Sunday, March 30, 2008
Clinton's strategy engages divisiveness
From the RoundTable blog
Read the latest entries
Reginald Shareef
Shareef is a professor of political science/public administration at Radford University.
Sen. Hillary Clinton's kitchen-sink strategy -- an updated version of the Nixon/Atwater/Rove Southern Strategy -- was designed to undermine the public's confidence in her rival for the Democratic presidential nomination, Sen. Barack Obama. This strategy represents the epitome of the politics of divisiveness. While the older version of the Southern Strategy sought only to use race as a wedge issue, Clinton has added a second poisonous arrow to her quiver -- the whispering campaign that Obama is a Muslim.
Bloggers have run with this idea and portray him as a one-man "fifth column" hellbent on destroying America from within. When Academy Awards emcee Jon Stewart questioned whether we wanted a president "whose middle name is Hussein and last name rhymes with Osama," Karl Rove had to love the new chapter added to this political playbook. It probably gave him even greater joy that it was written by a Democrat.
Despite the fact that there is no religious litmus test to be president, the Illinois senator has consistently maintained that he is a Christian. The recent controversy over the comments of his minister, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, appears to validate Obama's assertion. Still, one has to acknowledge that the senator's father was Muslim, his fraternal relatives in Kenya are Muslim, his stepfather was Muslim, and he studied in an Indonesian Islamic school during his primary years. If human beings are the sum total of their experiences, it would be fair to say that Obama's world view has been influenced by the monotheism of both the Christian and Islamic religions.
Consequently, the question: How can the American public reconcile this troubling duality about the country's most charismatic political leader in decades?
Rather easily. Charisma is Greek for "divinely inspired gifts." Sociologist Max Weber found that charisma occurred when there is a social crisis (Iraq, the mortgage calamity, health insurance, the racial divide, etc.), a leader emerges with a radical vision (for Obama, that vision is only a united America can successfully tackle its domestic and international problems), there are successes that make the vision attainable (caucus and primary victories, endorsements by prominent leaders, etc.), and the followers believe the leader to be extraordinary. One can only make sense of Obama's meteoric rise to national prominence as being an extraordinary event with profound cosmic implications.
The story of the Prophet Joseph is found in both the Old Testament and Holy Quran. He possessed a divinely inspired vision to save a country -- after years of abundance -- on a downward spiral. Joseph endured the jealousy and hatred of his brothers (think of the Clinton supporters who now say they will not vote for Obama if he is the nominee), scorned the advances of a prominent woman who sought to seduce him (think Clinton's VP offer although Obama leads the primary race), and incurred the wrath of the woman's powerful husband (former President Clinton questioned Obama's patriotism).
Yet, because of his faith in God, Joseph patiently endured these trials, never wavered in his goal to rescue a troubled country and fulfilled his divine mission. This is Obama's legacy as well. Christians who have anxiety about Obama's religious past should view him as a modern-day Joseph who wants America to fulfill its historical and spiritual calling.
Divine missions require the charismatic leader only to warn a society of impending trouble and offer a vision for averting the cataclysmic episode. The leader cannot force nonbelievers to accept the vision. This is especially true in democracies where people elect their political leaders. Consequently, it is a political truism that democratic societies get the leaders they deserve.
Thus, the choice of who will win the Democratic nomination is really up to the people in states where primary and caucus elections remain to be held. Clinton offers more of the politics of divisiveness, as the kitchen sink strategy illustrates. Conversely, Obama seeks to end the zero-sum game of contemporary American politics, unite the country and lead as a positive charismatic.
Race and monotheistic religious influences -- at this point of the Democratic primary -- are irrelevant issues. Mere enlightened self-interest should motivate partisans to reject Clinton's myopic vision.
Still, voters in Pennsylvania and other states may engage in the political equivalent of cutting off their noses to spite their faces when it comes to voting for Obama.
That will surely be our loss, not his.
