This is what Senator Obama said last week in his now infamous "bitter" comment (from CNN):
"When I go around and I talk to people, there is frustration, and there is anger, and there is bitterness," Obama began. "I want to make a point here."
"[Pennsylvanians are] frustrated and for good reason, because for the last twenty-five years they've seen jobs shipped overseas, they've seen their economies collapse...."
"So...they don't vote on economic issues because they don't expect anybody's going to help them..." Obama said, adding that they end up voting on issues that include gun rights, gay marriage, and faith.
--CNN's Political Ticker
It is for this comment that Senator Obama is being branded an "elitist" by both the Clinton and McCain camps. "Elite," as defined by the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, is "the choice part; a superior group." "Elitism," as defined by the same dictionary, is "leadership or rule by an elite; advocacy of such elitism."
I propose that we do an activity that in this era is well outside of the mainstream (which I suppose one could use to suggest that this posting is a product of "elitism"...), that activity being to actually look at what Senator Obama said in order to determine, in a cool and unemotional manner, whether what he said was or was not a product of "elitist" thought.
What he said is that certain areas of the United States that once featured fairly well-paying jobs (whether or not those areas were thriving or simply getting by as best as they could) have seen those jobs slip away, sometimes to elsewhere in the country, sometimes overseas, and sometimes in such a manner that they are not replaced anywhere. Portions of states such as Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania have been hit particularly hard because a lot of those lost jobs were in the manufacturing sector (hence the term "rustbelt" to describe the withering manufacturing industries in these and nearby states).
Thus, people in these areas have become more and more desperate to either hold on to their existing jobs or, increasingly, to find work of any sort once their jobs evaporate and they have little or no source of income. When they see that their pleas for help, either in rebuilding existing industries or in replacing them with more modern sources of income, fall on deaf ears decade after decade, their desperation eventually devolves into bitterness; they feel as though there is nothing to be done because industry leaders and politicians, and the like, are either powerless to do anything about this scenario or, just as bad (and perhaps worse), they don't care to do anything to help these people.
Hence, these hard-working but desperate folks, fighting a rising inner tide of bitterness, turn to other forms of belief that they feel are less transient, such as the right to bear arms, the necessity to sustain the traditional definition of marriage, and their religious faith. Eventually, some people get caught up in these and related paradigms in a manner that allows for little else in the way of political thought and discourse, and they therefore do not vote in what is ostensibly their economic interest because they don't think it will do any good. Instead, they vote based on the sycophantic pandering regarding these borderline-obsessive paradigms that is done by certain politicians. The result is a divisive sort of politics that only further isolates these people from people in other areas of the country and the world, which in turn only perpetuates the economic and cultural disparities; instead of being brought together in certain ways to deal with these problems, we find ourselves erecting more barriers, physical or (especially) emotional and intellectual.
It doesn't come across exactly like this (it's based more on insinuation), but the rather unethical political response is along the lines of: "Does your area need to redevelop economically? It's not going to happen, and everyone knows it. But if you vote for me I'll never take your guns away, and if you elect me I'll never allow gays to get married, and to hell with anyone who isn't a devout Christian...." And so forth. It's a pathetic form of sloganeering designed to highlight certain pseudo-"truths" that can be "sustained" when in other aspects of life often seem unsustainable.
Now we can fake as though this doesn't happen, but the evidence suggests otherwise, and I'm glad to see that there has been a relatively sustained backlash against the initial backlash regarding Senator Obama's comments. On CNN's political ticker (and, in some cases, on television), for instance, many people from states such as Pennsylvania have suggested, rightly, that his comments represent the difficult truth rather than "elitist" thought, and many of them also suggested, again rightly, that only when such truths are confronted can we coalesce a bit more in order to work together to find solutions to this problem.
So this brings us back to the word "elite." The astounding thing regarding the response by the Clinton and McCain camps (and, I'm sad to report, particularly the response by the Clinton camp) is that they suggest that Senator Obama is being "elitist," yet their so-called "evidence" for this is the fact that he is speaking truthfully and honestly regarding the economic, cultural, and political struggles that many blue-collar Americans are going through. This is to say that the Clinton camp in particular is calling Senator Obama an "elitist" because he is tackling head-on something that is perpetuating many of the difficulties that your average Joe and Josephine is going through, while Senator Clinton continues to fan the flames of cultural isolation by pandering to the negative emotions built up over time in these same people. She is far too smart to believe that her response will contribute positively to the situation, so she must be doing it for electoral purposes only, which is what makes her response so disappointing.
