The answer to this age old question is elusive, and may best be answered in the same vein as the Supreme Court once answered the question of how to define pornography, namely that they knew it when they saw it. Never mind the image of old men sitting around in robes viewing pornography, but the definition of art is much the same, it's something that you know when you see it, or listen to it, or simply experience it and take it in. It is subjective, beauty and appreciation being in the eye and ear of the beholder. One man's trash is another's treasure. So with the caveat that any attempt to define art is subjective and at the whims and value judgements of the person making the attempt, here goes such an attempt.
Often it helps when trying to define something nebulous to compare it to something that is easier to recognize and label, so I will look at entertainment. Entertainment occupies our minds and our time, it is a pleasurable way to pass the time, and there is certainly nothing wrong with that. As one who admittedly partakes in reality TV from time to time, not to mention more hours watching sports than I can count, I am certainly not high brow nor opposed to entertainment for the sake of pleasure. In addition to the aforementioned examples, I would count pop music, most but not all TV, and reading the newspaper and magazines, as well as much popular fiction and non-fiction as entertainment. I spend most of my non-working time taking in entertainment, and not nearly enough taking in true art, as I would imagine most people, or at least those that admit truthfully to such things do. Entertainment is healthy, it is a relaxing and pleasant way to pass the time. Often after a long day out in the world it is nice to simply come home and plop down in your Archie Bunker chair and read the evening paper, put on a ballgame, or catch up with the latest episode of American Idol or Survivor.
Art is entertainment plus so much more. While it certainly occupies the mind and passes the time, it also makes you think and feel. Art, whether it be music, movies, plays, literature, poetry, TV (yes there is art on TV, as any fan of Six Feet Under or the early years of the Sopranos can attest), or paintings and sculpture, makes you consider the world and your place in it, your relationship to different aspects of it. Art makes you feel alive, makes you keenly aware of your being human, and of your humanity. Art speaks to us in ways which we don't always understand, and that mysteriousness and inability to define is part of its beauty, and the beauty of life. Art doesn't usually offer answers or solutions as much as it poses questions and issues to ponder. It has been said that art imitates life, but maybe it's really the other way around. I can't define it with any real clarity, I don't always know it when I see it or hear it, but I do know that I love it, and when I get some I want more. I want to soak it in, consider it, and become a part of it. In that sense, it is just like life.
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
Sunday, February 24, 2008
The Most Precious Commodity
One of Ben Franklin's most famous aphorisms is the one about time is money. I have always taken that to mean, and possibly this was Franklin's main intent, that an industrious person should be spending their time making money. But it just occurred to me that perhaps this was not his only or even main intent, and regardless it's not how I am taking it. Time is not literally money, but is like money in that it is a valuable commodity. It is something that like money, has value in that it allows us to enjoy things worth enjoying in life. Unlike money time is a finite resource, and whether time is on our side or we are living on borrowed time, we only get so much of it for so long and none of us know how long that might be. You can't borrow it, nor can you beg for it or steal it. Like loaning money to certain friends, once it's gone you can't get it back. Unlike currency it's granted in equal amounts to everyone, the rich and poor alike. It can be measured but it can't be stopped or put on hold, because of course time waits for no one. So how you spend it ultimately determines the quality of your life.
Which is what got me thinking about the subject in the first place, a reflection of how I've spent my time and how I plan on spending my time. I've chosen in my life to spend my time on my terms. I've chosen to be a high school teacher, a job that doesn't provide an inordinate amount of money but sure as heck provides a good deal of valuable time. I've used that time to be active in the raising of my kids, to spend many quality moments with them and with my wife. I've used it to spend part of my summer vacations up in the Sierra's with my kids and my parents, one of my favorite things to do and one of my favorite places in the world. I've used to it to relax, to refresh, often times wasting it on the mundane, but more and more of late using it to enrich my life and that of those around me by reading more, writing more, and listening, watching, and thinking about the stuff of life that motivates and inspires.
The older I get, the more precious of a commodity time becomes, and the more I realize how limited it ultimately is. When you are young time is as seemingly endless as an Arizona summer, or an Iowa winter. There is no sense of urgency because there will always be more time to do the things you want to do, to pursue the plans and dreams that keep our fires stoked. I don't know what it's like being old because I haven't gotten there yet, I imagine that it will be a time of greater reflection and much greater urgency, knowing that the days are getting numbered. I'm in the middle of life, not middle-aged quite yet, but certainly not a kid anymore. I can reflect on a good deal of my life, things I regret doing or not doing, things I'm glad I did, and many many things I still hope and plan to do. I'm at a point in life where I can appreciate how little I really know about anything and how vast the amount of knowledge there is that is out there for the taking. I've accepted that I'll never learn all I want to, read every book I'd like to, or travel to all the corners of the earth that beckon, but if I can just hit a portion of all that is out there I'll have lived a fulfilling and satisfying life. I realize that I've wasted a good deal of time, but that I still have a good deal left, and I have a much greater appreciation of what's important in life, and a better understanding of how to utilize my time to best take advantage of that knowledge.
