On the Wall Street Journal op-ed page, conservative pundit Shelby Steele lays out the argument that Barack Obama’s blackness is a unique asset that makes him difficult to beat in 2012. The argument–which, on some level, is worth taking seriously–is that “his presidency flatters America to a degree that no white Republican can hope to compete with. He literally validates the American democratic experiment, if not the broader Enlightenment that gave birth to it.”
You can see how this might be true for a segment of the American population–I wrote in 2007 about pundits who made such arguments–but it’s unclear how this phenomenon might fare against widespread paranoia on the right about Obama’s birthplace, religion, rejection of “American exceptionalism” and so on.
There is a way a Republican can win in 2012, Shelby argues–so long as the candidate can “break through the barrier of political correctness.” The fact that he cites Donald Trump as serious example of how to do this is puzzling.
The bio at the bottom of the piece reads:
Mr. Steele is a senior fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution. Among his books is White Guilt (Harper/Collins, 2007).
White Guilt actually came out in May 2006. Steele did have a book that came out in 2007, but I can see why the Journal wouldn’t want to draw attention to A Bound Man: Why We Are Excited About Obama and Why He Can’t Win.
Perhaps he meant that Obama wouldn’t get re-elected.
Shelby Steele is just a jealous black man who can’t stand Obama because he’s sooooo much smarter and cooler.
I voted for him once. He has proven to be dishonest unworthy for another term.
If the Democrats can’t do better than Obama, We still have the ongoing criminal wars now expanded. His claim to be for Main street over Wall Street was an out right lie. Wall Street and Big Oil are ripping the people off noiw even more than under the Bush goons. The tyrant must not win again.
We came out late with our prediction that Mr. Obama would win the 2008 election. Was our “statistical analysis” very sophisticated? No.
This time we’re coming out early with our prediction. So, having flipped our 50:50 commemorative coin today, May 27, 2011…we’re predicting that President Obama will remain President Obama until January 2017. However, the election process will (as usual) provide a lot of entertainment and distraction for the voting electorate. As for the nonvoting electorate (which is most Americans), nobody really knows what entertains them. Anyway, pollsters aren’t interested in people who don’t vote. And that’s certainly logical.
Even though his opponent also has a 50:50 chance, we’re giving Mr. Obama the edge. Why? Well…for starters, the economy will be improved quite a bit by next year (based on the direction it’s headed right now), e.g., the Dow has rebounded by almost 100% from what it was when it finally hit bottom in early 2009, right after Mr. Obama was sworn in. Yes, we could be in a “bubble” and there’s an outside chance that the world might end when the planets line up just before the election. However, we’ve concluded that such a catastrophe isn’t going to happen, i.e., the world’s ending. And if it does, nobody is going to care about anybody’s prediction…let alone ours.
We’re also betting that the American military presence in Iraq will in fact come to an end…as agreed upon between the Iraqi and U.S. governments when Mr. Bush was commander in chief. It’s entirely possible that the drawdown in Afghanistan may actually get underway also. After all, it’s pretty hard to justify hanging around when OBL is no longer walking around. Also, the exorbitant cost of nation building is simply not sustainable…in human terms, as well as in monetary terms.
Finally, there is the political factor (having commented on the other two primary factors, i.e., economic and military). We can’t help but remark on the disarray of the republican party. So far, there just isn’t any candidate or potential candidate that we think has a ghost of a chance. There is no point in commenting on each one. For the most part, they individually and as a group just bring too much baggage and “wild fiscal and financial ideas” to the campaign. And of course, there is always the “incumbent factor” to contend with.
Voters on the left will generally always vote democrat. Likewise, voters on the right will almost always vote republican. Those who switch sides (for whatever reason) end up being swing voters. That is, they join the ranks of existing swing voters (so called independents). And it is this tiny sliver of swing voters in the middle that always decides elections. That’s why elections are generally “close”, i.e., the winning candidate coming out on top by only a few percentage points. Yes, there is the possible third party factor where the winning candidate gets a plurality instead of a majority of the popular vote. A win is a win though. Yes, there is also the unlikely “electoral college” factor as well (as in Florida in 2000).
All in all though, we’re going to stick by our prediction. In other words, we think the incumbent is a pretty safe bet.
Oh yes…the one thing we didn’t mention that will “boost the economy” is the election itself. Each candidate will probably spend a billion dollars. And then there’s the $billions in incidental spending and consumption that radiates out from that.
Lastly, does our prediction mean that we’re ecstatic about America’s economic, military and political situation? No. We’ve always got three major issues on our minds.
