Electing the Unelectable?

Electing the unelectable. That’s what’s happening in the USA later this year. Of course the definition depends on who you’re speaking with. For those who like Obama they will tell you it’s inconceivable that McCain has a chance. That’s if you entirely discount the chances of Hillary Clinton, who the Democrat party appear determined to make disappear. Perhaps she’s just hoping for some dramatic revelation, or huge event to sweep Obama aside and her to the leadership of the Democrat party. I discount that as a probability, but it is still possible. I think Hillary is right about one of her more recent claims, in that she does appear to have more chance of winning against McCain in the Presidential election than Obama does.

The brevity of my recent visits to that great country probably taints my understanding of the American election process. Another hindrance is the fact that most of the people I speak with are either from the urban conurbations like Los Angeles or New York or I’m reading feature articles from opinion formers from Washington or Chicago. These people tend to share a smug set of values that taint their objectivity. They only listen to one another, and mirror the same, glass bubble beliefs.

The truth is not what they say it is. Their elitism distorts facts to fit the required image, the accepted truth. It’s very much the same in the UK with the intellectual left holding sway at the Guardian newspaper and the BBC. They really don’t know that outside of their gilded cage the vast, sweaty public doesn’t see life the same way. I saw how true this was in the States when Arnold Schwarzenegger was standing for election as Governor of the State of California. Every person I met in the liberal elite of Los Angeles scoffed at his chances. They considered Arnie a total joke, without any chance of election. The facts are different; elections are won and lost in the vast hinterland of America, not in just a few rich, snobby enclaves. In California, despite Schwarzenegger being Governor for quite some time, the liberal left is still in denial of the fact.

Like many observers of a more neutral disposition I talk to as many people of different types, race, gender and social economic groups and look at a cross section of the polls and as many, and listen to as many different objective opinions as its possible to obtain. What I’ve discovered is that if Clinton were to pull off a miracle and beat Obama then she is about level with McCain, but if Obama wins, as anticipated, then he will probably lose to McCain.

Nothing is certain but it is also worrying to hear the nasty whispers saying that if Obama were elected the maniac assassins are already loading their guns.

I have rarely heard a more inspirational speaker than Obama, who could be what America needs, or he could be a bigger fool than McCain presently appears to be. How much does any of this mean in the real world of elections? Remember how the world scoffed at Ronald Reagan but he turned out to be the great communicator. Not only that, but he did, much to the liberal left’s consternation, decisively vanquish the evil Empire of Soviet Communism.

Now that Communism is effectively dead as a world religious order, because that’s what it was, it has been replaced by a more insidious threat, Islamic fundamentalism, as the primary enemy of freedom. I shall call it Islamism. This word means the expressed, public desire emanating from Islamic extremists to convert, conquer or kill those who do not subscribe to their faith.

Islamism must be combated by brain as well as brawn. Bush demonstrated plenty of the latter, but not so much of the former. Has Obama the stomach for this fight, and does McCain have the brain?