I’m voting for Barack Obama because he’s black. Yes, because I agree with his policy positions more than I agree with John McCain’s and because I believe we need to punish the current ruling party for its transgressions, but mostly because we’d finally have a minority President. And the fringe benefit of being able to tell black jokes in public is huge. Oh, how nice it’ll be to not have to look around and whisper, “What do you say to a black man in a three-piece suit?” Your African-American neighbor will happily respond, “‘Will the defendant please rise?’” You can together bust out all the old classics at full volume. And who can get offended? You’ll just be like, “Hey, you now have the highest office in the land. By definition, any other office is lower, so what we say here really doesn’t matter. YOU are in-charge now. We’re the oppressed. We’re collectively no longer a racist country so it’s all in jest now.” He’ll go, “You’re right!” You both laugh and go out for a drink. A comedian’s dream.
Or nightmare? Because now it’ll be that much harder to shock everyone. Hmmm… maybe I haven’t fully thought this through. Let’s continue to make it taboo – just to keep me in a job.
Those of you who know me know well that I’m a die-hard moderate. Even though one side has ACORN, I think they’re both nuts. I pride myself on having friends from all walks of life – black/white, straight/gay, male/female, hot/very hot, conservative/liberal. It’s true that I lean a bit left, but that’s only because we’re in a conservative swing right now. As the country moves to the left, I’d imagine I’d be left right back in the comfy middle. Some of my friends have long asked me whether I’m in the center because it’s popular. No. Because it’s not the number of people – it’s simple logic. I hold no loony views or outrageous beliefs – I just phrase ordinary viewpoints in extraordinary ways… I bring some edge to the middle. I like to be provocative. To smart people, I can be inspirational. To dumb people, I can be insulting. Boy, that’s a great The Emperor’s New Clothes way of phrasing it, huh? Unless you’re intellectual, you can’t see the garments.
That’s why I don’t have a single point-of-view. I have many points. And thanks to YouTube, many views. (OK, here’s what I really think [scroll down] and it may be helpful to peruse before you proceed.)
I’m not sure that what you’re reading has a coherent theme. It’s a stream-of-consciousness series of good points written in an amusing way and with twists that hopefully push you out of your comfort zone at times but eventually leave you laughing as you’re reading it and thinking about it later.
Why listen to me? Well, my job as a standup comic has allowed me to travel the country and conduct virtual focus groups in cities from Boston to Birmingham to Bakersfield. I over-index on political knowledge and intelligence so I tend to make a lot more good points in a few paragraphs than most books you’ll read in a year. (I under-index on humility.) Also, you may have enjoyed my editorial on the 2004 election. Of course, I’m often wrong. I thought Evan Bayh was going to be President. (I was right about McCain, though – you can check one of my old podcasts that I predicted he’d come back when he was nowhere.) Seriously, though, a degree of humility is always in order: things are changing so fast and something could happen tomorrow that alters everything, so I can only say this is how I feel on this day at this time.
But if you can’t impress, amuse. And I’d purport that 80+% of people agree with me – they just don’t vocalize it. I can because I have no boss; I’m a free radical. How liberating. So, let’s put that liberation to work.
First, a little background. How should one think about politics? What’s the difference between the two parties? Well, these days, not much. Democrats are dumb and Republicans are mean. That’ll be the name of the book I may someday write on the topic: Democrats are Dumb and Republicans are Mean. What that implies is that Democrats are stupid for thinking it’s a good idea to make the government everyone’s big brother. And Republicans are selfish for trying to take everything away and for telling people to just go out and make it on their own.
Really, though, the best explanation I’ve heard arose out of a conversation I had with an old boss at work – I’m not naming names because I’m not sure he’d consider it “credit.” Although given what has happened in our financial crisis, it appears that Credit is the new Blame.
SES ED
In college, I took a class called Sociology of Education and was introduced to two fascinating, competing schools of thought, no pun intended. (You’re thinking, “None taken.”)