1. Unnecessary involvement in perpetual and unwinnable counterinsurgencies. Historically speaking, there’s never been a successful counterinsurgency…at least not in the 20th and 21st centuries. Although most people don’t think of it this way, the most glaring example of an unwon counterinsurgency is Israel v. Palestine (more than 60 years…which far surpasses the lengths of America’s counterinsurgencies in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan combined). We say “Palestine” because there actually was such a country (if only briefly) in 1947…recognized by 33 member countries of the United Nations, including the United States. Unfortunately for “Palestine”, 13 of its friends didn’t recognize it (and even “Palestine” didn’t recognize itself). They should have known better. But we can certainly understand why the Palestinians have never given up…and likewise the Israelis. Incidentally, we think that “secretly”, no nation in that corner of SW Asia and N Africa really cares about the Palestinians, particularly Jordan and Saudi Arabia (and perhaps even Egypt as well). Iran uses the Palestinians as a diversion. In 1947, the king of Jordan (the present king’s grandfather) wanted to be “king of SW Asia” (our term), and wasn’t going to let a sovereign Palestine get in the way of that. As for “peace” in that region, any country that signs a nonaggression pact with Israel gets $billions in military and economic assistance from the United States every year. So, how sincere is that…and where does the money really go…and can the United States really afford to continue doing this in perpetuity?
2. Unconstitutional laws being passed by congress and signed by the president (both of which should know better…especially a constitutional scholar like Mr. Obama). We’re particularly focused on laws that chip away at the Bill of Rights, particularly the First Amendment. Also, we’re really keen on habeas corpus and probable cause…and getting a search warrant from a judge who isn’t sitting on a secret court. No, the term “secret court” simply doesn’t sound “American” to us for some reason.
3. The U.S. Public Debt ($10 trillion external/$5 trillion internal)…which would never be the size it is today if the wealthy hadn’t had their tax rate cut by 42% between 1982 and 1988 (from 70% down to 28%…now 35%). Yes, it was Mr. Reagan (a college educated economist) who campaigned on the highly unlikely notion that cutting taxes for the wealthy would somehow expand the middle class and raise enough middle class revenue to make up for what the wealthy no longer had to pay (the top rate was 70% from 1964 until 1982, and 91% before that). As we now know, even Mr. Reagan didn’t believe what he was advocating. Even so, it got him a lot of votes and 2 terms. In the end, “trickle down” didn’t work, of course…and taxes were raised on a shrinking middle class…while the wealthy just got wealthier. No, no self respecting conservative will ever believe this for some odd reason. But then, conservatives still believe that 75% of the U.S. economic base is jobs with major corporations (big business), instead of the other way around, i.e., 75% of American jobs are with small businesses (inside America). Seventy-five percent (75%) of jobs with major corporations have (since the Reagan administration) been exported overseas. That’s why large U.S. based corporations are called multinationals…they are no longer 100% American, just 25% (on the average). We mentioned the $5 trillion internal debt. That debt exists because all of America’s trust funds have been sucked dry to mask the actual size of the annual budget deficit, e.g., social security ($2.5 trillion), military retirement, military health care, etc. The Bureau of the Public Debt keeps the books on all of this. This information is no big secret, and is online if one just cares to look around for it. But don’t ask most politicians about it, because they are either ignorant of the real facts, or selective in their memory retention. From our point of view, misinformation is the stock-in-trade of most politicians.
OKJack┞¢Group┞¢
Middle and Working Class Disabled American Veterans┞¢
We Paid the Dues that Aren’t Required!┞¢
Wow ok jack now thats a long piece.
The election will role this way. Either it will be close…. due to a weak Republican field that literally learns nothing from MCcain, and try’s to play both sides of every field or….Obama will be attached to his record and the state of the country- and will get slaughtered.
Obama will sound centric and will duck dodge and hide, in the classic game of nailing jello to the wall. Republicans will have to waste inordinate amounts of time fending off personal attacks.On and on .Same old same old.The best outcome would be Gov christie…Obama….Ron paul in clear debate where they articulate their true beliefs.Obama would be depantsed early and often(hopefully christie would not).Christi would i believe dominate.Paul would fill people watching in on some sad hidden truths,and we would all be better off for their articulation of their diametrical beliefs.Yeah and if frogs could fly they would not bump their ass when they jump.
Obama lost the white vote in 2008 43-57…not everyone found his “unique asset” all that “flattering.” [Especially in the South, which he lost among whites 28-72.]
I actually read “A Bound Man” after the election…Shelby’s argument was that if Obama acted “white enough” during the campaign to not scare off white voters, he wouldn’t be “black enough” for Africian Americans to vote for him….pretty sure we all know how well THAT prediction worked out…
Having lived some time in the South, I’m amazed that almost 1/3 of Southern WHITE voters voted for Obama in 2008! This speaks to the calibre of the man and his campaign. Racist assumptions (and actions) went almost entirely unchallenged in the South until the ’60’s…barely one lifetime ago…this is what progress IS, folks!
Hello Judy,
That’s the average for the region [excluding FL], which was raised by the 44% in Va and 35% in NC….in the deep south the numbers were far worse. 18% in LA, 11% in MS and 10% in AL.