It's a strange, strange world indeed when someone is accused of being an "elitist" after spending so much time accurately describing the difficulties of blue-collar workers. But that's what happens, I suppose, when you tell the American people the truth in order to start the process of turning things around, rather than playing the "safe" game of divisive emotional politics. Far from coming across like an "elitist," after this past week Senator Obama is looking more like a man of the people.
Monday, April 14, 2008
Friday, April 11, 2008
"Hi Ho Hillary!...Away?" In (Moderate) Defense of Senator Clinton Staying in the Presidential Race, For Now
Hillary Clinton is not my favorite candidate for president in 2008. With three viable, very different yet highly qualified (as I see it) candidates still standing, Barack Obama, to my mind, might or might not be the strongest insofar as the upcoming general election is concerned, but he is perhaps the all-around best. Sure, Hillary Clinton is most likely the best top-down organizer of the three, and her intellect is not in question. Similarly, John McCain's road to his party's nomination is a compelling personal story of fortitude and wherewithal, both military and political in manner.
Yet Senator Obama is just as intelligent as Senator Clinton, and his personal character (which takes into account his personal and career trajectories, abused to rather unfair levels of late by some for comments made not by him but by one of his friends) holds up well, in very unique ways, even when placed alongside that of Senator McCain. Though he lacks the national legislative experience that Senators Clinton and McCain have, he wins decisively the battle of the "intangibles," which in him is a cross-pollination of strong rhetorical skills (to say the least), an uncanny ability to read the cultural mindset of younger voters (say, mid-thirties and younger), and a fascinating, almost-detached sort of inner strength and energy (it's as though he's already assumed the collected singular viewpoint of an avuncular sitting president).
In an election year in which anything can happen--and, yes, any one of these three remaining candidates could win the presidency, or, if the Democratic convention turns into a brokered brawl in Denver, someone else could "accidentally" win it all--one or more of these intangibles might intrigue enough people for him to sneak by with a victory in another tight general election.
But I'm rapidly tiring of hearing Democrats demanding that Senator Clinton should "get out of the race" in order to salvage the party's chances in November, which I increasingly consider a product of Political Attention Deficit Disorder brought on by a very modern disease--the need to be overstimulated nearly all the time, and the accompanying lack of any semblance of patience by the vast majority of people. (Let's face it, in our own ways, nearly all of us are guilty of this type of mindset.)
The race for the Democratic presidential nomination ought not fall victim to these types of mass proclivities, particularly when the party's two remaining candidates are as strong as these two are, and so is the man waiting to face one of them. Let's face it, setting all of the far-right-wing complaining about the Republican nominee presumptive to the side for a moment, Senator McCain is a strong candidate, particularly for 2008, since Republicans are still in many ways radioactive at present. (This suggests that the far-right complaining might very well be a good sign for Senator McCain.) He is a conservative, but he's also very much a maverick; he's long-since kissed and made up with President Bush--and he's a fan of the president's current Iraq strategy--but that hasn't stopped him from standing against a number of Bush-led initiatives over the past several years, and it doesn't seem to diminish his personal charm with independent voters on the campaign trail. Who else but Senator McCain gets a big, warm smile from the person he just called "that guy back there, the one in the dorky hat," which happened while he was addressing independent-minded New Hampshire-ites in December and has continued to occur in numerous ways since then? If Democrats are not careful, Senator McCain could very well win the general election in November, even though presidential election history suggests otherwise.
Yet now many would have us believe that "being careful" means that Senator Clinton should suspend her presidential campaign in order to immediately let Democrats coalesce around Senator Obama. Why? What earthly reason would suggest that this is a good move, other than a concern that the Democratic party is weaker at the national level than we initially thought, and therefore needs to cut its losses now and go ahead and make a deal that would allow Senator Obama to be the nominee a month or two or three before he might otherwise win the nomination in his own right (a deal that would probably include making Senator Clinton the Senate Majority Leader sometime after November's elections, which could happen in any case)? This kind of thinking smacks of desperate deal making; it might actually divide supporters of the two candidates--and therefore splinter the party in a more subtle and damaging manner than if we came to the end of the primary/caucus process (in early June), analyzed where we are, and go from there (which at that point might include a deal)--due to a solid percentage of Clinton supporters openly wondering what "might have happened" if the process would have played-out more fully.