Functionalist and Conflict Theory forever changed the way I looked at the world. Functionalists believe that we live in a meritocracy – that we are all created equal and have an even shot at everything because society is made up of individuals provided with the same opportunity. Conflict theorists say that’s all BS and that since society is comprised of groups (AARP, NRA, pro-choice lobby, teachers’ unions, trial lawyers, blacks, Latinos, the haves and have-nots*, et al), there is something called SES (socioeconomic status) that determines just how fair of a shot we all have. Tyrone down on Crenshaw doesn’t have the same chances Trevor from West Chester has. (Btw, I’m done with the whole switching around of names the advertisers are having us buy. “Here’s Thurston. He lives in Harlem.” No, he doesn’t. There are no Thurstons in Harlem. There is a plethora of Tyrones.)
[*That’s the proper notation: “haves and have-nots.” While we’re on the topic, it’s “dos and don’ts.” The next person I see use an unnecessary or misplaced apostrophe like “Do’s and Dont’s” is going to get… well, I’m not sure what I can do to you… I’ll remove you as a Friend on Facebook. That’ll learn ya.]
Back to the lecture at hand. What impact does Functionalist and Conflict Theory have on one’s political philosophy? Tons. They’re the lenses through which you see the world. If you’re a Functionalist, you’re almost certainly a Conservative. If you’re a Conflict Theorist, you’re likely to be a Liberal.
(Wow, this is how effective the Right has been about changing our minds. It sounds bad to say “a liberal.” Maybe that’s because of an indefinite article. It doesn’t sound as bad to say “He’s liberal.” Kind of like “He’s a Jew” sounds harsh. “He’s Jewish.” Yeah, that’s OK.)
I often use “Republicans” and “Conservatives” interchangeably as I do with “Democrats” and “Liberals,” though that is not often accurate. For example, the Republican Party, since at least Ronald Reagan in 1980 or perhaps even Barry Goldwater in 1964, has been built on the three-legged stool of fiscal conservatives, social conservatives, and national defense hawks. While the GOP has stayed true to the last two, that first one has been thrown out the proverbial window. It is hotly contested whether Reagan was a great or a terrible President – I’m not saying he was terrible… he was… but that’s not what I’m saying… (actually, I think he was both) – but similarly to W, he decreased taxes and increased spending.
The fact that the American people didn’t catch how intellectually dishonest this was might have been, in retrospect, the beginning of the end of the empire. I actually think we’ve been sliding ever since the late 1960s when a series of events including the JFK, RFK, and MLK assassinations, Watergate, and the Vietnam War fed the distrust of not only government but also ourselves. Or I could just be a complete nihilist and go all Metallica on you, “You’ve been dying since the day you were born.” So, 1776, then.
Basically, when it comes to government, you can’t decrease revenue (taxes) and increase expenditures (spending). That isn’t a sustainable business model. Reagan cut domestic spending but drove military/defense through the proverbial roof. (Are we building a house here with these proverbs? Somebody call Joe the Plumber.) This was bad but better than Bush the Sequel because even non-defense and non-intelligence spending rose during the last eight years. Democrats are often charged with being tax-and-spend liberals, but at least that’s an intellectually honest philosophy – increase revenue and increase spending.
So, what are Conservatives’ approach to things? The free market. It’s an equal world, so get out of the way and let the chips fall where they may. And the Liberals’? Government. Since things aren’t equal, Government must act as the great equalizer, the kid who stands to one side of the see-saw fulcrum and presses down so little Rajiv doesn’t fly off when the fat kid on the other side returns to the earth.
What’s the answer, then? Not surprisingly, it’s in the middle. We can’t go with laissez-faire capitalism any more than we can go with suffocating socialism. I’d love to be on the right because I believe that’s where the true optimists are. In this way, I’m probably not a liberal but a disappointed conservative in the way that George Carlin called himself not a cynic but a disappointed idealist. The answer, to me, is to support short-term conflict theory policies that lead to long-term functionalist solutions. We should strive for the ideal of a society in which we are really all equal. On the way, though, we need to take care of those not helped by the system – short-term sacrifice for long-term gain. That’s why the welfare reform passed by President Clinton and the Congressional Republicans in the 1990s was such a good idea. It aimed to get people off of welfare but provided them with job training and time to acquire skills to support themselves (give them fish and teach them to fish).
