taxes will not furnish these desirable outcomes for Mr. Obama’s “constituency” or for anyone else.
Mr. Obama has promised “gold,” but he has delivered “straw.” He is neither Rumpelstiltschen nor Midas, nor even a medieval alchemist. Indeed, he is the anti-Midas – turning everything he touches into ashes. After he moves on – accompanied by worshipful paeans from his sycophants on the left and in the media – Americans will have to sweep up the rubble and rebuild what once was the greatest economic engine the world had ever seen.
Many of Mr. Obama’s deceived voters can now see this. In my suburban Virginia home, I hear them on Washington talk radio every day. Many who sheepishly admit that they voted for Mr. Obama say they never imagined he would turn out “this bad.” The callers I hear – with very few exceptions – thought he would govern as an economic “centrist,” not a budget-busting radical racking up trillions in debt in just his first term. Most of his supporters simply hoped he would not be like George Bush – although what that meant seems to depend very much on the individual.
My sense is that the “W” issue boiled down, for the most part, to personality, war-weariness and emotion. Some of my friends talk about what a “cowboy” Mr. Bush was – how he “swaggered,” and his fractured syntax. By contrast, Mr. Obama was Central Casting’s idea of the very model of a modern president – cool, personable, ethnic, articulate, inspiring. He looked great in a $2000 suit. Surely a dude who could hang out and shoot hoops with the brothers would have to work out better than “W.” Wouldn’t he? On I-35, near Wyoming, Minnesota, a billboard shows a smiling “W,” waving and asking, “Miss me yet?” – reminding passers-by every day what rubes they were to be deceived by Mr. Obama’s artfully concealed leftist agenda. We live and learn – but hopefully not the same lessons, over and over.
Will Mr. Obama’s 2008 supporters stay with him, despite his disastrous “program” which has brought gigantic deficits, billions in bailouts for big banks, and unemployment stubbornly hovering near 10%? Maybe. Millions of black Americans voted in a kind of “Amen-hallelujah chorus” to put a dark-skinned man in the White House. Analysts far smarter than me say those voters will stay with their guy no matter what he does. On the other hand, unemployment for blacks, age 16-24, stands at 50%. How far will racial solidarity go? Young people can’t live on Hope alone.
Hispanics are upset with Mr. Obama for not doing something to normalize the 12 million illegals in the country. Will they be kept loyal by more promises from The Great Promiser? Gays – no longer mentioned as part of Mr. Obama’s coalition – are provoked with him for not ending “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” and for failing to promote other parts of the Gay Agenda. Jews – as noted earlier – have had the scales fall from their eyes over Mr. Obama’s attitude toward Israel. White men are gone – even many of those who voted for him. White women? Ditto – they have investments, families and bills, too.
The difference between now and 1994, Mr. Obama sagely assured Democrats earlier this year, is that “you’ve got me.” This was by way of waving off concerns that the 2010 elections could produce a bloodbath reminiscent of the 1994 rout, when Republicans regained both houses of Congress for the first time in 40 years. Mr. Obama’s racially tinged call to his base – warning them to vote for congressional Democrats, lest their priests be driven from the temple by tea party racists – shows that even The One might now doubt his personal ability to turn things around, politically.
George Wallace used to talk about hollering “n----r” when he was in a political tight spot. I think we just heard something like that – although racially reversed – from Mr. Obama. It might get worse. Stay tuned.