One thing I won't spend more time than necessary on is making money. Don't get me wrong, I believe in the value of hard work, and a certain level of money is required to pay the bills and live a certain lifestyle. I'm not a Tibetan monk with no interest in material goods or services. I enjoy a good meal out every once in awhile, or taking in a show or a ballgame, I like to have nice clothes, I'd like to be able to travel, the kids always have activities that require busting out the checkbook yet again, so money is often an object. But in the great series of trade-offs that is life, I've made the decision, one that I am quite pleased with, to accept less money for more time. More time to do the things that I enjoy doing in life. More time to have a real relationship with my wife, my partner in the journey and best friend. More time to spend with my son, who at 13 is still interested in spending his time with his old dad, whether it be watching a ball game together, working out at the gym, or just hanging out. More time to spend with my daughter, who at almost 11 is busy with much in her life, her many activities and numerous friends, but who still can take the time to share with me the things she loves and to ask questions and to grace me with her charming presence. More time to exercise my body, my mind, and my spirit. More time to pursue my writing, and to read whatever I can get my hands on. More time to listen to good music, to watch good movies and plays, and TV shows as well. More time to observe, to reflect, to understand, and to hopefully relate all that I can take in.
So time is much more than money really. Franklin was on the right track, or again, maybe he was referring to this all along and it was our own industrial age mentality and Calvinist work ethic that took his words to mean what we wanted them too. Franklin certainly was one who made the most of his time, he was a true Enlightenment figure, with multiple interests and talents and a desire to see society become better and more true to what God intended for us. When you strip away all the material aspects of life, and get down to what really matters, for me it comes down to the people you have been blessed with and the time you have to spend. To quote another great philosopher of the modern age, Eric Clapton, it's in the way that you use it. Here's to using it wisely, to getting the most out of it, to making it last as long as we can, because eventually we come to the end of our time. When I do, I hope that I can look back on a life well lived, with no regrets, and with a smile on my face that says that I got the most I could out of life and hopefully left the world a bit better than I found it.
Which is what got me thinking about the subject in the first place, a reflection of how I've spent my time and how I plan on spending my time. I've chosen in my life to spend my time on my terms. I've chosen to be a high school teacher, a job that doesn't provide an inordinate amount of money but sure as heck provides a good deal of valuable time. I've used that time to be active in the raising of my kids, to spend many quality moments with them and with my wife. I've used it to spend part of my summer vacations up in the Sierra's with my kids and my parents, one of my favorite things to do and one of my favorite places in the world. I've used to it to relax, to refresh, often times wasting it on the mundane, but more and more of late using it to enrich my life and that of those around me by reading more, writing more, and listening, watching, and thinking about the stuff of life that motivates and inspires.
The older I get, the more precious of a commodity time becomes, and the more I realize how limited it ultimately is. When you are young time is as seemingly endless as an Arizona summer, or an Iowa winter. There is no sense of urgency because there will always be more time to do the things you want to do, to pursue the plans and dreams that keep our fires stoked. I don't know what it's like being old because I haven't gotten there yet, I imagine that it will be a time of greater reflection and much greater urgency, knowing that the days are getting numbered. I'm in the middle of life, not middle-aged quite yet, but certainly not a kid anymore. I can reflect on a good deal of my life, things I regret doing or not doing, things I'm glad I did, and many many things I still hope and plan to do. I'm at a point in life where I can appreciate how little I really know about anything and how vast the amount of knowledge there is that is out there for the taking. I've accepted that I'll never learn all I want to, read every book I'd like to, or travel to all the corners of the earth that beckon, but if I can just hit a portion of all that is out there I'll have lived a fulfilling and satisfying life. I realize that I've wasted a good deal of time, but that I still have a good deal left, and I have a much greater appreciation of what's important in life, and a better understanding of how to utilize my time to best take advantage of that knowledge.
One thing I won't spend more time than necessary on is making money. Don't get me wrong, I believe in the value of hard work, and a certain level of money is required to pay the bills and live a certain lifestyle. I'm not a Tibetan monk with no interest in material goods or services. I enjoy a good meal out every once in awhile, or taking in a show or a ballgame, I like to have nice clothes, I'd like to be able to travel, the kids always have activities that require busting out the checkbook yet again, so money is often an object. But in the great series of trade-offs that is life, I've made the decision, one that I am quite pleased with, to accept less money for more time. More time to do the things that I enjoy doing in life. More time to have a real relationship with my wife, my partner in the journey and best friend. More time to spend with my son, who at 13 is still interested in spending his time with his old dad, whether it be watching a ball game together, working out at the gym, or just hanging out. More time to spend with my daughter, who at almost 11 is busy with much in her life, her many activities and numerous friends, but who still can take the time to share with me the things she loves and to ask questions and to grace me with her charming presence. More time to exercise my body, my mind, and my spirit. More time to pursue my writing, and to read whatever I can get my hands on. More time to listen to good music, to watch good movies and plays, and TV shows as well. More time to observe, to reflect, to understand, and to hopefully relate all that I can take in.
So time is much more than money really. Franklin was on the right track, or again, maybe he was referring to this all along and it was our own industrial age mentality and Calvinist work ethic that took his words to mean what we wanted them too. Franklin certainly was one who made the most of his time, he was a true Enlightenment figure, with multiple interests and talents and a desire to see society become better and more true to what God intended for us. When you strip away all the material aspects of life, and get down to what really matters, for me it comes down to the people you have been blessed with and the time you have to spend. To quote another great philosopher of the modern age, Eric Clapton, it's in the way that you use it. Here's to using it wisely, to getting the most out of it, to making it last as long as we can, because eventually we come to the end of our time. When I do, I hope that I can look back on a life well lived, with no regrets, and with a smile on my face that says that I got the most I could out of life and hopefully left the world a bit better than I found it.
