UP@NIGHT

The Republicans won in Tuesday’s election when they were able to hide or smooth over the divides in their Party, and when they were facing weak opponents.   But District 23 in upstate New York was the Bermuda Triangle of the Republican Party, metaphorically speaking of course.  Here is an excerpt from Wednesday’s on-line New York Times (November 4, 2009).   Republicans sure have a long and winding road ahead of them as many in their base push ever more conservative candidates onto the ballot.

Ms. Palin, who had endorsed Mr. Hoffman in the upstate New York race, indicated that she had not been dissuaded by his loss.

“To the tireless grass-roots patriots who worked so hard in that race and to future citizen-candidates like Doug,” she wrote on her Facebook page, “please remember Reagan’s words of encouragement after his defeat in 1976: the cause goes on.”

And Senator Jim DeMint, Republican of South Carolina, announced that he was endorsing Chuck DeVore, a conservative, in the California race for a Senate seat. Mr. DeVore is opposing Carly Fiorina, former chief executive of Hewlett-Packard, who was encouraged by party leaders to seek the nomination.

Other conservatives, too, were not deterred by the New York defeat. Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the Susan B. Anthony List, a conservative organization that strongly supported Mr. Hoffman, said that conservative activists intended to play a role in Republican primary and general elections next year and that it was just as important to keep unacceptable politicians out of Congress as to help others win.

With fighting words such as keeping “unacceptable politicians out of Congress”… and “the cause goes on,” right-wing Republicans should provide quite a show in 2010 and 2012.  I can just see all of those Independents rallying to the party of  “Dr. NO” and “Conservatism or Bust.”

Of course the Republicans could wise up and take the loss in District 23 as an indication that following the extreme right is like walking off a cliff.  However, I am not betting at this point that the Republicans are ready to let self-interest guide them.  Someday, perhaps, when Alaska starts to thaw (which may not be that far off, come to think of it).

Have you heard?  The Republican candidate in the 23rd District in NY, Dede Scozzafava, has dropped out of the race.  It seems that she wasn’t conservative enough for the likes of Sarah Palin, who endorsed Douglas Hoffman on October 22nd on her Facebook Page.  Doug now has behind him such luminaries as: Glenn Beck, Michelle Bachmann, Fred Thompson, and Dick Armey, and organizations such as the Club for Growth.  In the face of this extreme right-wing onslaught, poor Dede, and the moderate to traditionally conservative Republicans who supported her, had to take to the hills.

Perhaps you are thinking that Doug, an accountant by trade, is a charismatic, insightful, inspirational fellow.  That the split we are seeing is not due to ideology.  That Doug must be a political thoroughbred.  If so, check out his picture (above) and remarks that are currently on one of Doug’s Web Pages:

My opponent is a Nancy Pelosi Democrat. Defeating him comes down to one cold, hard fact – money.

In 1980, I helped Lake Placid with our Olympics when the US beat the Russians in hockey – the same year Reagan was elected. It’s time to send Washington a new message now.

….

If you can follow the logic of this, I would like you to write UP@NIGHT immediately.  It’s simply beyond me.  There is no logic.  It’s an incantation: invoke Reagan, mention a near miraculous victory against the unbeatable communists on ice, mention that the victory on ice was the same year that Reagan was victorious (the stars must have been aligned), and of course mention sending a message to Washington, etc.  (Send a message to Washington, powerful stuff, if you are a Goldwater Republican in 1964.  Oh, I forgot, he wouldn’t be conservative enough for some of these folks.)  Oh, and don’t forget to mention the she-devil, old NP herself.

To say the obvious:  the right-wing of the Republican Party, which is becoming the Republican Party, can not win with chants and spells over the long haul.  The GOP may pick up a few seats in  2010, because that’s the way mid-term elections go and because they can still unify around a few causes.  But should the right gain full control of the GOP, which appears to be happening, 2012 will be a disaster for them.  It could spell the end of the Republican Party as force in American politics.  Of course, a survival mechanism may set in.  Watching the 23rd, some leaders of the GOP may recognize that their Party is on a suicide watch, and that they had better get some counseling ASAP if they are going to survive beyond 2010.   American political parities can not afford to be so rigidly ideological.  We would need a multi-party system for that.  And so far, this just hasn’t been the American Way.

….

