What most people may not realize is that today marks the first day of the DNC. Democratic National Convention. Back in 2004, right after I’d moved to New Hampshire, I was spending quite a bit of time in Boston (ostensibly to look for a job and a place to live, the former never happened so neither did the latter). Boston was the home of the 2004 DNC and New York was the home of the 2004 RNC. What makes this interesting (other than where I am four years later) is that Senator Obama was the keynote speaker at the 2004 DNC. What makes the year memorable was that I was introduced (more fully) to the modern protest where a group of old hippies put together a march from Boston to New York City to protest both conventions. The outcome, I am sure, was completely non-existent; but that doesn’t mean that what the march represented wasn’t significant.
You see, what we seem to neglect and ignore in this country is the growing disenfranchisement of individuals who want their voices heard in Washington D.C., but only get a cursory nod from candidates and politicians during an election year, but are quickly ignored once the votes are counted and the next politician takes center stage. What this means is that instead of growing support for the Republicans or the Democrats, what is currently happening is a growing disdain for politics as usual. What has not happened, though, is the point in which a dynamic enough leader stands up and rocks the electoral college or the process that is currently in place and the outcome is that we have a choice between lots of experience with a self-proclaimed renegade or little experience with a self-proclaimed reformer.
Don’t mistake who I am going to vote for (or not). Obama has my vote. Neither McCain nor Romney nor any other individual who runs with McCain is going to change that decision; but what is interesting to me is not that I am likely to vote in that direction, but that no candidate in either of the parties, or as a third party contender, has shown the ability or personality necessary to really stop marches like the 2004 DNC to RNC March.
One of the things that was interesting to me as I sat one day on Boston Commons with a group of people who were smoking and telling stories were the stories of crashing DNC parties and convention assemblies and then having to run from internal security and Boston police. I don’t know how true most of the stories were, but the fact that dozens of people were in Boston with the express purpose of showing their collective distaste not only for the Democrats but a week later they were in New York to show their distaste for the Republicans as well. The march was punctuated with stops in various locations protesting against the development of the Charles River, as well as poverty in third world countries, and the land trusts the government were supposed to be protecting; and in truth, the entire even was staged by real hippies who were actually against government in the 60’s and 70’s and who, throughout their life, had actually maintained the causes that fell to pieces and lost interest among American youth when Nixon rescinded the draft. These are some of the old organizers and helpers of the organizers for events that took place all over the country hoping to light a fuse that had burned out a long time ago and had not yet reached a point where it could be relit.
No. The point in all of this is not whether or not we should support one candidate or one party over another. Truth told, the direction in which we are heading is pretty solid. Unless war amongst Iran and Iraq and Syria and throw in a little Russia happens, we are not likely to remain in Iraq past 2011. With Obama, we can expect to leave earlier because that is one of the things he has been running on; under McCain we can expect to leave around 2011, but we can also expect to have an increase in military action around the world. Where McCain has to show he is a strong leader and will do it via military actions in different places (you can sure as shooting read: Georgia, right now); Obama is less likely to resort to military power unless there is no other choice.
I don’t know about y’all, but I am happy not having to worry about our military being sent overseas to fight in a war we shouldn’t be fighting in. Sure, I can see the compelling causes that even places like Georgia have that might cause the United States to intervene, especially with Russia deciding to flip the finger at the west and recognize the two breakaway provinces of Georgia as independent separate states. A war with Russia might prove to be inevitable and what has been pushed back again and again since 1945 when Patton wanted to march on our once ally Russia to take care of that problem. His assassination, though sad, was probably necessary as the next step was to either force an escalation or run for president, win, and then force an escalation.
The differences between candidates are rather stark. One is old, the other is (relatively) young. It is not a mistake (though people may not have realized the intent) that the Constitution requires an individual be at last 35 before he or she runs for president. The capacity for leadership, understanding, and ability is much greater in someone in their 30’s. And make the individual older and you deal with a whole host of other problems and issues with the individual; but ability to lead is not (necessarily) diminished as a result.
No. What is important isn’t in the differences, but in the direction you want to see the country run. If you like G.W.’s policies then vote for McCain. McCain’s policies are rather publicly taken directly from the White House and White House policy. He is not being creative. He doesn’t care about trying to come up with new plans. All he wants is to successfully achieve a goal he’s had longer than Obama has been able to run for President.
Sure, Obama isn’t going to cause people like the participants of the 2004 DNC to RNC march to change their minds. We are on a track in this country where the DNC and RNC are so similar in appearance and in how they push policies that the differences have to be touted so loudly and so boldly that they are not actually compelling enough to indicate that one person or one party is better than another. Rather, we are watching the embryonic development of ideas that will turn into a new political movement that will, in turn, cause both standing parties to have to reassess their positions and what they are trying to accomplish in order to counter the movement.