MONICA’S LEGS WEREN’T THE ONLY THINGS DIVIDED
But this is where I lost respect for the GOP. WHY did they persecute Clinton the way they did? The three major initiatives passed during his time – welfare reform, balanced budget, and NAFTA – were all conservative. He was no liberal. He governed completely from the center. Former Senator Dale Bumpers gave a great speech on the Senate floor when he said, “‘HL Mencken said one time, “When you hear somebody say, ‘This is not about money,’ it’s about money.” And when you hear somebody say, “This is not about sex,” it’s about sex.’”
Republicans were just looking to bust him for anything. You think Slick Willy (What do you think that name really means?) was the first President to get oral sex in the Oval Office? Gosh, I hope not. Why would you want to be President otherwise? Heck, the great thing about having a great position is you get into great positions. If I didn’t want to get laid after my job, I’d go back to working in Corporate America. It doesn’t matter how much I rocked my assignment, I never once had the girl in the next cube say, “OMG, Rajiv, the way you delivered that presentation makes me want to see your Power Point. Let’s see if you Excel like that in bed. I’ll give you Access to anything you want. In fact, let’s just go to the copy room right now and let that little symbol determine whether you do me Face Up or Face Down on the fax machine. Word.” Never happened.
That was when the country split. And it didn’t help that both Republicans and Democrats redrew districts – an age-old process called “gerrymandering.” This is the one thing that has prevented compromise and is therefore anathema to a moderate. Now, because their districts are so extreme, all they do is spew invective and never heal the wounds. In the days of yore, Congressmen used to disagree vehemently but then hit the local club to drink together. (There were no Congresswomen back then so don’t jump down my throat about that one just like you do when I call it “Oriental food.” “Oriental” refers to things; “Asian” refers to people. You can’t eat Asian food unless you’re a cannibal. That’s seriously how sensitive things have gotten in the office – you can’t even call it an Orientation. It’s now an Asiantation.)
Actually, there were no clubs for the men to hit back then. I suppose I meant “saloon.” That’s the one good thing about slavery. Hear me out here, people. No slavery, no African Americans. No African Americans, no hip-hop. No hip-hop, no happiness. Seriously, how lame would this country be without black people? So lame. So boring. No Ferraris and Jaguars switchin’ four lanes. No G-Thangs. No jump-offs. No dip-sets. No HOV (unless you count carpool lanes). Just loads of lonely fat white women. It’s a trade-off. I’d willingly give away 400 years of someone else’s freedom to break it down to “Hey Ya.”
While we’re at it, the term “African American” itself is racist. There would be no African Americans if Caucasians hadn’t uprooted these poor folks from their homes and brought them here. They would just be Africans. So, I love how some bleeding heart liberal felt that “black” was somehow now a bad term and renamed it to be “African American” to make himself feel better, not realizing just how ironic and inherently oppressive it is. Ask the nearest black person which term he prefers and I virtually guarantee you’ll hear “black.”
Don’t judge. Think about it. And just think of the opportunity you have: you can vote for Obama to assuage four centuries of guilt. Seriously, this is like a Get Out of Jail Free card. You can wash away all of that prejudice in one fell swoop of the voting lever. You’ll feel great, like after you take a long shower. It’s the new Ethnic Cleansing.
I just hope everyone’s votes are accounted for. We have lots of new black voters. And they deserve to have their three-fifths counted. Too far? OK, let’s bring it back. But that was funny – I don’t care where you’re from.
Why all the hostility? Well, it’s not really hostility. I can joke about this stuff because I don’t actually believe it. That’s what I’ve found as I’ve toured the country – the people who laugh at racist jokes are the ones who are all right. The ones who don’t are the ones who have the issues.
What I am truly upset about is the realization of the fears I’ve held for some time. I have little doubt we may be witnessing the end of the American Empire. The nation won’t cease to exist, of course, but great societies don’t explode – they implode. When the current financial mess is over, we’ll live on a playing field that is much more level. And that’s not good for anyone. It may sound like it’s good for other countries, but it’s not. With all of our faults and flaws in foreign policy – and there are a lot – we’re still the Benevolent Ruler. We can be dicks, but things would not be any better if the USSR would’ve won the Cold War or if China is in-charge. In fact, things would be a lot worse – and it’s very possible for China to send the US into a tailspin. All it needs to do is dump its US Treasury bills on the open market and invest in the European Union instead. We are no longer masters of our own destiny.
