Korean Job Discussion Forums

[Manner of Speaking]

A few days ago, one member of this forum started a rather tacky thread called Obama's World: MLK or Malcom X. I didn't bother to reply to it at the time, but it occurred to me later that, perhaps subconsiously, the thread author was expressing a fear that the election of Barack Obama as President of the US would somehow leave him feeling "left out". It was a curious idea, and it made me wonder if it was worth asking on this forum "Would the election of Obama as President make you somehow feel 'left out'?", and made me wonder how many people on this forum might answer "yes"?

I'm a Canadian, and as one I've only followed the US election in the last year or so with passing interest, but the Obama campaign has been interesting to watch from the perspective of inter-national comparative politics, a respected branch of political science. It's been interesting to watch what has happened in the past year, not to be negative or judgemental of the US system, but in order to compare and contrast it to the Canadian one. It's been particularly interesting to watch the intersections of race and gender that have gone on.

A lot of people seem to feel the election of Obama as US President is remarkable, but is it so remarkable or unexpected, in comparison with Obama's previous political accomplishments? It strikes me as even more remarkable that Obama, a Black senator, managed to win the confidence and trust of voters in a state that is over 95 percent white. How did this happen? It seems to say some interesting things about voter expectations, how voters choose among candidates, and about the tactical effectiveness of the politics of inclusion.

There's little doubt that the electoral process in all developed countries is heavily influenced by modern marketing techniques. Most voters choose candidates the way they choose a new car: branding, packaging, and market research and segmentation are all key elements in the electoral process -- for better or worse. But I think there is still an emotional aspect to the process for the average voter, in that voters tend to choose the candidate and politician they can trust to do a good job, to represent their interests, and who makes them feel that their wants, needs, and viewpoints are included.

The most interesting political lesson in the Obama campaign seems to be that the effective use of the politics of inclusion works. Obama's election is not all that remarkable, because it's not that unprecedented. He got elected in Illinois, more than once, because he convinced (white) voters there that they could trust him to do a good job. That regardless of race, they could believe in him and trust that racial differences would make no difference in how he performed as an elected official. And as a result, he had the experience, the campaign experience, under his belt to do it again, across the US.

In some ways, the US election was decided once the final candidates were selected. In some ways it was a foregone conclusion.

The politics of inclusion as a political tactic worked not only in Illinois, but also within the Democratic nomination process. Whether she ever intended it or not, Hillary Clinton's campaign was never about the politics of inclusion. The subtext of her whole campaign seemed to be, "If you have a vagina, you have to vote for me because I have a vagina too; if you don't have a vagina, you have to vote for me because *I* have a vagina and you don't; so, it's our turn."

And it didn't work.

Perhaps Clinton's greatest sin is that she, her supporters and her campaign team, were smart enough to be able to look to the Obama example and practice the politics of inclusion, but chose not to do so. Couldn't get past their own (perceived) sense of entitlement. Their message to the voter was "I want you to include me" instead of what worked for Obama: "I want to include you".

In that sense, her campain was deliberately malevolent. Contrast this with Palin, who with her NASCAR campaign rallies and her "maverick" nonsense, alienated millions of black voters and appalled and embarassed millions of white voters.

Clinton practiced the politics of exclusivity because she chose to do so; Palin practiced the politics of exclusivity because she is simply too dumb to know there is any other way.

There is one problem with the tactic of 'you have to vote for me because it's our turn'. In every election, whether you are black or female or someone with some other grievance, ultimately every election is first and foremost the voters turn. The privacy of the polling booth is not unlike the privacy of the bedroom: whatever you say you like or will do in public, behind closed drapes everybody ultimately does the thing that gets them off the most. And no politician or aggrieved group gets what they want unless the voter gets what they want. First.

[Tiger Beer]

Well-said.

Yeah, that was my problem with BOTH Hiliary Clinton and Sarah Palin. They both hurt my ears with their angry rhetoric.

Hiliary seemed to still be suffering from the Bill Years when the Clintons were viciously attacked throughout his time in office. It also sounded like she had 'payback' time in mind for it.

Palin just seemed angry in general...an angry woman with NO real reason to be, making up stuff to rile up voters in negative ways.

[bangbayed]

Good post. I agree, Obama's strongest card was this inclusive approach. You couldn't listen to McCain or Palin speak for one minute without hearing an attack on Obama. The reverse was definitely not true. After years of war and especially after a nosediving economy, people don't want to hear anger and divisiveness.

Bush also, if you remember, won in 2000 by repeating to everyone that he was a 'uniter, not a divider', which was ironic when you see how the following 8 years turned out.

[Manner of Speaking]

Thanks guys! And yes, I agree re: McCain, Palin and Clinton...the politics of inclusion worked because people are sick of divisiveness; it doesn't make common sense, if you're seriously concerned about fixing the economy.