Two Observations

First, a brief caveat: I've always tried very hard to be non-partisan in terms of party politics. I've spoken often about issues, but rarely, if ever, about parties. Just to put it in English terms (which is probably safer), in my congregation in Newcastle we had members who were lifelong supporters of all three major political parties. I was very careful never to take sides. Usually, we agreed about the issues, though we would sometimes disagree about how those issues ought to be faced.

I've tried, in the United States, to keep the same position. Apart from anything else, I don't think that, as a guest enjoying the benefits of American democracy, I need to be telling my hosts how to run their country. Nevertheless, and without being partisan, I want to make a couple of observations about the recent elections.


First, I still find it amazing that the election seems to be dominated by the media. Last night, the pundits waited until five seconds after the polls had closed in the West to declare that the electoral votes would be going to Barack Obama, and that, therefore, they could declare him to be the next President of the United States. This is just odd. Presumably, their numbers are taken from exit polls, because there is no way for votes to have been counted so quickly. This, to me, seems to diminish democracy. It certainly doesn't aid it. In another example, we watched as races were announced as being won or lost in Colorado (where we happened to be at the time) when as little as 15% of the precincts had reported their results. I know that people are anxious to know who has won, but wouldn't it be better to wait until every vote has been counted? The television pundits have no business declaring that candidate X has won. Surely that's the responsibility of the electoral authorities.


Second, I found it odd last night that the pundits kept telling us that race had nothing to do with the presidential election. Even a conservative commentator said that this election proves that voters are not particularly interested in the pigmentation of a person's skin. And yet, at the same time, the networks were waxing lyrical about how this was an historic night because an African-American had been elected to the highest office. You can't have it both ways. It seems obvious to me that race certainly did have an effect on the election. The percentage of African-Americans voting for Obama was huge, and seemed to be based far more on the color of his skin than on the content of his policies. In one interview, for a Denver station, some jubilant African-American kids were asked why they had voted for Obama. Most of them replied, instantly, "Because he's a brother, man!" Which raises an interesting point: if it is racist not to vote for someone because of the color of his skin, isn't it equally repugnant to vote for someone because of the color of his skin? It made me wonder, also, whether some white Americans were voting for him out of some kind of collective guilt for the horrors of slavery. Whatever the motivation, it's simply not true to say that race played no part.

Obama's problem now, of course, is that the expectations have been raised so high, he is unlikely to be able to meet everyone's hopes. The economy still is in dire straights, health care still needs to be fixed, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan cannot be solved by waving a magic wand. Will he regret his decision to stand? Will his election turn out to be just as polarizing as was that of his predecessor. Over 44 million Americans did not vote for Obama. Just over 48 million did. The next four years should be interesting. He needs our prayers.