There are two other reasons why Senator Clinton ought not give in to the increasingly popular sentiment to concede just yet. The first is that she is actually helping to strengthen Senator Obama's campaigning and debating skills. A half year ago, Senator Obama came across as a bit academically nebulous and emotionally obtuse in Democratic debates, which might have played just fine with the highly educated crowd, but was far from a hit with the more blue collar Democratic crowd. Now he's firing on more (if not yet all) cylinders; he's more specific in his points and he's communicating a more natural connection to "Average Joe and Josephine" voters. Still, he continues to struggle with closing out his arguments in a stirring manner (something he certainly does not struggle with when giving stump speeches), and he sometimes puts too fine a point on the minutae of policy (which I often like, but many others do not) at the expense of the overall picture. If he stays focused on fighting the type of precise policy debate sprinkled with subtle emotional hooks favored by Senator Clinton, he will continue to sharpen his debating skills, but if she leaves the race now the temptation in the Obama camp for such skills to go a bit flabby might set in without anyone really realizing it in the transition to the more sweeping early stages of general election campaigning.
The other reason for Senator Clinton to stay in the race is because she is likely to win some of the upcoming primary contests. Even though Senator Obama will most likely win in North Carolina, Oregon, Montana, and South Dakota, she is favored to win (according to recent national polls of various organizations) in Kentucky, West Virginia, and Pennsylvania (though polls are tightening in that latter state). She also stands a solid chance of winning in Indiana. Pennsylvania (April 22), Indiana (May 6), and West Virginia (May 13) all vote in the next month or so, and if she decides to concede after, say, the West Virginia contest, she can do so from a position of relative strength, having split recent contests with Senator Obama while still trailing in the delegate count. If she stays through May 20, she will most likely pick up another state, Kentucky, which is intriguing in that it is red-leaning in general elections but not necessarily a Republican lock. And recent polls suggest that she is leading in Puerto Rico (though it's early), which votes on June 1; if she stays in for that, she might as well stay in through the final contests in Montana and South Dakota, which take place just two days later.
Then there are the Michigan and Florida contests to get sorted out....
The point is that if Senator Clinton stays in for a while, the calls might get louder and louder for her to leave the race--which might create more initial anger inside of the party--but if she leaves in May or stays to the end of initial voting in early June and still trails Senator Obama in the delegate count, she can graciously concede the election, throw her support behind him, and things would turn around for the party in a hurry, just in time for the summer months. He may be a bit more "bloodied" at that point, but Senator Obama's campaign skills (which are great when it comes to large crowds, but a bit wobbly and inconsistent when it comes to small groups) will have sharpened. He'll be that much more ready for whatever trouble the McCain camp will want to send his way.
Of course, if she does unexpectedly well through early June, this could go to the convention, at which point the whole thing could turn into a disaster. Or one of the two candidates could say or do something ridiculous in the coming weeks, which could turn the nomination process topsy-turvy. But those are the risks that come with running for the presidency in this "crazy" election season (though I sincerely doubt that not knowing who one's candidate is going to be just yet would have given folks in past eras the levels of discomfort that the modern, media-drenched rapid-fire campaign process we're presently subject to would have, seeing as nomination contests used to go to the conventions, or at least further down the line towards them, more regularly).
One way or the other, though to many it might seem like a strategically sound idea now, I'm not convinced that it would help down the line for Senator Clinton to concede just yet. This race is so tightly-contested in major battleground states that it might be a good idea to see things through to June 3, and then have the two camps come together to decide who has "won"--which by many measures will probably be Senator Obama--given that we will still be nearly three months from the Democratic convention. If that's the case, people may be surprised how gracious Hillary can be, particularly if her political future is at stake.
Patience, people.
Yet Senator Obama is just as intelligent as Senator Clinton, and his personal character (which takes into account his personal and career trajectories, abused to rather unfair levels of late by some for comments made not by him but by one of his friends) holds up well, in very unique ways, even when placed alongside that of Senator McCain. Though he lacks the national legislative experience that Senators Clinton and McCain have, he wins decisively the battle of the "intangibles," which in him is a cross-pollination of strong rhetorical skills (to say the least), an uncanny ability to read the cultural mindset of younger voters (say, mid-thirties and younger), and a fascinating, almost-detached sort of inner strength and energy (it's as though he's already assumed the collected singular viewpoint of an avuncular sitting president).
In an election year in which anything can happen--and, yes, any one of these three remaining candidates could win the presidency, or, if the Democratic convention turns into a brokered brawl in Denver, someone else could "accidentally" win it all--one or more of these intangibles might intrigue enough people for him to sneak by with a victory in another tight general election.
