Obama's Rise, A Threat to "Identity" Poliltcs!!

In a system whereby political belligerence and staunch resistance have come to define the means by which political parties, lead by fervent political practitioners, advance utopian dreams of subjective direction. The 2008 Democratic Presidential race has proven, at least thus far, to be anything but customary. Instead of American’s both “left” and “right” being subjected to a sequence of mundane yet expected assaults directed solely upon opposing ideological viewpoints. This latest political battle, which has officially offset the politics of expectedness, has in one way or another forced the Democratic establishment and its chosen candidate, Hillary Clinton, to confront its long standing wing of “identity” driven political devotion, and its rising son, Barack Obama.

With both candidates firmly looking to insure individual success and ultimate supremacy atop the peak of anti – conservatism, one thing is certain, either the winning nominee will rightfully achieve political primacy, and thus qualify him or herself to best maintain the broad - highly diversified Democratic base. Or through the use of non-democratic trickery i.e. “super-delegates”, the eventual nominee could objectionably seize perceived political candidacy. The likes of which would all but insure heightened party divisiveness, minority political disenfranchisement, and the eventual implosion of the Democratic political landscape as we’ve come to define it.

So why is it then, that in a time of “leftist” calls for drastic “change” accompanied by demands for vast improvement, are those within the party claiming to be capable of generating such measures, so undecided and misplaced? Could it be that many long time party loyalist are simply torn between which candidate they feel is best adept and therefore equipped to overcome the daunting questions/challenges that are all but insured to come? Better yet, could it be that the current hysteria surrounding Senator Obama due to his alluring magnetic persona and open – ended rhetoric, has indeed touched upon a new fragment of inspired Democratic voters, thus generating a disparity and unintended identity crisis between hard – line Clintonites and upstart Obomaniacs? Or perhaps this political meddling can best be summed up by pointing out the lack of “change” and overall "equality" the Democratic Party in and of itself has exhibited throughout its rather monopolizing and elongated existence.

While all three options are sure to play a role in the lingering debacle that has become the current Democratic Primary. Perhaps the lone issue of race, advanced through the tactful art of racial politics, best serves to exemplify Liberalism’s devotion to “minority” control. Especially when it deals with issues of political representation, alleged implementation, and overall inclusion.

Dating as far back as 1865 with the implementation of the first of three “Civil War Amendments” (See here, here, and here), America, in an effort to quickly dissolve the unjust practices of slavery, racial inequality, and opposition to universal suffrage, initiated the first of many widespread democratic ideals, the likes of which solidified a new era of approved state and federal standards. This new “awakening” if you will was even further enhanced by the passing of both the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the subsequent Voting Rights Act of 1965. Both of which looked to extenuate the political viability and/or capacities of disillusioned African-Americans, by exterminating southern Jim Crow Laws, based on public segregation and voter infringement.

While passage of such legislative provisions by Democratic policymakers proved worthy in assisting the gradual enfranchisement of African – Americans, if not minorities in general, into the system of checks and balances. It proved unwilling to accurately take on the demoralizing reality of legitimizing true independent leadership, removed from that of its own sense of “owed” emancipating authority. Thus, even though African – Americans among others where lead to believe they had rightfully attained proper validation for the first time within America’s confined political arena. Those possessing the true keys to political dynamics i.e. (Lyndon – style - Democrats) were instead looking to ensure a lasting legacy of minority monopolization, that when called upon, proved capable of routinely electing “white” opportunistic politicians, but certainly not one of their own.

Perhaps no better insight or example can be offered with respect to establishment driven politics of a Democratic fervor than to touch upon the vocal expression of Senator Hillary Clinton who on January 7th 2008 declared:

“Dr. King’s dream began to be realized when President Lyndon Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964. …It took a president to get it done.”

This thought was further captured in Charles Krauthammer’s editorial, Real First Black President, in which he goes on to espouse:

“The analogy Clinton was implying was obvious: I'm Lyndon Johnson, unlovely doer; he's Martin Luther King, charismatic dreamer. Vote for me if you want results. Forty years ago, that arrangement — white president enacting African-American dreams — was necessary because discrimination denied blacks their own autonomous political options. Today, that arrangement — white liberals acting as tribune for blacks in return for their political loyalty — is a demeaning anachronism. That's what the fury at Hillary was all about, although no one was willing to say so explicitly. The King-Johnson analogy is dead because the times are radically different. Today an African-American can be in a position to wield the emancipation pen — and everything else that goes along with the presidency: from making foreign policy to renting out the Lincoln Bedroom (if one is so inclined). Why should African-American dreams still have to go through white liberals?”

Indeed the times and circumstances have changed. Therefore, not only is it possible but quite practical that all members of minority based constituencies, not just African – Americans’ can and should look to further their historic cause, as it relates to properly achieving true political leadership, independent and far removed from the binding agents of time-honored Democratic tactics and dependence. Then and only then will the true nature of political inequality be removed, proper independence attained, democratic participation employed, and true legitimacy restored.

But until such a realization is mutually understood, the projected future of the Democratic Party looks bleak. After all, how much longer can a party, established under the banner of civil-rights and definitive equality for “all”, look to suppress the will and vocal vivacity, the likes of which has not been seen nor heard since the great Dr. King?

Perhaps then, the message of a victorious young Senator from Illinois would finally resonate. And just think.... he wouldn’t have had to utter even a single word!!