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
Teach a Man to Fish
As the old proverb goes, give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime. So why does our society, to the extent that it does anything to help our fellow man, and woman, seem much more inclined to hand out a fish and move on? The short answer is because it's easier that way, and we can walk away from the transaction with a minimal amount of effort and feeling good about ourselves. It's the feeling you get when you pass a vagrant on the streets and give him some change out of your pocket. It doesn't cost much, you feel like a good samaritan, and you can move on with your life without giving much thought to why the person needed the money or what he'll spend it on or how he'll get his next handful of change. To a large degree our social welfare system is set up on this model. Throw poor and working class people a little bone now and then, in the form of an increase in the minimum wage every decade or so, some rent assistance or food stamps, and then we can go back about our business. Hey, we did our part right, we gave up our hard earned tax dollars to help someone less fortunate, and isn't that what makes Americans so great?
Besides, taking the time to teach a man to fish is so, well, time consuming. It requires some effort, a level of understanding of the needs of someone else at more than the surface level. To do it well it even requires learning about that person, what their strengths and weaknesses are. It necessitates follow-up, to be sure that the task has been not only learned but mastered. It's hard work but as with most things the harder the task the greater the reward. Such is the case with educating our young people, especially those from the working class and the bottom fifth of the socio-economic scale.
When I say educating young people let's be clear about what it is not. It is not helping them atain a diploma that carries about as much weight as the paper it's printed on. Nor is it helping them pass some standardized test so they can get said diploma. Nor is it teaching them the state capitals, how to diagram a sentence, memorizing the periodic table of the elements, or whatever other random nonsense we teach kids in high schools across the country. Education is an awakening of the mind, an opening of the eyes, a lighting of the spirit. It is not teaching anything really, but rather making someone aware of the possibilities that exist and of the importance of taking certain steps to ensure that those possibilities are realized. In our society in the 21st century that means getting students to understand that their ticket to a prosperous life lies in one thing more than any other, and that is a college education.
A college education is not the golden key to riches and a life free of stress and worries, as most college graduates grinding it out at their jobs on a daily basis can attest to. It is not a guarantee of anything, but rather it provides an opporunity for an industrious, creative, and hard-working person to have a life with options, and a life of quality, if not always material wealth. In our country today however, there is a growing education gap between the rich and the poor, between the top fifth and the bottom fifth. This gap leads to both an increasing income disparity, but also potentially to a society that is more fractured and where more people feel less of a stake in the common good, namely because they feel left out of the party, unable to access the resources of the richest nation in the history of nations.
According to a longitudinal study by the University of Michigan, that has followed families since the 1960's, in recent years over 50% of those born in the top fifth of the economic ladder have earned the college degrees necessary to have a decent shot at a successful life, while only 11% of those born in the bottom fifth have earned such degrees. What that means is that nearly 9 of 10 poor or working class people are pretty much destined to stay in poverty. That is an astounding number, and doesn't seem to me much different than life for peasants under feudalism that existed from the middle ages until the French Revolution. It is a number that should shock and sadden people of conscience, much as imperial rule, genocide against American Indians, or slavery must have shocked people of conscience in earlier times. It is something that should be a major theme of this presidential campaign. It is something that should unite social liberals and Christian conservatives, urbanites and rural residents, young and old, you get the point. But does it? Or are we content to dig into our pockets for some spare change, feign a smile, and move on feeling like we've done our part?
There is hope however, in the numbers provided by this important study. Of those in the lowest fifth who do graduate college, there is a 62% chance that they will join the middle class, or the middle three-fifths. There is a 19% chance that they will join the top fifth, or the upper class. That means that 8 of every 10 poor kids who do go to college and graduate will have a better life than the ones that have been provided for them, and will then have children who are more likely to continue the trend that has kept our nation strong for over two centuries, the trend and promise of upward social mobility. So what do we do to teach a man to fish? It's pretty simple actually, we as a society need to do a better job of getting young people from the working class into college. We must give them the tools to succeed academically, but more importantly we must awaken them to the realities of the world in which they live in. We must give them inspiration to strive for college, and then the advice and support to help them fill out applications, write quality essays, prepare for SAT's, and fill out the paperwork required to receive the financial aid that is available to them. Then we need to continue to support them as they begin their journey, their transition into the middle class and in many senses a new set of values and norms that will govern their lives.
The work is hard, but rewarding, from both an individual standpoint as well as that of society as a whole. Poverty is the biggest ill facing our society in this age, it corrodes the soul, kills dreams, and turns happy and hopeful young people into beaten down and bitter adults over time. It will probably always be a part of our existence, but it doesn't need to be so intense nor so widespread. We have the resources to help people better themselves and society, and we certainly have the need as represented by the large amounts of talented, hard-working, and creative young people who just need to be taught how to fish so that they may feed themselves, and their future generations, for a lifetime.
Besides, taking the time to teach a man to fish is so, well, time consuming. It requires some effort, a level of understanding of the needs of someone else at more than the surface level. To do it well it even requires learning about that person, what their strengths and weaknesses are. It necessitates follow-up, to be sure that the task has been not only learned but mastered. It's hard work but as with most things the harder the task the greater the reward. Such is the case with educating our young people, especially those from the working class and the bottom fifth of the socio-economic scale.