But I'm rapidly tiring of hearing Democrats demanding that Senator Clinton should "get out of the race" in order to salvage the party's chances in November, which I increasingly consider a product of Political Attention Deficit Disorder brought on by a very modern disease--the need to be overstimulated nearly all the time, and the accompanying lack of any semblance of patience by the vast majority of people. (Let's face it, in our own ways, nearly all of us are guilty of this type of mindset.)
The race for the Democratic presidential nomination ought not fall victim to these types of mass proclivities, particularly when the party's two remaining candidates are as strong as these two are, and so is the man waiting to face one of them. Let's face it, setting all of the far-right-wing complaining about the Republican nominee presumptive to the side for a moment, Senator McCain is a strong candidate, particularly for 2008, since Republicans are still in many ways radioactive at present. (This suggests that the far-right complaining might very well be a good sign for Senator McCain.) He is a conservative, but he's also very much a maverick; he's long-since kissed and made up with President Bush--and he's a fan of the president's current Iraq strategy--but that hasn't stopped him from standing against a number of Bush-led initiatives over the past several years, and it doesn't seem to diminish his personal charm with independent voters on the campaign trail. Who else but Senator McCain gets a big, warm smile from the person he just called "that guy back there, the one in the dorky hat," which happened while he was addressing independent-minded New Hampshire-ites in December and has continued to occur in numerous ways since then? If Democrats are not careful, Senator McCain could very well win the general election in November, even though presidential election history suggests otherwise.
Yet now many would have us believe that "being careful" means that Senator Clinton should suspend her presidential campaign in order to immediately let Democrats coalesce around Senator Obama. Why? What earthly reason would suggest that this is a good move, other than a concern that the Democratic party is weaker at the national level than we initially thought, and therefore needs to cut its losses now and go ahead and make a deal that would allow Senator Obama to be the nominee a month or two or three before he might otherwise win the nomination in his own right (a deal that would probably include making Senator Clinton the Senate Majority Leader sometime after November's elections, which could happen in any case)? This kind of thinking smacks of desperate deal making; it might actually divide supporters of the two candidates--and therefore splinter the party in a more subtle and damaging manner than if we came to the end of the primary/caucus process (in early June), analyzed where we are, and go from there (which at that point might include a deal)--due to a solid percentage of Clinton supporters openly wondering what "might have happened" if the process would have played-out more fully.
There are two other reasons why Senator Clinton ought not give in to the increasingly popular sentiment to concede just yet. The first is that she is actually helping to strengthen Senator Obama's campaigning and debating skills. A half year ago, Senator Obama came across as a bit academically nebulous and emotionally obtuse in Democratic debates, which might have played just fine with the highly educated crowd, but was far from a hit with the more blue collar Democratic crowd. Now he's firing on more (if not yet all) cylinders; he's more specific in his points and he's communicating a more natural connection to "Average Joe and Josephine" voters. Still, he continues to struggle with closing out his arguments in a stirring manner (something he certainly does not struggle with when giving stump speeches), and he sometimes puts too fine a point on the minutae of policy (which I often like, but many others do not) at the expense of the overall picture. If he stays focused on fighting the type of precise policy debate sprinkled with subtle emotional hooks favored by Senator Clinton, he will continue to sharpen his debating skills, but if she leaves the race now the temptation in the Obama camp for such skills to go a bit flabby might set in without anyone really realizing it in the transition to the more sweeping early stages of general election campaigning.
The other reason for Senator Clinton to stay in the race is because she is likely to win some of the upcoming primary contests. Even though Senator Obama will most likely win in North Carolina, Oregon, Montana, and South Dakota, she is favored to win (according to recent national polls of various organizations) in Kentucky, West Virginia, and Pennsylvania (though polls are tightening in that latter state). She also stands a solid chance of winning in Indiana. Pennsylvania (April 22), Indiana (May 6), and West Virginia (May 13) all vote in the next month or so, and if she decides to concede after, say, the West Virginia contest, she can do so from a position of relative strength, having split recent contests with Senator Obama while still trailing in the delegate count. If she stays through May 20, she will most likely pick up another state, Kentucky, which is intriguing in that it is red-leaning in general elections but not necessarily a Republican lock. And recent polls suggest that she is leading in Puerto Rico (though it's early), which votes on June 1; if she stays in for that, she might as well stay in through the final contests in Montana and South Dakota, which take place just two days later.
