It's a name that reminds Americans of one of the most notorious despots we've had to deal with in modern American History:
A man who fits the stereotype of Middle Eastern despots in the minds of Americans on both sides of our political divide... whether it be over the strategic alliances between the soviets and/or the west against other threats, a pawn in Cold War strategies, the brutal authoritarian regime he oversaw, the brutal crackdowns on ethnic and religious sects that threatened his rule, the militant appearance he maintained as the head of state, and his exploitation of Islam to solidify his rule and help pad his cult of personality.
His name instantly evokes disgust on various levels among the voting public.
But his name is not uncommon. The King of Jordan shares the name and is a strategic ally of the United States, as do many throughout the Muslim and Arab worlds. Even right here in the United States there are many people who retained the name from their family heritage or as immigrants form regions where the name is still fairly common.
Locally, with our diverse University community, many students may have had a course or class where the professor or teaching assistant or possibly a fellow student had the same name.
Now we have a presidential candidate who has this name as his middle name. His name is reflective of his ancestry and relatives who share roots in areas of the world where Islam is prominent and Arab influence from the spread of that religion is still highly visible within the culture.
Now some on both sides of the political divide have found it convenient to exploit that middle name especially and his ancestry in general to promote all sorts of conspiracy theories of his true allegiances that have just been merely overlooked by the mainstream media. Everything from "Manchurian Candidate" hysteria to either Islamic or Arab ideologies unpopular with American culture or to more subtle hinting that he views the United States with general disdain because of those roots and will work to undermine our interests where conflicts may exist with his heritage.
While such tactics have primarily been the tactic of the right-wing of American political spectrum it was also clearly present in many of the Democratic primary battles as well. Most notoriously in West Virginia that solidly rests within the Appalachian areas of our nation that seem to still cling to some of the worst isolated cultural backwards thinking that makes the South, generally ridiculed for similar offenses against modern culture, look better in comparison. The Daily Show skit offered a snapshot of some of these impressions:
Lately I've noticed a resurgence of the use of his middle name that, while innocuous according to those that do so, seems to put them in league with the obviously ignorant and xenophobic idiot that proclaimed "I've had enough of Hussein."
On this issue, unlike most, I'm strongly on the side of the Obama supporters crying foul and complaining about "distractions" from the issues that should matter.
While I strongly doubt that if the Republican candidate had an easily manipulated name that the left would drop it and move on... many seem to tolerate the "Bushitler" nonsense about as easily as the right seems to tolerate the "Hitllary" and variation for Hillary Clinton. Such idiocy is hard to take as racism or xenophobia as much as lampooning a candidate they feel has fascist traits... either on civil rights abuses or nanny-statist views. In the case of Obama such idiocy is not so neutral on the issue of religious and ethnic matters. It will only serve to associate them, rightly or wrongly, with the people who actually have a prejudice against Islam, Arabs, or blacks.
Whether they have a legitimate argument over political correctness or not is irrelevant as their position is a lose-lose situation. First, because it is irrelevant to the issues and policy positions that are relevant... and secondly because it creates an association between them and those with prejudice. There's no reasonable reason to make it an issue as there is little reasonable reason to reduce oneself to calling Bush, "Bushitler," or Hillary, "Hitllary," other than juvenile schoolyard taunts.
Obama is someone I disagree with strongly on policy and someone who I strongly doubt on his claims of opposing divisive ideology considering his long standing associations... but his name is pretty irrelevant beyond "branding" that has become such an important part of American politics. People who try to exploit that are essentially kowtowing to the worst of our society in order to win an election, and that's pretty disgusting no matter how much one wants to claim two wrongs make a right.
If you don't want to be associated with the racist and prejudiced nimrods that flock to such childish reasoning when they go the ballot booth... stop using their arguments. There are plenty of political and ideological viewpoints that make either candidate untenable in the voting booth without having to resort to schoolyard taunts over a name. The McSame, McInsane, etc crap falls into a similar category but such crap isn't going to get them associated with racists or other repugnant groups... though may speak to their mentality in a negative way. No matter how unfair you think reality is, it doesn't justify joining them nor does it get you off the hook with the mentality you're associating yourselves with in the realm of public opinion.
Disagree if you want, but I hope you realize your position is pretty damn indefensible no matter what, and about the best you can expect from such behavior is winning because you riled up the racists and/or prejudiced idiots or losing because you are viewed as one of them.
Lose-lose.
