Because You Never Asked

 

(5/08, Spain)

     I really can’t say how good a president Barak Obama would be. Other than to say he cuts a dashing figure, is articulate, dignified, and seems to have both intelligence and intellect, his or anyone else’s future on the job is always a mystery until the game actually begins. Just think how many times that first round draft pick with the artillery strength arm; that “can’t miss” stud who all the teams are drooling over, fails miserably at the next and final level. From what I’ve seen of Obama, I wouldn’t expect that to happen, but --- what I am sure of is this: the time is right to give him the chance to succeed.

     My reasons for feeling this way are two fold: 1) the effect it could have domestically with regard to the social behavior of such a hyper-heterogeneous country; and 2) the effect it could have on America’s image abroad.

     Both concepts are surely important ones, but I give slightly more weight to the first. As a result, I’ll start with the second.

     2) After more than 7 years of Bush II, one would have to be self deluded to not admit that the image of the United States abroad has fallen to perhaps record breaking lows. The reckless, 10 gallon hat style of W. and his gun slinging cronies, has alienated all our cousins in western Europe, and induced the fall of the few heads of state in this region who bet on the Iraqi gamble. In addition, Bush II’s stubborn refusal to get in step with regard to certain eco-nuke-judicial treaties has further damaged the concept of America in the rest of the world. In truth, just about any living organism that succeeds W. will be greeted with a sigh of relief --- but Obama would be a revolution. (John McCain represents that one living organism amongst the hundreds of trillions that inhabit Earth that might not provide this relief, and America has found him. What a country!)

     I’ve been in Spain for less than a week, but the interest in Obama was almost touchable from the first moment. The Euros have been following along. They know about the Reverend Wright. What happens in America matters. There cannot be more of the same --- and they know it. All my acquaintances want to know who I prefer? Obama? Ahh, --- it’s as if their own feelings have been corroborated, as if their balloon would have burst if I’d said something else.

     European folklore has always imbued America with romantic, even mystical qualities: the streets are paved in gold; the Statue of Liberty; the land of opportunity; anything is possible in America. The immigrants of the late 19th and early 20^th centuries breathed this air of hope and optimism and, in general, America did not defraud them. They became fully assimilated pieces in the great machine of the American Dream, of that extraordinary “melting pot” that was one of the great social experiments of all time. It produced a culture whose music, cinema and automobiles conquered the world, whose business and marketing innovations led the way.

     It would not be fair to lay all the blame for the loss of this romantic feeling on the last 7 years of Bush incompetence. Times have changed. In about one generation, the Europeans have created a new kind of socio-economic entity: not quite a country, but an economic block that coordinates its efforts and sets forth a loose blueprint for what its members consider proper governmental, social, ecological and economic policy. The European Community has managed to gather all this wealth, technological know how, creativity and cultural depth and intellect --- things that have always existed but in a splintered, frequently antagonistic form --- into a dynamic, even avant-garde force in the world. Europe no longer looks to America for its inspiration.

     But the United States is still the most relevant force on the planet. It has the world’s largest economy. It consumes the most energy. It makes the most garbage and, most of all, is now the world’s only military behemoth. America cannot be ignored. Its collective energy must be channeled in a positive direction. America under Bush has lost much of its luster. It has become a provincial outpost that seems to be in regression, a place of intellectual inferiority wrapping itself in its God, flag and guns. The once prodigal son of Anglo-Euro culture has become a juvenile delinquent.

     This is where Obama comes in. There is no doubt he has piqued the interest of Europe and is looked upon as a bold new idea, the type of thing that always made America such a mythical place in the past. America! Anything can happen there, even the election of a young, articulate black man. It would restore Yankee credibility. It would make the rhetoric of the American Dream --- democracy, freedom, opportunity --- believable. The mystique would come alive once again.

     All this, without even mentioning an Obama presidency’s effect in the third world. It is a revealing sign of America’s provincial regression that Obama’s political opponents attack the cosmopolitan nature of his upbringing. They rue the fact that he spent long periods of time in third world countries as a child. They try to spread the paranoia of his diverse, international genetic inheritance. They cunningly insinuate the Islamic strains of his family tree, somehow suggesting this man is not one of us. Compared to Obama, Henry Kissinger would be one of the “Brady Bunch”.

     But this unique heritage is a strength not a weakness (duh). The diverse qualities of such a personal experience, all tied together in an obviously American person, is a tremendous advantage. If such a person --- Barak Obama --- has what it takes to transmit these qualities to the third world, to this majority segment of humanity which views the United States with the most hostility and mistrust, it is more than an advantage, it is a singular opportunity that should not be wasted. And the best part of all is that he has dark skin and nappy hair (Imus, take note), a third world genealogy that would sell like an Ipod in the darker shades of the world’s geography.