When I say educating young people let's be clear about what it is not. It is not helping them atain a diploma that carries about as much weight as the paper it's printed on. Nor is it helping them pass some standardized test so they can get said diploma. Nor is it teaching them the state capitals, how to diagram a sentence, memorizing the periodic table of the elements, or whatever other random nonsense we teach kids in high schools across the country. Education is an awakening of the mind, an opening of the eyes, a lighting of the spirit. It is not teaching anything really, but rather making someone aware of the possibilities that exist and of the importance of taking certain steps to ensure that those possibilities are realized. In our society in the 21st century that means getting students to understand that their ticket to a prosperous life lies in one thing more than any other, and that is a college education.
A college education is not the golden key to riches and a life free of stress and worries, as most college graduates grinding it out at their jobs on a daily basis can attest to. It is not a guarantee of anything, but rather it provides an opporunity for an industrious, creative, and hard-working person to have a life with options, and a life of quality, if not always material wealth. In our country today however, there is a growing education gap between the rich and the poor, between the top fifth and the bottom fifth. This gap leads to both an increasing income disparity, but also potentially to a society that is more fractured and where more people feel less of a stake in the common good, namely because they feel left out of the party, unable to access the resources of the richest nation in the history of nations.
According to a longitudinal study by the University of Michigan, that has followed families since the 1960's, in recent years over 50% of those born in the top fifth of the economic ladder have earned the college degrees necessary to have a decent shot at a successful life, while only 11% of those born in the bottom fifth have earned such degrees. What that means is that nearly 9 of 10 poor or working class people are pretty much destined to stay in poverty. That is an astounding number, and doesn't seem to me much different than life for peasants under feudalism that existed from the middle ages until the French Revolution. It is a number that should shock and sadden people of conscience, much as imperial rule, genocide against American Indians, or slavery must have shocked people of conscience in earlier times. It is something that should be a major theme of this presidential campaign. It is something that should unite social liberals and Christian conservatives, urbanites and rural residents, young and old, you get the point. But does it? Or are we content to dig into our pockets for some spare change, feign a smile, and move on feeling like we've done our part?
There is hope however, in the numbers provided by this important study. Of those in the lowest fifth who do graduate college, there is a 62% chance that they will join the middle class, or the middle three-fifths. There is a 19% chance that they will join the top fifth, or the upper class. That means that 8 of every 10 poor kids who do go to college and graduate will have a better life than the ones that have been provided for them, and will then have children who are more likely to continue the trend that has kept our nation strong for over two centuries, the trend and promise of upward social mobility. So what do we do to teach a man to fish? It's pretty simple actually, we as a society need to do a better job of getting young people from the working class into college. We must give them the tools to succeed academically, but more importantly we must awaken them to the realities of the world in which they live in. We must give them inspiration to strive for college, and then the advice and support to help them fill out applications, write quality essays, prepare for SAT's, and fill out the paperwork required to receive the financial aid that is available to them. Then we need to continue to support them as they begin their journey, their transition into the middle class and in many senses a new set of values and norms that will govern their lives.
The work is hard, but rewarding, from both an individual standpoint as well as that of society as a whole. Poverty is the biggest ill facing our society in this age, it corrodes the soul, kills dreams, and turns happy and hopeful young people into beaten down and bitter adults over time. It will probably always be a part of our existence, but it doesn't need to be so intense nor so widespread. We have the resources to help people better themselves and society, and we certainly have the need as represented by the large amounts of talented, hard-working, and creative young people who just need to be taught how to fish so that they may feed themselves, and their future generations, for a lifetime.
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
What Obama is Tapping Into
It is far from over, this exciting and important Democratic primary. Full of twists and turns, momentum stops and starts, at the moment Senator Obama has taken the momentum and just driven the length of the field for a lead changing touchdown as we head into the 4th quarter. Senator Clinton still holds out hope for an Eli Manning style comeback by winning in Ohio and Texas in just under three weeks, which would swing the momentum, and likely the unpledged superdelegates back in her favor. An Obama win in the Lonestar and Buckeye states however would most certainly put the nomination to rest. So what is it that has given the momentum to Obama? And make no mistake, he is clearly taking the advantage. According to exit polls from the Potomac primaries last night, Obama won among Blacks, White men, across all income and education levels, young people, and even among Latinos in Virginia. A majority of women voted for Obama too, which doesn't bode well for Mrs. Clinton. What are they seeing and sensing, and is it real? The last question will be answered over time, the first is becoming clearer as the campaign season rolls on.
In short, Mr. Obama is tapping into hope and desire. The hope is that we can move away from the bitter partisanship and orthodoxy of the last 20 years of the Bush-Clinton-Bush era. A period that not coincidentally has seen the rise of talk radio and cable news shows that pit the liberal on one side shouting down the conservative on the other, while the host tries his best to pretend to be an honest broker. You get the sense that as soon as the cameras stop rolling, the two sides shake hands, have a good laugh at our expense, then go out for cocktails and steak at some swank politico diner. While we may not be sure what a post-partisan system will look like or how it will work exactly, we have hope that it will be better than what we've been fed for the last two decades.
There is a genuine desire to be a true United States, not a series of red and blue states on Tim Russert's political whiteboard. We have a yearning to breathe free, and to be free from artificial divisions that only serve those already in power while keeping the common person cynical, disinterested, and apathetic. One need only look at the high voter turnout in each state to see that Americans want to be active in their democratic republic, the desire is there and may only have needed the prodding produced by nearly eight years of unresponsive governing and a candidate who can inspire.
