One Of Us

One of the elements feeding Obamania is the identification factor.  “He/she is ‘one of us’” has long been in play as part of the political process.  Although the usual example of same given is someone nervously twittering how African-Americans have a penchant (how’s that for understatement?) of voting for most any African-American running for office regardless — the classic example is Marion Barry, busted twice for drugs and once for DUI (convicted on one of the drug busts, pled guilty on the other, acquitted on the DUI) yet able to win re-election to either the mayorship or city council of Washington D.C. seemingly at will — but race isn’t the only identifier.  The Republican leadership and conservative pundits were positively startled by Mike Huckabee’s repeated strong showings in the Presidential primaries earlier this year, consistently missing the attraction of an unabashed evangelical to those who share the same faith.

While there are numerous flaws in the ‘one of us’ mindset, not the least of which is blind allegiance to any politician or leader on the basis of any mutual element not germane to skill set or capability to lead, one in particular deserves mention.  In sports it’s known as the make-up call.  A referee or umpire or official or whatever they’re called in a particular sport makes a call against one team or competitor that normally would not be made as it’s at best a borderline offense.  So why are they doing so?  In an attempt to atone for a mistake earlier in the competition when they either didn’t call an offense against the team now being penalized that should have been made, or made a call against the other team or competitor that shouldn’t have been made.  It’s an understandable sentiment.  But how can making a deliberate mistake atone for an prior inadvertent one?  Does this somehow wipe out what happened earlier?  How can intentionally doing something in the present that ought not to be done neutralize what was unintentionally done in the past that ought not to have been done?  It might be used to the point of being worn out, but it’s still true: two wrongs don’t make a right.  Ever.

Another sports example.  Back when I was still going to Raiders home games before finally having enough of the crowd behavior earlier this year, so much so I’d rather eat my season ticket than attend, I went to a Sunday night game where Oakland played Tampa Bay.  This was two seasons after the Buccaneers had humiliated the Raiders in the Super Bowl.  The overriding theme in the stands was this game being looked at as a chance for revenge.  Which I suppose was obtained; Oakland won despite a career-ending hit on quarterback Rich Gannon that came perilously close to paralyzing him for life.  However, no matter how good that victory felt to the Raider Nation it was still the Buccaneers who won that Super Bowl.  And there never will be a do-over of that game.

Believing one must support ‘one of us’ as way to obtain compensation today for grievances that took place yesterday deliberately overlooks one of life’s basic facts: the past not only insists on staying where it is, it’s equally insistent on never allowing visitation rights.  Racism is a repugnant evil which all believers must oppose whenever and wherever it rears its ugly head, especially when it attempts to take root within oneself.  But how does the election of a politician with less than a handful of years of legislative experience, zero executive experience, a cotillion of friends and influences all residing in the hardcore leftist side of things, waffling proposed policies that when nailed down far more often than not propose overwhelming government activity in people’s lives while demonstrating a shocking naïveté about the base nature of humanity, demonstrated hypersensitivity to the least whiff of criticism, and a penchant for elitist arrogant dismissal of middle class America make up for anything?  Sure, it’s a terrific statement.  It also states that crying oppressive racism as an excuse for why self-advancement is not taking place has been forever invalidated.  But at what price has this statement been made?  You know this guy is going to be in charge come January 20th, right?  If he screws up, we will all suffer.  Regardless of whether he’s one of us, whomsoever the ‘us’ in this case might be.

P.S.  Doesn’t have anything to do with the above, but I couldn’t resist: