Political
Gaffes and Things
By
Richard W. Crockett
I
confess that I resent the idea that if I were to visit the Ford Museum in
Dearborn, Michigan that I might be called anti-Semitic, as was Mitt Romney,
because the founder of the Ford Motor Company who has been dead for many years
now wrote anti-Semitic trash. That is very close to saying that anyone who
lives in St. Louis is anti-Semitic because the anti-Semite who flirted with
Adolph HitlerÕs Nazi Germany and had nice things to say about ÒChancellor Hitler,Ó
flew across the Atlantic Ocean in an airplane called the Spirit of St. Louis. We are speaking here of Henry Ford and Charles A.
Lindberg. Maybe we should tear the Ford museum down, not buy Fords and run the Spirit
of St. Louis through the aluminum shredder.
Also, we could rename St. Louis. But I donÕt buy it. How far are we to go back
in history to free ourselves of tainted ancestry? Most descendants of European
ancestry, the largest group in America, must admit that they may have had
ancestors who were dubbed Òbarbarians,Ó unless, of course, they were Romans.
Still,
Republican candidate for the Presidency, Mitt Romney, ignored the power of
symbolism in politics and invited a charge of anti-Semitism by announcing his
run for the Presidency at the Ford Museum in Dearborn, Michigan. Why would he
make his announcement there and why is this choice symbolically important? The
Ex-Governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney sought to re-establish his connection
to the state where he grew up, coming from a ÒcarÓ family and having grown up
in Michigan. RomneyÕs father, George Romney, was the CEO of American Motors,
and later Governor of Michigan. (He also ran for president and committed a
political gaffe of his own by the candid remark that when he went to Viet Nam
and was given the tour, that he was Òbrainwashed.Ó) In making this choice for
his announcement, young Romney ignored a well-established fact that Henry Ford
had a notorious reputation for his anti-Semitic views. Ford published a
four-volume anti-Semitic work, The International Jew, in the 1920Õs, for which he later publicly apologized.
Whether Ford ever really changed his views is not clear to me. In any case this
is all symbolically important, keeping in mind that political symbols are
condensed forms of ideology whose ideological meaning is in the mind of the
observing public. The speech at the Ford Museum acts as a social cue, and this
social cue evokes a political Òmyth,Ó a set of beliefs, which is in the public
mind. RomneyÕs handlers needed to ask themselves, ÒWhat meaning might the
public attach to announcing a run for the presidency in front of the Ford
Museum, especially when the public is encouraged by oneÕs political opponents
to make the most disagreeable interpretation?Ó
As
far as I know Mitt Romney is about as anti-Semitic as Santa Clause—the
fact that Kris Kringle is a German doesnÕt make him anti-Semitic. I am not
aware that anti-Semitism could be attributable to Romney by his religious
connections to Mormonism. Some of
the things that I have heard Mormons say make me think they may believe they
are Òchildren of Israel.Ó However, I
donÕt think one could understand that a candidate who is also a Mormon is
anti-Semitic from his theology. None of this makes a difference at the crass political
level. What is crassly relevant
politically speaking is less likely to be a candidateÕs actual beliefs than
what his beliefs may be made to appear to be.
If
you want to be anti-Romney, perhaps a worse charge against Romney could be that
he is a Òflip flopperÓ on gay marriage and abortion. Of course a Òflip flopperÓ
appears unsteady and unable to
make decisions, as John Kerry learned. The public ideal is that a politician
should never change his mind for expedience, but he should change his mind only
when it is clear that he is wrong. Of course, what is right and what is wrong
for the politician is determined by the weight of public opinion, and therefore
expedience. Most of the Democrats and a good number of Republicans can be
accused of changing their minds concerning the war in Iraq. The problem is, the
spilled blood of right and wrong runs together with that of the blood of
expedience when it comes to the war in Iraq.
Another
case of being conscious of political symbols is that of Barak Obama. Now,
whether one is a Democrat or a Republican, one has to admit that this guy is an
extraordinary political phenomenon. Obama announced his run for the Presidency
in Springfield, Illinois in front of the old capitol building where he made
references to the first Republican president and national icon, Abraham
Lincoln, and where Obama specifically referenced LincolnÕs Òhouse dividedÓ
speech. Obama wanted to associate himself with LincolnÕs sentiments and bring
and end to political division and rancor. Lincoln warned that, a Òhouse divided
against itself cannot stand.Ó This sentiment accords with ObamaÕs attempt at
mobilizing a spirit of reconciliation in America. Accordingly, his announcement
for the Presidency in Springfield, Illinois was more successful than that of
Romney in Dearborn, Michigan. The symbolism of place and sentiment worked
together more positively.
On
the other hand, Obama hit his own political snag last week, which he felt
required an apology. And he apologized. Obama made comments to voters in Iowa.
In words that to some of us may seem like an unfortunate truth and that to
others may seem like an insult, Obama commented that the war Òshould never have
been authorized, and should have never been waged, and on which weÕve now spent
$400,000,000, and have seen over 3,000 lives of the bravest young Americans
wasted.Ó The controversial word
is, Òwasted.Ó
So,
did Obama put his foot in his mouth, or did he launch the debate on perfectly
legitimate and truthful grounds? I believe he did the latter, but he was
attacked by some and supported by others. I agree with ObamaÕs comment, for we
have gotten very little out of this war beyond the death of soldiers and
marines. The case against ObamaÕs
comment depends more upon our personal stake in the war than anything else. For
example, if a person was a flag-waving pseudo-patriot who mistakenly encouraged
a loved one to go fight for ÒAmericaÕs freedom,Ó and the loved one was killed,
our emotional investment as well as our feelings of guilt might cause us to
resent ObamaÕs statement. If on the other hand we had opposed the war from the
beginning, we may feel vindicated by the remark. In either case the cruel truth
is that over 3,000 Americans have died as a result of this misadventure. While
he has apologized to anyone he may have offended, Obama does not need to
backtrack very far given the sentiment of the country against the war at this
point.
A
third political gaffe this last week involved the comment of Senator Joseph
Biden of Delaware. In an attempt to compliment an opponent for the Democratic
presidential nomination, Senator Barak Obama, Biden managed to blow it by
saying ÒI mean, you got the first sort of mainstream African-American whoÕs
articulate and bright and clean and a nice looking guy. I mean thatÕs a
storybook man.Ó Does Biden seem to be complimenting the man while slurring the
race? Not cool. This is an example of institutionalized racism. The insult
occurs in the judgment of low expectations implied by the language. It is as if
we donÕt expect to see any of the mentioned positive attributes--
articulateness and brightness and cleanliness and being nice looking--appear in
a black American. Well, this is a tough case of Òfoot-in-mouth disease.Ó But is
Biden a racist? He is probably no more so than many middle class white men in
his age group in America today. Not a practicing racist. Simply, he may be
guilty of carrying the baggage of institutional racism, to the extent that the
culture has a patronizing view of or low expectations for American blacks. He
could have attempted justifying this view by citing that AmericaÕs inner city
schools are still largely segregated and under funded, which delivers most of
the under funding to black Americans and therefore provides the conditions for
serious disadvantage in the quest for success. It could be argued that his
surprise at the emergence of a strong and successful black leader is grounded
in the knowledge of the difficult circumstances many blacks face; that their struggle
is not because of a racial defect of character, but due to conditions beyond
their control. This is a common liberal view historically. Biden may share
unconsciously in that with many white, middle class Americans. He is delighted
to see Barak Obama in public life and wants to look favorably upon him. And I
suspect that if Obama wins the Democratic nomination, Biden would
enthusiastically vote for him. It
is perhaps the greatest hazard for liberals, especially white liberals. We can
shoot ourselves in the foot with a well-meaning bullet.
The
most serious thing that a critic can say of these men is that they have shown
bad judgment, or have been thoughtless in a remark which threatens to create a
public perception that they are not qualified to be President of the United
States. We do, after all expect our President to be flawless in speech and
political judgment. If that claim can be made to stick, the gaffe is quite
serious. Comedian and commentator Bill Maher has devised a ÒNew Rule.Ó It is that
Òthere is more to being smart than just not misspeaking.Ó He goes on, Òfor this
election we need to pick the smartest candidate, not the dullest one, who
simply never had a verbal gaffe and said a wrong word or phrase. WeÕre a super
power, not a drinking game. It has to be about leadership not just hitting your
buzzer first and remembering to phrase your answer in the form of a question.Ó
03/01/07