The presidency is not merely the sum of all policy stances, it is much more than that. When our founders came up with the idea of a president, they had no clue as to how it would work, so they chose George Washington for the job and basically let him make up the rules as he went along. To a certain degree, all 42 men who have followed in his hallowed footsteps have continued this trend. Leadership and ingenuity are more important for a president than his or her legislative white papers. We never know what events will occur during a particular presidency, or what new legislative priorities will crop up, so it is best to have someone in office in whom we can place our trust to do the right thing, even when we're not sure what that may be. Barack Obama is a person that I for one am willing to entrust with such a great and important task, and from the looks of it, I'm not the only one who feels that way.
In short, Mr. Obama is tapping into hope and desire. The hope is that we can move away from the bitter partisanship and orthodoxy of the last 20 years of the Bush-Clinton-Bush era. A period that not coincidentally has seen the rise of talk radio and cable news shows that pit the liberal on one side shouting down the conservative on the other, while the host tries his best to pretend to be an honest broker. You get the sense that as soon as the cameras stop rolling, the two sides shake hands, have a good laugh at our expense, then go out for cocktails and steak at some swank politico diner. While we may not be sure what a post-partisan system will look like or how it will work exactly, we have hope that it will be better than what we've been fed for the last two decades.
There is a genuine desire to be a true United States, not a series of red and blue states on Tim Russert's political whiteboard. We have a yearning to breathe free, and to be free from artificial divisions that only serve those already in power while keeping the common person cynical, disinterested, and apathetic. One need only look at the high voter turnout in each state to see that Americans want to be active in their democratic republic, the desire is there and may only have needed the prodding produced by nearly eight years of unresponsive governing and a candidate who can inspire.
The presidency is not merely the sum of all policy stances, it is much more than that. When our founders came up with the idea of a president, they had no clue as to how it would work, so they chose George Washington for the job and basically let him make up the rules as he went along. To a certain degree, all 42 men who have followed in his hallowed footsteps have continued this trend. Leadership and ingenuity are more important for a president than his or her legislative white papers. We never know what events will occur during a particular presidency, or what new legislative priorities will crop up, so it is best to have someone in office in whom we can place our trust to do the right thing, even when we're not sure what that may be. Barack Obama is a person that I for one am willing to entrust with such a great and important task, and from the looks of it, I'm not the only one who feels that way.
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
We're Smarter Than They Think We Are
We being the public, the average Joe or Jane, the voting public in particular. They being the so-called power brokers, the media, the talking heads, the self-acknowledged experts. If this primary election season is teaching us something, and I believe we are learning alot about ourselves and our society, what we are and what we are capable of becoming, one message that is coming through loud and clear is that the elites do not have the pull they may once have had.
Political endorsements have become nearly meaningless, whether they come from elected officials, respected newspapers, talk-radio demagogues, or Hollywood celebrities. The one exception may be Oprah, who because of her authenticity is someone people can relate to and admire in an otherwise gilded age. But more on authenticity in a future column. The people are speaking, and by voting in large numbers for Barack Obama on the left and John McCain on the right, they are saying that the establishment no longer controls the agenda. I have a great deal of admiration for Hilary Clinton, I have no such feeling for Mitt Romney or Rudy Guiliani, yet what all of these figures have in common is that they are strongly backed by the traditonal power brokers, financially and otherwise, yet they have not been annointed by the only power brokers that really matter in our democracy, the voters who show up at the polls. Obama and McCain are outsiders, the latter a noted maverick and demonized by the traditional figureheads of the conservative movement, the former is a relative newcomer to the national stage who lacks the connections and name recognition normally associated with someone who is becoming tantalizingly close to winning the nomination of his party. This is a positive development for our politics and for our society, which has become very cynical in the last few decades since the idealism and hope of the 60's waned with the Vietnam and Watergate eras.
Black people were told that they should support Clinton, because after all, her husband Bill is considered to be the first black president. Nevermind that he never really did much of anything to improve life for Blacks, with the noted exception of welfare reform that he ushered through with the backing of the Republican led Congress. Blacks were told that Obama wasn't black enough, that they shouldn't support him as a result. To their credit, they haven't listened to the pundits and have voted their conscious and their hearts, which is not such a bad way to vote by the way.
Whites were told they weren't ready for a Black president. The country is still too racist, it will never happen said the experts. Yet in Iowa, possibly the second whitest state in the union after Utah, Mr. Obama inspired and won. He continues to do well throughout the Midwest in states with heavy White populations, as well as in the South in states with heavy Black populations. If he can win in Texas, a state with a large Latino population, he will likely wrap up the nomination and cause Clinton to slam her trunk shut and head back to the Senate, where she has an important role to play with both the Democratic party and the nation as a whole.
And let's not leave out our conservative friends, and they are and should be friends. We are all on the same side here after all, yet again the topic for a future column. Conservatives were told that they can't support John McCain because he doesn't pass the right-wing litmus test. Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter, James Dobson, all of the gurus of the modern conservative movement bashed McCain and backed his rivals. Yet here he stands on the precipice of joining Ronald Reagan and Barry Goldwater as outsiders who made it to the big dance. Granted, McCain has fallen more into line with Republican orthodoxy, but he is still much more independent minded than the rest of the field that he has lapped. Only a pesky Mike Huckabee stands in his way at this point, and it seems likely that once the last notch on the bible belt is filled, his dance card will be too and the nomination will be a done deal.
