Recently, a powerpoint penned by conservative super donors and strategists entitled "The Defeat of Barack Hussein Obama" was leaked to the public through an anonymous inside source, perturbed by the brash and personally combative tone of the presentation. I will begin by thanking this individual for making public the exorbitantly filthy contents of this Neo-Con playbook; as Woody Allen might say, "You're a beautiful human and a credit to your race". After reading through this strategy, I'm convinced the already blemished reputation of White people may be in need of said credit: the proposal calls for the recruitment of African-American business leaders to oppose the Obama administration, as well as the enlistment of a charismatic African-American who can persuasively debunk the "black, metrosexual Abe Lincoln"(the report reads) persona-platform that President Obama allegedly ran on.
A digital copy of the presentation can be found here (NYTimes)
But I suppose it's about time conservative racism and its arbitrary political aggregations reared its idiotic, bigoted, and well-financed head. You would think that after losing a dramatic election to an African-American, Neo-conservative tea partier strategists might begin to reconsider how Americans think about race. But then again, they're neo-conservative tea partier strategists, so they don't always consider. Especially when that consideration requires such complex mind aerobics as empathy or color-blindness. No, the ultra-right have clearly entrenched their most socially conservative views into the way they run their campaigns, and I could not be happier. Why? Allow me to now make the case for why this sort of Republican tomfoolery is exactly what will deliver November's elections straight into Obama's metrosexual, Abe Lincoln-esque hands.
As in 2008, November's election lies with the ballots of political moderates; non-partisan skeptics who hate government waste, are somewhat more politically efficacious than many of their rank-and-file counterparts, and are unconvinced by out of place, marginal social campaigns from either side. They're not tipped by views on gay marriage, but prefer not to discuss the topic at all. They may think one way or the other, but they consider such things a matter of the private sphere rather than an issue to be put to referendum. So far, the Romney campaign has reserved its talk to fiscal matters; this is a smart move, because this is where moderates will start paying attention. It is arguable how moderates will respond to Romney's endorsement of Paul Ryan's draconian austerity plan, but you can be sure that when the Super PAC's follow through on this power point's plan to emphasize Obama's connections with Jeremiah Wright, his former Afro-Centric Reverend, moderates will be repugnant to such shallow jabs. This is an antiquated point, one that fell short of any real impact in 2008, and will have even less pull now. If anything, it's a repellant to those who do not want their country run by a amalgamation of vested corporate interests that have nothing better to do than make personal attacks on a man's past associations.
As Jonathan Capeheart of the Washington Post points out, this strategy emphasizing tactical strikes at race relations is not new. An update from the National Organization for Marriage discussed strategic aims to "drive a wedge between gays and blacks" in order to expand a Christian support base that opposes same sex marriage. But just today the N.A.A.C.P. voted on a resolution in affirmation of the groups support of same-sex marriage. No matter how hard conservative monied interests try, the arc of racial progress will continue to stay its course, and shrouded socially darwinian racism will become continuously less persuasive. Taking stock of our contested moderate demographic, it seems likely that such voters will want to distance themselves from the the tactics that would seek to divide them. It is my hope that this understanding will extend beyond voter's personal impressions of the two candidates and their campaign tactics and inform their interpretation of their distinct fiscal views as well.
In terms of divisiveness, the term "class warfare" has been applied to Democratically proposed progressive taxation, but the House budgetary committee's (Paul Ryan's) proposed budget seems much more consistent with this label. It scraps all of Lyndon Johnson's utopian advances from the Great Society initiatives, destroying Medicare, Medicaid, and the Department of Education. It defunds all existing government social programs that were invested both domestically and abroad. This means Head Start and Planned Parenthood would defer to private donations (would die) and foreign aid would cease to feed millions of impoverished people in nations both hostile and friendly to the United States. To this is I pose the question, what is more divisive? A progressive tax burden that requires the top 2.5% of the nation's earners to contribute the same real (not nominal) proportion of taxes as the rest of the nation, or one that eliminates the social safety net that maintains a relatively contented middle class, dropping anywhere from four to sixteen million Americans into poverty, and preventing a generation of middle class students from being able to attend the colleges that they want to? I'm going to go with the latter, and say that almost any argument to the contrary falls flat against the simple fact that under Ryan's plan, most Americans will become poorer while the wealthy would receive more tax cuts. If that doesn't stem interclass antagonism, I don't know what does. Certainly not universal healthcare (knock on wood).
Moderates will not like the untempered fiscal austerity measures proposed by the Romney camp, nor the abrasive, ethnically divisive tactics of his "non"-conspiratorial Super PACS. I have faith for Americans, I have faith in our future, I have faith in our economy, and I have faith in the re-election of Barack Hussein Obama.
No comments:
Post a Comment