Fourth of July in November
On the Beat
Thursday, November 6, 2008
WE MADE HISTORY: He burst onto the political scene like an Independence Day rocket, winning the presidency in a wave of youthful optimism, inspiring a nation where many at first had doubts.
But there was something about that handsome face, his eloquent way of making us realize that we could be better, and the fact that the world was waiting for the sunrise of our leadership. John F. Kennedy lit a torch of idealism. “Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country,” Kennedy so memorably told the nation after his 1960 election.
On the Beat
Today there are so many parallels between these two elections, more than four decades apart, when a nation rose above its prejudices. Then, were we ready for a Catholic president? Now, were we ready for a president of color? And what about his religion, and his middle name?
But then, as now, Americans elected a man who inspired them with a vision of one nation, indivisible, living our lives according to our consciences but not divided by religion or race. I had always wondered what would come first: a woman president or a black president? This year we had a choice.
Except for the bigots, race played so little a part of Barack Obama’s victory. We focused instead on his positions as he amazingly overcame Hillary Clinton’s sure-thing candidacy. Now we stand, not fully realizing it yet, shoulder to shoulder with history.
In my young life, there were no black major-league baseball players. Nor were blacks allowed in the National Football League. Ending that shame had to wait until after World War II. It took a violent civil rights battle before blacks were allowed to vote, go to “white” schools, or eat at “white” lunch counters in many parts of the country.
Billie Holiday sang of “Strange Fruit,” black bodies hanging from trees where they had been lynched. Even Louis Armstrong, the greatest musician this nation ever produced, felt the ugly hand of racism. It was a long time before you saw dark faces giving the news on network TV.
But this is a new world. Oprah is beloved. People who snarled at frightened children trying to enter integrated schools now cheer black athletes at schools where they would have had no chance of playing in the bad old days.
And now we have a man called Barack Hussein Obama, a man with a name that sounds strange to some. Partisan whisperers called him a Muslim while knowing it to be untrue. And if he was, so what? McCarthyite McCain people, desperate at the end, tried to paint him as a socialist, without having any idea what a socialist is, and as a guy who palled around with terrorists.
Obama kept his cool through all of this, a very good sign. Now what? Not to take the Kennedy comparison too far, but Kennedy soon got his fingers burnt in the heat of the Cold War. He had flaws, like another inspirational president to come, Bill Clinton. No president should have to come into office facing the almost-impossible burdens confronting Obama: George W. Bush’s wrong-headed war in Iraq, the flames of Afghanistan, and the worldwide financial crisis, the very meltdown that won Obama votes from the undecided.
There is a saying: From those to whom much is given, much is expected. Perhaps too much is expected from any U.S. presidency; in order to win the most powerful job in the world, one must arouse cheering fans at one’s pep rally-like speeches.
Presidents basically are CEOs, but we hang on their words as though from the guru on the mount. They are our rock stars. If they’re “our” guy, we rebel against anyone uttering a world against them. They are wise beyond wisdom. We are starry-eyed. But when they falter and show their human failings, we lapse into bitter recrimination. We insist on perfection.
But in reality, they’re essentially chief executives whose job it is to manage a nation and do what he-or she-can do for the rest of the world. They live in the most hallowed of halls, adored by multitudes and probably hated by other multitudes. They must not be overwhelmed by the adulation and hatred but must do the right thing and use a president’s mighty but tempting power with care.
We have seen too much of the arrogant abuse of power by a president too cocksure of his hunches, too unwilling to listen to wiser heads, too ready to cook the political books, too contemptuous of the Constitution, and too stubborn to end a war he should never have dragged us into. We deserve far better.
Tuesday we wrote a blazing chapter in the history books and should be very, very proud of our country.
(Do you suppose John and Bobby Kennedy and Martin Luther King Jr. are sitting around somewhere, looking down and shaking hands?)
Related Links
Barney Brantingham can be reached at barney@independent.com or 805-965-5205. He writes online columns throughout the week and a print column on Thursdays.
Comments
Obama didn't win because of the color of his skin, just like Sarah Palin didn't lose because she's a woman. Obama won because he's the best person to lead our country in these troubling times. He's bright and articulate, truly understands the issues, and has realistic plans to deal with the myriad problems our country faces.
EileenHamilton (anonymous profile)
November 6, 2008 at 10:07 a.m. (Suggest removal)
As a person who is actually color blind, I have trouble with socks, but not race. People assume I see no color, all black & white.
I do see color, I just see it differently than others. Sometimes its hard to discern the differences as clearly as some can point out.
Being an artist of sorts, I consider it a blessing.
StandUpGuy (anonymous profile)
November 6, 2008 at 11:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Putting issues aside, the downside of all of this is that because of the cult of personality surrounding Obama and his being half-Black, people are going to look to him to solve all their problems. With regard specifically to race issues, people have to get themselves involved to make sure the changes they want are made. Same thing with the issues: One can't expect Obama to do it all for them. Civilian involvement in government has been lacking for a long time, and part of this is overseeing not just what the president does, but what hostile congressional representatives and vested interests might do to thwart whatever positive actions a president will make.
The only time I ever heard a president say anything along the lines I suggest is when Clinton--while addressing health care--pointed out that part of the deal is that Americans must start taking better care on themselves.
