It's a truism in the study of politics in the Third World that the real test of democracy is not voting a president in but voting him (and his party and/or relatives) out.
That's true in the First World, too. For example, I was a little surprised in 1981 that The Economist was relatively enthusiastic that in the French election that year the Socialist Mitterand had taken power from the Gaullist Giscard d'Estaing and immediately set about soaking the rich. But, the magazine pointed out, the last time there had been a substantive change of power in France was in 1958 when de Gaulle came to office and that was during the mutiny of the French Army in Algeria, which had seized Corsica and was threatening to seize Paris. So, the defeat of the Gaullists and their good grace in accepting that defeat by, you know, leaving office marked a milestone in the maturation of French politics.
The election of Barack Obama in 2008 as the first black president of the United States was widely celebrated as marking a step forward in American history. But nobody gave much thought at the time about whether large swathes of American voters and elites are mature enough to accept with good grace another step forward: a black man being voted out of the White House.
The weird, hypersensitive frenzy that has entered American political life since Mitt Romney wrapped up the GOP nomination and the fall campaign began in earnest suggests that many people on the left of center would perceive Obama losing in 2012 not as just one of those things that happens in a democracy, as George H.W. Bush and Jimmy Carter can attest, but as a Giant Diss to blacks. This potential Triumph of Racism (as they perceive it in their Who-Whom worldview) would be intolerable, so saying almost anything to ward off Obama's defeat in November is morally justifiable.
Posts
49 comments:
Sardinia? you must mean Corsica
Corsica, not Sardinia.
Sardinia? you must mean Corsica
This was a big selling point to Herman Cain for me. The other being that I can think of few things that would take the wind out of négritude than a black Republican president ejecting light skinned Obama.
Yes, it's what I've been saying. Guilty white liberals are already castigating themselves inwardly for their dissatisfaction (even anger) at Obama (over various issues). Their cognitive dissonance is: he's terrible - but - he's black - yet he's terrible - yet he's black.... arrrgh! Damn Lena Dunham, she's a Nazi!
Barack Obama’s personal popularity is running about 20 to 30 points higher than that of: a) his party; b) his positions; and c) the level that any other president would attain given the state of the economy.
So, to donkey-brain, this will mean that if he loses, it will be due to racism or some inadequacy in Obama's communication skills.
People like Obama, not unreasonably. He has been good to his family. He speaks well in public. Wisely or not, people like those drone strikes and SEAL attacks a lot better than ground casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Obama is not a schmoozer, but we have had plenty of those in politics. We have even had the first sex scandal in a Democratic White House that does not involve the president. This is progress.
They have probably already priced it in, so I don't necessarily see any widespread violence at him being thrown out and replaced(with a white open borders globalist as opposed to the black one).
Is this Whiskey bait? Doesn't he think OB is planning to institute martial law if he is kicked out in the next election? I may be wrong and I am not sure if he still holding this theory, but I thought I recalled him suggesting it at one point.
I personally don't care which one of these guys wins come November. But i hope that Obama loses just so I could be entertained by the hilarity that will ensue.
This is not surprising. We've seen the same Affirmative Action ratcheting effect in congressional districts and the Supreme Court. The Presidency is merely the logical conclusion of it all.
And 40 years hence, should it come to pass, the black community will still be nursing it on their list of grievances against whitey.
Blacks, like Muslims, perceive everything as a deliberate slight. It's been a strategy so long that it's became part of the atmosphere. They don't even realize what they're doing, it's just knee-jerk. So yeah, blacks are going to think it's because Racist AmeriKKKa couldn't stand a black man in power, blah blah. Snore. Assuming he loses, naturally, which I think is a stretch.
SWPLs who are demented and/or suicidal enough to vote for the Big O will do their usual tut-tutting about race, which they do anyway for any reason at all, so again, snore.
What is of interest is whether the unholy combination of black street thugs and trustifarian white Lefty agitators will take to the streets in the event of an Obama loss. I suspect we will get a bit of car burning here and there if Obama loses, but here's the full playbook.
