Feb 13 2008
Election: Inside and Outside
UPDATE: additional thoughts at the bottom.
NOTE: the database at my server host was having some problems for a bit, which unfortunately I learned after spending an hour writing this post up and then losing it. So here’s stab #2. Also, for those of you checking back on this thread, I went back and divided it into two pages, ‘cuz it’s so freakin’ long.
Yeah, it’s been a while. Last week, I went off in to fundie-bashing land and got sorta distracted. It’s so fun, and so easy, isn’t it? So for you nutty people that still find what I have to say marginally amusing, hop below the fold for my latest thoughts on the election, interspersed with my philosophical ramblings. I’m hoping to get a discussion going here from all sides, something that’s been occurring more frequently here at FBC, a welcome development. Righties and radicals, join in please. Its a long one, so crack a beer or go get a cup of coffee, you’ll need it.
Well,the big news for me today was Donna Edwards beating corporate sleazebag and Bushdog Dem Al Wynn in the MD primary. This is a big deal and exemplifies exactly what needs to be done within the parameters of our current system. She beat this guy handily by running on a progressive platform, not running away from it or being mushy about it. Out of Iraq. Single-payer healthcare. Getting off of oil, not just foreign oil. And so on. And for those whom, due to their ideology not permitting them to even partake in the system, go write this one off, sorry, you’re part of the problem, not part of the solution. Now before you get your panties in a wad, lemme expand on that.
Those of you who know me personally, or are even regular readers probably know by now that I sort of favor a two-pronged approach to progress. I detest our two-party system, and in particular the interests that have hold over that system, which are not people-based interests. I believe that even if one wants to tear the very system down, they can still do a lot of good by participating in the current system, at the very least, by voting for candidates that can do less harm than the current candidate (I know, lame and depressing, but true, nonetheless), or at best, as in the case of Donna Edwards, actually get a few people in there that do make an impact on the overall system. To only work in OR outside of the system is to rob oneself of a valuable tool. Now, nice as it would be, I’m not naive enough to believe that some anarcho/socialistic ecotopia is right around the corner. It’s not. If you think it is, you need to leave the coffeehouse and talk to people who don’t all agree with you. “Property is theft” is not going to resonate with Bud-drinking guys who work 60-hour weeks (it doesn’t resonate with me, either – just go ahead and try to take my house, I dare you) considering that all that many of them want out of their life is a house and yard to call their own.
(At this point, let me interject that part of our conversation stems from an ongoing on and offline conversation I’ve been having with my good friend wdh3 at Integral Psychosis, in particular, in regards to anarchism “Ya’ Commie Bastard”- part 1, part 2, and part 3. Part 4 coming soon, or so he tells me.)
There are fundamental aspects of the American character (in particular, working-class Americans) that could not be farther removed from the revolutionary mindset. The real work that needs to be done is to get those ideas across to some of them. I think the whole idea of an abolishment of the nation-state is a non-starter. Check back in 2 or 300 years on that one. I say that only in part to be snarky, but to get to the larger point that there is much common ground to be had here, where real, tangential progress can be made, and we’re not going to reach working class Americans by spouting off endless theories by long-dead Europeans reacting to the Industrial Revolution. Radical ideas always have some great and lasting impacts, but by and large I’ve never seen a whole package deal. The best stuff is usually the stuff that creeps into reality.
Ideas such as strong worker protections, environmental protection, inclusiveness an such are not exclusive property of the radical left. All of us have a distinct advantage over conservatives, in that it’s not based on exclusiveness, fear, Social Darwinism, and resistance to change. Human nature and progress, although hitting speed bumps from time to time that send us off into a nasty period of conservative dominance, by and large moves towards what we believe. Change is part of human nature, and it’s also antithetical to conservatism at its very core. That’s why they will always lose out in the end, and they’ll be reduced to pointing to obscure nonsensical polls about how they’re supposedly happier or more popular when the facts remain that they tend to be a rather unhappy, negative lot and were never all that really popular to begin with (see my earlier one, “Disconnect and Denial”, for more on that). That, believing their other fictions, and prayin’ to Jeebus will probably get them through till the next time, although they’ve botched this one so bad that I’m hoping that it doesn’t happen in my lifetime. When every time a Repub pol opens his mouth, he’s demonizing someone or talking about what we should be afraid of this week, that hardly sounds like a happy, well-adjusted person to me. Sounds more like someone in need of some serious therapy.
Am I making any sense here? If I’m getting you to think, I’m pissing you off immensely, or you’re nodding in agreement, I guess I’m doing something right.
Now, onto the Prezelection. As I alluded last night, I am enjoying watching the Clinton campaign sink like the Hindenburg. So, in light of that, it’s time to offer some more thoughts on Obama (and no, this is in no way an endorsement- I still firmly believe that all of the major candidates are corporate hacks to varying degrees, some just hide it better than others).
