Moments of crisis have their purpose, not least of which is to witness how those weathering them will measure up to much greater challenges ahead. The recent financial market tumble is most pertinent, as it has afforded priceless opportunities to rate the strength of character of those to whom we may soon be yielding the power to govern; and when the opportunity arose to display the desired strengths upon which voters will be counting on beyond voting day, Barack Obama – not John McCain - chose instead to
mock the presumed shortcomings of his opponent.
This particular crisis also furnished Obama and his loyal
media posse with an unparalleled, yet fleeting opportunity to reinforce the central theme of his campaign, which casts his opponent as the proud and fated heir of the totality of George W. Bush’s legacy. The favored three-pronged Obama strategy now consists of dissociating his own party of any shared responsibility for the debacle, refocusing the blame for the negatives on his opponent and taking front stage as the deliverer from all our calamities. But this – and any other strategy Obama may choose to adopt between now and November - is bound for failure.
The first reason why Obama will be defeated is that this hour of crisis has uncovered a fierce – and rather unflattering – nature of opportunism in the man. This pathological streak, characterized by a blind determination to succeed at all costs, was prominently displayed in his gleeful impetuosity to capitalize on the media’s alarmist reports of a complete financial “
meltdown”.
It is noteworthy that during this financial collapse’s most climactic moments, Obama directed his efforts at pandering to the brewing but somewhat misguided public discontent and
stoking the embers of panic and uncertainty, rather than drafting a temperate analysis of alternative solutions for addressing the economic imbalances that
precipitated the crisis in the first place. For a campaign that was pioneered on the pledge to steer off the tired and worn fear tactics and petty attacks, these types of knee-jerk reactions, aimed only at boosting his poll numbers, now define both the man and his campaign as both marked by extreme lapses of cognitive dissonance.
The second reason for the coming fall of Obama is that, while bad tidings may draw some attention, they are seldom guaranteed to encourage sustained support for the messenger. Obama’s own predecessor is well acquainted with the unintended
consequences of placing too much emphasis on the politics of doom and derision. Most people – save for the fringe lunatics who are curiously energized by it – are eventually worn out and disillusioned by the constant drum of negativity. Other than the static mantra of “change we can believe in” - recently modified to the slightly more imperious “change we need” - Obama has little to offer in the way of any substantial alternatives to offset his dire outlook of a rather ominous future absent his wisdom and guidance at the helm, which leads one to believe that about the only thing that he can guarantee will change are his campaign slogans.
The third reason for Obama’s eventual defeat is that - in spite of his hopes for the triumph of image over substance - he seems not to have yet assimilated the rather basic political maxim that words and deeds which project mutually contradictory messages can easily become very powerful weapons in the hands of one’s adversary. To wit, few things appeared more disingenuous and contrived than the impassioned appeals on behalf of the downtrodden - for whom Obama promised to be an advocate during such times of financial instability - and the stern words of rebuke against the excesses of ruthless Wall Street profiteers still in his breath, as he boarded his personal
jet to join in a $2,850 a plate fund raising
fete with the most fiscally intemperate of our species: the lavish Hollywood glitterati. Needles to say, such glaring inconsistencies leave Obama wide open to the same charges of hypocrisy he has more than once indignantly leveled against the opposition.
The fourth reason is Obama’s curious - but not wholly unpredictable - decision to yoke himself with Joe Biden, the
gaffe-prone and mischievously wry senator from Delaware, whose core ideology is virtually indistinguishable from his own. Set against McCain’s choice of Sarah Palin as his running mate, which imputed the office of the vice-president with a new level of political relevance, the democratic ticket has suddenly emerged as the one that offers the least opportunities for distinct philosophical approaches to today’s sundry economic and social issues. It is no wonder the Palin-McCain ticket has become so attractive to a country that - contrary to the current progressive dogma - is not unwilling to embrace diversity.
And finally, as the exigencies of the moment call for more desperate measures, is the imminent re-awakening of the notion in Obama’s mind that sooner or later he will have to conjure up the uncharitable verdict of racial
malfeasance as the cause for this country’s hesitancy in wanting to catapult him onto the lofty echelons of American politics. No longer will he forego requiring votes from the reluctant as guilt offerings to atone for their prejudice laden indecision, or employing
subsidiary bully pulpits to showcase his own personal (and mostly imagined) upheaval as a contestant of unwonted pedigree amidst what he and his minions unfairly insist on characterizing as a virulent and hopelessly racist electorate. And the more egregious these calls to penance at the voting booth for racial sins become, the more he will incur the disdain of those who silently feel that it should only be called racism when one votes for a candidate because of - not despite – the color of his skin.