* If Obama loses big, it will be minor. Wouldn't want to be in Detroit, Philly, Oakland or other such cribs on election night, but outside the 'hood it will be fine.
* If Obama loses in a close one and there is a dispute, a la Florida, then all bets are off. This will be catnip to the white Leftoids and the media, and feces will hit the rotating air foil. Much carnage, much burning, much looting.
* If Obama loses in a close one and he contests the results, Gore style, then it's lock and load time. Obama getting up and saying "I refuse to accept these results" will basically be the dog-whistle that anything goes. Then it's days of major rioting, and months of black-on-white random attacks.
I don't see Obama himself trying to overthrow the law to stay in office. He doesn't care strongly enough for that, and he probably already looks forward to the very cushy income and lifestyle that he will have as America's first black ex-president. He'll command speaking fees that would make Bill Clinton envious, and all sorts of top writers will offer to ghost-write his future works while he tours the best golf courses. He'll leave office peacefully, whether in 2013 or 2017.
However, many of his followers -- especially the SWPL types in the media -- won't be that blasé about it. If Romney puts up any kind of a fight at all, this will be the nastiest, dirtiest election we've had in a long time -- precisely because they will see an Obama defeat as a reversal of progress. Heck, they probably view the fact that the Republicans have the gall to run anyone against him as an open declaration of racism.
I recall a caller to NPR's "On Point" in 2008 telling host Tom Ashbrook quite sincerely that as a result of Obama's election, we would see black improve their academic performance and cause less crime.
So if Obama is defeated I expect we'll lose all the progress we've made in those areas.
(BTW, Ashbrook hurried the caller off the air because poor academic performance and high criminality rates among blacks cannot be acknowledged on NPR.)
I would be extremely surprised to see any rioting in the event of an Obama defeat no matter what the circumstances may be. Pretty much everyone knows that if he loses it will be due solely to the unemployment rate, that being the only real issue in this election. Racism is not relevant.
Not only that, but Giscard wasn't a Gaullist, but a centrist. Jacques Chaban-Delmas was the Gaullist candidate in 1974. To be sure, some prominent Gaullists like Jacques Chirac supported Giscard over Chaban-Delmas, but only because they didn't the Socialists to win under Mitterand.
Cennbeorc
I'm guessing that if Obama is trailing in early November, a lot of middle-of-road whites will feel uncomfortable (a mixture of fear, guilt, and shame) and switch back to him. The shame part will result from a storm of media attacks on white racism, etc.
Sorry, dudes, no white identity this time round. The man will get back in.
Cennbeorc
* If Obama loses in a close one and he contests the results, Gore style, then it's lock and load time. Obama getting up and saying "I refuse to accept these results" will basically be the dog-whistle that anything goes. Then it's days of major rioting, and months of black-on-white random attacks.
Agree.
An even worse scenario:
Romney wins the Electoral College, but Obama wins the popular vote by several millions.
Obama then says, "The Electors must not let a dusty, 230 year old piece of paper disenfranchise the majority of their fellow Americans! The US Constitution is an dead document written by dead white men. It was designed to keep the rich elites in power, and it also legitimized slavery and denied women and Native Americans the vote. I'm beseeching every Elector with a conscience to listen to the will of the People and to change their votes when they meet in December."
No matter what happens Obama will be our last Black POTUS. Its the Dinkens effect.
I think there's a significant Tom Bradley effect in Obama's personal popularity poll numbers.
Bradley made a couple runs at the governorship from his position as LA mayor, and always did worse in the election than polls suggested he would. The thinking was that SWPLs were reluctant to tell pollsters that they were going to vote against a black guy, but once in the voting booth they were happy enough to pull the lever for his opponent.
I think Steve is throwing out some red meat here. I'm happy that Peter and Harry Canaday at least aren't buying it.
Steve must be remembering those riots in New York, Los Angeles, Baltimore, San Francisco, Chicago, and St. Louis when those cities lost their African-American mayors (in some cases to electoral defeat), also the riots in Chicago and Boston when Mosely Brown and Brooks were forced out of office.
