Friday, February 29, 2008

Obama and Nativism

I've been reading a lot on the web that it seems the dominant line of attack against Obama in the general election would be to challenge his patriotism and loyalty to the United States, with varying hues of sophistication. Hence the dissection of Michelle Obama's 'proud comment' and the circulation of pictures of Obama in traditional Somali clothing and the repeat use of his middle name.

I have a friend who's a Clinton supporter, and throughout the early primaries, he emphasized how most of Clinton's support seemed to be coming from the white Democratic working class rather than the more white-collared Obama supporters. While it seems this pattern was somewhat shattered on Super Tuesday, the argument gave me, as a former Edwards supporter concerned with growing economic inequality, some pause. Were Clinton's policies more pro-poor? Were working class people just more comfortable choosing the white woman over the black man?

I don't think the differences in their economic policies are significant, and I think racism transcends class differences in the US, it just may take different forms. I wound up leaning towards both a preference for competence/experience and nativism as the major explanations for the early class gap among white blue collar voters.

Over Christmas break, an aunt of mine who lives in Virginia told us that many of her friends didn't want to vote for Obama because "he was Muslim." I think that while it's easy for us to laugh off these stories-- or be disgusted by them-- inside DC, they have a real impact on many voters. However, it would be short-sighted and unfair to blame the current tide of nativism solely on shallow prejudice.

Over the past few years, the average American has not seem much good that comes from other shores. We can take 9/11 and the spectre of Islamo-terrorism completely out of the picture and still make this claim. People have gotten poorer, and I think they see their wealth going overseas in two ways.

First, while free trade is not the bogeyman in this election and seems unlikely to become one, immigration certainly has the potential to be. (My father commented that a lot of conservative pundits don't like McCain because they had hoped to make immigration the general election wedge issue that gay marriage was in 2004 and his vote on the immigration reform act this summer makes that difficult.) I think the following myth is fairly common: "I am worse off and my taxes are going to help out illegal immigrants."

Second, America is spending billions of dollars abroad fighting an unpopular and unsuccessful war. People see this loss both in terms of their tax dollars and in terms of the lack of social programs that could otherwise be in its place.

(On a slightly different note-- and discussing a different portion of the electorate--I think it's important to note that due to the weaker dollar, fewer Americans may be traveling abroad than in the past, and this may also weaken America's affection for the rest of the world.)

I think there are seeds for a preference for soft isolationism among both the Democratic and the Republican electorate, and the strategy to paint Obama as a foreigner-- a man who grew up outside of the US, who isn't white, who has a funny name and is from a rioting country-- could definitely continue to have legs. In 2004, the Manchurian candidate threat could have held more weight, but I think the bulk of the insinuation this time around can be much softer. "He isn't one of us; he's from somewhere else."

To me, this potential rising isolationism and nativism is one of the biggest battles we foreign policy people (SAIS kids who don't vote and liberal economists too) are going to have to fight in the next decade (and it's not one we can win, or even understand, by labling our opponents as intolerant or bigoted). It's not just about rebuilding the world's faith in America, but rebuilding our own faith in the world and our place in it.

I think it's actually one of the best reasons for Obama's candidacy. I think we need a candidate who can credibly assert that our relationships with the rest of the world can be based on more than fear and protection. Although I'm pretty weary of the hope rhetoric, I'd like to see a candidate inject a little hope into the foreign policy debate. I don't know if Obama will do this-- it might be a bold step when McCain's predictions are so scary-- but I think he has the ability and opportunity to.

(I hate to make grand speculations about what candidates will do [and Obama supporters are particularly guilty of this] but I do think Clinton has forced herself to play more of McCain's game on foreign policy because of her Iraq vote, etc...)

2 comments:

Christopher said...

George Bush is the ultimate nativist, and Obama the ultimate cosmopolitan, given his provenance.

And look what nativism brought the US, which has never been more hated in the world than it is right now.

So a cosmopolitanism in the form of Obama would be a welcome antidote to the extreme nativism of George Bush.

US foreign policy will be effective to the extent that the US is liked around the world, as it was during the time of Bill Clinton.

So bring on Barack Obama!!

Anonymous said...

>>I think it's actually one of the best reasons for Obama's candidacy.

Yes. If Obama wins, it's the most incredible victory against nativism, and an Obama presidency has the potential to change the image of America abroad as well as the image Americans have of foreign politics and immigrants and their children. (That's the optimistic vision, at least).

On the other hand, an Obama loss in the general election (and possibly in the primary?) is a symbolic victory for nativism on a pretty big scale. The stakes are high.