Video: Still want to stick with that prediction that Obama can’t win, Shelby Steele?
posted at 4:04 pm on November 17, 2008 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | regular view
He is sticking with it, mostly. He claims that his logic, as articulated in his much-linked Journal piece from March, is sound, but we’ll have to wait for part two (of five) to find out where he went wrong. My guess? He’ll say that Obama managed to obscure his true self, whatever that is, better than Steele expected, which left him able to “bargain” his way into the presidency:
Race helps Mr. Obama in another way — it lifts his political campaign to the level of allegory, making it the stuff of a far higher drama than budget deficits and education reform. His dark skin, with its powerful evocations of America’s tortured racial past, frames the political contest as a morality play. Will his victory mean America’s redemption from its racist past? Will his defeat show an America morally unevolved? Is his campaign a story of black overcoming, an echo of the civil rights movement? Or is it a passing-of-the-torch story, of one generation displacing another?
Because he is black, there is a sense that profound questions stand to be resolved in the unfolding of his political destiny. And, as the Clintons have discovered, it is hard in the real world to run against a candidate of destiny. For many Americans — black and white — Barack Obama is simply too good (and too rare) an opportunity to pass up. For whites, here is the opportunity to document their deliverance from the shames of their forbearers. And for blacks, here is the chance to document the end of inferiority. So the Clintons have found themselves running more against America’s very highest possibilities than against a man. And the press, normally happy to dispel every political pretension, has all but quivered before Mr. Obama. They, too, have feared being on the wrong side of destiny.
If he thinks race played more of a role than anti-incumbency fervor due to the financial crisis and a sterling organizational advantage, I think he’s kidding himself, but as I say we’ll have to wait for part two. Worth noting in context: This excerpt from yesterday’s Times piece on the campaign flagged by Byron York. The One, at least at the beginning of the campaign, sounds closer to Steele’s theory than I (and, presumably, most of his defenders) am. Click the image to watch.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages:
I think he’s right. The premise does hold.
(Even if the center doesn’t….)
kybowexar on November 17, 2008 at 4:13 PM
Indeed.
amerpundit on November 17, 2008 at 4:14 PM
By the way, check out the Uncommon Knowledge episode “Thomas Sowell and a Conflict of Visions: Chapter 4 of 5″. Sowell says people ask him all of the time why he was voting for McCain over Obama. His answer?
“I prefer disaster to catastrophe.”
amerpundit on November 17, 2008 at 4:17 PM
You do, of course, understand that people can use sound logic to make a prediction and still turn out to be wrong, don’t you? Known knowns – (known unknowns + unknown unknowns) =predidiction, you know?
Mr. Steele did not add the information about the economy into his prediction for obvious reasons.
baldilocks on November 17, 2008 at 4:17 PM
Maybe what he meant was Obama SHOULDN’T win
Tony737 on November 17, 2008 at 4:18 PM
Mr. Steele could not have seen the Perfect Storm that carried Obama into the White House. Under any other conditions Obama would have never made it out of the Primaries.
portlandon on November 17, 2008 at 4:20 PM
Actually, the problem here was the unknown knows.
That is, he assumed anti-black racism, when the trend went the other direction.
Count to 10 on November 17, 2008 at 4:22 PM
He’s right. My fiance said as much about his own sons back when Obama was much more of an unknown quantity. Thing is, that wasn’t a good enough reason to vote for him. What Shelby Steele said.
baldilocks on November 17, 2008 at 4:23 PM
We aren’t saying different things.
baldilocks on November 17, 2008 at 4:24 PM
Does this mean that he’ll announce the end of affirmative action at his inauguration?
manwithblackhat on November 17, 2008 at 4:28 PM
Factors not in Steele’s original prediction:
–In the tank Media that covered for Obama and did not really “Vet” Obama.
– Financial Crisis(which had absolute perfect timing for The One). throw in the anti-GOP mood
–McCain refusing to go after Rev. Wright, and playing nice elsewhere.
jp on November 17, 2008 at 4:31 PM
The question was: why Obama won and why Steele’s prediction was wrong. The above does not address that.
baldilocks on November 17, 2008 at 4:32 PM
some group, should sue some University over Affirmitive Action and cite Obama as example of why its no longer needed. Then to piss them off even more, re-word our rhetoric to include some stuff about “Social Justice”(i.e. abolishing Affirmitive Actions laws is now about Social Justice)
jp on November 17, 2008 at 4:33 PM
also not factored in:
–Obama getting away with Campaign Fraud with his huge Donation list, which financed a much superior campaign and “Get out the Vote” effort. He had teams of people from blue states, launched to Red States to go around door to door to get the vote out. While McCain went with Public financing and got out spent 4 to 1 on TV and Radio, much less on the ground.
its really amazing Obama only got 52% of the vote. Flip the script and McCain would have got over 55%
jp on November 17, 2008 at 4:35 PM
The race explanation – that Obama is a “bargainer” that offered something that white Americans wanted or accepted – made a great deal of sense during the primaries. Especially, obviously, for the more guilt-ridden liberal voters (Chris Matthews anyone?).
But in the general election, most Americans were more interested in finding bargains in the stock market than with presidential candidates.
It will be interesting to see how America reacts when President Obama screws up. And like all presidents, he’ll do something dumb.