Of course its not even certain that Obama will lose. Despite high unemployment, the polls are not indicating an Obama defeat, and if nothing else Romney is an absurdly poor candidate.
"* If Obama loses in a close one and there is a dispute, a la Florida, then all bets are off. This will be catnip to the white Leftoids and the media, and feces will hit the rotating air foil. Much carnage, much burning, much looting."
Yes and I suspect any carnage, burning and looting done by the left will be catnip to those on the right.
Allow me to point out that if O loses, he becomes instantly the most dangerous man in America. He will be essentially the king and ruler of a large, violent and rqther stupid population, capable of doing enormous harm. He will use that power cynically, as he clearly lacks any moral compass. But you know what? let's risk it.
If it makes 'em feel any better, I'm for letting them believe it's the white half of Obama that's inept...as long as we get rid of him.
Allow me to point out that if O loses, he becomes instantly the most dangerous man in America. He will be essentially the king and ruler of a large, violent and rqther stupid population, capable of doing enormous harm. He will use that power cynically, as he clearly lacks any moral compass. But you know what? let's risk it.
I don't think the O-Dog has that much ambition or cleverness. I'm with the other poster who thinks he doesn't even want re-election that bad and will look forward to being on the margins and enjoying a steady income stream from his $114 million net worth and guaranteed presidential pension.
There is a less than 5% chance that Obama loses this election. Romney is 1) annoying and 2) white in all the wrong ways in post-European America: paternalist, patrician, Northeasterner. In short a white guy with no "soul" in him.
I am surprised that so few posters are giving Romney a chance.
Dick Morris, who regardless of his personal foibles, is a smart campaign mananager (he got Clinton elected despite numerous pre-election bimbo reports and Whitewater!) recently posted an essay on his blog predicting that Romney is going to win in a landslide that will shock the political class. He thinks that people have just had it with high unemployment, liberals, the status quo and O's many mistakes (injecting himself into the Gates case, the Zimmerman case, being against the gas pipline, Solyndra, the Fast and the Furious...etc...)
I know California and New York are probably out of reach for Mitt, but it looks like Walker is going to win the recall election in Wisconsin that Democrats spent a lot of money and energy enginerring (a state that hasn't voted Republican in a presidential election since 1984!).
Also O is polling fairly poorly among White women compared to last time (I guess that they are falling out of love with him).
Even Oprah has said she won't endorse a candidate this time around. I can only interpret that as Oprah believing that endorsing Obama might somehow hurt her name brand, as a wise woman, this time around.
I sense that Morris is on to something... though a lot can happeng between now and the election.
I think a lot may depend on who Mitt picks as a running mate (contrary to conventional wisdom I think it really does matter).
I have no idea who he should pick.
Regarding what will happen if O loses, I agree that there will probably be riots especially if it is close.
But since most Whites don't live in a big city they mostly don't care.
"I would be extremely surprised to see any rioting in the event of an Obama defeat no matter what the circumstances may be. Pretty much everyone knows that if he loses it will be due solely to the unemployment rate, that being the only real issue in this election. Racism is not relevant."
Peter, you ignorant slut. You act like the Obama supporter most likely to riot has any political knowledge whatsoever.
Even in the minds of "educated" blacks, BHO can do no wrong and Trayvon Martin is an innocent boy. Facts and logic do NOT make sense.
I live in Baltimore City. Even though I don't live in a bad neighborhood (decent but not great), I plan on owning a minimum of 2 firearms by election time and not leaving my apartment without one for at least a month if BHO isn't re-elected.
Mr. 5:39: Intrade provides you with a guaranteed way to make a lot of money.
Tut tut Steve The Economist is a newspaper.
I don't think left-of-center commentators have been any less levelheaded than in either of the GWB elections. Of course, in hindsight they look good for pointing out the terrible quality of his presidential timber, the bastards.
Peter said...I would be extremely surprised to see any rioting in the event of an Obama defeat no matter what the circumstances may be.
