Obama IS Different

Paul Krugman’s
Self-Inflicted Confusion

Rarely, if ever, have I differed with Paul Krugman on the important issues of the day; but this time I must make an exception to his recent op-ed piece in the NY Times regarding Barack Obama’s “Self Inflicted Confusion”. Indeed, it is not only Krugman whom I feel is confused about the Obama campaign, the media in general is conflicted about what they hear and what they say when it comes to understanding Barack Obama. And this is not without good reason, because Obama is an anomaly that has never appeared on the American presidential scene, and “understanding” him is not easy and lacks precedence.

Krugman rightfully suggests that “he might well lose to McCain” in the general election. I do not doubt this, because I have felt from the beginning of his campaign that America really is not ready for a black president. It is not because of racial prejudice, which is obviously present in any such endeavor, but more likely it is the product of the baggage (and inevitable background) any black candidate carries into the contest.

Let’s face it; Obama knows what Reverend Wright stands for (and has answered him). He has heard his sermons. The danger here in not that he has been “infected” with some lack of love or patriotism for America, but rather that he is coming out of a milieu different from Hope Arkansas, or Independence Missouri, or Boston Massachusetts...or wherever former presidents have typically emerged. What else would you expect from a Community Organizer on the South Side of Chicago? No other candidate before Obama has “walked the walk” of this environment; and if Obama is to be elected and accepted, this component comes with the package. In my view, it is precisely because of these experiences that Obama can better unite and bring about reconciliation of the races. And, it is these same factors that can allow him to present a more diverse face to the world for America.

Never the less, the mass media – starved for content – cannot give enough press to Wright. They heard (and aired) Obama’s excellent speech and explanation of his relationship to Wright, his church and race relations in America, but was anyone really listening? Did anyone really understand what it meant? I don’t think so, because the media has become so inured and deadened to the “political speak” they took it with a grain of salt. Finally, of course, came the Obama “divorce” speech designed to put a final end to the controversy.

Normally, this too would be suspect and politicized, But, this time it is different! It is different because Obama is a different candidate from anyone we have ever seen or had before. And it is a template for presidential races we have never experienced before, and probably never will for decades when Obama loses. Note, I use the word “when”, because I have a nagging fear Obama will likely lose because the establishment will destroy him somehow before he is elected; and the public (especially blue collar whites and older voters) cannot swallow hard enough to elect him over an aging white war hero who will lead us backwards into the illusionary safe path of the past – disastrous as it may be in these circumstances, and these times. It’s not that Obama has neglected to confront the issues of working class families, as Krugman suggests, it’s more that working class families prefer listening to the siren song of the old politics, which they better understand. It apparently is a song to which Obama does not know the words, and to his credit, prefers not to learn.

True, since Obama’s message is new, different, and embraces “new politics” (to use Krugman’s phrase), it requires an extra effort to appreciate what it means to America and our governance in coming years. Obama cannot be understood through the normal prism of political analysis. The media has failed to understand this, but that does not mean it is irrelevant or without redeeming value. Obama’s rhetoric and value system is needed at this time and place in our history, if the country is to truly make a significant change in the next administration. The role of a new president may well be to inspire the country in the way Jack Kennedy did, with as much, or even more, importance as proposing specific legislation. Obama can do that, and at this point, only Obama.

Which brings us to Krugman’s comments on Clinton. To say she has not damaged the Obama campaign is totally disingenuous. She has damaged Obama by repeating the mantra of fear about him from the Republican playbook. She has damaged him by covertly playing the race card vis-à-vis Wright. She has damaged him by sucking off his crucial resources he will need for the general election. And she has damaged him by laying doubts as to his ability to beat McCain – a claim now affecting the confidence of Democratic voters.

Finally, Krugman states the Democrats suffer from a “self-inflicted state of confusion”.
I suggest the Obama message is indeed clear, consistent, refreshing, and needed. I do not believe he is confused or conflicted. This, to me, seems to be a case where it is the media that is confused....not the messenger.