That was the ONLY part of the country where under 30’s voted MORE for McCain than voted for Bush.
Judy I have to tell you that your presumption that this was thee most “race-less” vote ever is crap!I would say whites grew fantastically(I agree with you here) in voting for a black man that they believed in.That said….. Blacks on the other hand showed racism at levels we have not seen since white mississippi in civil war times.98%????Give me a break.Jesus Christ himself would not get 98% among southern Babtists.As far as speaking to the calibre of the man and his campaign……..He ran a campaign that dared anyone to nail jello to a wall.As a man we have learned his mettle.As expected there aint no metal in the mettle.His campaign was slick and covered well his complete lack of any qualification for the job.We are all the poorer for it.
Kerry lost the white vote 41-59, Obama lost it 43-57. That was the total “fantastic growth.”
Kerry won the African-American vote 90-10, Obama won it 95-5. In other word, half of black Republicans changed parties for the 2008 election.
It should be glaringly obvious that does not translate to “racism at levels we have not seen since white mississippi in civil war times.”
if obama wins we do not have any hope. why is he building fema camps in every state.he wants to be a dictator. put black and white people that disagree with him in fema camps. whats up with camps .scary .this man can take the worlds economy down so he can dictate ,wake up my white and blck brothers.before were all slaves to obama.
Obama always makes a fool of himself-we don’t need more of his retoric and lies. I am tired of being
lectured by this inept leader. He has no love for this country, he wants to rule and destroy and have all the status afforded a president, fly around on Air Force One, ride in motorcades that make him feel important. We are all struggling under his leadership and he should go back to Chicago.
Fed up in Connecticut
A reader
Your numbers are a bit low but close enough for jazz.See in politics whenever you near that 50% mark in a breakdown built on something like race/religion/sex/ you know you are doing something right.Obama was right around that mark in his backing from whites.You see this being repeated across the country in lets say philadelphia…….black candidates of all stripes are receiving (if not the majority)satisfying numbers from white voters.The same sadly is not being seen on the other side.Black votors always seem to be voting 90% and above for black candidates.Obamas “black” numbers were high even against Hilary.Still in the 90s.Obama received 97.2 of the black voters backing in the general election.This is near that magic number of 100% as we have a 5%plus or minus. Shocking. Debilitating. Regressive.Maybe not as bad as Mississippi in 1870.But not far off.In those days (if it were allowed,and the vote secret)I would wager that a white candidate running against a black for prez would of recieved 100%wht going wht.And 100% blk going black.Now what number in the Obama election did you see change in that equation?
BBC 11/5/08
Mr Obama won 95% of the black vote, compared to just 4% for Mr McCain.
Mr McCain won white voters 55% to 43%, but Mr Obama cut the Republican lead among this group compared with the 2004 election.
—————-
Blacks have voted Democratic for President at rates between 88 and 90% since 1968.
————-
Michael Barone 8/14/08
History supports the proposition that black voters tend to vote overwhelmingly for one candidate in Democratic primaries, even when that candidate’s rival has valid claims on their votes. Case in point: In polls, Robert Kennedy swept the black vote against Hubert Humphrey in 1968, despite Humphrey’s long and valiant fight for civil rights laws.
Humphrey would surely have won almost all black votes if Robert Kennedy had not run. Similarly, Hillary Clinton would have won almost all black votes if Obama had not run.
Eisenhower got 39 percent of the black vote in 1956. Richard Nixon received 32 percent of the black vote in 1960 against John F Kennedy.
Then came 1964 and that was that for blacks voting Republican.
I mispoke in my earlier comment. Mondale got 86% of the vote in 84 and Dukakis got 76% in 88.
You can forget your percentages this time around. Yes ,Mr. Obama will still receive a good percentage of black votes but it will definately drop. Whites that voted for him in 2008 will be cut tremendously. Any person running against him will be to the greatest advantage. My thoughts are that he will lose by greater margins then the democratic cogress lost in2010. America comes first,and people have seen the writing on the Obama wall. He is a traitor to America. SORRY, but your democratic USERPER, will lose
he will lose this time – nobody believes his lies any longer – except the extreme left loons- lol
Obama is/was a fraud who is himself suprised by the easy bamboozling he pulled off in 2008. This time,neh…Busted userper. U R A FRAUD AND A PHONEY and your destructive bs has hurt most of us where it eally counts. You are anti American and anti capitalism. You spent700 million of our taxes to build mosques overseas 23 million to install sharia in Kenya. Tip ,and I mean the tip if the iceberg. Baby killing abortion lover.
As a proud black person, I terribly disappointed in Obama. The alternative is terrible, but at least you know where they stand. Obama is out and we will usher into a period for the rich. Our government does not represent the people. Obama has broken my confidence in our government. Clearly, he is worse than Bush.