Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt

With the inauguration of America's first black president fast approaching, internet chatter is abuzz with all things Obama (as if it wasn't already!). There has been much made of his experience, his qualifications, personal associations and character over the last couple of years. Those same concerns have bubbled up again for rehashed debate amongst bloggers everywhere. It's the story that won't go away!

I, for one, will be happy when Jan 21st, post-inauguration day rolls around. Perhaps then, Americans and bloggers alike will have come to terms with the fact that, yes, this man is indeed, the President of the United States. Can we all get back to work now?!

Obama often speaks of himself as the "improbable candidate", whose naysayers said his "day would never come", that his "sights were set to high". I am not sure I'd give him that much credit - he had rock star status long before he'd announced his candidacy; and his looks, eloquence, intelligence and charisma were going to take him far whenever he decided to run for the highest office. As history would have it, he decided to run sooner rather than later, and that gave the establishment something to poo about.

Throughout, Obama played the cool cat. He distanced himself from the political fray and the negative tactics that had become business as usual in American politics. He was above pettiness, dirty tricks, and spin. While Obama ran as many negative ads as the next guy he always stuck to the issues, to his key talking points and didn't let his opponents take him off message. By rising above the bashing, he forced his competition into “operation nice” or face the label of being "more of the same". It was a brilliant move and a tired electorate ate it up.

I give the man high marks for this. He ran a remarkable campaign, not just because it was disciplined and focused but simply because he elevated the conversation. He brought respect back to politics. He even claimed he wanted "to make politics cool again". And cool he made it - all the way to the White House.

So what's a disgruntled right-winger to do? I understand the frustration. It's the ultimate high school envy - the guy with the movie star looks and girlfriend to match, whose marks are as high as his perfectly placed free throws, his personality so smooth and engaging that he could probably have his own syndicated talk show. It's enough to make you crazy, but face it, to try and knock the high school star down, well, that's just not cool.

Post election, you still hear much of the envy. It's more subtle now as it has become uncouth to banter about ones associations when a stark economic landscape faces the man in question. Nonetheless, naysayers continue to clog the internet blogs with their little cuts, nicks and back-handed kicks. I am not referring to those obvious and expected critics - the conservative attack dogs, life-long Republicans or Ann Coulter (because she is a category unto herself) – they, we expect to come to the table ready for a fight. And I am not talking about the voters who have opposing views and welcome open debate. They should be heard.

I am talking about people who take their Obama digs with a spoonful of sugar and a sprinkling of doubt; who use geniality and plastic concern to give credibility to half truths and speculation. I am referring to those who strike a little Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt (FUD) to ever-so-subtly put the man down.

FUD is a common tactic used in sales and marketing to thwart the competition's rise in popularity. It is not a frontal attack, rather, it is a subtle, passive-aggressive manipulation of facts and beliefs to convince the buyer, voter, friend, or whoever that a decision in favour of another is a risk. FUD strategies are typically used by those who feel they are losing or are underrepresented, but are afraid to alienate others by stating their real intentions or beliefs. FUDders, as I like to call them (isn't that cute?) use flanking strategies to spin false stories and speculation into general feelings of discomfort. McCain was the victim of FUDders back in 2004 when Bush aids perpetuated stories on the internet about his fathering a black child - and while he vehemently denied the accusations, the damage had been done, the "discomfort" had been established and he went on to lose the nomination.

Today in Obamaland, FUDders clog the internet with more subtle accusations - like "oh, I don't know I'll just have to see – you know a man is known by the company he keeps...", or "geez, I mean I'd like to see a black president just as much as the next Texan but what religion is he again?" or "yes he gives great speeches but if you can talk like that, what are you REALLY saying?" or "I know he's supposed to be smart but I don’t know what’s in his head so I'll have to wait and see..." or my personal favourite "I don't really know anything about him so I'll just have to wait and see...".

Let me address that last one - because I think it's subtlety makes it the most tempting of excuses. Hiding behind the vague notion of familiarity begs for more analysis. You don't really know him? You mean you don't know him like you know George Bush, the guy who you'd like to have a beer with, but let's face it, that's only going to happen in your dreams? Or - you don't really know him because you haven't read his books (which detail his personal history, family, values, views on politics and governing), you haven't seen any one of the thousand or so interviews he's given, you haven't witnessed the near 30 debates in which he participated?