UPDATE,  November 1st.   The New York Times reported at 5:38 this afternoon the following:

Canastota, N.Y. — The moderate Republican who suddenly abandoned her campaign in an Upstate New York Congressional race that has exposed deep divisions in the Republican Party urged her supporters on Sunday to vote for the Democratic candidate — a surprising act of defiance that added another unexpected twist to the closely watched race.

Here is what you can bet on: those on the right will claim that this is proof that Dede Scozzafava was never a real Republican, in spite of her relatively conservative record in NY state politics.  Here is what you can’t bet on: enough Republicans seeing this as a sign of just how much danger they are in.  The GOP can not function as a national party by relying on only the most conservative voices of what was once the Republican base.

(Print, Southern Labor Archives.  Caption:  History Repeats Itself–The Robber Barons of the Middle Ages, And The Robber Barons of To-Day)

….

Guess what?  The fat cats on Wall Street not only think that they will be doing as well or better this year than last, they think that any attempt to limit their outrageous salaries and bonuses will stifle innovation.   The following is from a Bloomberg.com story, “Bankers Expect Rising Bonus Pay to Break Records in Global Poll,” (Oct. 30, 2009).

Having shaken off the biggest economic decline since the 1930s, almost three in five traders, analysts and fund managers believe their 2009 bonuses will either increase or won’t change, according to a quarterly poll of Bloomberg customers. Only one in four see a decline. Asians are the most optimistic about pay and Americans and Europeans somewhat less so.

“The large banks are knocking the cover off the ball,” said Daniel Alpert, managing director of New York-based investment bank Westwood Capital LLC. The industry is “making money, though with government help.”

Worldwide, a majority of market professionals in the survey also turn thumbs down on government attempts to limit compensation, with 51 percent saying restrictions will stifle useful innovation. Only about 38 percent think pay limits will control excessive risk-taking.

In the U.S., where President Barack Obama has chided Wall Street for being “motivated only by the appetite for quick kills and bloated bonuses,” 65 percent say the restrictions will damp innovation.

So, we are supposed to believe that if “market professionals” lose some of their bonuses, it will decrease their capacity and motivation to think about new ways to make money.  This claim is as lame as it is self-serving.  You would think that some loss would only drive them to new heights of creativity, given their alleged professionalism.  Yet they keep managing to get away with offering ever weaker rationalizations for why they need ever increasing salaries and bonuses.  Laughing all the way to the bank(s).  It seems that we have our own version of the Robber Barons.  They may oppose tariffs, but they have the equivalent of monopolies in many areas.  They work for institutions that are, after all, too big to fail.   Yet these “professionals” should remember that Americans have a limited tolerance for aristocrats, and they are beginning to skate on the thin ice of class: they are becoming an entrenched moneyed aristocracy.

If you question my assumption about Americans’ limited tolerance for self-inflated moneyed folks, I ask you to take the Gilligan’s Island test.  Which character or characters on Gilligan’s Island do you least trust: Gilligan, the skipper, the millionaire and his wife, the movie star, the professor or Mary Ann?   (Hint: notice that there is only one character not looking at you.)

AP/photo Boston.com

I kid you not.  The editors at Newsweek have presented us with one of the most biting pieces of (indirect) commentary yet to appear in a major American periodical.  On the last page of this week’s Newsweek (November 2, 2009), Governor Mark Sanford’s wife is quoted as saying about his affair, “I know that I’m going to be fine, and not only will I survive, I’ll thrive”  (Jenny Sanford).   This quotation is found among statements from the spouses of several other unfaithful hubbies, all public figures.  Okay, pretty tacky.  But I am not here to complain about tackiness.

Six pages earlier in the magazine there is a two page piece by the Governor himself.  Title you ask?  “Atlas Hugged,”  which appears to be referring to Ayn Rand’s novel Atlas Shrugged, but is no doubt also talking about Sanford’s relationship to Rand. So now poor Jenny has to deal not only with the woman in Argentina but Ayn Rand, a serious swinger in her day.  Could Sanford have been responsible for this title?  Did he know that Jenny’s words would appear just pages after his?  Did he care?  Can this man handle not having his fifteen minutes of fame endlessly loop around the air waves?  The mind boggles.  But the piece does sing the praises of the true individual.