Now, those of you who read Green Mountain Daily regularly, have probably noticed some rather heated dialogue a few months back between me and Obama activist Neil Jensen. This took place on and offline, and truth be told, it was rather shitty, because I’ve hung out with Neil a few times, he’s a nice guy, and we’re probably in agreement on many issues. My big problem with the Obama thing is the apparent cult of personality thing that affects some (not all) of his supporters. Those kinds of things scare me, regardless of the political persuasion. I’ve never bought into Obama’s hope hype. Hope is that cousin of faith, which is basically believing in something that you have no way of proving as true. Not my bag. What worries me is that if Obama gets in there, that some of the more emotionally-based supporters are simply not going to criticize him when he makes bad policy decisions, as he most certainly will. But, I’m moving past that now, because the guy obviously has much more support than just the Obamatons. I’m not drinking the magic kool-aid here, nor will I be out canvassing or politicking for BO any time soon.
So when it comes down to it, I’m hoping it’s McCain vs. Obama. Now, I have to be completely honest. On the rare occasion that I hear Obama speak, I too am highly impressed by his oratorical skills, something that has not been seen in a politician in my generation (and no, Reagan didn’t come close in terms of oratorical ability – he just had good speechwriters). No, I don’t get all misty-eyed and such, or even excited, for that matter. I’m still impressed, though. Putting aside the substantial policy differences I have with him, Bill Clinton was a great speaker at times, but not like Obama. And in contrast to the current shit-for-brains we’ve suffered through in the White House for the past 8 years, the contrast is even more apparent. So on that level, I do believe Obama could be somewhat transformational in that it would completely shift the tone away from the brain-dead stuff that has been part-and-parcel of American politics over the last three decades.
However, there’s a big peril in that too. Now, this view is nothing unique to me, but the one thing I’m noticing missing in Obama’s unity strategy is how he will deal with the radical right. I’m not talking about the few moderate Republicans that still exist. I’m talking about the kind who, when “brought to the table”, will splash the hot soup in your face, and then attempt to slash your throat with the steak knife, or at the very least, gouge your eyeball out with the butter knife. Granted, after this election there’s going to be substantially less of ‘em, but they do seem to hold an extraordinary amount of power, by sheer will, viciousness, and the power of the whininess of perpetual victimhood that they seem to have mastered the art of (and, until recently, turned it into electoral success). I’m hoping (ah, shit, I didn’t want to use that word) that Obama has that fight in him, because if he doesn’t, he’s going to get his ass handed to him. This is probably the biggest factor that will ever keep my support from being any more than lukewarm. The again, I don’t think I could enthusiastically ever “support” a mainstream candidate.
Pages: 1 2
7 Responses to “Election: Inside and Outside”
Posts
I agree that it will be a long time before we see an end to nation states, but I still think that’s essential to a real, lasting peace on our planet.
Yea, my gal Hillary is obviously in trouble, and I think that should she not win big at the beginning of March that she should step aside. We can’t wait until May or June to wrap this thing up. If it’s going to be Obama, OK then…I’m fine with that too.
Did you see Obama’s speech on the night of Super Tuesday (I think that’s when it was)? There was this middle-aged white woman actually weeping in the background during his speech, and he was basically saying not much of anything! In her defense, maybe her feet were hurting her from standing up too much, but a black lady next to her felt the need to give her a hug to calm her down I guess. It was unreal…
I agree that Obama has a big wake-up call coming for him this fall and, even if he wins, from the Washington establishment…just like Bubba Clinton ran into in his first 2 years. He also has a big draw from independents though, which I think would hurt McCain big time. That, plus a huge black turnout (especially in the South) will probably drive the GOP nutty IMO.
I can already see the GOP playbook against Obama…he’s inexperienced, "hey, didn’t you hear that he was Muslim?", he’s black, he’s used drugs in the past, he’s "the most liberal Senator in the U.S. Senate" (totally bogus BTW), etc., etc..
Yeah, those attacks you mention will undoubtedly work with the GOP base.. but they’re not voting for a Dem , regardless.
I wish he were the most liberal senator in the senate. So ya finally tok the plunge at GMD, I see. What brought that on?
Well, like I said in my blog…I think they made the mistake of "banning" me over at VT(GOP) Tiger. So I thought I’d return the favor so to speak…we’ll see how that ends up…
I probably have more to say, but for now, you’re silliness about this "property is theft" thing: "…a usual misunderstanding… revolves around what is really meant by "property". For the libertarian-socialist, there is usually a distinction made between ‘private property’ and ‘personal property’." (from Part 2- which this thing doesn’t seem to want to let me link to). I am not saying, and have never said that you should give up your house, books, furnature, clothes, Yes CD collection… but our communal resources (water, roads, schools, factories, the "means of production" of goods and wealth) should be just that, communal. Consintrated into the hands of the few, the owning class, this constituts theft from the rest of the population. Further, I didn’t suggest that (or any of other slogan) to be the weapon that we use to try and win the "battle of ideas". I pointed to these sayings to help guide and define the essence of an idea, of a belief. Did you even read the piece?
I didn’t say you did say those should be the weapon. And I know what the "property as theft" thing means, – we talked about it last week. Perhaps I could have illustrated it better, but I was moreso talking about how it is perceived – it’s a rather lousy expression to use when talking about communal property, that’s all. Not the best phrase for communicating the concept. But it does make for a bold slogan.
Oh no, you definitely should give up that Yes CD collection JD.
From my cold, dead hands.