Then there are the Michigan and Florida contests to get sorted out....
The point is that if Senator Clinton stays in for a while, the calls might get louder and louder for her to leave the race--which might create more initial anger inside of the party--but if she leaves in May or stays to the end of initial voting in early June and still trails Senator Obama in the delegate count, she can graciously concede the election, throw her support behind him, and things would turn around for the party in a hurry, just in time for the summer months. He may be a bit more "bloodied" at that point, but Senator Obama's campaign skills (which are great when it comes to large crowds, but a bit wobbly and inconsistent when it comes to small groups) will have sharpened. He'll be that much more ready for whatever trouble the McCain camp will want to send his way.
Of course, if she does unexpectedly well through early June, this could go to the convention, at which point the whole thing could turn into a disaster. Or one of the two candidates could say or do something ridiculous in the coming weeks, which could turn the nomination process topsy-turvy. But those are the risks that come with running for the presidency in this "crazy" election season (though I sincerely doubt that not knowing who one's candidate is going to be just yet would have given folks in past eras the levels of discomfort that the modern, media-drenched rapid-fire campaign process we're presently subject to would have, seeing as nomination contests used to go to the conventions, or at least further down the line towards them, more regularly).
One way or the other, though to many it might seem like a strategically sound idea now, I'm not convinced that it would help down the line for Senator Clinton to concede just yet. This race is so tightly-contested in major battleground states that it might be a good idea to see things through to June 3, and then have the two camps come together to decide who has "won"--which by many measures will probably be Senator Obama--given that we will still be nearly three months from the Democratic convention. If that's the case, people may be surprised how gracious Hillary can be, particularly if her political future is at stake.
Patience, people.
Thursday, April 10, 2008
Entering the Insanity: A Richardson-themed Presidential Foray
July of 2007 seems a lifetime ago, and, given the rapid-fire, shape-shifting nature of modern American presidential politics, in many ways it was. Yet, if you'll pardon the overused expression, it was at that time that I decided to dive, in my own somewhat verbose and often tangential way, into the choppy waters of the 2008 presidential race, which by that point was already about a half a year or more old.
The candidate I chose to support, New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson, like all but two of the eight-or-so serious Democratic contenders, got pulled out to sea by the Clinton/Obama undertow in January of this year, but not before placing a respectable fourth in the early Democratic races (behind Senators Obama, Clinton, and Edwards). This is not necessarily a horrible thing, as other fine candidates (particularly Senators Biden and Dodd) suffered the same fate, and it is anyway the case that the two remaining contenders for the Democratic nomination, Senators Clinton and Obama, are obviously very strong and qualified candidates, as well.
Anyway, it was in July of 2007 that I first sat down in order to begin the process of organizing the reasons why I thought Bill Richardson would be the best choice for Democratic voters in the various primaries and caucuses nationwide. What I produced is somewhat interesting in that it deals heavily with energy issues (particularly energy procurement, security, and use), and I'm not sure making that topic integral to my arguments was my initial intention--I may have had it in the back of my mind as a default unifying theme, but when I first looked at what I'd just written, it surprised me in that it seemed to be just about everywhere. Yet I'm glad it turned out that way, because energy concerns impact just about everything, whether domestic or foreign in policy nature, from global conflicts to transportation to the cost of goods and services to the cost of living in general.
The piece (I don't really know what else to call it, as it wasn't really "shaped" into anything after initially written) isn't perfect by a longshot. In fact, I'm not so certain it's even good--it reads far too much like a testimonial highlighting the saintly merits of some minor deity than it does a measured, thoughtful list of reasons why Governor Richardson should be the Democratic nominee for president in 2008. (In taking such a tone, I was obviously ignoring the realities of political existence, which do not allow for such consistently virtuous idealism; I knew this, but needed to get at this process in my own way, and then flesh-out the large issue of political realism later on.) But the piece does highlight where I began the process of finding my place to stand amongst the various candidates and their positions, and for that it is worthwhile.
I'm providing a chunk of it here, which should be just enough to give you an indication of where I still stand on a number of crucial issues (though my opinions have altered slightly on a few of the issues); you wouldn't want to read the full-length original version, parts of which sound like a mediocre after-dinner toast delivered by your good-natured but boring acountant neighbor....