Ah, the piece.  It is about how this is a good time for an Ayn Rand revival.  And yes, while Sanford does have some reservations these days about Rand, he was once a true believer, and he still appears smitten.  There are some wonderful passages in the Newsweek article.  Take this one from Sanford’s pen on Roark, the hero of Rand’s book.

The Fountainhead is a stunning evocation of the individual and what he can achieve when unhindered by government or society. Howard Roark is an architect who cares nothing about the world’s approval; his only concerns are his integrity and the perfection of his designs….

[Let's just stop here for a moment.  Did Sanford really say, "his only concerns are his integrity and the perfection of his designs."  Freud is always out smoking a cigar when you need him.]

Near the end of the book, Roark is on trial for demolishing a building he had designed—he had insisted it be built exactly as drawn, but when some bureaucrats alter the structure, Roark feels he has no choice but to dynamite it. Representing himself, Roark pleads, in characteristically Randian terms: “I do not recognize anyone’s right to one minute of my life. Nor to any part of my energy. Nor to any achievement of mine. No matter who makes the claim, how large their number or how great their need … I recognize no obligations toward men except one: to respect their freedom and to take no part in a slave society.” Cold though they sound, these words contain two basic truths. First, an individual can achieve great things without governmental benevolence, and second, one man has no right to another’s achievement. These are lessons we should all remember today, when each week is seemingly marked by another government program designed to fix society. [Emphasis added.]

“Cold though they sound?”  No, Mark, not cold.  The man was willing to blow up a building because he didn’t like the way that his plans, his designs, were executed.  (Some might suggest that this smacks a bit of terrorism, no?  I don’t like what you have done to my work.  Okay, I’ll blow up a building.)  Think about all of those folks who worked on the building.  All of their work is for naught, because Roark has not gotten the building that he designed.  Narcissism you say?  Narcissism being supported by the good Governor of South Carolina?

I think at a fundamental level many people recognize Rand’s essential truth—government doesn’t know best. Those in power in Washington—or indeed in Columbia, S.C.—often lead themselves to believe that our prosperity depends on their wisdom. It doesn’t. The prosperity and opportunity we enjoy comes ultimately from the creative energies of the country’s businessmen, entrepreneurs, investors, marketers, and inventors. The longer it takes this country to reawaken to this reality, the worse we—and in turn, our children’s standard of living—will be.

Well, this is certainly the case in S.C. with the old governor disappearing for days on end.  Hiking that trail.  But on a more serious note, notice that Sanford doesn’t mention in his list of prosperity creators: workers, teachers, scientists, etc.   Whatever reservations Sanford may have about Rand–she “doesn’t include the human needs we have for grace, love, faith, or any form of social compact”–I would say that he is still in love, in love with a narcissistic ideal of what it means to be a good human being or a good productive citizen.  It is as if the choice were between golden knights on corporate horseback (just what we need right now) and demons clothed in government garb.  If only life were this black and white.  If only all the good guys were those involved in the private sphere and the corrupt (or soon to be corrupt) were allied with the government.  What sophomoric pablum.   Soap opera is more nuanced.  I say, if the right thinks that it is time to bring back Ayn Rand, more power to them.  There are few political thinkers, and I am being generous here in calling her a political thinker–as Sanford points out, “William F. Buckley called objectivism ’stillborn’ in a column he wrote when she died”–who are less relevant to the world that we face.  It’s clear that we are going to need to stand together if we don’t want to fall apart.  And this doesn’t mean collectivism.  It means responsible citizenship.  We are citizens, after all, and not just Roarks.

I am prepared to admit that my sense of humor can be as sick and dark as the next guy.  But I was not prepared for the front page of Sunday’s New York Times.

Splashed across most of the top of the front page was this photo, with this headline:

A Place Where Cancer Is the Norm

The article was about about M.D. Anderson hospital in Houston.

As I recall, there was recently much press over the fortieth anniversary of the Beatles’ iconic Abby Road photo:

So, here is my conclusion: there are people at the New York Times with a pretty sick sense of humor (no pun intended) or this is one of the most brilliant pieces of political commentary that we have seen in years.  The Times is really making a statement about the health care system in the U.S., comparing it to the British system which manages to produce healthy and beloved artists, while we have people walking around in the Texas sun with I.V’s and pink sandals.

Perhaps there is a third option: incompetence.

If you think that the insurance industry can be trusted to police itself without a public option and new federal regulations, just check out the clip below.  It would be nice to believe that this is just an isolated incident, but we have all heard too many stories about companies cutting coverage when coverage cuts into their profits.