Per the famous Kennedy quote in the second paragraph, it's reached cult-like status, but it's absolutely true. Will Obama's supporter really be willing to roll up their sleeves and get involved?
billclausen (anonymous profile)
November 6, 2008 at 2:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Since this is an article about race, I would point out that while many celebrated the election of Black mayors across the country which started a few decades back, once those mayors got into office the problems that they inherited from previous administrations did not go away in those cities and people are still killing each other which proves the point that unless society at large looks inward, no real positive change can happen.
billclausen (anonymous profile)
November 6, 2008 at 2:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Read beyond the headlines, chicken littles.
This was a hearing in which the presentation cited in the headline "drew the most attention and criticism."
And, if you finally make it to the end of all the suppositions based on that.
Obama sayeth:
"I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change."
StandUpGuy (anonymous profile)
November 6, 2008 at 4:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)
A simple dictionary might help you.
activity noun
a specific deed, action, function, or sphere of action: social activities.
welfare noun
the good fortune, health, happiness, prosperity, etc., of a person, group, or organization; well-being: to look after a child's welfare; the physical or moral welfare of society.
StandUpGuy (anonymous profile)
November 6, 2008 at 4:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"We have seen too much of the arrogant abuse of power by a president too cocksure of his hunches, too unwilling to listen to wiser heads, too ready to cook the political books, too contemptuous of the Constitution,"
Was Obama thinking of this when he voted in 2006 for the reauthorization of the Patriot Act?
billclausen (anonymous profile)
November 6, 2008 at 5:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)
It is quite appropriate for you to not understand that quote AShaw, since no self respecting "dumb redneck" (as you described yourself) is supposed to understand English.
However, you do need to get used to calling him President Barack Obama now.
RobEgenolf (anonymous profile)
November 6, 2008 at 5:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"You would think from reading the viewpoints of his fans, the above being a perfect example, Obama won because:
He is black.
He is not G.W." -AShaw-
With all due respect to Barney, who saw things that us younger folks didn't see with respect to the way Blacks were treated, his articles of late seem to be more about picking open scabs than moving forward.
I know it's tempting to talk about such horrible things but what's the point here? Is it to say "I'm White but I'm one of the good ones?"
As for AShaw's comment about Obama not being G.W., I concur in the sense that G.W. has been such a nightmare on so many levels that it threw the field open for anyone percieved as being a maverick. I knew back in 2004 that we were in trouble when I started seeing "Anyone but Bush" bumper stickers. I see this election as being more about protest voting than anything else.
Since Barney's column is focusing on the racial symbolism of this election, I ask the following questions: Will Barack's presidency deal with the high rate (77% last time I heard) of out-of-wedlock births among Blacks? (With many children having no significant interaction with their fathers) Will (you progressives take note here) the never-ending War On Drugs end? These are two good issue with which to start.
billclausen (anonymous profile)
November 6, 2008 at 5:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)
How about not saddling our President/Government further. Yes, libertarians take note, these two important issue are important and our responsibility. Further these goals:
If you know of a child without a "Father-figure". Be one to that child. Regardless of your sex.
If you know of someone in crisis because of drugs or alcohol. Try to save them without judgment.
If you see someone not doing their part, encourage them.
It hasn't worked when our Government declared a "War on Drugs" or when people try to define, or declare a "War on Families."
StandUpGuy (anonymous profile)
November 6, 2008 at 9:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I wouldn't hurt for all kids to see some example that no matter what your race, or whether or not you were raised with a father present, If you accomplish what you set out to do, you can succeed. Maybe even lead our great nation.
StandUpGuy (anonymous profile)
November 6, 2008 at 9:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)
We now have a leader who will Listen before starting a war. I feel proud to be a American. I wore a Flag pin on my uniform for the first time sence 2003.
bigjim (anonymous profile)
November 7, 2008 at 8:01 a.m. (Suggest removal)
"gay marriage is part of the war on families."
Of course I feel the opposite. I'll be sure to address that directly on another thread. And leave the readers to draw their own conclusions about the parallels of civil equality as a race issue (this article) and any other struggle over citizens rights and privileges.
StandUpGuy (anonymous profile)
November 7, 2008 at 8:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Since bringing up past injustices has been a thread in Barney's columns recently, maybe he can use his journalistic influence to talk about the silent bigotry against homeless people.
Use a racial slur, you get (rightfully) condemned and if you have a talk show, you will likely get booted off the air. Make a joke about a the homeless or locally, refer to a homeless person born and raised here as a "transient", and nothing gets said.
Of course the good ol' left-wing politically correct "progressive" town of S.B. isn't likely to take this nasty underside of itself on anytime soon.
billclausen (anonymous profile)
November 8, 2008 at 4:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Living out here in Northern Virginia and being a long swim away from our Nations Captital, the overwhelming majority of African-Americans, voted for Obama because he IS black. Many were asked to comment on Obama's political background, experience and leadership character? Many of our African-Americans living in around the Nation's Capital, were dumb-founded with the question in itself, many had to ask "What you say'ing, cracker?". After the question was dumbed-down or placed in Ghetto speak, the reply to the three question was, "He's a black man!". No one but the political savvy, who was African-American, could offer any reason to vote for Obama other than he is "Black". I guess, California was more articulate in its reasons for electing Obama, than his soon to become neighbors, the "Black" Community.
dou4now (anonymous profile)
November 9, 2008 at 1:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)