I hope you're right, but it seems to me that what it takes to spark a riot is not a particular grievance, but the sense that enough other people will join in to diffuse the efforts of the police in suppressing it. It's opportunistic. An election night loss for Obama would seem like just such an occasion.
Eight years, or even four years ago, I would have deemed it far more likely that a black man would be elected President, than that a Mormon would be. The election of a Mormon still seems like a long shot to me, but obviously it's less so than it was just a year ago.
Fortunately, I don't care much one way or the other as I don't think it matters much which representative of the permanent hostile elite wins in November.
If Obama loses, it could be the last hurrah for the hippies. There is a very good chance that the next time there is a Democratic President the average age of the baby boomers will be 65-70 with many pushing 80 (some will be pushing daisies). By the time another leftist is in office, the Democratic Party will be dominated by POCs, many of which have no need or desire to accommodate environmentalists, anti-war types, and feminists. The white liberal share of power will have diminished to the point where they will be following the more unified and aggressive brownies that will dominate the Democratic Party and will be consuming the majority of public resources.
Funny, because this reminds me of how deranged some Republicans became after Bill Clinton (Well, Ross Perot really) 'stole' Bush Senior's second term.
"No matter what happens Obama will be our last Black POTUS. Its the Dinkens effect."
Demographics. More like at a certain point POTUS will become locked-in NAM, like Mayor of Baltimore but with Hispanic rotation.
Gilbert P
I can't believe all these people thinking Romney has no chance, Santorum would have had no chance, he would have been an evangelical McGovern or Goldwater. The economy is spiraling down, Europe stands at the ready to implode before November, and Romney is everything in combination that guys like Bush I, Bush II, Dole, and McCain were not: educated, well-spoken, good-looking, very wealthy, and non-threatening to swing voters suspicious of the Religious Right and old men who can remember WWII like it just happened.
Despite all the mud slung in the primaries, Romney is pretty much in a dead heat with Obama right now, despite the latter having no competition since the election cycle began. Obama has been able to appear Presidential during all this backbiting and yet he still has no real lead over Romney, which is usually bad news for an incumbent President. The economy will not be on his side unlike Clinton in 1996, and he won't be running against a poor public speaker who is in his 70's like Dole. In fact, Romney doesn't look much older than Obama despite being a dozen years older. The MSM will attempt it's usual racism card in this cycle, but it will also be trying to reconcile it's contradictory criticism of Romney: That he is an extremist, but that extreme right wingers won't vote for him because he is too centrist. The race angle won't play with very many except for the hard core left wing who would never vote for Romney anyway.
Most people out in flyover country don't feel the need to vote Obama another term to prove they are not racist, particularly if the economy continues to stagnate. Some very conservative elements of the electorate voted for Obama in 2008, because Bush looked like a fool when Wall Street went belly up, and McCain was deemed too old and picked a ditz for his running mate that a lot of them feared might become President if McCain were incapacitated. In fact a retired guy I know who is pretty conservative told me he only voted for Obama because he thought that Palin might ascend the Presidency and that kept him up at nights. There was also the fact that the economy went belly up literally weeks before the election, which would have benefited the non-incumbent party regardless of who their nominee was. As long as Romney picks a good running mate and doesn't gaffe his way through the campaign or in debate, I would say his chances are about 55%-45%. And lastly, it's not like Obama is Bill Clinton, who loved campaigning and politicking as much as any politician this country has ever produced.
It's always about the dollars in the USA.
Mayor Dinkins was a milestone pol in NYC but they gave him the bum's rush because he was bad for business ie the global brand that is New York City.
Obama is hurting the USA brand and all sentimentality is going out the window in November unless there is a miracle turnaround between now and then. He will get the bum's rush because he has f---ed with the brand and cost a lot of people huge amounts of dollars in the process.
I overheard an alarming discussion between two Black Youths in between their shucking and jiving. The Head Negro In Charge has planned a pre-election riot! Your safest bet is to arm yourself and stay inside——away from the polls entirely——for your own safety...