Questions remain, such as will Latinos figure out what many Blacks already have, namely that the Clintons impact on their lives has been greatly overrated? Will fiscal conservatives realize that the GOP has long since abandoned them and the values that they stand for? Will anti-war liberals be able to ignore the irresponsible fringe members of their movement and stay focused on bringing about real change and not be derailed by all of the 9/11 conspiracy and anti-Bush hubris that pollutes the internet? Stay tuned, it figures to be an interesting ride, but hope springs eternal, hope that the people will utilize the power that our founders gave us, for the betterment of our political system, of our nation, and of our society.
Political endorsements have become nearly meaningless, whether they come from elected officials, respected newspapers, talk-radio demagogues, or Hollywood celebrities. The one exception may be Oprah, who because of her authenticity is someone people can relate to and admire in an otherwise gilded age. But more on authenticity in a future column. The people are speaking, and by voting in large numbers for Barack Obama on the left and John McCain on the right, they are saying that the establishment no longer controls the agenda. I have a great deal of admiration for Hilary Clinton, I have no such feeling for Mitt Romney or Rudy Guiliani, yet what all of these figures have in common is that they are strongly backed by the traditonal power brokers, financially and otherwise, yet they have not been annointed by the only power brokers that really matter in our democracy, the voters who show up at the polls. Obama and McCain are outsiders, the latter a noted maverick and demonized by the traditional figureheads of the conservative movement, the former is a relative newcomer to the national stage who lacks the connections and name recognition normally associated with someone who is becoming tantalizingly close to winning the nomination of his party. This is a positive development for our politics and for our society, which has become very cynical in the last few decades since the idealism and hope of the 60's waned with the Vietnam and Watergate eras.
Black people were told that they should support Clinton, because after all, her husband Bill is considered to be the first black president. Nevermind that he never really did much of anything to improve life for Blacks, with the noted exception of welfare reform that he ushered through with the backing of the Republican led Congress. Blacks were told that Obama wasn't black enough, that they shouldn't support him as a result. To their credit, they haven't listened to the pundits and have voted their conscious and their hearts, which is not such a bad way to vote by the way.
Whites were told they weren't ready for a Black president. The country is still too racist, it will never happen said the experts. Yet in Iowa, possibly the second whitest state in the union after Utah, Mr. Obama inspired and won. He continues to do well throughout the Midwest in states with heavy White populations, as well as in the South in states with heavy Black populations. If he can win in Texas, a state with a large Latino population, he will likely wrap up the nomination and cause Clinton to slam her trunk shut and head back to the Senate, where she has an important role to play with both the Democratic party and the nation as a whole.
And let's not leave out our conservative friends, and they are and should be friends. We are all on the same side here after all, yet again the topic for a future column. Conservatives were told that they can't support John McCain because he doesn't pass the right-wing litmus test. Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter, James Dobson, all of the gurus of the modern conservative movement bashed McCain and backed his rivals. Yet here he stands on the precipice of joining Ronald Reagan and Barry Goldwater as outsiders who made it to the big dance. Granted, McCain has fallen more into line with Republican orthodoxy, but he is still much more independent minded than the rest of the field that he has lapped. Only a pesky Mike Huckabee stands in his way at this point, and it seems likely that once the last notch on the bible belt is filled, his dance card will be too and the nomination will be a done deal.
Questions remain, such as will Latinos figure out what many Blacks already have, namely that the Clintons impact on their lives has been greatly overrated? Will fiscal conservatives realize that the GOP has long since abandoned them and the values that they stand for? Will anti-war liberals be able to ignore the irresponsible fringe members of their movement and stay focused on bringing about real change and not be derailed by all of the 9/11 conspiracy and anti-Bush hubris that pollutes the internet? Stay tuned, it figures to be an interesting ride, but hope springs eternal, hope that the people will utilize the power that our founders gave us, for the betterment of our political system, of our nation, and of our society.
Saturday, February 9, 2008
Emptying the Political Notebook
Some random thoughts on the political scene that have been rattling around in my bullpen and are in need of being put down on paper, so to speak.
Now that the Republican nomination is just about wrapped up by John McCain, the coming conventional wisdom no doubt will be that the Democrats need to do the same so that they can start focusing on the general election. I'm not sure this is the case however. The longer that Obama and Clinton maintain their contest, the more that they will dominate press coverage, giving attention to their issues. When the media gives attention to issues this tends to legitimize these issues more in the public mindset. Another advantage of a protracted battle is that it forces the Republicans and McCain to game plan for both candidates, similar to a football coach waiting to see who his opponent will be in the playoffs. It's much easier to plot and scheme, I mean to plan against one foe than two, think of how much extra video equipment Bill Bellichik has to employ when he's not sure of his next enemy.
Speaking of game plans, there can be no doubt that the GOP plan will focus on what I call the trifecta of fear. Fear of terrorism, fear of higher taxes, and fear of Mexicans. The first is aimed at the social conservatives who still make up the base of the party, and basically goes something like this: A vote for the Democrats means another 9/11 attack because once we surrender in Iraq it will embolden "the terrorists" and make us all vulnerable. The second appeals to the long forgotten fiscal conservative wing of the party, the one that has been sold down the river by President Bush and his runaway spending. If you vote for the Democrats, taxes will go through the roof, and the deficit, which is now a mere $400 billion a year will really take off. The third appeals to national security and racial insecurity. A vote for the other guys will allow "the terrorists" to infiltrate from the south and makes us all more vulnerable. Even more importantly, it will allow uneducated, Spanish speaking brown people to take over our country, use up all of our resources, and turn our country into some sort of melting pot. Don't underestimate the power of fear in winning elections, it worked out pretty well for Bush four years ago, not to mention for Clinton in 1992 to be fair about it.