(Photo: Donald Stout/The Times-Picayune)

Senator Mary Landrieu, Democrat of Louisiana, doesn’t believe that we need a public option to help hold insurance companies in check.  Here is her web site: Senator Mary Landrieu. Please send her a message.

I know.  You can’t, won’t, don’t believe it.   You just know that the Democrats are going to let an opportunity of the century slip through their collective fingers.  Fear not.  This time they have a secret weapon.  The Republican Party.

Far be it from me to defend the two party system, but it does have its virtues.  One of its virtues is that its vices–patronage, the seniority system, pork, and assorted perks, etc.–can actually work to help unify a party when the stakes are especially high.  And the stakes are extremely high in the case of health care.  The Republicans are unified against it.  (Olympia Snowe is the outlier who proves the point.)  The Democrats must unify against their unified adversaries to remain the dominant party.  Self-interest, in all likelihood, will win the day this time around, although unity will require some intense horse trading between Democrats.

The unity of the Republicans is not accidental.  It has two basic grounds: ideological and  tactical.   On the ideological front, as divided as Republicans are over how far to carry the culture wars, the party remains committed, more so than ever, to the notion that government is fundamentally a threat to individual freedom.  Various wings of the party still define freedom in negative terms, that is, individuals should be allowed to satisfy their own preferences, primarily through the market, without government interference.  It’s not the government’s place to help protect and nurture individual growth and development.  This is a private matter.  (There are, of course, exceptions, for example, prayer in classroom.)  On the tactical front, the Republicans have little choice but to continue to appeal to an increasingly strident anti-government base, because they cannot afford to lose it.  The vast majority of Republicans in Congress could not survive if the base were to desert them in even modest numbers.  They must remain united for the foreseeable future as the anti-government party if they aren’t to disappear.  And the best way to do this is to select causes or issues and rally around them.

Turning to health care:  it’s clear to most Americans that the market is not working.  It cannot satisfy individual preferences, or even when it does, there is a legitimate fear that it will not continue to do so.  (Everyone has heard of someone who was denied coverage arbitrarily by a health insurance company.)  Individual preferences simply cannot hold out against the power of the insurance industry.  The industry has itself become a quasi-tyrannical government, deciding on who lives or dies, and it does so often based on its bottom line.  There is a palpable sense of vulnerability in the land, and for most Americans it’s not being caused by the government.

Enter the Democrats.  Since the 1930’s they have been more committed than Republicans to the notion that the government has a role to play in the self-development of individuals.  Self-determination requires not only a society in which tyranny is absent (the right’s position), but one in which the government helps nurture the well-being and education of its citizens.  And the government must at times defend citizens against corporate forces that the little guy simply cannot fight.  The Democrats are positioned to be on the winning side of the health care debate.

“But wait,” you say, “this is not a matter of which party has the majority of Americans behind it.  It’s a matter of lobbyists, and they have bought not only the Republicans but many Democrats.  These Democrats will continue to cater to the health insurance industry.”  Here is where the party system will come into play.  There is a point at which the self-interest of members of the Democratic Party will shift from the bucks that they have gotten from the lobbyists to the necessity of preserving party unity.  Why should this be true now when it hasn’t been in the past?  The stakes are simply higher and things have moved along too far.  For a Democrat to be responsible for the defeat of significant health care legislation at this stage would not only gravely injure the party, it would open the door to retribution from other party members in terms of patronage, pork, etc.

The Democrats who are indebted to the insurance industry will hold out as long as they can to cut the best deal they can for their clients.  And there indeed are some Democrats who are ideologically closer to the Republicans and would prefer less government involvement.  But unless they plan to change parties, at some point, push will come to shove.  The Democrats will have to fall in line.  They will have to unite. (For example, Democratic Senators would have to vote to support a Republican filibuster in the Senate in order to hold up health care reform.  Politicians, however, don’t vote with the opposition party to support its filibusters.  Could this happen with Lieberman?  Yes.  Likely?  No, unless he decides to become a Republican.)