Here’s a simple explanation of why our standard of living will gradually decrease: We currently finance our profligate (that word has seen the same spike in use that the “@” symbol did in the ’90s… no one ever hit Shift-2 but now @ is like the king of the symbols) ways by selling our bonds to overseas investors. This ensures that the dollar is the world’s currency. If foreign countries (Aren’t all other countries “foreign”?) decide to start investing in Euros, we won’t be able to sell our debt. Demand for these monetary instruments will fall so price will follow. Yield, which moves inversely to price, will rise, meaning interest rates will, too. Rising interest rates is another way of saying that money costs more, so you’ll be able to afford less. Therefore, standard of living decreases. Q.E.D. In all honesty, I don’t know if that’s quite correct, but I’m pretty sure you don’t know any better.
And that’s really the thing. Economics, especially to us engineers, is a very inexact science, precisely because the data one needs to run the formulae are never available in time to make a decision. You find out Q2 earnings in Q3 and get a revised estimate by Q4. So, who the hell knows? Nobody. It’s all a guess. It sounds nice to say you subscribe to a fiscal pedagogy, but no one knows. I suppose I shouldn’t use such dollar words, especially since the dollar isn’t worth as much.
Isn’t it funny that only a few people know what “esoteric” means?
Analogies are like nothing else.
OK, I’ll stop.
For example, I was interning on Capitol Hill years ago for a Republican from Cincinnati. I didn’t really know what I was at the time – I later became a registered Republican in Ohio because I loved John McCain in the 2000 primaries when he used to be a good guy and you had to be a member of that party to vote in the election. I’m now a Democrat in California. When in Rome, I suppose. “Go on…” – Ron Burgandy.
It’s hard for Indians, though, because we should be Democrats since we’re minorities but we should be Republicans because we’re rich.
I was visiting a friend in a Congressman’s office when the one of the staff members had just finished interviewing a candidate. He was a total curmudgeon so you have to picture this old guy with a slow drawl. I asked him how it went. He goes, “You know, Rajiv, you get all these young college women coming in to interview to work for a Republican. They like to talk about how they’re fiscally conservative. You know what that means – baby killers.”
OMG. I about spit up my Coke. Obviously, he was implying that she may harbor liberal viewpoints. But even voting on social issues is a crapshoot. I don’t really view politics as the way to change people’s minds. That’s why I no longer plan to run for office; I feel like entertainment is the platform to do that. I think Brokeback Mountain did more to further the gay cause than any legislation passed by Congress, be that in Massachusetts or California. I happen to be progressive on the issue, because I can say it’s not a choice. I have no bias on the issue – I mean, I don’t know how much you can trust gay people because they’re always doing something behind your back. But I still think they deserve all the rights that straights have.
So, on which principles should you vote? In my humble (heh) opinion, you should vote based on pragmatism, not ideology. If Bush as a Republican President can pass what amounts to the greatest socialist initiative since LBJ’s Great Society, nay, since FDR’s creation of social security, etc., then you know he doesn’t believe what he’s preaching.
It’s bromide, something to pacify the masses. Do you really think he was ever going to pass a gay marriage or flag burning amendment? I’m not sure how the latter works, anyway. How do you tell people not to burn the very thing that gives them the freedom to do what they want? It’s just something these guys say to stay in power. Plus, ideals don’t exist in real life, so don’t be an idealist or an ideologue. Be a realist. Vote for someone who’s going to institute practical solutions. Vote on health care**. Social security. Education. Taxes. Balanced budgets. Trade. Immigration. Jobs. Gas prices. These are the things that matter.
**On this topic, I agree with McCain. Check my site for a very detailed explanation.
And of course on the economy and foreign policy. As far as the former, McCain is pro-deregulation but now that he voted for the bailout bill (which was a boneheaded move since it was his one chance to showcase what in marketing we call a “point-of-difference”), there’s not much air between them regarding the credit crisis. Still, one gets the sense that Obama will handle the economy better… he just seems to understand the problems of working class people more than McCain does. This shouldn’t be a surprise. Again, the GOP has placated the low class with values issues while kowtowing to its real base – the rich. I know we’d have the triumvirate of Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid (a point on which I can’t believe McCain hasn’t capitalized, pun intended), but at least something would get done. Maybe we can cut out this business of, as I read recently, “privatizing profits and socializing losses.” The Democrats have done a good job of making their case, although I’m surprised that the Democrats have had the only openly gay House Member speak for them. Sometimes I have a hard time listening to what’s coming out of Barney Frank’s mouth because I keep thinking of what was probably just in it.
