Commentator Christa Friedland claims that Obama is at fault for not conveying a “comfortable sense of who he is” to the American public. I beg to differ. A comfortable sense of who he is? People know who he is. He’s black, and that’s the main, the real, the unspoken reason he might very well lose this election when, if he were white, McCain’s poll numbers would be more in keeping with his mentor President Bush. What do people really mean when they say Obama “doesn’t do well” with middle- and lower-class whites? It’s called racial prejudice, or, more bluntly, racism, pure and simple. And it has been one of the main, unstated, driving electoral forces in our lifetime.

Do people forget how the Republican party gained its ascendancy in national elections? It was called the “Southern Strategy,” and it was a completely shameless appeal to naked prejudice among southern whites. These voters were ready to abandon their traditional ties to the Democratic party as punishment for the party’s entirely rational embrace of civil rights for blacks in the 1960’s. That’s why the electoral map shifted – permanently, by the looks of things – and a bright red swath of lock-solid Republicans took control of the south and much else of the country, leaving the Democrats to try to maintain their influence along the two coasts and the industrial Midwest. The Republican effort began in earnest with Nixon’s 1968 campaign and continues right up until today, a forty-year legacy of resorting to hatred as a primary tactic. Finally, in 2005, Ken Mehlman, at the time the national chairman of the Republican party, owned up to this ugly past, to the Republican party’s open appeals to the basest human instincts, and apologized in front of the NAACP, admitting “Some Republicans gave up on winning the African-American vote, looking the other way or trying to benefit politically from racial polarization,” saying further, “I am here today as the Republican chairman to tell you we were wrong.” He added, “It’s not healthy for the country for our political parties to be so racially polarized.” That was an unexpected breath of fresh air coming from any Republican official, let alone the party chairman.

But hatred is still employed, to good effect, by Republicans, Mehlman’s apology notwithstanding. It’s their main electoral tactic: the “wedge issue” (i.e., as in splitting a piece of wood). So when you’ve got nothing else to offer, you can always try splitting the electorate, getting people to vote against their economic interests by appealing to secondary issues like abortion, gay marriage, and immigration, or whatever else riles people up, gets them to the voting booth, and makes them pull down a lever mainly as a way to punish someone out there they’ve been fooled into thinking is their enemy. It’s worked time and again, giving Mr. Rove and company their blessed 51% of the vote – the only thing they really care about.

Obama has an uphill battle in countering this force of racism, and I fear we’re just beginning to see how crafty the Republicans will be in exploiting it to the hilt, as is their wont.

Amen brother.

Bryan,

In your first paragraph, you reduce Obama’s identity to his race: “People know who he is. He’s black.”

I’m disturbed by that kind of essentialism. Sorry, but no, that’s not all I need to know about a candidate.

I honestly have to say that I have a very shaky idea of what kind of president Obama would be. Will he be the type of condescending “progressive” we got a glimpse of at that San Francisco fundraiser? Will he be the moderate willing to embrace faith-based initiatives we have seen elsewhere? How will he deal with Iran? Israel? Russia and the Caucasus? The energy crisis? Entitlement programs? His record on those issues, in terms of long-standing policy stances, votes cast, and legislation written is so thin, we are left to rely on his words, which any voter knows are frankly unreliable, even when the candidate isn’t as adept as Obama.

So much of campaigns is just “cheap talk.” Obama has proven very adept at that. Like any good politician, he straddles both sides of many issues. Some of this is an honesty that I can admire; I often feel torn between both sides of an issue. Some of this is pure pandering. But all of it is dangerous for a candidate who has little record to back up his assertions. Speeches are not enough for many of us. Policy positions, some of them quite gimmicky (gimme’ $1,000 from Big Oil, please!) on your websites are not enough for us.