And no, the movement has not really started happening yet. At least, not in a way that you can sit on your sofa or search the internet and indicate that you are interested in participating. However, when the Republicans are willing to support an Independent over their own candidate for office, and the independent was NOT the Democratic candidate having lost in the primaries; and that Independent goes and realigns himself with the Democratic party; the outcome is that the atmosphere in politics begins to change.
Where will that change lead us? I don’t really know. I have some ideas on how it can be directed. But I am not actively involved in anything and my ideas would show up in the form of an essay rather than in the form of a movement to be supported by the people.
John Hattaway | smokingpen | Alicia Grey | Clockwork Princess | Cassandra West
Real Heroes Fly
on Aug 25th, 2008 at 10:14 pm
…again since 1945 when Patton wanted to march on our once ally Russia to take care of that problem. His assassination, though sad,…
Not sure a motor vehicle accident can be considered an assasination, unless you are implying that TSgt Thompson purposely drove his “deuce&ahalf” into the General’s staff car. I guess it could be possible, but is rather unlikely.
Obama, really? I’m not supporting McCain, but I haven’t seen much that would make me vote for Obama again (I voted for him in the MS Democratic Primary because anything would be better, even a Bush clone, than another Clinton in the White House). He seems to be eerily reminiscent of JFK - young, charismatic and a great orator, not so great as president. Much flash, little substance. But it appears that 48% or so of polled individuals don’t share my opinion.
-Keith
on Aug 26th, 2008 at 10:30 am
Hey. Thanks for the correction. I was under (trying to figure out why now) the impression that Patton’s death was the result of a planned bomb attack and not as a result of an auto accident. Stupid me.
I don’t know that I agree that a Bush clone is better than a Clinton. I know that, personally, I wouldn’t vote for Clinton nor would I vote for a ticket that included HRC or WJC on it. The both of them are bad for this country and the political sway they have often has a negative effect on whatever it is they are trying to accomplish.
Some months ago, though, when Erin and I were discussing this, her dad told her that he would rather vote for “the devil we know” rather than try to vote for “the devil we don’t”. At the time I thought that was an interesting assessment of a decision. He would rather vote for Clinton if it were simply a race between Clinton and Obama. I disagree, but then I would like to think there is more to someone (like Obama) than the flash he has become.
As for Kennedy, I am not sure what to say about that. Even though, today, it is hard to find people who a) voted in the 60’s, and b) actually remember who they voted for, and c) won’t just claim they voted for Kennedy because everyone claimed that (against Nixon), the truth is that Kennedy won that election by a very narrow margin and evidence suggests that the narrow margin was actually purchased by his father. Now, people liked Kennedy while he was in office, they practically deify him now that he is dead; we point to Jackie O. and claim she was this very attractive woman with the outcome being that no one really cared, at the time, about either of them and care more, now, because JFK was assassinated and not because he was a good president - the facts actually indicate he was a very poor historian and historical records indicate he probably would’ve been impeached (at least) had he remained in office. What we had to wait for from Nixon might’ve happened earlier with Kennedy and even though Johnson caused the biggest increase in troop deployments to Vietnam, Kennedy is the one who escalated U.S. involvement in the country from 800 to over 16,000. He botched Bay of Pigs. Bobby Kennedy had to secretly negotiate with the Kremlin so JFK would look like a hero in the Cuban Missile Crisis, and yet we look at the man like he is some kind of hero. (Clearly not your point.)
Obama is neither better than nor worse than McCain. My problem with McCain is that he has pulled G.W.’s policy, repackaged it, called it his own, and is trying to sell it as though it is anything different than what we are currently experiencing. Obama’s policy is definitely in the direction of the political left, he is anti-war (me too), and he doesn’t try to hide the fact that as president, one of his primary goals would be to bring the boys (and girls) home from Iraq and redeploy troops to Afghanistan (the correct move in my opinion).
Does Obama have the ability to be anything more than a Jimmy Carter? My hope is, “Yes.” But the truth of the matter is, he is different. He is black (well, half, but in this country we only care about the half that is different from the majority), he is articulate, he finds and recruits people who actually know what they are talking about, and he has been able to pull supporters into his corner of the playground better than anyone else.
McCain does what G.W. did (especially in the last election) and that is to tell you what you should be afraid of and who represents that fear. Georgia, Irag, Afghanistan, North Korea, Russia, and etc. Under McCain, the most likely expectation is that we (the United States) will find ourselves embroiled even deeper in unnecessary wars. That is his personality, that is the outcome of a McCain presidency. But one of the real outcomes from either candidate, and the likelihood is rather high, is that both will be lame duck, one term presidents. The Congress can only stand one despot for so long and then they just ignore the president… happened with Clinton and the senior President Bush. The thing that really surprises me is how little it has happened with the current President Bush.