As to the latter, we’ve become a nation of embarrassments. We haven’t caught bin Laden. We’ve wrecked Iraq. The World Trade Center hasn’t been rebuilt. New Orleans and now Galveston are wastelands. The only way we’d have taken the most Golds at the Olympics is if we would’ve packed along a truckload of Jewish people. We’ve devoured ourselves because as Gary Hart simply said (this time on land so you can trust him), “We’ve been consuming more than we’ve been producing [trade deficit]. We’ve been spending more than we’ve been earning [national and personal debt].”
Indeed, we’ve become fat (one of the most obese nations), dumb (test scores in the pits), and yet unhappy (89% of us think we’re going in the wrong direction). There does need to be an asterisk next to test scores, though, because our results are skewed down since schooling here is compulsory and measurable and our population is so enormous (3rd in the world), so competing against Finland isn’t really fair. Still, no one would argue our school system is failing.
So, we need someone who will restore our standing on the globe. Obama, the self-declared citizen of the world, will do that. McCain is too bellicose; he now wants to pick a fight with Iran? You’d think a man captured for five years would be anti-war but I think it’s hard for a soldier to become a diplomat.
BROWN IS THE NEW GRAY
I don’t take sides in the whole white/black issue in this country. I love and feel endeared to both… to whites because I grew up in a community that was 90+% white and our family was always treated very well in this environment. I didn’t experience racism and have absolutely no axe to grind with Caucasians. At the same time, I empathize with blacks because we’re both minorities. I don’t have a dog in this fight, unlike Michael Vick. I do laugh at the situation, though, because now whites in this country are faced with an ironic choice since Obama is pro-labor and McCain is pro-free trade: Vote for the colored guy or vote for the white guy and likely lose your job to a colored guy overseas. It’s quite amusing.
If anyone doubts there is racism in this country (and I’d argue that it’s far, far worse in probably every other nation and besides, racism isn’t necessarily bad – it just keeps everyone in-check), just observe this presidential race. McCain is the hare and Obama is the tortoise. Remember how the hare just dicked around for most of the race? I mean, look at all the yardage McCain has given up to Obama: the head of his party was so bad we actually considered electing a woman, a Mexican, and a Mormon for the job. He destroyed a city, destroyed a country, and destroyed the world’s greatest economy. Then McCain, a geriatric whose time passed eight years ago, picks a bimbo as his running mate and suspends his campaign during the homestretch. Meanwhile, Obama has to trudge on at a steady pace, run a virtually perfect campaign, inspire billions around the globe, and he’s only five points ahead.
I rest my case.
Contrary to popular belief, this is not the most important election of my lifetime. That was 2004. Now, we have two wars and a new $700 billion to keep anyone from being a spendthrift. (Is that the kind of person who spends a lot? Why is being “thrifty” the opposite, then?) We still had a chance to salvage this great nation – which has NO REASON to not be the best dynasty in the 6,000-year history of this planet – we have the most resources, the best people, the most money, and the best luck ever. We should have the tallest building, the fastest roller coaster… the poorest American should be able to walk over to any country and buy it.
About two years ago, I said the winner would be a visionary. (And I can be as prophetic as The West Wing, which depicted a race between an older white man and a younger brown man.) We need a Reagan or a Kennedy – it didn’t matter whether s/he came from the right or left. Now that the 30-year conservative period that began in earnest in 1980 is over, it stands to reason that he came from the left. I don’t know if Obama will win. He should – if nothing else for the symbolism. And I do not mean that lightly. (Or darkly). Symbols are important. Even if the President’s hands are tied fiscally, the leader sets the tone. It is still the most important job in the world and we obviously have to take this very seriously.