If my wanting to know more about a candidate, or my wanting to see him get more experience and put in more time to serving the American people before he is made president makes me a racist in your eyes, then I have no hope of convincing you otherwise. But I want to register my disgust with a certain way of thinking that portrays all Obama-skeptics as seething racists who make political decisions as if they have been lobotomized, and all Obamaphiles as enlightened and independent-thinking. Obama will lose this election if he and his supporters cannot recognize this; we refuse to be reduce to odious stereotypes.

Chrystia Freeland and Tony Blankley talk about our vast G8 economic leverage over Russia when one flip of the switch would create an EU energy crisis of epic proportions. Furthermore, Saakashvili may not be a “lunatic” as Putin describes, but he is a stupid man, democratically elected or not. We would never allow in Cuba what he is openly attempting in Georgia . . . specter of a missile shield, membership in NATO and EU, and a taunting military harassment of social/cultural Russians.

We care about “democracies” unless in Lebanon if Israel wants to bomb, Gaza if we disagree, or Ahmadinejad and Chavez if we find them threatening. The dissolution of empires whether Ottoman, Austro-Hungarian, Russian, or Balkan are rife with ethnic-nationalist rivalries that simpletons like Freeland, Blankley or McCain will not be able to understand.

The show suffers greatly without Tom Ashbrook. The level of discourse with todays roster is unworthy of public radio or your reputation.

Dear Coby,

Points taken.

I agree with virtually everything you wrote and am equally disturbed by Obama’s lack of clarity on all the issues you raised, as well as others. He is, after all, a politician and has to do whatever he thinks he must to get elected. In this respect, I don’t blame him or other politicians for dissembling or “flip-flopping.” Politicians pander because that’s how the game has to be played in a democracy such as ours. Ultimately, voters get what they deserve. But voters are also manipulated (too easily, alas) by charlatans like Karl Rove, and that’s what bothers me. If more people knew their interests clearly and voted accordingly, an obvious quack like George W, Bush wouldn’t have been elected dog catcher, let alone governor or president.

Keeping that in mind, I had no intention of trying to label you or any other principled critic a racist, nor to reduce the election totally to this one issue. I emphasized the race question to bring up something that I feel does not get raised often enough in polite circles like NPR (as opposed to the gloves-off, right-wing talk shows). I am well aware the word “racist” is bandied about too often; I’m white and have been accused of it as well (wrongly, to my mind). I only wanted to make a point that I feel you haven’t addressed, which is the long history of disgraceful conduct by Republicans on the issue of race in particular. When the campaign starts in earnest, just watch how the Republicans will find a way to use Obama’s race against him. You can bet on that, and they wouldn’t do it if there weren’t a large audience (not including yourself) susceptible to such temptations as race-baiting.

Of course you have every right to find Obama wanting in regard to policies and experience, and it would be ridiculously unfair and presumptuous of me to conclude that you rejected him simply because he’s black, but the fact is many other whites unlike you will do exactly that. When they do, it’s going to be too bad that the other choice they’ll have is a seething hothead (recall what McCain said about his wife and how he smiled inappropriately – which he does a lot – after vowing to go to the “gates of Hell” to find bin Laden) who can’t get his facts straight (on Shiites vs. Sunnis, Mideast geography, and other matters) and whose thoughts on such matters as global heating, nuclear proliferation, or the housing crisis are vacuous. McCain’s clinging to concepts like “winning” the Iraq war with “honor” (shades of Vietnam) seems to me to disqualify him immediately from serious consideration as president.

Otherwise, I share your concerns and appreciate your comments. Thank you for taking the trouble to respond. That’s what a forum is all about. Be well.

One of your commentators compared South Ossetia to Texas and then praised the “brave Poles” for signed a military agreement with the United States. The South Ossetia-Texas comparison is silly, to say the least, and totally ignores the history of Russian policy toward the regions to its south. Poles, however, are aware of the history of Russian imperialism both to its south and its west. Poland signed the agreement with the U.S. because the presence of the Russian military in Georgia looks very much like a “re-conquest.” And Poland has been “re-conquered” by Russians before! Polish public opinion was strongly opposed to the agreement with the US until recent developments. Now everything looks different.

One thing that was not mentioned, the Russians were provoked by President Sakaashvili when he had his troops move into the Russian area of South Ossetia.

Sakaashvili has played a dangerous game and he has swept his people up into his gross miscalculation of the Russian response to his game of chicken.

Are we all insane or just hopelessly hypocritical? Take all the statements made by Bush, Rice and McCain and aim them back at US policy and you should feel your gut wrench. The “best” one yet was McCain’s countries don’t attack other countries in the 21st Century. WHAT???

McCain’s statement is nothing short of being the height of hypocrisy. However it does not change to the fact that Sakaashvili took a huge risk and he and his country are now paying the ultimate price.

Unfortunately for we Americans, the Russians in this case are clearly in the right. They were attacked first on the eve of the olympics by US and Israeli backed forces. That the opposite was reported is par for the course both for the mainstream media and this NPR station which participated in the selling of the illegal invasion and whole slaughter of Iraq.

In the movie “Reds” when asked “why wars are fought”, Warren Beatty stands up and says, “for profit” and then sits down.

Frank Beatty made a telling comment near the end of the program. When asked whether he is watching the olympics, he said “no” with great distain because it is a “nationalistic… and capitalistic spectacle.” Obviously, he doesn’t believe in nationalism or capitalism. I don’t believe this is in agreement with most, or even many, people in this country. How can he be the nearly-daily participant in On Point with such radical views? He doesn’t represent a point of view that a significant portion of the country agrees with.

I always look forward to hearing the intelligent and iformative commentary from Tony Blankley. I hope he becomes a regular commentator for On Point.

I know (from the last post). I incorrectly spelled informative. Plese excuse.

I was appalled at Jack Beatty’s summary dismissal of the Beijing Olympics as a nationalistic and atavistic commercial exercise not worthy of his attention. The implication was that it’s a completely irrelevant event. Here you have an event which has galvanized and inspired a nation of more than ¼ of the earth’s population, an event which will mark a turning point in the history of one of the oldest civilizations on the planet whose power and dominance may soon rival the U.S., and Mr. Beatty shrugs it off as something like a cheap publicity stunt. (This judgement issued without having watched a minute of the games.) I love NPR and WBUR, but this type of weirdly provincial and elitist comment really makes me wonder if some of the right wing criticism of NPR isn’t more accurate than I’d like to believe. The Beijing Olympics should be reported on as a rather important event on the world stage, particularly since China’s influence and power are on the ascent. Maybe Jack ought to start tuning in or he’ll find it’s he himself, the news analyst, who is irrelevant.

Loved the show this week. Have Ms. Freeland return! Finally, someone who was brave enough to hold Jack Beatty accountable for his statements!!

Mr. Beatty’s defense of Russia’s invasion of a sovereign country by invoking the Mexican-American War was absolutely absurd. By his logic, were China to invade India tomorrow, it would be a) wrong for the US to protest, because our hands are not clean, b) OK, because that’s just what Great Powers do, and c) the Bush administration’s fault (because we were so arrogant as to have relations with India).

Finally, I found Mr. Beatty’s criticism of the Olympics to be periphrastic and pleonastic.

I applaud Jack Beatty for his thoughtful comments and analysis! I can not believe the coverage of the war in Georgia that Americans are getting from the news media. The fact that the city of Thinvali was bomb with heavy artillery and was pretty much destroyed by Georgean army is barely mentioned anywhere.
So, I assume, by listening to Ms. Freeland’s & Mr. Blankley’s comments, as long as you considered to be a “democracy” by the West, killing innocent civilians (around 2000 dead, killed by Georgians, in South Osetia) is not a crime. US was allowed to protect civilians in Kosovo (and bomb Beldgade in the meanwhile) because it’s a democratic country, but Russia is not allowed to protect civilians in South Osetia, because US does not consider it to be a “democratic country”.
I guess there is a new definition of “democracy” in the modern world – “democracy is whatever US considers to be a democracy”. All actions of such “democracy” are automatically endorsed by the US!