So who will win in November, McCain, Clinton, or Obama. The logical thinking goes that Clinton will defeat Obama and then that McCain will defeat Clinton in November. Obama has an uphill battle because he has to win by a large enough margin to defeat Hilary without the super delegates, the party haunchos that seem most likely to side with Clinton and the establishment. The other battle he has to win is against the GOP operatives, who now that they can focus on November can start to use their effective tactics to get the candidate that they want to run against in the general election. Obama will be portrayed as a pot-smoking, large afro wearing, Muslim sympathizer who refuses to pledge allegiance to the flag. And what's even worse, he's liberal! Let the swiftboating begin.
A couple other observations and comments to finish draining the tub. While it's hard to say if there is more sexism than racism in our society today, I think it's quite clear that sexism is much more socially acceptable. Which is a main reason the GOP wants Clinton and not Obama. Much easier to attack a woman in polite society than a Black man. Speaking of racism, it seems to me that Latinos are much more racist against Blacks than Whites are. How else to explain the fact that Obama is doing well among whites, he won in Iowa for crying out loud, but can't win in states with heavy Latino populations like Arizona and California. Is the term pay-go really that much of an improvement from simply saying pay as you go? It's only two extra syllables, takes less than a second extra to say, and doesn't sound like something you'd order off a menu at a Chinese takeout with a side of lo mein. Yet we could use a shortened term for the federally administered tribal areas, the spots in Pakistan where Al-Qaeda seems to be roaming free. How about using the term that we have used here for over a century, reservations.
Time to start filling up the notebook for the next round of ramblings and rants. In the meantime I'll be losing sleep worrying about how my hard earned tax dollars are going to Islamo-fascists who are secretly plotting to get off the rez and enter the U.S. through Tijuana and Nogales. Pleasant dreams!
Now that the Republican nomination is just about wrapped up by John McCain, the coming conventional wisdom no doubt will be that the Democrats need to do the same so that they can start focusing on the general election. I'm not sure this is the case however. The longer that Obama and Clinton maintain their contest, the more that they will dominate press coverage, giving attention to their issues. When the media gives attention to issues this tends to legitimize these issues more in the public mindset. Another advantage of a protracted battle is that it forces the Republicans and McCain to game plan for both candidates, similar to a football coach waiting to see who his opponent will be in the playoffs. It's much easier to plot and scheme, I mean to plan against one foe than two, think of how much extra video equipment Bill Bellichik has to employ when he's not sure of his next enemy.
Speaking of game plans, there can be no doubt that the GOP plan will focus on what I call the trifecta of fear. Fear of terrorism, fear of higher taxes, and fear of Mexicans. The first is aimed at the social conservatives who still make up the base of the party, and basically goes something like this: A vote for the Democrats means another 9/11 attack because once we surrender in Iraq it will embolden "the terrorists" and make us all vulnerable. The second appeals to the long forgotten fiscal conservative wing of the party, the one that has been sold down the river by President Bush and his runaway spending. If you vote for the Democrats, taxes will go through the roof, and the deficit, which is now a mere $400 billion a year will really take off. The third appeals to national security and racial insecurity. A vote for the other guys will allow "the terrorists" to infiltrate from the south and makes us all more vulnerable. Even more importantly, it will allow uneducated, Spanish speaking brown people to take over our country, use up all of our resources, and turn our country into some sort of melting pot. Don't underestimate the power of fear in winning elections, it worked out pretty well for Bush four years ago, not to mention for Clinton in 1992 to be fair about it.
So who will win in November, McCain, Clinton, or Obama. The logical thinking goes that Clinton will defeat Obama and then that McCain will defeat Clinton in November. Obama has an uphill battle because he has to win by a large enough margin to defeat Hilary without the super delegates, the party haunchos that seem most likely to side with Clinton and the establishment. The other battle he has to win is against the GOP operatives, who now that they can focus on November can start to use their effective tactics to get the candidate that they want to run against in the general election. Obama will be portrayed as a pot-smoking, large afro wearing, Muslim sympathizer who refuses to pledge allegiance to the flag. And what's even worse, he's liberal! Let the swiftboating begin.
A couple other observations and comments to finish draining the tub. While it's hard to say if there is more sexism than racism in our society today, I think it's quite clear that sexism is much more socially acceptable. Which is a main reason the GOP wants Clinton and not Obama. Much easier to attack a woman in polite society than a Black man. Speaking of racism, it seems to me that Latinos are much more racist against Blacks than Whites are. How else to explain the fact that Obama is doing well among whites, he won in Iowa for crying out loud, but can't win in states with heavy Latino populations like Arizona and California. Is the term pay-go really that much of an improvement from simply saying pay as you go? It's only two extra syllables, takes less than a second extra to say, and doesn't sound like something you'd order off a menu at a Chinese takeout with a side of lo mein. Yet we could use a shortened term for the federally administered tribal areas, the spots in Pakistan where Al-Qaeda seems to be roaming free. How about using the term that we have used here for over a century, reservations.