LUCKY 13
I think he will win. Looking at all of the factors… McCain won’t do as well as Bush did as the social conservatives won’t turn out in such droves. Many will vote against a black man but the base doesn’t see McCain as a Christian true believer and besides, a lot of these hard-core people voted for Bush, anyway. Obama will do better than Kerry. He doesn’t have the unwavering support of white, blue-collar voters (who are the real base and not the arugulavores) but I’m not sure the perceived-to-be-elitist Kerry did, either. They also say that the candidate about whom the election is NOT will win. In other words, if the election is a referendum on Obama, he’ll lose. If it’s a referendum on McCain, Obama wins. And if it’s a referendum on Bush, the state of the union, and the economy, which it’s shaping up to be, Obama wins big.
Furthermore, the Obama campaign has identified 55 million unregistered voters. And that’s the real story – in these polls, likely voters are previous registered voters. This will likely trump the Bradley effect, which states that white voters will change their vote whilst in the booths. The Associated Press has estimated this number as 6 percentage points. It’s hard to know, though, because of factors like young people being more likely to answer pollsters but harder to reach because they use cell phones vs. home phones.
So, I ran this analysis: I disregarded the 2008 polls, instead choosing to work with 2004 data. I found the delta between Bush and Kerry in each state. I made a 3-D graph with axes of: Republican/Democrat/Independent, Bush/Kerry voters, and already-registered (old)/newly-registered (new) voters. This theoretically yields 12 groups (3 x 2 x 2), but obviously there are no newly-registered voters who voted in 2004, so there are actually six groups and these are my rough projections for each one. The way to read “Old Democrats Bush” is “previously-registered Democrats who voted for Bush.” Old Democrats Bush: 80% McCain; 20% Obama. Old Republicans Bush: 90% McCain; 0% Obama. Old Independents Bush: 50% McCain; 50% Obama. Old Democrats Kerry: 100% Obama. Old Republicans Kerry: 100% Obama. Old Independents Kerry: 50% McCain; 50% Obama. Out of the new ones – New Republicans: 90% McCain. New Democrats: 80% Obama. New Independents: 60% Obama.
Therefore, the formula would yield, using CNN’s 2004 data, e.g., in Ohio, a 3.81% win for Obama vs. a 2.11% loss for Kerry. This is almost a 6-percentage point delta and this does NOT take into account new voters.
The only problem is that the data for new registrants are so scattered on various Secretary of States’ sites that it made it hard to garner. So, I didn’t actually run the analysis in full, but if we don’t real data to invade a country, I’m sure this’ll suffice. And it sounds impressive to talk about. Still, as Ohio has lately been in the news, I easily found that the number of new voters is 600,000. If 200,000 are bogus, which could very be, if even half of these new folks show up, that’s 200,000 new voters. It’s easily believable that the vast majority of these are likely Obama’s… probably to the tune of 80% (whatever that tune sounds like but I guess it’s time to face the music). That’d be 120,000 net votes for Obama, giving him a 7.59% victory, so the delta is probably more like 13 percentage points, if we round down (6 + 7). So, Bush would’ve had to won a state by more than 13 points to keep it. Running those numbers, and giving McCain the borderlines of North Carolina and West Virginia (which went for Bush by 12.48 and 12.96, respectively), this gives Obama 355 electoral votes, which would be the landslide by which Democrats almost never win and therefore even a mandate to govern.
If you’re thinking of voting for McCain, well, first of all, I just gave you a lot of credit by implying that you’re thinking. Anyone who would select Sarah Qualin is completely reckless. Yes, she’s hot. In fact, I used to be against drilling in Alaska… but she makes me want to lay more pipe than Joe the Plumber. I can’t say it better than Matt Damon, so I won’t. And don’t dismiss it because it came from a Hollywood actor. Imagine a construction worker saying it and it’s difficult to argue w/ the message. And btw, it’s hilarious.
I knew the pick would backfire. I have this to say about the American people: we may be dumb but we ain’t stupid. Because “stupid is as stupid does.” (Although I’ve never understood that phrase so I’m not sure how stupid that makes me.) This was the lamest attempt at legitimacy since Bush tried to appoint his personal lawyer to the Supreme Court. McCain threw out his greatest charge against Obama: lack of experience. Normally, who’s Vice President doesn’t matter. But when you’re 72 and have had four bouts with cancer, it’s a huge deal. (And McCain suggesting he would only serve one term doesn’t exactly set me at ease – so he could do anything he wants with immunity?) Besides, anyone as conservative as Sarah knows that women shouldn’t be wandering out of the kitchen, anyway. In all honesty, I don’t think Palin is stupid. She’s just out of her league. It’d be like handing me a scalpel and asking me to perform surgery. I’m not a moron – I just can’t do it.
