The McCainites’ only remaining hope: that people will see Obama as too unknown

(Note: a commenter in this entry points to a possible similarity between Barack Obama and Bob Dylan.)

Meanwhile, McCain supporters have gotten excited over a single Gallup three-day average showing Obama leading McCain by only two points among likely voters. Does McCain have a chance after all?

I expect the race to get tighter as people focus on the reality of electing a leftist exotic whose only notable achievements in life are making himself a messiah figure and winning the Democratic presidential nomination, and whose true political purposes are as mysterious and undefined as the man himself. Is Obama the moderate-to-conservative Democrat he presented himself as in the debate last night? Or is he a radical leftist eager to do to America what the EU has done to Europe? Is he a secret follower of James Cone’s black liberation theology? Or is he an opportunist who just wants to be president and has no ideology to which he is really committed? Or is he a total empty suit who has no identity of his own and hasn’t the slightest idea of what he’s about, but has a preternatural ability to present himself as cool, thoughtful, and steady?

What these questions suggest is that, pace Diana West, the real “third candidate” in this race is not Obama’s radicalism, but the fact that no one—including perhaps Obama himself—knows who the hell he is. Obama’s multileveled strangeness may cause enough voters to turn to the incompetent but familiar McCain that the race ends up much closer than it is at present. However, I still say, based on the two candidates’ performance last night, that Obama is overwhelmingly likely to win.

—end of initial entry—

Ben W. writes:

You write:

What these questions suggest is that, pace Diana West, the real “third candidate” in this race is not Obama’s radicalism, but the fact that no one—including perhaps Obama himself—knows who the hell he is.

You once described Bob Dylan to me as an enigma wrapped in a riddle, a locked safe with nothing inside. Perhaps Obama is the Bob Dylan candidate, the postmodern political?

LA replies:

You may be right in the sense that they both perhaps have nothing inside. But other than that, they are very different. Obama presents a reasonable, civil, decent demeanor. While in reality he is unknown, he doesn’t send out a message of unknownness or unknowability. As a gifted American politician, he sends out a message, no matter how fake it might be, of normality and reliability.

The entire message of Dylan’s persona is: I’m closed off from you. You can’t know me. I’m not normal. I’m not part of any normal world. And even when he purports to tell us something about himself, such as in his supposedly autobiographical Chronicles, it is an obvious, constructed lie or misdirection. Even when there is some truth in it, the entire picture remains such an obvious act that you can’t believe the true parts.

Mike Berman writes:

I once discussed this subject with Nat Hentoff, who wrote the liner notes for Dylan’s second album. Mr. Hentoff told me that Bob Dylan was the only performer he’d ever met who was always “on.” He seems to have taken “All the world’s a stage” as his creed. I picture Peter Wolf, Bruce Springsteen and Dylan entering a room. Springsteen says, “Hey, it’s just us here, so can we not talk like blacks now?” Dylan would rather die: “No way!”

October 18

Kevin writes:

I agree with Diana West. I don’t think there is much doubt that Obama is a true believing radical. He not only belonged to an ideological anti-white anti-American church for 20 years but considered its pastor his mentor. He also named the radical America haters Phleger and Meeks as mentors. I also wouldn’t be surprised if Bill Ayers wasn’t something of a mentor to him. You say you don’t think he hates whites. I think you’re probably correct when it comes to a personal level. However I think he believes that white America that is traditional America is intrinsically bad and oppressive both at home and to the world, and his goal is to change it into something else. Also as I wrote to you once before I don’t think he’s an appeaser but rather sees America as the problem and identifies more with our enemies. And once he gets in it will be very difficult to reverse given the media’s unconditional backing of him along with the possibility that fair elections in the future are not a guarantee.

LA replies:

You may be right about Obama, but Diana West’s point was not that Obama is a radical. Her point was that voters would reject him because of his radicalism.

October 19

Kevin writes:

You said:

“You may be right about Obama, but Diana West’s point was not that Obama is a radical. Her point was that voters would reject him because of his radicalism.”

But isn’t that the same thing? Diana West obviously believes that Obama is a radical and thinks that enough voters might reject him because of his radicalism.

What I was responding to was this statement that you had made:

“What these questions suggest is that, pace Diana West, the real “third candidate” in this race is not Obama’s radicalism, but the fact that no one—including perhaps Obama himself—knows who the hell he is.”

It sounds like you’re not sure that Obama is a radical and what you’re saying is that although he very well might be we don’t really know for sure, and he might not even know himself. I am saying that I believe given his associations, his political history, and statements he has made that the evidence is overwhelming that he is a radical, and I apparently feel a greater certainty about this than you do. And I agree with Diana West that people are capable of seeing this radicalism e.g. Ayers & Wright, although of course people might also from their perspective see him as too much an unknown or an exotic rather than a radical and vote against him for that reason. So as a reason why people might decide to vote against him I think that you and Diana West are both right.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at October 16, 2008 07:08 PM | Send