The weird, hypersensitive frenzy that has entered American political life since Mitt Romney wrapped up the GOP nomination and the fall campaign began in earnest suggests that many people on the left of center would perceive Obama losing in 2012 not as just one of those things that happens in a democracy, as George H.W. Bush and Jimmy Carter can attest, but as a Giant Diss to blacks. This potential Triumph of Racism (as they perceive it in their Who-Whom worldview) would be intolerable, so saying almost anything to ward off Obama's defeat in November is morally justifiable.
I've been leading with this vis-a-vis the next election for some time; that I hope Obama loses because of the message it sends: yeah, we elected a black president, and he sucked, and we gave him the bum's rush after 4 years. I just haven't said it much because Obama mostly slipped well under the too boring to talk about threshold for me a while ago.
It's kinda perfect, really: yeah, we gave him a shot because we're less racist than most, but he blew it, so he has to go; being black is not a license to suck.
I don't think the O-Dog has that much ambition or cleverness. I'm with the other poster who thinks he doesn't even want re-election that bad and will look forward to being on the margins and enjoying a steady income stream from his $114 million net worth and guaranteed presidential pension.
I wonder how long the richest ex-president in American history will sit still in that marriage? I doubt Michelle would put up much of a fight on his stepping out, as long as the press isn't tempted into covering it.
I find the idea of post-election riots pretty implausible--the people most inclined to riot are also least likely tocare much about politics. I can't think of any precedent for this kind of post-election riot in the US.
There is even less precedent for Obama trying to somehow keep power insome overt way despite losing the election. There is nothing at all in his history that suggests any willingness to do that or anything like it, is there?
If there is misbehavior by Obama int this election, it will probably be secret--calling in favors from the homeland security/intelligence agencies to gather dirt on prominent Republicans,t to share their blackmail material on top journalists and media company executives to influence coverage, selective leaks to ensure that only positive national security stories get told in the media (since the Obama administration has run a really brutal campaign of silencing whistleblowers, making authorized leaks almost the only source of information for US media).
"Anonymous Anonymous said...
I can't believe all these people thinking Romney has no chance,..."
I don't know what you're talking about. Most people who have posted here have admitted that he does have a chance. Obviously he has a chance - he is the Republican nominee.
".......and non-threatening to swing voters suspicious of the Religious Right and old men who can remember WWII like it just happened."
A man who was 17 in 1945 - the younger end of any cohort that could have served in WWII - would be 84 today. Those guys are mostly already senile or dead.
The WWII generation is gone. The America they represented is gone.
Obama is hurting the USA brand and all sentimentality is going out the window in November
Ah, that explains why Bush Jr was reelected. He was doing such a great job elevating USA brand.
"and Romney is everything in combination that guys like Bush I, Bush II, Dole, and McCain were not:
educated:
Ivy league degrees don't count as education anymore?
well-spoken:
Have you really listened to Mitten's speak?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZIjcF4DgFy8
good-looking:
Sure, for a senior citizen.
very wealthy:
Not nearly as wealthy as the Bush Crime Family.
and non-threatening to swing voters suspicious of the Religious Right
Like all Mormons.
yes i agree with this post in its entirety. white guilt is such a strong damn force to reckon with.
There is a less than 5% chance that Obama loses this election.
Bookmaker.com has Obama at -155 to win the election, which translates to a 60.78% chance that he wins.
Excuse me. That should have been bookmaker.eu.
Funny, because this reminds me of how deranged some Republicans became after Bill Clinton (Well, Ross Perot really) 'stole' Bush Senior's second term
Imagine Perot withdrew and gave the nod to Bush. Bush wins easily. Then Perot enters the 96 race and clobbers Clinton.
Hard to say how many of the existing problems of the 90s that would have solved, but it's fair to think it would have prevented a whole bunch of today's problems from occurring.
Walker is now a lock to win. 5% reporting, he has 12 points lead. No way this changes sign now.
Post a Comment