WHY I SUPPORT GOVERNOR RICHARDSON FOR PRESIDENT
...We are respected in the sense that the values upon which the United States was established are still respected and admired by the vast majority of clear-thinking people in this world, wherever they may live. Our freedoms--personal, economic, and otherwise--are freedoms to which people around the globe aspire. Yet we are increasingly abhorred in that we have failed of late to marry our sense of optimism with a sense of historical reality and its implications on the present; we have failed of late to marry our sense of creativity and its accompanying power with a sense of the consequences of failing to apply that creativity and power in thoughtful, productive ways; we have failed of late to appreciate our freedoms through the necessary prisms of respect for all people who strive toward what we as Americans have, as well as the recognition that a little humility in the face of these great freedoms is necessary--along with the recognition of what price has been paid to keep them.
I support Bill Richardson for the Democratic nomination for president because Governor Richardson--with his vast experience in state, national, and international politics (as well as diplomacy), his ability to tackle challenges at these levels in pragmatic, intelligent, and innovative ways, and his willingness to put bold initiatives to the test, after first considering thoroughly their possible implications for our country and our world--is the best candidate to most quickly and accurately return the United States to its status as the most respected, energizing, intriguing, and pragmatic country in the world in the eyes of both increasingly disillusioned American citizens and increasingly (and alarmingly) skeptical people across the globe.
Governor Richardson has an eye-poppingly impressive professional resume', which includes (but is not limited to) several terms as a member of the U.S. House of Representatives, followed by substantial amounts of time as the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, the U.S. Secretary of Energy, and the Governor of New Mexico--all the while engaged in ongoing international diplomacy. He clearly has the tools and talent for the presidency. Does he, however, have the forward-thinking, engaging, inspiring ideas that a president elected in 2008 requires? Yes. His energy policy--surely one of the most important national policies, given that it affects both domestic and foreign affairs to an enormous extent--is by far the best of those put forward during this election cycle in that it challenges Americans to both reduce energy consumption where and when it is appropriate to do so, as well as work to produce alternate sources of energy to meet our considerable future needs in ways that are cleaner, safer, and more secure than ever before.
The percentages by which he wants to reduce greenhouse gasses as well as our dependence upon foreign sources of oil seem at first daunting, but when one reads the thinking behind them, and when one takes into account the notion that this challenge is akin to putting a man on the moon--something that America performed less than a decade after so many people thought that President Kennedy was setting an impossible timetable--one gets the sense that we can come together, as we have done before, to meet this challenge as we have met past challenges, and in doing so renew our innovative, industrious spirit, which is currently stuck in an outdated, fossil-fuel rut.
If we can achieve what Governor Richardson sets out for us to achieve in the realm of energy, which in many ways is at the heart of so much of the world's current strife, surely we can achieve the other necessary goals that the governor has set for us. These goals include moving quickly and unflaggingly toward a health care system that protects the quality of American healthcare while simultaneously extending it to all of our citizens (no small challenge, that...); extracting U.S. troops from unnecessary wars of choice, such as the war in Iraq, that distract everyone in this world from the real problem groups civilization faces, such as al-Qaeda in the more tribal regions of Afghanistan and Pakistan (as well as from the problems of ignorance, poverty, and alienation that help to radicalize entire populations to support such groups); and recognizing that so many problems, both of our own citizens and those of people around the world, stem from the unavailability of a well-rounded, quality education for each and every child that recognizes that good academic outcomes, far from being solely check-marks on a piece of paper, are the product of engaging and innovative academic processes, and for this to happen we must ensure that many of the best and brightest in our society are encouraged to be teachers and encouraged to actually teach--which means inspire and challenge students--as opposed to walk lock-step with the trendy, mediocre-standard-bearing, bureaucratic crowd currently muscling into schools.
These are daunting challenges indeed, and they will most certainly not be solved overnight. But of the current crop of Democratic candidates for president, all of whom are impressive in their own ways, Governor Richardson has the credibility and character, as well as the ideas and insight, to give us the best chance to meet these challenges and succeed. I, for one, say we should give him a chance, and in doing so we will be giving ourselves our best chance, too....
The candidate I chose to support, New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson, like all but two of the eight-or-so serious Democratic contenders, got pulled out to sea by the Clinton/Obama undertow in January of this year, but not before placing a respectable fourth in the early Democratic races (behind Senators Obama, Clinton, and Edwards). This is not necessarily a horrible thing, as other fine candidates (particularly Senators Biden and Dodd) suffered the same fate, and it is anyway the case that the two remaining contenders for the Democratic nomination, Senators Clinton and Obama, are obviously very strong and qualified candidates, as well.
