Racial Gulf Widens as Presidential Campaign Gets More and More Negative

In the southwestern Missouri town of West Plains, Missouri being one of the key "swing states" in Election 2008, there is a billboard on U.S. Highway 63 that is drawing a load of negative publicity for the town. No one so far has had the nerve to take responsibility for the inaccurate and scurrilous camapign ad slamming Barack Obama.

The billboard makes false claims about Barack Obama's stance on gay marriage and the rest is mostly pure speculation about Obama's position on other divisive social issues. Much like the GOP flyers mailed in West Virginia and a few other states in 2004 claiming the Democrats wanted to "ban the Bible" and ads that same year showing same sex couples kissing, Presidential elections bring out the worst in many Americans who seem to be willing to say anything to help get their guy elected President.

Most conservatives love to decry "situation ethics" and an "end justifies the means" mentality. My question is: are such tactics as the same sex flyers and this billboard not the perfect example of situation ethics and the Machiavellian "win at all costs" attitude when it comes to politics?

On the billboard is the highly dubious claim that the election of Barack HUSSEIN Obama will lead to more abortions. Similar claims were made in the 1992 election, yet statistics from a pro-life organization show that in the administration of Bill Clinton, the number of abortions went down from that of the supposedly "pro-life" George H. W. Bush.

After the 2004 campaign of George W. Bush beat the drum incessantly for a constitutional amendment against gay marriage, upon returning to Washington for a 2nd term, Bush dropped the issue like a hot potato to take on his attempt to privatize social security.

Bush and Karl Rove played christian conservatives just to get their votes, which were an absolute necessity in order for Bush to be re-elected. Funny how the issue has never been brought up since the 2004 election, isn't it?

Now, after a career of deploring such tactics and slamming the so-called christian right leaders such as Jerry falwell and James Dobson as "agents of intolerance", the campaign of the "maverick" John McCain is employing the same sort of tactics. While McCain may not have directed such ads, John McCain has been tepid in criticizing mob-like attitudes in his campaign rallies recently. McCain has remained silent with hooligans yelling "traitor", "terrorist" and other such insults when Barack Obama's name is mentioned. As they say, "silence is complicity".

I recently witnessed a couple of patrons at a barber shop snickering over an image of Barack Obama and a chimpanzee on one man's camera phone. "See the resemblance?" said the caption. As the election draws nearer, the nastier it gets with some of the insults possibly being racial code words. The billboard in Missouri, a state which almost always votes for the winner in Presidential elections, also has Obama in a turban as attempts to convince enough voters that Obama is a muslim intensify.

In the Democratic primaries, there was a flap over a picture of Obama in a turban which, in my opinion, the GOP smear artists released and tried to blame the Clintons for. Kill two birds with one stone, you see. They could smear Obama as a muslim and the Clintons as supposed racists in one fell swoop.

If the racial rhetoric and the tone of this campaign do not improve, if John McCain does not distance himself from the catcalls and smears, if this election is close, a lawsuit will probably ensue to decide the result with much bitterness by the losing side. Remember the GOP in 2000 calling the Democrats "crybabies" and "sore losers?". Now, John McCain's camp is saber-rattling about contesting the result if their man loses. The McCain people will claim voter fraud and blame ACORN.

This campaign could be a racial powderkeg. In such volatile times, leaders on both sides need to try something revolutionary. Run on the issues that confront Americans and forget personal insults and race-baiting, if that's what it really is. If it's not race-baiting, it's still divisive, despicable and will lead to more turmoil in a nation troubled by a financial crisis with no government bailouts unless you're a corporate bigwig.

I know talking or writing about these issues leads to charges of "class warfare". However, the same people who make that accusation about anyone who doesn't favor trickle down economics are usually the same ones who openly call for "culture war" in our country. Irony, anyone?