Will the reform be substantial?  It will not satisfy those who want national health care insurance.  Yet it will have to be substantial enough to start cutting costs, cover most of those who do not have insurance, and gut the power of the insurance companies to decide who has  insurance.  To fail at these basics would seriously undermine the Democrats with their most vocal supporters, and it would run the risk of creating turmoil in the Democratic Party as politicians have to explain a weak plan after all of the hype.  There would be some serious finger pointing.  And the unified Republicans would be waiting in the wings to gobble up pockets of isolated Democrats.

Of course, predictions are dangerous.   However, if I were a betting man, I would bet on this one.  And so is Obama, a man who has always understood the place of self-interest in “community organizing.”

___________

The analysis in this piece draws on insights from J. David Greenstone’s The Lincoln Persuasion.  Greenstone was a professor of political science at the University of Chicago during the time that David Axelrod was an undergraduate political science major.  It seems that others in Obama’s circle were acquainted with Greenstone’s work, for example, Cass Sunstein.

Chicago lost a big one last week, the 2016 Olympics.  This week, one of its sons won a Nobel Prize.   Chicago has once again proven to be the city of big shoulders.

Some rejoiced last week when Chicago lost its bid, because it was seen as Obama’s failure.  Many of the same folks are criticizing his recent “win.”  The man can’t seem to please some people.

The criticisms, hours after the announcement, are already taking shape:  He didn’t deserve it.  It’s too early in his tenure as president.  It just goes to show that he is more concerned about the world than troubles at home, etc.

Let’s clear up a few misconceptions.  The Nobel Peace Prize has been awarded for various reasons.  There isn’t a single criterion.  Some individuals have won for helping to end a war (Theodore Roosevelt and Henry Kissinger), for humanitarian work and conflict resolution done over the years (Jimmy Carter), for seeking to improve international relations by supporting an international organization (Woodrow Wilson).  It can also be given to the individual who has done the most in the past year to bring about world peace.  The latter is the reason cited by the chair of the Nobel Committee, and former prime minister of Norway, Thorbjorn Jagland,  for honoring Obama.  The New York Times reports:

“The question we have to ask is who has done the most in the previous year to enhance peace in the world,” Mr. Jagland said. “And who has done more than Barack Obama?”

He compared the selection of Mr. Obama with the award in 1971 to the then West German Chancellor Willy Brandt for his “Ostpolitik” policy of reconciliation with communist eastern Europe.

“Brandt hadn’t achieved much when he got the prize, but a process had started that ended with the fall of the Berlin Wall,” Mr. Jagland said. “We have to get the world on the right track again,” he said. Without referring specifically to the Bush era, he continued: “Look at the level of confrontation we had just a few years ago. Now we get a man who is not only willing but probably able to open dialogue and strengthen international institutions.”

But wouldn’t you know it.  Instead of experiencing some pride in the fact that a sitting American president has won the Nobel Peace Prize, which certainly sends a positive message to the world, like the conservatives who rejoiced at Chicago losing the Olympics, Republicans can’t wait to criticize the man for winning a prize he wasn’t even seeking.  Listen to Michael Steel, chairman of the Republican Party.  (From The New York Times , Oct. 9, 2009)

Even before Mr. Obama appeared in the Rose Garden to discuss the award, he was facing criticism from the chairman of the Republican National Committee, Michael Steele.

“The real question Americans are asking is, ‘What has President Obama actually accomplished?’ It is unfortunate that the president’s star power has outshined tireless advocates who have made real achievements working towards peace and human rights,” Mr. Steele said in a statement. “One thing is certain — President Obama won’t be receiving any awards from Americans for job creation, fiscal responsibility, or backing up rhetoric with concrete action.”

This is cheap and mean spirited.  Its concern with scoring domestic political points is on a par with those who thought embarrassing Obama over the Olympics was worth more than the benefits of an Olympics to Chicago and America.

Obama won the prize in part because he is a genuine cosmopolitan, in the best sense of the term.  His politics look to the world stage and America’s place on it, not behind or above it.  But it appears that many Americans simply don’t realize the extent to which his words during the election and his approach to international relations–one which emphasizes the idea of respect–have transformed perceptions of America.  (Perhaps America might really be interested in decreasing violence around the world, in decreasing nuclear weapons, etc.)

Leading America, the most powerful nation on Earth, out of the moral and political myopia of the last eight years is surely worth a Nobel Prize.  In this regard, who has done more for world peace this past year than Barack Obama?

