Posted: Fri 04 Jan 2008 18:14 Post subject: The Two Earthquakes: Obama and Huckabee
The Two Earthquakes
By DAVID BROOKS
Published: January 4, 2008
Ottumwa, Iowa
I’ve been through election nights that brought a political earthquake to the country. I’ve never been through an election night that brought two.
Barack Obama has won the Iowa caucuses. You’d have to have a heart of stone not to feel moved by this. An African-American man wins a closely fought campaign in a pivotal state. He beats two strong opponents, including the mighty Clinton machine. He does it in a system that favors rural voters. He does it by getting young voters to come out to the caucuses.
This is a huge moment. It’s one of those times when a movement that seemed ethereal and idealistic became a reality and took on political substance.
Iowa won’t settle the race, but the rest of the primary season is going to be colored by the glow of this result. Whatever their political affiliations, Americans are going to feel good about the Obama victory, which is a story of youth, possibility and unity through diversity — the primordial themes of the American experience.
And Americans are not going to want to see this stopped. When an African-American man is leading a juggernaut to the White House, do you want to be the one to stand up and say No?
Obama has achieved something remarkable. At first blush, his speeches are abstract, secular sermons of personal uplift — filled with disquisitions on the nature of hope and the contours of change.
He talks about erasing old categories like red and blue (and implicitly, black and white) and replacing them with new categories, of which the most important are new and old. He seems at first more preoccupied with changing thinking than changing legislation.
Yet over the course of his speeches and over the course of this campaign, he has persuaded many Iowans that there is substance here as well. He built a great organization and produced a tangible victory.
He’s made Hillary Clinton, with her wonkish, pragmatic approach to politics, seem uninspired. He’s made John Edwards, with his angry cries that “corporate greed is killing your children’s future,” seem old-fashioned. Edwards’s political career is probably over.
Obama is changing the tone of American liberalism, and maybe American politics, too.
On the Republican side, my message is: Be not afraid. Some people are going to tell you that Mike Huckabee’s victory last night in Iowa represents a triumph for the creationist crusaders. Wrong.
Huckabee won because he tapped into realities that other Republicans have been slow to recognize. First, evangelicals have changed. Huckabee is the first ironic evangelical on the national stage. He’s funny, campy (see his Chuck Norris fixation) and he’s not at war with modern culture.
Second, Huckabee understands much better than Mitt Romney that we have a crisis of authority in this country. People have lost faith in their leaders’ ability to respond to problems. While Romney embodies the leadership class, Huckabee went after it. He criticized Wall Street and K Street. Most importantly, he sensed that conservatives do not believe their own movement is well led. He took on Rush Limbaugh, the Club for Growth and even President Bush. The old guard threw everything they had at him, and their diminished power is now exposed.
Third, Huckabee understands how middle-class anxiety is really lived. Democrats talk about wages. But real middle-class families have more to fear economically from divorce than from a free trade pact. A person’s lifetime prospects will be threatened more by single parenting than by outsourcing. Huckabee understands that economic well-being is fused with social and moral well-being, and he talks about the inter-relationship in a way no other candidate has.
In that sense, Huckabee’s victory is not a step into the past. It opens up the way for a new coalition.
A conservatism that recognizes stable families as the foundation of economic growth is not hard to imagine. A conservatism that loves capitalism but distrusts capitalists is not hard to imagine either. Adam Smith felt this way. A conservatism that pays attention to people making less than $50,000 a year is the only conservatism worth defending.
Will Huckabee move on and lead this new conservatism? Highly doubtful. The past few weeks have exposed his serious flaws as a presidential candidate. His foreign policy knowledge is minimal. His lapses into amateurishness simply won’t fly in a national campaign.
So the race will move on to New Hampshire. Mitt Romney is now grievously wounded. Romney represents what’s left of Republicanism 1.0. Huckabee and McCain represent half-formed iterations of Republicanism 2.0. My guess is Republicans will now swing behind McCain in order to stop Mike.
Huckabee probably won’t be the nominee, but starting last night in Iowa, an evangelical began the Republican Reformation.
A great story and op-ed piece but why is Obama given the 'African American' socio-designation and not the same applied to Clinton or John Edwards? Just Curious! I know that is how the writers think so a great piece anyway.
The article stated
Quote:
He’s made Hillary Clinton, with her wonkish, pragmatic approach to politics, seem uninspired. He’s made John Edwards, with his angry cries that “corporate greed is killing your children’s future,” seem old-fashioned. Edwards’s political career is probably over
but here is a rewrite and it is truly absurd one at that but that is how it seems to me.
Here goes:
He’s made Hillary Clinton, the Euro American?/white American/white person with her wonkish, pragmatic approach to politics, seem uninspired. He’s made John Edwards, white American, with his angry cries that “corporate greed is killing your children’s future,” seem old-fashioned. Edwards’s political career is probably over.
A great story and op-ed piece but why is Obama given the 'African American' socio-designation and not the same applied to Clinton or John Edwards? Just Curious! I know that is how the writers think so a great piece anyway.
