The press is characterizing John McCain’s concession speech as "gracious." The campaign tactics of McCain and his oh-so cute running mate Sarah Palin, seem to be forgotten. We’ve got a new "news cycle" to disentangle, it’s a new day. Let’s forget about it all and move on many say.
But while we might want to forget about a nasty campaign, we cannot forget that our new President will preside over what is still one of the most divided countries in the world. Almost half of the electorate, 57,358,053 people by the last count, voted against our President-elect. (And, in case you forgot, Rush Limbaugh still thinks Mr. Obama is a "Chicago thug," even more so now that Obama picked as his chief-of-staff a brethren "thug.")
Although our division may not be quite as wide as it has been in the past, it’s deeper than ever.
On the morning of November 5, 2008, Colin Powell spoke of how the 2008 presidential election season constituted the "clash of ideas" contemplated by our Founding Fathers, with the people deciding in favor of Barack Obama. But I seriously doubt that James Madison would have characterized McCain-Palin’s announcement that Barack Obama "pals around with terrorists," or that he is Karl Marx incarnate, as "ideas."
Lies are not ideas. They’re just lies.
It would be one thing if the 57,358,053 Americans who voted against Barack Obama did so based on informed, thoughtful grounds relating to policy and progress; that is to say, based on ideas. But I think we all know that’s not the case.
The fact is that many of our fellow Americans voted against Mr. Obama because they believe he is a terrorist, a Muslim, a Marxist, that he (and his wife) are anti-American, that he and his supporters are somehow not "real Americans"; because apparently we don’t know who the "real Barack Obama" is, because he may be distantly related to Saddam Hussein. And the list goes on. Lest you forget, many in this country believe Barack Obama is not only the wrong pick for president, but that he is the Anti-Christ. Yes, the Anti-Christ. They've "thought" it through and come to this conclusion. I’ve spoken to such people.
And, of course, many voted against Mr. Obama because he is black, or half-black, or not black enough. Whatever.
Granted, if all in the anti-Obama camp had cast their vote based on policy alone (and not prejudice and fear), we’d still have a divided country. But that’s a very big IF. Because no one seriously disputes that the Bush-GOP policies have failed and are, in substantial part, the cause of the greatest economic crisis since the Great Depression. And no one seriously disputes that McCain stood by Bush over 90% of the time on those policies, and on the campaign trail proposed a continuation of them, that is when he wasn’t busy leveling low blows on our President-elect.
No. The opposition to Mr. Obama was not about policy, not about ideas. But if it had been, I would hazard to say that the opposition would have been far weaker, with far fewer in its ranks. (Dare I say, there may not have been much of an opposition at all.) Which means that, at 11:00 p.m. EST on November 4, 2008 President-elect Barack Obama didn’t have to face this divided of a nation.
This time, it could have been different. It could have been avoided.
Significantly, on one side of our current divide are a bunch of angry people. Very angry, I know. I campaigned for Senator Obama, spoke on the phone and face-to-face with many voters in Nevada, New Mexico, Colorado, Virginia. There’s a lot of anger out there. We might want to forget about it. But that likely will not make it go away.
It is this author’s belief that John McCain, Sarah Palin and many of their surrogates, are directly responsible for the divisions we, and our President-elect, face today. Without any supportable policies or ideas, they chose to play on people’s fears, their prejudices. They didn’t have to do this. It was a choice. They chose to stoke anger, fear, hate and in some cases violence. In so doing, they unnecessarily divided this country.
McCain-Palin supporters’ shouted out at rallies that Mr. Obama was a "terrorist." "Off with his head," they bellowed. When asked about this, the McCain campaign stated that it could not be held responsible for these "nuts." Nonsense. McCain and his surrogates are the ones that peddled the non-ideas that inspired this hate.
McCain supporters look up to John McCain. They listen to and believe what he says. McCain is seen by his supporters as a leader, a role-model. Consequently, McCain has a special responsibility to these people. A responsibility, at the very least, to tell them the truth and to ensure they are not misled.
McCain knew very well how his supporters would interpret his sinister question, "Who is the real Barack Obama?"; how they would respond to the statement that Obama "pals around with terrorists"; how they would react when he called Obama a "socialist." McCain’s not stupid. (And I don’t mean that as a compliment.)
So is losing enough? Will losing the election teach John McCain and his surrogates that their 2008 campaign for the presidency was wrong, that it was bad for the American people, that they unnecessarily divided a country that, at this moment in history, was poised truly to unify, finally?
Apparently not. In his concession speech, McCain announced to his supporters (who incidentally continued to boo whenever McCain uttered the word "Obama") that he "won’t regret a moment" of his campaign. McCain proudly announced that his campaign for the presidency in 2008 was the "great honor of my life."
While I respect many of the things John McCain’s done as a United States senator, his campaign for the presidency in 2008 was not honorable. It cut this country deep, or deeper, at a moment in history when unity is not only an ideal. It’s a necessity.
John McCain and the GOP should be held accountable for what they’ve done. Losing’s not enough. I’ll never forget what they did. Any my fellow Americans shouldn’t either.
The country deserves, at the very least, a public apology. McCain’s smug concession speech doesn’t qualify.
http://postpartisannews.com/