     But the effects of a president Obama could be even more important in a domestic sense.

     1) In many ways, Obama could be seen as the last of our Jackie Robinsons. I hesitate to talk about the strides made by the Afro-American since the day Jackie Robinson stepped on a baseball field in the Major Leagues. Who needs some white guy telling black folks how far they’ve come, as if it were something given to them, or allowed by someone else? Black people, like women, homosexuals, or any other group with “issues”, have had to take whatever it is they’ve gotten. Nobody is giving it away.

     Jackie Robinson was the lead off hitter in the modern civil rights movement (this is not meant to “dis” such notables as DuBois, Robeson, Baldwin, etc., but the real game started after WWII). Being the first of many firsts, perhaps his role was the most difficult, because failure was not an option for him (see essay, “Tiger Robinson”). Since then, there have been many more Jackie Robinsons: the first black person to coach here or there; the first CEO of a large company; the first owner of a sports franchise; the first military man to hold this or that command; the first winner of such and such a prize; the first politician to hold such a position --- a whole string of Jackie Robinsons changing our cultural outlook so that we all began to feel comfortable with people of color in positions of prestige and power. With the usual smattering of retarded holdouts, we now almost all take for granted that a black person could be your insurance agent, or someone who scopes your knee, or teaches your kid English Lit at the university, or brings you the television news at dinner time.

     But the Obama candidacy has also shown there is still a substantial residue of racial tension left in the United States. Yes, the black man and the rest of us have come this far, but is the country ready to let such a person be the Commander in Chief? Is it ready to let a black man be the one in charge, the one person who represents us all, who answers to nobody? Is it willing to let the buck stop there?

     I say it is time to find out, and this is why:

     The office known as the President of the United States carries a mythological aura, a whole bric-a-brac of pomp and ceremony, of vaudevillian tribute that is never deviated from. You can be a bad president (we’ve just proven that); you can be a forgettable president (see essay, “Gerald Ford: He’s Dead”); you can be a controversial, legally reprimanded president (Nixon-Clinton), but this mythology always stays intact --- the Congress stands and applauds; the Generals snap to attention; the band strikes up “Hail to the Chief”; the press corps pleads for your attention; and John Phillip Sousa, and Mr. President! Mr. President!, and the red carpet is rolled out, and Mr. President! Mr. President! --- the whole nine yards of enchilada.

     Whether you like Obama or vote for him or not, this is the environment he’d be thrust into as president. Regardless of any negative feelings you might have for the man, he would now be your president for a minimum of 4 years. You could curse the day this all happened, you could impatiently await the day to vote against him, but you’d have to get used to him as your president, just like you got used to Jackie Robinson on the ball field. Barak Obama is the last Jackie Robinson, the last hurdle to clear in the official fight against prejudice and narrow minded thinking in general. Regardless of his performance as president --- unless he proved to be an incompetent of unforeseen proportions, something that would seem highly improbable --- an important emotional roadblock will have come down. We’d all be able to see that a black, yellow, or copper skinned person can be the leader of us all. We’d get used to it. It would take on a feeling of normalcy. We’d be one huge step closer to being “us” rather than them and us.

     I have very little reason to feel Barak Obama would not be a respectable president, but many of the other candidates showed similar levels of competence. What is so attractive in the Obama candidacy is its symbolism. It’s a big deal, a big moment. I hope it is not wasted.

     (Post Script: Obviously, the postulation of Hillary Clinton for president is another first ready to happen in the sociology of the United States. Wouldn’t much of what has been said above apply to a female president as well?

     In a domestic sense, I’d say yes, but to a lesser degree. Women as heads of state are far less a novelty than people of color ruling in predominantly white countries (although the reverse, that is, white people ruling in predominantly darker skinned countries, has been quite common). Women have been heads of state in England (who could forget her?), Israel, Ireland, Pakistan and India. A woman has just run for the top spot in France, and a woman is next in line in Spain if her party stays in power. In Germany and Chile, women are currently the heads of state. In addition, if we look back in history, women like Cleopatra, Catherine the Great, Queen Victoria, etc., have played pivotal roles as hereditary rulers, and who could ever forget Eva Peron? In NO case has a person of color ruled in a predominantly Euro-genetic country.      

     I do not mean to minimize the election of a woman as president of the United States. It would certainly be a noteworthy milestone, but the road of a black person to the presidency is even more heavily mined and fortified. In corroborating this, I offer the following: some of Hillary Clinton’s most solid support has come from the white working class clout of organized labor. I’m not bashful in saying there are many members of this constituency that will not vote for a black man if that is the choice offered by the Democrat Party. On the contrary, there is virtually nobody favoring Obama who would not vote for someone simply because she is a woman.

     I know some women who would dispute this. I love them anyway.