Anyway, it was in July of 2007 that I first sat down in order to begin the process of organizing the reasons why I thought Bill Richardson would be the best choice for Democratic voters in the various primaries and caucuses nationwide. What I produced is somewhat interesting in that it deals heavily with energy issues (particularly energy procurement, security, and use), and I'm not sure making that topic integral to my arguments was my initial intention--I may have had it in the back of my mind as a default unifying theme, but when I first looked at what I'd just written, it surprised me in that it seemed to be just about everywhere. Yet I'm glad it turned out that way, because energy concerns impact just about everything, whether domestic or foreign in policy nature, from global conflicts to transportation to the cost of goods and services to the cost of living in general.
The piece (I don't really know what else to call it, as it wasn't really "shaped" into anything after initially written) isn't perfect by a longshot. In fact, I'm not so certain it's even good--it reads far too much like a testimonial highlighting the saintly merits of some minor deity than it does a measured, thoughtful list of reasons why Governor Richardson should be the Democratic nominee for president in 2008. (In taking such a tone, I was obviously ignoring the realities of political existence, which do not allow for such consistently virtuous idealism; I knew this, but needed to get at this process in my own way, and then flesh-out the large issue of political realism later on.) But the piece does highlight where I began the process of finding my place to stand amongst the various candidates and their positions, and for that it is worthwhile.
I'm providing a chunk of it here, which should be just enough to give you an indication of where I still stand on a number of crucial issues (though my opinions have altered slightly on a few of the issues); you wouldn't want to read the full-length original version, parts of which sound like a mediocre after-dinner toast delivered by your good-natured but boring acountant neighbor....
WHY I SUPPORT GOVERNOR RICHARDSON FOR PRESIDENT
...We are respected in the sense that the values upon which the United States was established are still respected and admired by the vast majority of clear-thinking people in this world, wherever they may live. Our freedoms--personal, economic, and otherwise--are freedoms to which people around the globe aspire. Yet we are increasingly abhorred in that we have failed of late to marry our sense of optimism with a sense of historical reality and its implications on the present; we have failed of late to marry our sense of creativity and its accompanying power with a sense of the consequences of failing to apply that creativity and power in thoughtful, productive ways; we have failed of late to appreciate our freedoms through the necessary prisms of respect for all people who strive toward what we as Americans have, as well as the recognition that a little humility in the face of these great freedoms is necessary--along with the recognition of what price has been paid to keep them.
I support Bill Richardson for the Democratic nomination for president because Governor Richardson--with his vast experience in state, national, and international politics (as well as diplomacy), his ability to tackle challenges at these levels in pragmatic, intelligent, and innovative ways, and his willingness to put bold initiatives to the test, after first considering thoroughly their possible implications for our country and our world--is the best candidate to most quickly and accurately return the United States to its status as the most respected, energizing, intriguing, and pragmatic country in the world in the eyes of both increasingly disillusioned American citizens and increasingly (and alarmingly) skeptical people across the globe.
Governor Richardson has an eye-poppingly impressive professional resume', which includes (but is not limited to) several terms as a member of the U.S. House of Representatives, followed by substantial amounts of time as the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, the U.S. Secretary of Energy, and the Governor of New Mexico--all the while engaged in ongoing international diplomacy. He clearly has the tools and talent for the presidency. Does he, however, have the forward-thinking, engaging, inspiring ideas that a president elected in 2008 requires? Yes. His energy policy--surely one of the most important national policies, given that it affects both domestic and foreign affairs to an enormous extent--is by far the best of those put forward during this election cycle in that it challenges Americans to both reduce energy consumption where and when it is appropriate to do so, as well as work to produce alternate sources of energy to meet our considerable future needs in ways that are cleaner, safer, and more secure than ever before.
The percentages by which he wants to reduce greenhouse gasses as well as our dependence upon foreign sources of oil seem at first daunting, but when one reads the thinking behind them, and when one takes into account the notion that this challenge is akin to putting a man on the moon--something that America performed less than a decade after so many people thought that President Kennedy was setting an impossible timetable--one gets the sense that we can come together, as we have done before, to meet this challenge as we have met past challenges, and in doing so renew our innovative, industrious spirit, which is currently stuck in an outdated, fossil-fuel rut.
