Opinion: For Obama, Contradictions Breed Success
|
By Nathan Shapiro In my last column, I discussed the effect of John McCain’s rudderless campaign. In complete contrast, his opponent’s well-funded, disciplined campaign has barreled through this election with a single motivation: to do and say whatever it takes to get Barack Obama elected. Even if what they say is completely inconsistent. This first reared its head during the primaries with Hillary Clinton. While Obama stumped against NAFTA, he dispatched his proxies to Canada to assure its leaders that Obama didn’t really dislike NAFTA—he was only saying so for the votes. Since then, his campaign has been more careful, but no less obvious about its inherent contradictions. The examples are numerous, but just to name a few: Obama has cast himself as a believer in a Second Amendment right to bear arms, but has never found a gun regulation that violates it. He promises one of the largest tax increases “on the wealthy” in recent memory, but claims to be a tax cutter by disguising outright wealth transferring “tax credits” as middle class tax cuts. Obama attacks the deadly and costly war in Iraq, only to propose a similar surge of forces and resources in Afghanistan. He creates the impression that he’s bipartisan and would work with conservatives, even appointing moderates to the bench, but has never worked for a serious bipartisan compromise in the Senate and voted against Justices John Robert and Samuel Alito because they did not pass his ideological litmus test. But perhaps the coup de grâce to crown his successful duplicity is his Iraq policy. He has liberals voting for him to pull troops out of Iraq ASAP, but I know of conservatives and moderate Democrats voting for him because they genuinely believe he will do the opposite of what he says and not pull out of Iraq or negotiate with rogue states. How has Obama managed to be all things to all people? He’s done it by running the most superficial campaign in modern history, chock full of hope and change, but little substance. Because Obama has told us very little about his fundamental worldview, he’s left willful voters to “fill in the blank.” Over the course of his adult life, Obama has deliberately acted to leave almost no trail behind for us to discover what he really believes—I guess that’s what made all his “present” votes in the Illinois state legislature useful. We have some tidbits, from his radical associations in Chicago’s political machine to some revealing campaign slipups. But he’s never been probed deeply by the media, which holds not-so-hidden glee about his pending election. He is, as ABC News’ Michael Malone said, “essentially a cipher who has left almost no paper trail, seems to have few friends (that at least will talk) and has entire years missing out of his biography.” With the media at his side, the only counter-Obama message must come from the dysfunctional McCain camp, but McCain simply cannot compete against Obama’s ability to channel communication through paid media. Obama has amassed the largest treasure of campaign donations in history, and despite his populist claims, much of it has come from big donors. The “big business” candidate George W. Bush actually had a higher percentage of small donors in 2004 than Obama. With his rhetoric largely unchallenged in the media, both paid and otherwise, Obama has been able to define himself in so many contradictory ways that there is something for everybody to like about him. That, combined with the cult of personality the media has helped him foster, is pushing him to victory. Even if Obama wins a majority of electoral votes on Election Day, Americans still won’t be sure of which Obama they’ll get as president. But I guess that is where hope comes in—everyone hopes they get the Obama they thought they voted for. Nathan Shapiro a student at Hofstra University Law School and a Stony Brook University alumnus. |
