What’s an Obamacon?
p2pnet news view | Politics:- “The other day I had friends round for dinner,” blogs PhDiva, continuing:
“That morning I stood in the supermarket, in front of the wines, wondering … Do I now, as a newly minted Obamaphile liberal elitist, have to serve my guests Chablis? Or would any old chardonnay do? Must it be arugula for the salad; or would lamb’s lettuce, dandelion and little gems in hazelnut oil be okay? What about desert? I had planned to make a chocolate soufflé cake. But baking … are Obamacons allowed to bake, or is that too conservative? Am I even meant to admit to going to the supermarket? Should I pretend to only go to the local Farmers’ Market?”
What to do? What to DO? But first, what is an Obamacon, anyhow?
“In ‘W.”, his biopic about his Yale classmate, Oliver Stone details Colin Powell’s agonies during George Bush’s first term,” says The Economist, going on:
“Throughout the film Mr Powell repeatedly raises doubts about the invasion of Iraq—and is repeatedly overruled by the ghoulish trio of Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Karl Rove. In one of the final scenes, with his direst warnings proving correct, Mr Powell turns to Mr Cheney and delivers a heartfelt ‘Fuck you’.
“The real Colin Powell used more diplomatic language in endorsing Barack Obama on October 19th, but the impact was much the same. Mr Obama is a ‘transformational figure’, he mildly said, and his old friend John McCain had erred in choosing a neophyte as a running-mate. But you would have to be naive not to see the endorsement as a verdict on the Bush years.”
He’s an Obamacon. And so, perhaps, are the people behind Sarah Palin’s local, the Anchorage Daily News, which says it wants to see not her, but Barack Obama in the White House.
Why? “Sen. Barack Obama, the Democratic nominee, brings far more promise to the office,” says the newspaper, going on:
“In a time of grave economic crisis, he displays thoughtful analysis, enlists wise counsel and operates with a cool, steady hand. The same cannot be said of Sen. McCain.”
But, wonders The Economist. “How much do these Obamacons matter?”
More than John McCain would like to think, it says, continuing »»»
The Obamacons are manifestations of a deeper turmoil in the Republican rank-and-file, as the old coalition of small-government activists, social conservatives and business Republicans falls apart. They also influence opinion. This is obvious in the case of Mr Powell: Mr Obama is making liberal use of his endorsement to refute the latest Republican criticism that he is a ’socialist’. But it is also true of lesser-known scribblers. At least 27 newspapers that backed Mr Bush in 2004 have endorsed Mr Obama.
Moreover, the revolt of the intellectuals is coinciding with a migration of culturally conservative voters—particularly white working-class voters—into Obamaland. Mr Obama is now level-pegging or leading among swing-groups such as Catholics and working-class whites. A recent Washington Post-ABC poll shows him winning 22% of self-described conservatives, a higher proportion than any Democratic nominee since 1980.
Don’t blame the ratsThe more tantalising question is whether the rise of the Obamacons signals a lasting political realignment. In 1980 the rise of the neocons—liberal intellectuals who abandoned a spineless Democratic Party—was reinforced by the birth of working class ‘Reagan Democrats’. Is the Reagan revolution now going into reverse? There are reasons for scepticism. Will libertarians really stick with ‘Senator Government’, as Mr McCain labelled Mr Obama in the best slip of the tongue of the campaign? Will economic conservatives cleave to a president who believes in ’spreading the wealth around’?
Much depends on how Mr Obama governs if he wins, and how the Republicans behave if they lose. Mr Obama talks about creating an administration of all the talents. He promises to take the cultural anxieties of Reagan Democrats seriously.”
Meanwhile, “For their part, hard-core Republicans are handling their party’s travails abysmally, retreating into elite-bashing populism and denouncing the Obamacons as ‘rats’ who are deserting a sinking ship,” says the Economist, adding:
“If the Republican Party continues to think that the problem lies with the rats, rather than the seaworthiness of the ship, then the Obamacons are here to stay.”
(Thanks, Liz)
blogs PhDiva – On Being an Obamacon, May 2, 2008
The Economist – The rise of the Obamacons, October 23, 2008
Anchorage Daily News – Obama for president, October 25, 2008
Use free p2pnet newsfeeds for your site. It’s really easy!Subscribe to p2pnet.net | | rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss | | Mobile – http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.php
Net access blocked by government restrictions? Use Psiphon from the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto. Go here for details.
October 29th, 2008 at 11:59 am
Obama isn’t even a US citizen; he’s not elligible to run for president. If he can prove he is, why doesn’t he? (Answer: he can’t.)