If we can achieve what Governor Richardson sets out for us to achieve in the realm of energy, which in many ways is at the heart of so much of the world's current strife, surely we can achieve the other necessary goals that the governor has set for us. These goals include moving quickly and unflaggingly toward a health care system that protects the quality of American healthcare while simultaneously extending it to all of our citizens (no small challenge, that...); extracting U.S. troops from unnecessary wars of choice, such as the war in Iraq, that distract everyone in this world from the real problem groups civilization faces, such as al-Qaeda in the more tribal regions of Afghanistan and Pakistan (as well as from the problems of ignorance, poverty, and alienation that help to radicalize entire populations to support such groups); and recognizing that so many problems, both of our own citizens and those of people around the world, stem from the unavailability of a well-rounded, quality education for each and every child that recognizes that good academic outcomes, far from being solely check-marks on a piece of paper, are the product of engaging and innovative academic processes, and for this to happen we must ensure that many of the best and brightest in our society are encouraged to be teachers and encouraged to actually teach--which means inspire and challenge students--as opposed to walk lock-step with the trendy, mediocre-standard-bearing, bureaucratic crowd currently muscling into schools.
These are daunting challenges indeed, and they will most certainly not be solved overnight. But of the current crop of Democratic candidates for president, all of whom are impressive in their own ways, Governor Richardson has the credibility and character, as well as the ideas and insight, to give us the best chance to meet these challenges and succeed. I, for one, say we should give him a chance, and in doing so we will be giving ourselves our best chance, too....
Tuesday, April 8, 2008
Hasslington Begins
Thank you for taking the time to view this blog-site, which is principally and foremost concerned with issues related to American (and, to a lesser extent, European) politics and culture, and how they affect both domestic and international affairs. I both hope and assume that this site's areas of most intense concern will alter and evolve over time. This is to suggest that both my thoughts and those of my readership will help to shape its niche' in the blog-o-sphere in an increasingly full and focused manner, which will occur over a gradual period of time, accompanied by instances of trial and error on my part...and perhaps on your part, as well.
In the United States, as well as in much of the rest of the world, the present issue of political preoccupation is in large part the 2008 American presidential election cycle, begun in an earnest manner in late 2006 (though one could very well suggest that it began after the 2004 presidential election results were finalized). It seems fitting, therefore, that many of the posts in the forthcoming months of 2008 will focus on this particular area of interest. You will have ample opportunities to discover my often-evolving political tendencies (I am a Democrat, though hardly of the far-left variety) in relation to this and related issues, so I will say no more on the subject at this moment apart from the fact that I tend to refer to myself as what Americans would call "a social liberal" (though that certainly has its exceptions), whereas in other areas of policy I am a bit more unpredictable.
Before I sign off for now, let me make one thing very clear: I welcome open-minded debate, so your comments and concerns regarding the issues this blog covers are very welcome indeed. If you agree with me, let me know, and WHY; if you disagree with me, let me know, and WHY; if you both agree and disagree with some aspects of what I have to say, well, that's when the real fun of uncovering cultural and political complexities comes into play...so, again, let me know, and WHY. However, please be sure to remain respectful of the viewpoints of others, whether or not they dovetail with your own, and please keep your tone civil (though the occasional well-placed sarcastic comment might also prove to be helpful).
Thanks again for stopping by this site. Soon it will be time to start the discussion....
In the United States, as well as in much of the rest of the world, the present issue of political preoccupation is in large part the 2008 American presidential election cycle, begun in an earnest manner in late 2006 (though one could very well suggest that it began after the 2004 presidential election results were finalized). It seems fitting, therefore, that many of the posts in the forthcoming months of 2008 will focus on this particular area of interest. You will have ample opportunities to discover my often-evolving political tendencies (I am a Democrat, though hardly of the far-left variety) in relation to this and related issues, so I will say no more on the subject at this moment apart from the fact that I tend to refer to myself as what Americans would call "a social liberal" (though that certainly has its exceptions), whereas in other areas of policy I am a bit more unpredictable.
Before I sign off for now, let me make one thing very clear: I welcome open-minded debate, so your comments and concerns regarding the issues this blog covers are very welcome indeed. If you agree with me, let me know, and WHY; if you disagree with me, let me know, and WHY; if you both agree and disagree with some aspects of what I have to say, well, that's when the real fun of uncovering cultural and political complexities comes into play...so, again, let me know, and WHY. However, please be sure to remain respectful of the viewpoints of others, whether or not they dovetail with your own, and please keep your tone civil (though the occasional well-placed sarcastic comment might also prove to be helpful).
Thanks again for stopping by this site. Soon it will be time to start the discussion....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)