Regardless, I think (and this is just my opinion at the moment) when the elections actually come, the nation will be rather solidly behind Obama because the majority is tired of the current president. Under that auspice, and because I want him to be a good leader, and because I am tired of using the same measuring stick that continually proves not to work to determine who our president should be.
on Aug 26th, 2008 at 11:23 pm
Thanks for your thoughts. Sometimes I feel like choosing between McCain and Obama is kind of like deciding whether I want to get punched in the nose or kicked in the seat of my pants. Neither one is appealing. Makes you wish for a door #3 that didn’t have a crackpot like Ron Paul or Ralph Nader behind it. I’ve got some homework to do before the election.
-Keith
On JFK, I think he is idolized because he was young, charismatic and apparently full of promise when his life was taken. I agree that, had he served his full term, he would not be seen in the same light. Although Eisenhower did get us involved in Vietnam in the 50s, JFK was the one who started the first troop increases and led us down the road that didn’t end for another 15 years. So one Republican got us into the war and another got us out. Will Iraq be the same way?
on Aug 27th, 2008 at 11:22 am
Ah. And door #3 will come eventually. Not that anyone cares to remember, but I did state early in the election cycle (that started two years ago) that I was hoping for a different candidate to come along and that I thought the current pool of candidates were not right for this country. Granted, I have decided to vote Obama, but I am not some zealot or idealist that believes he is inherently better than anyone else. NPR was sharing some stories of activists in the Chicago area, from where Obama was elected to the Senate, who hadn’t voted since 1969 and were completely against all war, and who were voting for Obama (or at least had voted for Obama) because he is (allegedly) anti-war. The problem, and this is always the problem, is that they’d become disenchanted with Obama because his stance on war was not anti-war, but anti-Iraq-war and these activists didn’t want the U.S. involved in any war.
The problem I have with that is two-fold. First, these are people who have chosen not to vote in nearly 40 years. As a result, they’ve had no honest say in politics and policy and really aren’t significant enough to matter in the overall scheme of elections and politics. Their politics are not anywhere near center when it comes to the left-right divide in this country; and yet, they want to be taken MORE seriously because they have maintained an anti-war stance for 40 years. Congratulations, the protests of the 60’s and 70’s were anti-draft and no anti-war and when the draft was rescinded these people’s movements disappeared. They become causeless. This is why the 2004 DNC to RNC March was a waste of time and did nothing but give a handful of people some measure of meaning. It is old activists who feel they are pertinent trying to light fervor in youth that don’t feel the same spirit as the old activists, the old hippies. Obama is not an activist, he is not an idealist, he is a politician with little experience and the best chance any black man has ever had to become president, and he has my vote. I am not deceived by his rhetoric or his politics or his policy.
Second, putting someone on a pedestal is bad. No man, woman, or child can ever stand the scrutiny the pedestal brings. In Early Modern English writing (16th adn 17th centuries, Shakespeare) there is a whole host of writers who, without appropriate capacity and experience, deified different women. The woman became a perfect being that had no flaws. The woman became something that was, inherently, unattainable to the writer. The outcome is that the woman is impossible and the unrequited love felt for the woman had to die… often when the woman deified showed she was flawed. For an activist to apply to Obama those same standards (politically) and make him the savior of a cause is only to delay the disenfranchisement of the activists who haven’t voted in 40 years because they don’t like the system. Obama cannot stand up to scrutiny. He cannot be the leader people want him to be. He can, however, be a leader and he does have the potential to do what someone like McCain can’t… unite people.
When reviewing history, one of the outcomes of historical analysis is that the most popular and progressive presidents are often young, with little or no experience, highly educated, and come at the end of a cycle of war. They have less than 6 years of elected experience. And they are told they don’t have sufficient experience to do the job. Most of the worst presidents have more than 20 years of elected experience (at the federal level) and are older with less of an education. Not that statistics matter, or that the Obama-McCain gap matters in this area, but McCain does not strike me as someone who cares whether or not there is unity in this country, he cares about winning and, from his rhetoric, he cares about war.
For me, I agree, we have two bad choices. The least of the bad choices is Obama. As a result, I have yet to read or hear anything that would change my mind. And the sad thing is that Romney or Giuliani are not better than McCain or Obama and since we don’t vote (directly) for the vice-president, the choice in a VP (except for HRC) is moot to me. And, truth told, HRC would bring Bill, and Bill has shown he does not take a backseat in politics, which means that he would try to ingratiate himself into the White House. Which means, Obama-HRC as a ticket is bad. Whereas McCain-Romny or McCain-Giuliani or McCain-someotherrepublican doesn’t denote the same issues.