I don’t know how many of you saw McCain and Obama take their turns at being standup comics, but it was pretty good. McCain was funnier, I must admit. And you’d think a comic would love something like this – and I do. But at the same time, there was something unsettling about it and then it occurred to me. These two guys can laugh it up all they want because no matter what happens, they’ll be OK. There is something more important in this country than race or even money – yes, even money – it’s power. And I was reminded that they are part of the ruling class, which we sadly have in this country even though it’s a far cry from what the Founding Fathers would’ve wanted. It feels like it’s us against them.
And so it goes. Who will win? Whoever the Establishment decides it wants. The media, the military, the government, the church… they’re all in it together – and I’m not even a conspiracy theorist. Maybe it’s the Illuminati. Or the Free Masons. But this race will go to whoever the Man determines should win. Will he conspire (OK, so maybe I am a little bit) to keep the black man down or will he decide to offload nearly half a millennium of guilt and give it to him? I’m hoping for the latter.
Obama has had it tough. How tough? Many of you have heard me say that running with the name Barack Hussein Obama (with Barack rhyming with Iraq, Hussein like Saddam Huseein, and Obama rhyming with Osama) would be like a guy running in the 1930s with the name Germany Bitler Bussolini. You’ve since heard Jon Stewart and Dana Carvey come out with their own versions. Obama also struggled with Hillary over the motto of change. I’m not surprised Barack won that one – everywhere I go, black people ask me for change. But Obama is good – so good we’ve forgotten he’s black. Then you think about all the work he’s been missing… Oh!
THIS TIME, IT’S THE SAME
Obama may very be employing 1960s liberal ideas. He may be a vessel into which we are placing our own set of ideals. He may be a lot of things. But he seems like an honorable man. He’s clean – if there were dirt, the Clintons would’ve found it. And they’d have used it.
He has run a great campaign. I mean, he beat Hillary Clinton. That’s no small feat, as she was successful in defining herself despite sharing a last name with someone so big, just as Janet Jackson and Diet Coke were able to. (And if were she, I’d root for a McCain victory so I can run again in four years.) But beyond running a strategic campaign, he has run a classy one. And he has energized this country like no one has since RFK did in the 1960s. The change may not lie in his policies but in this very grassroots movement. He’s like the Larry the Cable Guy or Dane Cook or Russell Peters of politics. You may love him or hate him, but you can’t argue how many people he has brought into the game. And as a student of politics, I applaud this.
Obama, I just pray that you do level with the American people… the only two doing that were Ron Paul on the right and Dennis Kucinich on the left. I realize you haven’t had to shoot us straight because you’re winning – and it’s amazing to what lengths people will go to avoid telling the truth. But I believe you can – yes, you can. An energized electorate is the best chance we have to turn the tide, so you have my vote.
Lead us. Ask us to do better. Ask us to come together. Ask us to stand tall as a nation. Don’t tell us to just go shopping, as Bush did after 9/11. We are the greatest nation ever and I do believe our best days may very well lie ahead of us. We are willing to make sacrifices. Tell us we can all do better. We don’t want to assign blame. It’s not all Bush’s fault. We’re all party to this. People often say the President cannot do much but that’s not true. You set the tone. Managers get people to do things; leaders get them to want to do things. Talk to us as adults and tell us what we can do to help. It’s not that we can’t sacrifice – we just don’t know what to do. I’m not actually voting for you because you’re black. I’m voting for you because it would say so much about this country if we can elect a black man. A nuance, but an important one. You have run the most inclusive campaign we’ve ever seen. We know you’re not a Muslim, not that there’s anything wrong with that. Thank God you’re a Christian – a religion so much more advanced. One that says unless you believe in a guy that walked on water 2,000 years ago, you’re going to hell (says a guy whose religion believes in 4-arm goddesses). Shoot, I couldn’t be serious for THAT long. In truthfulness, help us to be better Americans. I, as demonstrated by this treatise, am hoping for a little more audacity.
Rajiv Satyal is a humorist. He resides in Los Angeles.
October 25th, 2008