Yet its “historic” character owes not just to the fact that he is our nation’s first (half) black president; it is “historic” as well in that he is, by far and away, the most self-consciously socialistic, radical candidate to ever run for “the highest office in the land,” much less secure it.
So how did this day come to pass?
Doubtless, the reasons that follow aren’t exhaustive, but they plausibly explain Obama’s victory.
-
Obama had the enthusiastic, indeed, zealous, support of the vast majority of our nation’s news agencies -- i.e., “the media.” While the media has for long been known for its pro-Democratic/anti-Republican prejudices, to say that it was “biased” in favor of Obama is to be guilty of gross understatement: the media has coddled Democratic politicians in the past, but it revered Obama. And its reverence for Obama was inversely proportionate to its contentiousness toward McCain, to say nothing of its antagonism toward the latter’s running-mate.
-
The second factor that contributed to Obama’s victory is closely related to the first. It is undeniable that Obama’s political orientation, relative youth, charisma, and ostensible affability explain his appeal to those in the so-called “mainstream” media, but his race was the decisive feature that made them wax orgasmic. That Obama is black changed the dynamics of this election contest dramatically.
Although Obama is a minefield of scandals, it is precisely because he is black that McCain and the GOP refused to attack him with a fraction of the tenacity that they would have unleashed against a white opponent. Shortly after he secured his party’s nomination, McCain foolishly criticized the North Carolina GOP for an ad it released reminding the good citizens of its state of the twenty year relationship that Obama enjoyed with his pastor, Jeremiah Wright, insisting that this wasn’t a legitimate issue. Ironically, and in a rare moment of candor, Obama himself acknowledged that it was.
The point, though, is that McCain should have kept this issue alive because Obama was correct and he was dead wrong: this was (and remains) a legitimate issue, arguably the most important issue pertaining to Obama’s candidacy and, now, presidency. There is no more reliable an indicator of Obama’s worldview than his choice of Wright as his pastor and “spiritual mentor.” McCain should have continually recalled voters’ attention to it, not in order to win, but in order to provide them with a crucial piece of information of which Obama’s supporters in the press deprived them, knowledge without which their decision to vote for one candidate or the other would be woefully incomplete.
In other words, McCain had a duty to speak to this issue but, from an understandable but misplaced fear of being depicted as a “racist,” he neglected to fulfill (incidentally, he was charged as “racist” anyhow). - Finally, this election was, more than anything else, a referendum on “compassionate conservatism,” or neo-conservative Republicanism. As readers of this column know, I am not now nor have I ever been a fan of McCain’s. I always thought that he was a horrible candidate. There is no doubt that circumstances beyond Obama’s control, namely, the economic “crisis,” contributed in no small measure to his election, but I have to think that his chances weren’t diminished by the fact that his opponent exemplified the vision that voters repudiated.
So those on the right are ambivalent, and those on the left figure that if you have to choose between a candidate whose leftist convictions are beyond question, and one who, in spite of leaning left, still identifies himself as a Republican, why vote for the Republican?
There is much talk now among self-professed “conservatives” about the need to “rebuild ‘the conservative movement’.” In the future I will say more about this. But for now, I leave readers with a question to ponder: is it possible that the aspiring architects of this new movement had something to do with the disintegration of the old?