The article stated
Quote:
He’s made Hillary Clinton, with her wonkish, pragmatic approach to politics, seem uninspired. He’s made John Edwards, with his angry cries that “corporate greed is killing your children’s future,” seem old-fashioned. Edwards’s political career is probably over
but here is a rewrite and it is truly absurd one at that but that is how it seems to me.
Here goes:
He’s made Hillary Clinton, the Euro American?/white American/white person with her wonkish, pragmatic approach to politics, seem uninspired. He’s made John Edwards, white American, with his angry cries that “corporate greed is killing your children’s future,” seem old-fashioned. Edwards’s political career is probably over.
I think it's incredibly important to note what everyone already knows--that Obama is the first African American who has a real chance at becoming the nation's first (openly) non-white President.
I think it's incredibly important to note what everyone already knows--that Obama is the first African American who has a real chance at becoming the nation's first (openly) non-white President.
Please explain this. There has never been a 'Black' or 'Other'-raced American President - and no, Bill Clinton does not count.
Yes, I've heard the rumors about the FIVE MIA so-called, really Black, but supposedly 'passing' 'Black' Presidents. Harding et al, is this to whom you refer? http://www.geocities.com/cureworks1/5blkpres.htm
If these men had White appearing immediate family members (on record), in my view and history's, they were White. So-called Black 'elites' and others really have no claim to them and need to STOP.
Futhermore, as Frank, Powell and other authors on this site can attest, the ODR became 'law' a century after most of these men died. So by the LAW of the times, they were legally White anyways. But if one needs to feel a connection to 20% of a person long dead who denied them, lol, so be it.
People need to be proud of THEMSELVES and in their OWN accomplishments, so they don't have to seek person pride in others.
I meant what I wrote: the first (openly) non-white president. This could be of any race or ethnicity. Because much of our (American) history is steeped in racism, discrimination and shame, there could very well be several mixed presidents who decided to declare themselves white, for various personal reasons. Or not.
Who knows?
Perhaps you shouldn't sensationalize simple statements. And why you decide to continuously focus on the "black" aspect of things baffels me.
I meant what I wrote: the first (openly) non-white president. This could be of any race or ethnicity. Because much of our (American) history is steeped in racism, discrimination and shame, there could very well be several mixed presidents who decided to declare themselves white, for various personal reasons. Or not.
Who knows?
Perhaps you shouldn't sensationalize simple statements. And why you decide to continuously focus on the "black" aspect of things baffels me.
Okay, so you're implying that there have been non-White American Presidents before? Well then, PROVE IT.
Your statements above lead one to believe? that there might have been a mixed American President, if so, please name them and give CREDIABLE source citations.
As for the rest of your diatribe.....
Last edited by Melani23 on Mon 07 Jan 2008 20:13; edited 3 times in total
I meant what I wrote: the first (openly) non-white president. This could be of any race or ethnicity. Because much of our (American) history is steeped in racism, discrimination and shame, there could very well be several mixed presidents who decided to declare themselves white, for various personal reasons. Or not.
Who knows?
Perhaps you shouldn't sensationalize simple statements. And why you decide to continuously focus on the "black" aspect of things baffels me.
MP: I noticed this long ago also. A semi focusing almost like obsession with blacks. It does not mean the person dislike blacks, sometimes it could mean the person is sexually attracted to blacks thus the constant obsession. Sometimes when people are obsessed with a race or person motive could be something good or bad, or sexual like those are the type of people they enjoy being with.
I try to avoid certain types of females whom are African American because I have notice they have a certain strong attraction fr me. Does my phenotype play a major role in this? Yes. I have encountered many African American females who do not know how to say I like you, so they show their like by being negative. I try to avoid those like that if I can sense it manifesting.
Sometimes they are not sure what ethnic group I am from, so they ask.
Well there are mixed race and bi racial commenters who can display the same characteristic of finding African American men or women attractive, and this is why t you constantly see them commenting on post that have to do with a topic regarding African Americans especially if it is a topic that reveal African Americans in a semi bad light, or some social problem regarding African Americans. You will also noticed that when these type of people comment their comment often are semi negative towards African Americans. There possibly in some cases could be an obsession of a sexual nature, admiration, or feelings regarding African Americans. I have seen mixed race women and some mixed race men like this.
This is something I have noticed, I am not saying that is the case here. I don't really know.
I meant what I wrote: the first (openly) non-white president. This could be of any race or ethnicity. Because much of our (American) history is steeped in racism, discrimination and shame, there could very well be several mixed presidents who decided to declare themselves white, for various personal reasons. Or not.
Who knows?
Perhaps you shouldn't sensationalize simple statements. And why you decide to continuously focus on the "black" aspect of things baffels me.
Okay, so you're implying that there have been non-White American Presidents before? Well then, PROVE IT.
Your statements above lead one to believe? that there might have been a mixed American President, if so, please name them and give CREDIABLE source citations.
As for the rest of your diatribe.....
Maybe, maybe not. Who knows? Judging by American history, I honestly wouldn't be surprised. That's pretty much where my disclaimer fits, and that's where I'm going to end my part in this "discussion".
If you're interested in the subject, perhaps a quick JSTOR search might satisfy you.
'
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in
Harding et al, is this to whom you refer? 
that there might have been a mixed American President, if so, please name them and give CREDIABLE source citations.