A new day dawns, it does indeed …

[aadler]

 
Welcome, Mister President.

You arrived in this office on a message of hope and change. The change has come. These are my hopes:

I hope you’re even one-tenth as special as your most enraptured supporters appear to believe.

I hope you’re every bit as idealistic as you’ve presented yourself as being, and at the same time cynically calculating as to which campaign promises you intend to keep (and how), because winning a campaign and running a country are entirely different tasks, not to be carried out in the same way.

I hope there is solid substance underlying the magnificent style, resulting in years of impressive performance to (finally) fulfill all that perceived potential.

I hope that, having won largely on the basis of race — while presenting yourself as post-racial — you can actually move this country beyond the dogmatic straitjacket of racial politics.

I hope you can inspire both parties, but especially your own, to more idealism and less ideological posturing.

I hope you will actively resist the desires of some on your side of the aisle to attempt the ex post facto criminalization of policy differences. This is a sword that cuts both ways, and would do incalculable harm to the nation for decades to come, regardless of which side happens to be in power.

I hope the man who turned the national imagination toward the future will avoid falling back on those past nostrums (particularly socialism and New-Deal-style big-government interventionism) that not only aren’t new but were consistent failures in their own heyday.

I hope “the smartest guy in every room he’s ever occupied” will have the wisdom to surround himself by people who know more than he does, and listen carefully to them before making his decisions.

Above all, I hope the next four years — or more — will be a time of actual growth in this country, rather than something that simply has to be survived.

[Advance warning: any comments expounding on the evils and contemptibility of the departed Bush administration will be deleted without reply.]

Comments

[learnedhand-dj.livejournal.com]

I'm sorry, but "having won largely on the basis of race?" Do you really think that if President Obama was white, the election result would have been significantly different? If anything, a white President Obama would have won by a somewhat wider margin, based on the polls done earlier in the campaign that showed both Hillary Clinton and John Edwards doing better against most of the potential Republican opponents that President Obama. What are you basing "won largely on the basis of race" on?

[aadler]

I base it on the fact that the entire campaign operated on two pillars of support: rejection of every aspect of whatever appeared to be the Bush legacy — including anything that could be even tenuously connected to it — and how wonderful it would be for the country to elect its first black President. Obama played the race card sparingly and carefully (his supporters were less discreet), but play it he did, less to claim his pre-eminence or vilify his opponents than to make it difficult for those opponents to criticize too closely or too harshly without facing charges of systematic racism. (Much good it did them; to the Left, racism was the only conceivable reason NOT to vote for Obama. This is not my judgment, it was an explicit statement by a liberal writer in a prominent blog or newspaper column.) A huge part of his appeal as a transformational figure was precisely that he is black/biracial. Black people voted for him 95%-99% because he’s black; many, many white people voted for him because 1) he presented himself in such a way that they could believe his political stance echoed their own, 2) ‘new and exciting’ generally comes out ahead of ‘same-old, same-old’ (and Obama genuinely was new and exciting), and 3) voting for an acceptable black candidate was a nifty way to show how tolerant and progressive and non-racist and superior they were.

As for early polls, many of those polls showed Hillary beating Obama, and Giuliani being the Republican nominee. Polls attempt to read public opinion; some are better than others, and opinions change over time. And, if the Democratic Party had selected a white candidate, the election results might indeed have come out mostly the same but for entirely different reasons. I believe that this election produced this result for this reason, among others.

No question, Obama had a lot of favorable winds behind him. He could not have beaten George W. Bush in 2004; the time wasn’t right. He was actually trailing McCain following the Republican convention, until the economic crash changed the national paradigm. Aside from Bush himself, he faced the ideal opponent, a crusty old balding white guy who could turn the occasional witty phrase but could NOT deliver an exciting speech. Many things were behind his success. Race was one of them. It was an attribute that he used to his advantage, used skillfully and effectively, appealing to positive elements of the American psyche as well as several that were superficial and partisan and (yes) intolerant. How much he used it, and to what extent that use was legitimate, can be argued passionately by both sides; THAT he used it is simply a fact.

I didn’t say he won ‘primarily’ because of race. I didn’t even say ‘mostly’. I said ‘largely’, and the word was chosen with care. Race was a large part of the result. To claim otherwise would be disingenuous at best.

[learnedhand-dj.livejournal.com]

Oh, I wouldn't claim that race had nothing to do with it. I'm sure there were many people who based their vote for President Obama primarily on his race. I'm sure there were some people who based their vote for Senator McCain primarily on President Obama's race as well. But frankly, I think the Democrats could have run a potted plant for president this year and won. Between the perceived failures of President Bush's foreign policy and the economic collapse, I don't think any Republican nominee could have beaten any Democratic nominee this year.

Also, according to thesaurus.com, synonyms for "largely" include mostly, primarily and principally, as well as abundantly, considerably and extensively. I thought you meant "largely" to match the first groups of synonyms, not the second. Now that you've explained, your comment makes more sense.