I rarely watch TV, getting most of my information and entertainment straight from the tubes. But Tuesday night, with the two contests and three speeches by the major candidates being back-to-back-to-back, I figured I might tune in to MSNBC and see what the hub-bub was all about. It was a fairly unenlightening affair, improved only by the fact that they seemed to have corralled Rachel Maddow away from the cameras for much of the night.
However, I was amused by Chris Matthew’s constant insistence that Obama could potentially be the first African-American to run a First World nation. Putting aside the very silly PC word usage point (I wonder why more African-Americans haven’t been elected as the French president), it highlights an interesting point that many domestic commentators seem to miss: America is really the only country in the “Western world” that has a significant black/African minority population. Britian and France have recently received immigrants from their former colonies in sub-Saharan Africa and the Caribbean, but they are nowhere near as large or as established as the African-American population here. America alone amongst the settler colonies and European nations imported large numbers of slaves from Africa for labor and the legacy of slavery and race is a uniquely American problem. That is not to say that America is unique in having a politically oppressed and underrepresented minority group; Canada and Australia have significant aboriginal populations, the Scandinavians have the Lapps/Sami, much of Eastern and Southern Europe has the Roma populations, and, as Mark Steyn would have us never forget, the significant minority population across Europe are Muslim immigrants from North Africa and the Middle East. But it is to say that the historical significance and the visceral effect of nominating Obamaas the first African-American to lead our country is much less of a ”global achievement” that Obama supporters like Matthews believe it to be.
Also, while we are discussing Matthews’ support for Obama, this quote by Scott McClellan recently about the similarities between Bush 2000 and Obama’s message and campaign got me thinking. Matthews, as well as another prominent commentator, supported Bush in 2000, only to sour on him before 2004 because he did not live up to his campaign’s explicit promise of bipartisanship and reform in Washington. Both also now happen to be persistent Obama pushers for non-ideological reasons (I can more readily understand, for example, why Olbermann and the DailyKos types support Obama). Could the two be connected, as McClellan suggests? While some of the aims of the Bush 2000 and Obama 2008 campaigns are different, reflecting the ideological bents of the two men and their respective parties, the thrusts of both campaigns were very similar. Following up on a previous president who manipulated partisanship in the capital, both promised to be bipartisan uniters seeking to clean up the corruption and perceived depravity of Washington and bring real change to our government. Both wore their inexperience proudly, as a symbol of their purity from the Washington game. After eight years of Wilsonian adventuring, both promised a return to a humbler foreign policy and a refocus on humanitarian assistance. After eight years of political meandering, both promised a government more responsive and compassionate towards its citizens, that would emphasize grand projects to improve the lot of the public. Both ultimately ran as idealist outsiders who believed that, more than any one person or policy, the system was at fault for the nation’s problems, and all the system needed was some streamlining and reform before everything they desired would fall into place.
Based on this recent profile of Matthews in the NYTmagazine and basically any lengthy blog post over at the Daily Dish (the farcical attempts to establish himself as a “conservative of doubt” notwithstanding), it is easy to see why these two men would be drawn to both the Bush 2000 message and the current Obama message. Both are incredibly idealistic and emotional about politics and the potential for politics to bring about great progress and change. Both Sullivan and Matthews despise the egomaniacs and leeches who sully the noble endeavor they imagine politics to be and long for someone to restore the greatness and honor to the political world as it once existed. And both quickly became disgusted with the Bush presidency when it failed to live up to their (and its own) impossible goals. When the Bush abhorrence of the Washington system led to the accumulation of power in the executive and the disregard for international agreements. When the emphasis on unity and bipartisanship around the President’s agenda led to ironically enough to more partisanship, as the “partisan” Democrats looking out for what they believed to be right, became an obstacle for progress to be removed at any cost. When the emphasis on grand public endeavors led to more corruption and mismanagement. When the emphasis on freedom and democracy for the world over petty national interests led to bloodier and more relentless war. One wonders if Obama will disappoint his believers as did Bush, or if he will finally thread the needle and bring about heaven on earth and return to politics to the noble and grand business they have always remembered it as.
As a side note, there is one kinda eerie symmetry between Obama 2008 and Bush 2000. In 2000, Bush beat maverick John McCain for the nomination and proceeded to beat cold and wonkish WJC surrogate Al Gore for the presidency. In 2008, Obama beat cold and wonkish WJC surrogate Hillary Clinton for the nomination and hopes to beat maverick John McCain for the presidency.