If you want to get some idea of just how lost some of the folks on the right are these days, catch this from Red State:

Posted by Erick Erickson (Profile)
Friday, October 2nd at 11:29AM EDT

Hahahahaha.
I thought the world would love us more now that Bush was gone.
I thought if we whored ourselves out to our enemies, great things would happen.
Apparently not.
So Obama’s pimped us to every two bit thug and dictator in the world, made promises to half the Olympic committee, and they did not even kiss him.
So much for improving America’s standing in the world, Barry O.
Maybe now perhaps we can hope he will mature a bit on the issues of foreign affairs. But I doubt it.
BTW, Dear Barack Obama, you are no Billy Mays.

Let’s leave aside the fact that a major American city lost a bid today for the Olympics, which would have meant jobs and publicity for the Windy City.  Let’s leave aside the disgusting comment about “pimping.”  Let’s concentrate on the line, “So much for improving America’s Standing in the World.”   What does this claim amount to?  If we don’t win every time, then we shouldn’t bother talking to other nations and peoples, or placing ourselves on the world stage (unless we are #1).   This is what one would expect from those who don’t understand that “improving our image” involves a willingness to engage, and engagement doesn’t always mean winning.  It means “losing” at times.   (Should our athletes not participate in the Olympics because they might lose?)  This is how decent peoples and countries behave.   And in the long run, it builds respect and allies, as opposed to vassal sates.

Erickson and many of his fellow (right-wing) conservatives are like the whiny kids in the school yards who take their marbles home when they can’t get their way.  And then decide to stay home because they might lose.  And cheer (from home) when others lose.

Obama took a chance.  He didn’t succeed.  Good for him.   Meanwhile, you guys on the right, keep up your good work mocking the president for trying to bring the Olympics to the U.S.   We know what you really care about:  bringing Obama down, even if we lose because of it.  But I am betting that the American people can tell the difference between self-destructive xenophobia and patriotism.

The piece below was written long before we knew the outcome of the presidential election.  The fear that I expressed in the last line proved unfounded.  And it did so in large measure because of legislation that Ted Kennedy helped enact during his years in the Senate, which helped make us a more tolerant people.

….

“The President, the Senator, and the Candidate”

(May 21, 2008)  Today, as the severity of Senator Kennedy’s condition became more apparent, I found myself, once again, back in seventh grade. I am in a large hall, waiting in line. I am not sure what the line is for, and for some reason the line can’t seem to form properly. We seem to be waiting to go into an auditorium. Words are migrating from student to student. It is November 22nd, 1963. The President has been shot. Next to me stands a sweet looking young girl. Shoulder length dirty blond hair. Delicate features. And she says, “I hope that he dies.” This was the President who had taken us through the Cuban Missile Crisis, who spoke of civil rights, and who had two young children. And she wanted him dead. Her hatred was palpable and irrational. In retrospect, given the times, I have always wondered whether her enmity was due to the fact that he was a Catholic, and one who supported civil rights.

At 12 years old, I couldn’t fathom what I was hearing. I was struck dumb. I simply couldn’t respond. I just stared at her and turned away. Now, of course, I know that it was not her wish, but her parents’ or some relative’s wish. But over the years this fact has only intensified the shock. Everyone says that they remember where they were when they heard that Kennedy was shot. I remember. But I also recall a young girl who believed that she wanted to see him dead.

Before I became fully aware of the deep divisions in the country over civil rights, Vietnam, or “values,” I knew that if this young president could create such hostility, something was terribly wrong. And so it was. I suppose that this was my introduction to the 1960’s. Every now and again this scene reappears. Sometimes it arises for no apparent reason. Sometimes it arises at appropriate moments, like today, when we have learned that Senator Kennedy is gravely ill.

I have disagreed with the Kennedys. But I remember supporting Bobby. And of course I remember him being shot. I also remember Teddy trying so very hard, over four long decades, to do the right thing (as he saw it) for the underprivileged and marginalized. I recently cheered as The Lion of the Senate passed the torch to Obama. He was aging. Now that he had found someone he trusted to carry on the Kennedy legacy, there was an arc from 1963 to 2008, an arc that the last eight years of Bush, Rove, Cheney, et al, seemed to have made impossible. But as I have watched the returns from certain states, such as Kentucky this evening, I return to that space in 1963, and I am afraid. I fear for Senator Obama.  And I fear that as a nation we will fail to do the right thing because we are still too afraid of those who are “not like us.”