Stanley Fish is a man I have great respect for. He is a social critique of a different kind, in my eyes. I try to stop by and read what he thinks on his blog for the New York Times when I can. On October 26, he had a very interesting blog about the electioneering going on between the two candidates. He related Obama to the Messiah, but in a different way than what many others have done. He starts by commenting on the stark differences in campaigns run by Republicans and Democrats in 2000 and 2004. He says that Democrats seemed to have been simply out campaigned. This year was different, though. Democrats did not simply attack and aggressively go after voters. Obama decided to run a more passive campaign where the strategy was to simply discuss the issues rather than character. Fish relates this to the temptation of Jesus. He claims that much like the devil, McCain tries to tempt Obama, the messiah, out into the more dirty politics we know and sometimes love. However, Obama would not bite. This tempered strategy not only upsets Republicans but also makes them down right angry. Reflecting upon the election the day afterwards makes me think about what many pundits are saying. We want a clear and smooth transition and that Obama will quickly and decisively move towards that end. Furthermore, as we look to yesterday’s results as a major historical event, we must understand the future implications as we move into that transition. Obama has promised change, something that Jesus seemed to bring, at least a little bit. Fish’s observation seems to suggest that change is in our future based on the change in Democratic strategies. With a larger majority in the house and senate and with the presidency, Democrats now have the opportunity to show true leadership and to take power for a generation. They can do this by following Obama’s tempered response to Republican attacks. Pundits on the right swear Obama will now swing hard to the left and abandon his “nice-guy” façade. He is now tempted with the power to unleash the liberal agenda Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reed have been foaming at the mouth to implement. Change means a change in the old politics as Fish has pointed out. McCain tried to bring his supporters to respect the decision of voters, often times to boo’s of the crowd. This is a problem that our country must face. We must now unite behind the new president. Furthermore, if Obama does as he has promised, Democrats will continue to gain control in our government, winning over moderate Republicans and independents. If he goes dramatically to the left, though, as some say he will, he will leave some screaming for Barabbas.
http://fish.blogs.nytimes.com/
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
3 comments:
Brilliant. From a non-partisan perspective, this campaign was run incredibly well. To quote Obama, the campaign was not run of fear, but on hope. It wasn't the old slice and dice politics--the politics of Karl Rove and the Republican machine. It's over. We saw attack relating to Rev. Wright, Bill Ayers and other controversial figures, and they didn't stick. Maybe, because of this campaign, we can actually see elections based on issues, rather than personal attacks. We see in countries like Great Britain, where the Prime Minister is named through the elected Parliament, that the elections are solely based on the important issues of their country. I look forward to future U.S. elections.
I really appreciated Obama's demeanor in the debates and his willingness to put pettiness aside and focus on the real issues. McCain often did seem like he was attacking him on irrelevant issues instead of on his policy. I feel Hillary Clinton attacked Obama more than McCain did and it seemed to have hurt her as well. I definitely see more of a backlash for negative campaigns now than in recent years. Another example is what happened to Elizabeth Dole in North Carolina after running her ad about her "godless" opponent. As for Obama being compared to Jesus, I agree with the comparisons made in the article but I will hold back additional comment until I see Obama walk on water.
Beyond the candidates' treatment of each other, I thought that the media was rather ambivalent toward racial attacks on Obama. In this article from the Times, http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/africa/article5082040.ece, reporters tell how Obama's relatives in Kenya slaughtered a bull and goat for a post-election victory celebration. I found it hard to come up with an explanation for this article's publication, other than an attempt to paint Obama's background as primitive, for lack of a better word.
On another note, I think that the politics of Karl Rove were noticeably absent from the McCain campaign. While McCain did run a number of advertisements highlighting Obama's supposed inexperience, I didn't witness nearly as many ad hominem attacks. In the 2004 race for the Republican nomination, Rove orchestrated a rumor during the South Carolina primary that John McCain had fathered an "Illegitimate black baby," effectively exploiting the racist tendencies of residents in the State. (http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080128/banks) As the article notes, McCain was favored to win the state prior to Rove's black baby campaign.
As for the notion of Obama as the Messiah, I think I'm going to side with Francisco on this matter. Fish's comparison of Obama to Jesus is just as appropriate as his relation of Satan to McCain-- they're both ridiculous.
Jesus refused to dignify the Devil's remarks with a response-- but he was very involved with debating the Pharisees and Sadducees.
As for bringing peace and unity?
Look at Jesus' words in Luke, chapter 12:
"Do you think that I came to give peace to the world? No! I came to divide the world! From now on, a family with five people will be divided, three against two, and two against three. A father and son will be divided: The son will be against his father. The father will be against his son. A mother and her daughter will be divided: The daughter will be against her mother. The mother will be against her daughter. A mother-in-law and her daughter-in-law will be divided: The daughter-in-law will be against her mother-in-law. The mother-in-law will be against her daughter-in-law."
Doesn't sound much like Obama.
Post a Comment