You don't “know" him? The reality is, to say you don't know a public figure when you don't personally know ANY public figures is to hold one candidate to different standard than another. And, let's say you are considering this from a policy perspective, to say you don't know him when you know he has been open on his views on the most important issues demonstrates a lack of interest in honest debate.

Interestingly enough, nobody seemed to feel the need to "know" George Bush when he ran for president. Nobody seemed to miss the fact that there were no books of his to read, no foreign policy positions to understand, no economic credibility to be explored. Voters didn't feel the need to know any of that.

When I hear people say they just don't "know" Obama, my personal red flag goes up. This is not about FUDders’ need to “know” Obama but rather they’re need to "define" him.

Let me explain with an example.

I met someone recently (an American living in Canada) with whom I struck up a conciliatory discussion on politics - but when the topic turned to Obama, there was a shift. He told me he knew someone who knew someone who apparently knows Obama who says he's really ambitious, he's SO ambitious - and by the way he spat out the word "ambitious" I knew he meant it couldn’t be good. He said he was ambitious to the point where he didn't see his family much. I almost started to laugh. Is that the best you can do FUDder?! I mean we've had presidents who engaged in sordid affairs, committed crimes, traded arms with terrorists, worked with the mob, fought illegitimate wars - and all you can give me is "ambitious"? Are you serious?!

Last I checked, America was founded and continues to prosper on ambition. But my point here isn't whether Obama has ambition or not - of course he does and that’s ok, even expected. My point is that this gentleman, who used hearsay and unsubstantiated evidence to paint a picture of a man he didn’t know was not actually making a statement about Obama; rather, he was projecting something about himself onto Obama. And that which he was projecting was fear, and more specifically a fear of the unknown, a fear of the inability to define the man in ways they feel comfortable. This is what most FUDders are really doing when they say they don't "know" Obama.

What kind of "unknown" fear is it? Is it fear of his performance? He has proven to be quite competent so far. Is it fear of his policies? Other than the normal party clash of policies, there is nothing new here. Is it the fear of his newness? The public tends to celebrate the new and fresh rather than fear it. Is it the fear of his experience (or lack of)? Certainly, experience was a popular attack but all the candidates this year had inconsistent records on experience whether it be on the economy or healthcare or foreign relations. Even McCain, who believed his foreign relations knowledge to be a strength didn’t really have the breadth of international experience and exposure he might have led the populace to believe. He mistakenly confused Muslim factions when he said Iran was training Al-Qaeda (Sunni based Muslims) when they were actually training Shiite extremists; and he, several times referenced “Czechoslovakia” instead of the Czech Republic or Slovakia (Czechosolvaia had split into two countries in 1993). Obama, for the most part, stayed clear of such gaffs. So fear of experience isn't a terribly credible argument.

No, their fear is not of performance, ideas or experience but rather it is a fear of the black man. The fear these FUDders project is one of racism.

Eyebrows may raise at this point, but as I analyze and explore, I cannot see my way to another conclusion. What other factors are there? Certainly there is demographics and religious ideology but they only play to the typical conclusions. Time and time again, my analysis has led me back to racism.

When people say they “don’t know him” I think these people, so accustomed to classification, mean they don’t know his "type”. He is not your stereotypical black man. He is not angry black. He is not cool rapper black. He is not super-athlete black. He is a serious, educated, extremely intelligent, eloquent and elegant black. I think for most people, that just doesn’t sound black! THIS is their discomfort. Obama defies their definitions, their intepretations and control. FUDders cannot box him in the easy, stereotypical way they have with other blacks before him. And so, FUDders continue to raid the internet airwaves with their slight-of-hand remarks, painting a shadowy Obama led frontier that asks all of us, do you really want to go where no man has gone before?

I'm is sad to come to this conclusion. I wanted the analysis to go somewhere better. The reality is, if you have issues with Barack Obama but you cannot articulate your concerns concretely and plainly, if you cannot argue on the basis of fact, if you can only be vague in your criticisms and sly in your doubt then you have to ask yourself what your motivation is for knocking the man down. You have to ask yourself are you a racist?