In a fundamental sense, the Democratic Party’s dilemma between Race and Gender has been settled firmly in favour of Race. It no longer matters whether it is Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton who secures the Democratic presidential nomination for November 2008. Thanks to tactless shoving by the Clinton Co-Presidency aspirants, Democrats will have to consciously decide if they want to help a Black Man win a job coveted by a White Woman. It’s as basic as that.
This was partly inevitable because Gender is too artificial to sustain; you can’t delink a woman (or man) from family and social group identity. But Race is intrinsically segregationist; indeed, the concept of race was devised by White colonialists and Slave Traders in Europe and America precisely because of its potently divisive appeal. Colour may be only skin-deep, but it’s too in-your-face to be missed.
That is why former President Bill Clinton could effortlessly suggest to a public fed on the clash of civilizations and apprehensive of creeping Islamic influence among Afro-Americans, that the Illinois Senator pay second fiddle to his wife. He sugar-coated the insulting suggestion that Obama was not good enough to be president by calling the Hillary-Barack team “an unstoppable force,” adding that Hillary could win rural voters and Reagan Democrats, while Obama could attract urban and upscale voters.
The New York Senator was quick to second the motion. Unacknowledged ‘friends’ had already released a photograph of Obama in traditional African gear while on a trip to Kenya, and made much of his middle name ‘Hussein’ to raise the ‘Muslim’ bogey. So much for American pluralism and ‘melting pot’ culture; the message of the Clinton campaign clearly states that Blacks can become Christians, but they can never become White. Sadly, Hindu Americans of African Origin have failed to speak for racial equality and dignity.
Senator Obama has done well to dodge the deadly Race Trap and resist the urge to prove pure Black or half-White credentials. The studied silence of his wife shows this is deliberate. Concentrating on charm and rhetoric, Obama has deftly put the Clinton campaign on the backfoot by pointing out: “I don’t know how somebody who’s in second place (in delegates and popular votes) is offering the vice presidency to somebody who’s in first place.” He underlined his resentment to this unsolicited patronage by declaring: “I am running for President of the United States of America, I am not running for vice-president.” This is wise, for as David Broder warns, coping with Bill Clinton’s ego in the event of a Hillary victory “would truly be (a) cruel and unusual punishment for Obama” (The Washington Post, March 14, 2008).
Ironically, the running-mate issue has created confusion in the Clinton camp as well. While military supporters attest to Hillary’s ability to be commander-in-chief, an aide questioned the sagacity of projecting Obama as vice-president while claiming he was unqualified to be the commander-in-chief. American vice-presidents are expected to have the ability to be C-in-C of the US armed forces in case circumstances propel them to the Oval Office, a la Gerald Ford. The Clinton campaign made things worse with the 3 a.m. telephone advertisement, which many saw as naked racism and hate-mongering.
Then, as public opinion began to get edgy, the Clinton camp had a fit of verbal diarrhoea. America was treated to the spectacle of Geraldine Ferraro giving an interview suggesting Obama was successful only because of his ethnicity. Previously also, Hillary’s friends had complained that the media was kind to Obama because of his colour, but this was a little too stark for American public discourse. Ferraro had to quit in the furore that followed, though she tried to hang on; Hillary tried to suggest such mistakes were being made by both sides, which is simply untrue.
As Democrats spar, Republican candidate John McCain is trying to consolidate his position with a visit to Israel later this month, to firm up his American-Jewish support base. The Arizona Senator is reputed to be popular in Israel and with the Jewish Diaspora for his hard-line foreign policy. An unwritten rule of American foreign policy is that support to Israel helps and opposition hurts.
McCain has already hinted he will favour continuity in the White House. Thus, despite his record of hostility to torture in military camps, he supported President Bush’s recent veto of legislation prohibiting the CIA from using physical force in interrogations, particularly the gruesome technique of water-boarding and other inhumane and degrading methods of extracting confessions from prisoners.
It bears stating that the near-invisible men who actually control both political parties work to ensure the continuity of respective party administrations and policies. Although McCain’s staff would not release the names of his advisors, a list compiled by The Washington Post last year included former Secretaries of State George Shultz and Colin Powell; retired Lt. Gen. Brent Scowcroft (national security adviser to presidents Gerald Ford and George H.W. Bush); James Woolsey (former CIA director), and Richard Armitage (President George Bush’s ex-deputy secretary of state, famous for leaking the identity of CIA agent Valerie Plame and causing the imprisonment of Scooter Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney’s former chief of staff).
The Democratic Party was equally coy with names. Press reports suggest Hillary’s advisers are mostly the old boys and girls of Bill’s White House years. They include former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright; Samuel Berger (Bill Clinton’s national security adviser); Gen. Wesley Clark (NATO commander in Yugoslavia); Richard Holbrooke (Clinton envoy to UN); Martin Indyk (former envoy to Israel); former ambassador Joseph Wilson (Valerie Plame’s husband), and Representative Joseph Sestak (a retired vice admiral).
Senator Barack Obama has also received a share of Clinton administration veterans, namely, Susan Rice (Clinton’s Africa specialist at the State Department); Anthony Lake (national security adviser); Dennis Ross (chief Middle East negotiator); and Robert Malley (Middle East envoy).
Obviously the more things change in Washington, the more they remain the same. President Bill Clinton began the unjustified NATO bombing of Yugoslavia; President George Bush Jr. initiated the ugly Iraq war and upped the ante on Iran’s nuclear programme. He also recognized the ‘independence’ of Kosovo. Whoever succeeds to the White House this winter is sure to maintain the continuity of America’s imperial quest for world dominion.
The Pioneer, 18 March 2008