SteveMG on November 17, 2008 at 4:54 PM
Highly unlikely, since Obama is on record as being in favor of more affirmative action and racial preference programs, not less. He’s also on record opposing Ward Connerly’s attempts to get states to pass civil rights laws that forbid states from discriminating in favor of any applicants on the basis of race or gender in the awarding of state contracts or in state school admissions decisions. (Obama recorded a radio commercial urging Michigan voters to reject the proposal when it was on the ballot there; despite his opposition, the measure passed overwhelmingly). When asked if his own extremely privileged daughters should ever benefit from affirmative action preferences, Obama responded that they “probably” should not, but wouldn’t rule it out.
AZCoyote on November 17, 2008 at 5:11 PM
Race helped Obama directly – ie there were obviously some whites who might otherwise have voted for McCain who voted for him because of his colour, but I would guess not that many: people that stupid and guilt-ridden are, by nature, Democrats anyway.
But it had a bigger impact in an indirect way: the media is full of guilt-ridden, emotionally incontinent white liberals who want to change the world, and so they were even more in the tank for the Democrat than usual.
The media didn’t start telling their audiences to vote for Obama because he was black; they just covered up his past, covered up the causes of the economic crisis, attacked his opponents, and pandered to a vague desire for change.
The media bias was a big factor in the result, and Obama’s race was a big factor in exacerbating the bias. Steele’s arguments that I’ve heard still hold good.
EnglishMike on November 17, 2008 at 5:26 PM
Absolutely. So what’s with all the ‘wither conservatism’ and ‘what now for the Republicans?’ crap.
There was no ideological change of direction. There was no overwhelming youth vote. Choose a compelling ticket, get back to basics, let Obama screw up and you’ll be fine.
EnglishMike on November 17, 2008 at 5:30 PM
IMO the anti-Bush atmosphere helped whites who hadn’t already bought the “white guilt – I’ll prove I’m not a racist” argument.
katiejane on November 17, 2008 at 6:16 PM
Steele would have been right 15 years ago. The electorate is fundamentally different now.
spmat on November 17, 2008 at 7:00 PM
I disagree. Had McCain concisely articulated his economic policies over the entire campaign like he did in the last three weeks, and firmly pinned the economic woes where they belonged–the laps of the Dems–it may have been a very different race.
I’m inclined to agree with Mr. Steele’s assessment, that if people really knew who Barack Obama is, they would never have voted for him. The MSM and the Obama campaign did an excellent job of shielding him and his friends from scrutiny, and we are just beginning to see the consequences of this.
joliveroconnell on November 17, 2008 at 7:02 PM
I have a question for some of you. Why such strong opposition to affirmative action? Quick disclosure: I am an African American Conservative.
I haven’t concluded as to whether I think there is or isn’t a need for it any more but I’ve noticed that some of you are passionately opposed to it. I’m concerned because I encourage my liberal friends to check this site out and some of you are coming off as almost fanatical to them (in regards to this topic).
I invite them here to show them that conservatives are “thinkers” but looking a some of the rhetoric, they are concluding that all of the perceptions they have about us are true.
Affirmative action isn’t just about African Americans…it’s about women, veterans, and people with disabilities as well. But even if it were just about African Americans, do you really think that because Obama conned his way into the White House that the biases that Affirmative Action was designed to blunt are all gone?
BDev on November 17, 2008 at 7:28 PM
I’m an American conservative who happens to be black. I’m against it because its existence and alleged necessity implies that we are inferior.
baldilocks on November 17, 2008 at 8:53 PM
Ding ding ding!
The Race Card on November 17, 2008 at 9:21 PM
Quote of the day!
Neocon Peg on November 17, 2008 at 9:27 PM
“Finish your homework?”
“Affirmative.”
“Do your chores?”
“Affirmative.”
“Work hard after getting your degree even if you just go to a local JC then transfer to a University?”
“Affirmative.”
“Bust your ass making a name for yourself as a good worker even if you did not go to college?”
“Affirmative.”
“Keep your tallywhacker wrapped up until marriage or at least until you’re ready to be a damn-good parent?”
“Affirmative.”
“Action! Now go kick some ass.”
***
Blacks and other minorities, primarily women do have to work harder because of their skin or gender. However that is not because of discrimination. Rather, it takes demonstrable evidence to prove that one would attain similar success with or without affirmative action.
You can keep your bonus points and I won’t have to worry about you looking down your nose at me.
The Race Card on November 17, 2008 at 9:31 PM
<<–Cute.
I’m never one to play the race card but let’s be real. I served in the military and there was racism there. I’ve worked in corporate America and there is racism there, too. I applied for a job that I was over qualified for a few years ago–this company didn’t feel the need to hire ANY minorities until the government stepped in. I had moved on by the time the government did but the company wound up having to pay all of us that were turned down on the basis of race…I turned the check down but… I used to feel that it implied that we are inferior, too. Since my experiences justified the motives of affirmative action, I haven’t questioned it until lately.
You guys are coming off sounding like the racists that the left have branded you to be when you say “blacks blah, blah, blah”, or “the blacks blah, blah, blah”. You may not enjoy my criticism, and for some of you it doesn’t even apply…baldilocks, you thought your response was cute, but I rarely meet people (black, white, or whatever) as conservative as I am. It’s funny…I ask a legitimate question and the first instinct for some of you is to try to attack me. If the conservative movement wants to survive, it’s going to have to have some tough discussions and accept some brutal truths. Attacking or semi-attacking one of your own, won’t get you anywhere.
What’s crazy is I’ve told you that I have liberals who think you are a bunch of intolerant racists- watching (and reading this discussion) and instead of responding in an intelligent way, you’re condescending. <<–That’ll show them, right?
BDev on November 18, 2008 at 3:17 PM
Comment pages: