Reading the election

 

 

 

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

By
Max J. Castro                                                                    Read Spanish Version

Historical,
transformational: these are the adjectives that have been used and
abused to describe the 2008 election. What is the history being made
and what is being transformed? There are short and long answers to
these two questions.

The
short answer to the first question is that never in the history of
the United States has a black person been anywhere this close to
gaining the presidency. No matter what happens on Nov. 4, Barack
Obama has already made history. Should he win, as the current polls
indicate, Obama would have made HISTORY.

The
short answer to the second question is that, depending on the result
of the balloting, and with a major assist from the world economic
meltdown, this election could mean the end of an era marked by a
particularly savage mode of politics and economics. I am not talking
remotely about “the end of capitalism” or of the return of Mr.
Smith to Washington or even the eclipse of American hegemony or the
death of the myths of Manifest Destiny and American exceptionalism.

At
best, we can expect what the statisticians call “regression toward
the mean,” namely a move toward the middle, the mode of politics
and economics that prevailed in the United States before the Empire
struck back and our leaders retreated from reason. I mean less shock
and awe and more soft and smart power; less savage capitalism and
more social democracy in its most diluted and disguised form. At
most, it might mean the end of the United States as “the right
nation,” the reactionary outlier in the roster of capitalist
democracies.

The
evidence for that brings us to the long answers. A Republican has sat
in the White House for 28 of the last 40 years. Yet the GOP partisan
ascendancy has been less significant than the near-monolithic
ideological dominance of the right over the last four decades. After
all, the two Democrats — Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton — who
occupied 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue during this era represented the
center-right of their party and mostly governed from that position.
The two most important Republican presidents — Ronald Reagan and
especially George W. Bush –have ruled from the hard right. Thus,
since the presidency of LBJ we have been under lite (Ford, Carter,
Bush I, Clinton) or hard (Reagan, Bush II) varieties of conservatism.

For
some analysts, the long Reagan ideological era (1980-?) is already
over; it came to an end sometime in the last few years, perhaps in
2006 when the Democrats took control of Congress. Hello? In fact,
blocked by Bush, the rules of the Senate, a right-wing dominated
Supreme Court, and their own fears and flaws, the Democrats have been
incapable of undoing any of the mischief wrought by the Republicans
— on Iraq, civil liberties, or everything. The election of 2008 will
reveal whether 2006 was a harbinger or, should John McCain win, a
mere blip on the radar screen.

Yet
it is important to understand that that the Republican success always
had less to do with ideology than with solidarity. There are myriad
studies that show that American attitudes are more liberal today than
in the 1960s on almost every issue. So what happened to the
Democrats?

Solidarity
beat them, and I mean by that racial
solidarity. The GOP attained a political stranglehold among many
constituencies and a whole region because the Democrats supported the
civil rights movement, not because Americans suddenly developed a
love for Adam Smith as interpreted by Ayn Rand, Newt Gingrich, and
George W. Bush. The trouble with Kansas and the white working and
middle class is not mainly about God, guns, and gays; it’s that the
Republicans convinced enough whites that they were the party willing
and able to protect their dwindling racial privilege in the face of
“reverse discrimination.” More the racist nation than the
rightist nation; call it simplistic, if you will. I call it Occam’s
razor.

A
Barack Obama victory thus would be transformational in two ways, but
definitely more racially than ideologically. Barack Obama is no
socialist, of course; but he is not a mile to the right of the Pope
either, as are Bush and McCain.

Racism
will continue no matter who wins next Tuesday but this election will
speak volumes about whether it is still legitimate to speak of this
as a
racist country.
If Obama wins the adjective would be relegated to the trashbin — and
for good reason. What happens if McCain pulls an upset is equally
clear? What other explanation could there be except race for a McCain
victory given: a) the mess the Republicans have made of everything,
even their own playground (Wall Street) and their own god (the
ideology of laissez-faire) b) the talent, charisma, and potential of
Obama compared with the lackluster campaign of his opponent and the
utter lack of qualifications of the Republican VP candidate; and c)
the near-unanimity of the polls a few days before the contest (see
below)?

General
Election: McCain vs. Obama

Source:
Real Clear Politics (Posted 10/26/08)

Polling
Data

Poll	Date	Sample	MoE	Obama (D)	McCain (R)	Spread
RCP Average	10/19 – 10/25	—	—	50.4	42.8	Obama +7.6
Rasmussen Reports	10/23 – 10/25	3000 LV	2.0	52	44	Obama +8
Gallup (Traditional)*	10/23 – 10/25	2448 LV	2.0	50	45	Obama +5
Gallup (Expanded)*	10/23 – 10/25	2346 LV	2.0	52	43	Obama +9
Reuters/C-SPAN/Zogby	10/23 – 10/25	1203 LV	2.9	49	44	Obama +5
Hotline/FD	10/23 – 10/25	878 LV	3.3	50	42	Obama +8
ABC News/Wash Post	10/22 – 10/25	1308 LV	2.5	52	45	Obama +7
IBD/TIPP	10/21 – 10/25	886 LV	3.0	47	43	Obama +4
Newsweek	10/22 – 10/23	882 LV	4.0	53	41	Obama +12
GWU/Battleground	10/19 – 10/23	1000 LV	3.1	49	46	Obama +3
CBS News/NY Times	10/19 – 10/22	771 LV	—	52	39	Obama +13
FOX News	10/20 – 10/21	936 LV	3.0	49	40	Obama +9