Luis A. Baralt
User
| Posts: 18 |   |
|
The US Elections and Barack Obama - 2008/05/06 19:07
The US Elections and Barack Obama
by Luis A. Baralt
I owe my readers a more considered review of my thinking on this suject. Especially since a number of them (fortunately the few rather than the many) have challenged my opposition to BO, sometimes with very thoughtful remarks of their own, but other times alleging intent on my part that is far from reality.
In the first place, the fact that I don't believe Obama should be nominated for the highest administrative post in the land has nothing to do with race (and I've been called a racist by more than one correspondent), but everything to do with serious doubts as to Obama's personality as something of "an unknown quantity", which is what one of my correspondents labels him in his comments.
Second, my opposition to him is based on a number of aspects of his personality and background that make me truly wary of him. Only one of those aspects has to do with his evident weak position vis-a-vis the Castro dictatorship (yet I've been called a Cuban exile who, though a naturalized American citizen, thinks more of Cuba than of the bona fide interests of the United States), yet the writer is jumping to conclusions of intent on my part that are merely prejudicial on his own.
Third, I can think of at least two black political leaders that I might have considered more worthy of a candidacy for president than either BO, Mrs. Clinton or, possibly, even John McCain, though I have to add that McCain has gained points in my view in recent months. And these are General Powell and Conddie Rice. So that should take care of the stupid accusation of racism I've had to bear.
Fourth, I truly don't think much of Hillary Clinton as a political leader of stature. I indeed think that Hillary would be "a more imperious, arbitrary and unprincipled president than almost anybody on record" (quote from one of my correspondents), and if my critic wants to think of Bush Jr. as entitled to that previous record, let him do so. Hillary, let it be said to her credit, is the first politician who tried to introduce social medical care in our country, which I believe is badly needed and a disgrace that we still don't have, but she didn't manage to do so from lack of personal leadership skills and humility. (And in this I'm critical of the entire political establishment of our country, Republicans, Democrats and interest groups alike.) Hillary, in any case, seems to be the epitomy of the opportunistic and personally ambitious politician, but we have had many of those. They are known quantities, and the country has not floundered, if perhaps almost at times. We have a saying in Spanish that goes: Mejor malo conocido que bueno por conocer, or 'Better a familiar ill than an unknown panacea'. This, of course, like with most popular sayings, may not be always true. But we're considering here world conditions that are exceptionally grave. The Islamic world constitutes almost one fifth of the planet's population, and though most of it is composed of decent and moral human beings, it's become a dangerous nether world of waspish communities enraged by the manipulation of activist extremists with powerful governments and terrorist organizations behind them. Obama is known to have had ties and a factual history (mostly from his fomative years, which as anyone knows are very determinative in matters of character) of encounter points with that world. We only have his word that he's not tied to that world. If I were a judge, I couldn't possibly pronounce him guilty of being part of that world. But I'm only a voter, and I have reasons to suspect his sincerity. All Americans have reasons to suspect his sincerity, when he has been a friend, an ally and a tutored protegé of fanatics and racist extremists like Rev. Wright and Louis Farrakan, one an anti-white racist and the other and anti-Christian Islamist.
Fifth. He claims experience as a political doer. However, his record shows that he has been rather an organizer (an 'activist', a 'manipulator', he's been called by serious critics in serious liberal publications like The New Republic) involved at times with the machinations of Illinois' Daley political machine. (What's new in this?) And as a senator, apparently he has distinguished himself by absentee non-voting in over 100 occasions (the larger portion) when a definition vote was needed during his tenure. To those claiming that BO is an experienced leader in his own right, that's as much as can be saidfor his brilliant record and experience as a legislator.
Sixth. Barack has shown disrespect for the flag and anthem of his country in various ways, and his wife evidences that she hasn't, up til now, had much pride in her/his country, or that is, until now that her husband is glittering in the field of politics. He has shown a weak disposition toward dictatorships that are blatant enemies of his country such as those of Iran, Venezuela, North Korea and Cuba, declaring he'll gladly meet with their leaders without need of, at least, showing some evidence of intent on their part to reform; while at the same time he refuses to be interviewed by a Fox Chanel news commentator.
Seventh and final consideration. And this is on the positive side. BO is a good speaker, he is personable like few other politicians today, he is educated and he can be both grandiloquent and clever. He's a good runner and a good dodger. Both he and his wife are elegant and would be as charming and admired in the international circle of political and society leaders very much like Kennedy and Jackie were in their time. Does all that count as much in the ballance of pros and cons as the other side of the coin, as the dangers we must be aware of? In my sincere view, not. Furthermore, I'm one of those who believe that the US, which was greatly behind a good part of the world in civil rights in 1956, has seen enormous progress in this area in the last half century, mostly because of the initiatives of President Eisenhower and, later, President Johnson. I believe if we make a wrong choice of a black man for the presidency now, it might put us back decades in this road for equality and justice. Because that is in the nature of things, and the backlash of bigotry and stupidity possibly would be tragic.
One final consideration, just to show I'm objective. As much as I dislike 'Shrillary', as some of my correspondents call her, I believe that the logical outcome of this race will be as follows: Clinton will be nominated by the DP in August: she'll 'gracefully' offer the VP spot to BO (partly, of course, because the SD's who'll elect her will require her to do so) ; BO, because he's a junior and can't afford to pass up the opportunity, and in spite of having said he would not, will accept the offer. The Clinton-Obama ticket will be a formidable one, and they'll probably obliterate the McCain-??? ticket, to my chagrin. But I've learned to never underestimate the amount of idiots who make up humankind. They're not always wrong, of course, sometimes they hit the mark, but probably not this time. And the damage, probably lesser damage trhan if BO won by himself, will be done. But the US will survive.
Anyway, I would have much more to add, but I don't want to overkill. I'm just trying to explain to my correspondents why I sent out that rather flippant joke of my Icelandic friend which some readers objected to as simplistic. Nevertheless, at the risk of unfair generalization, I feel there's a lot of truth in what she says: mainly, that out of three candidacies in which two are composed of double Jokers (lawyers) and one in which there's no lawyer involved, who can hesitate in concluding that this last is obviously the better one?
From Madrid, May 2nd., 2008
|
Foro / Forum 