Time to start filling up the notebook for the next round of ramblings and rants. In the meantime I'll be losing sleep worrying about how my hard earned tax dollars are going to Islamo-fascists who are secretly plotting to get off the rez and enter the U.S. through Tijuana and Nogales. Pleasant dreams!
Wednesday, February 6, 2008
The Keys to the Kingdom
The stakes are high, and the margin is razor thin. According to CNN today, nearly 15 million votes were cast yesterday, with Ms. Clinton taking 50.2% and Mr. Obama getting 49.8%. The delegate count is nearly even after a solid month of contests on the Democratic front. There are no visible signs that this race will not come right down to the wire, and could be decided by something called super delegates, brokered conventions, and backroom dealing, which in all honesty I can't pretend to comprehend. Unless one of the candidates goes Howard Dean, gets a swiftboat surprise, or comes out with some crazy notion, say an idea to allow citizenship to undocumented migrants without fees or penalties, or before we secure the border, it will be awhile before we know who will be going up against Mr. McCain and his merry band of warmongers. And as much as common sense would dictate that after a decade of bad governing the Republican party would be booted out of office without a second thought, the race for the grand prize figures to be competitive and unpredictable. Whether due to strong ideological and partisan sentiment, or to the concern that Democrats in charge will mean higher taxes, more Mexicans, and countless attacks by Islamo-fascist-Jihadis, the Democrats will have to take the reigns of power the old-fashioned way. They'll have to earn it.
To do so will mean that they need to hammer home their message of change, of increased social and economic justice, and the promise of ending the seemingly endless and by now pointless war in Iraq. The latter point will be helped a great deal if their candidate is Obama, who doesn't have the residue of blood stains on his hands that is sticking to Hilary like a club stamp and a dull hangover on Sunday afternoon. Regardless of who the nominee is though, it will take every ounce of strength the Democrats have to convince the voting public that they deserve a shot to run things for awhile. It will also take every single voter with liberal and moderate sympathies to cast a vote, especially those who historically have been content to let others cast in their stead.
The keys to the kingdom then lie in the hands of two particular groups that have historically been denied access, namely Blacks and young people. Black Americans received the vote in the 1860's due to the 15th Amendment, but didn't really get true voting rights until the 1960's and the passage of the Voting Rights Act, which was spurred by the activism of the Civil Rights Movement. Yet for a myriad of reasons, ranging from lack knowledge of the process, to apathy, to a slave mentality that still exists to some degree, Blacks don't vote in numbers that correspond to their proportion of the population as a whole. That must change if the levers of power are to switch hands. The second group, young people, have historically been underrepresented in relation to their overall numbers as well. 18-21 year-olds received the vote in the early 1970's, but have yet to utilize it fully. And while it is encouraging to see and hear young people becoming more engaged in the process, especially in support of Obama, being engaged only really matters if they finish the deal. In other words, it's time to put down the bong and the joystick, at least long enough to find their local polling place in November and cast away. If these two historically disenfranchised groups excersise rights that have been won for them by previous generations, perhaps future generations will know good government and a sense of hope for the future that has been sorely lacking and is very much in need for our society as a whole.
To do so will mean that they need to hammer home their message of change, of increased social and economic justice, and the promise of ending the seemingly endless and by now pointless war in Iraq. The latter point will be helped a great deal if their candidate is Obama, who doesn't have the residue of blood stains on his hands that is sticking to Hilary like a club stamp and a dull hangover on Sunday afternoon. Regardless of who the nominee is though, it will take every ounce of strength the Democrats have to convince the voting public that they deserve a shot to run things for awhile. It will also take every single voter with liberal and moderate sympathies to cast a vote, especially those who historically have been content to let others cast in their stead.
The keys to the kingdom then lie in the hands of two particular groups that have historically been denied access, namely Blacks and young people. Black Americans received the vote in the 1860's due to the 15th Amendment, but didn't really get true voting rights until the 1960's and the passage of the Voting Rights Act, which was spurred by the activism of the Civil Rights Movement. Yet for a myriad of reasons, ranging from lack knowledge of the process, to apathy, to a slave mentality that still exists to some degree, Blacks don't vote in numbers that correspond to their proportion of the population as a whole. That must change if the levers of power are to switch hands. The second group, young people, have historically been underrepresented in relation to their overall numbers as well. 18-21 year-olds received the vote in the early 1970's, but have yet to utilize it fully. And while it is encouraging to see and hear young people becoming more engaged in the process, especially in support of Obama, being engaged only really matters if they finish the deal. In other words, it's time to put down the bong and the joystick, at least long enough to find their local polling place in November and cast away. If these two historically disenfranchised groups excersise rights that have been won for them by previous generations, perhaps future generations will know good government and a sense of hope for the future that has been sorely lacking and is very much in need for our society as a whole.
Tuesday, February 5, 2008
Super Fat Tuesday
What a day we have today, February 5, 2008. It is Super Tuesday, the long-awaited multi state primary, the closest we have come to a national contest during the primary season. The days of retail politics, small and intimate gatherings in New Hampshire diners and Iowa farmhouses have melted away from the memory like so much early winter snow. It is the big time now, with celebrities like Oprah and various members of the Kennedy clan holding huge rallies, debates attended by Hollywood's A-list, apparently jonesing for something to attend due to the writer's strike, and ads being run on cable news channels as well as the holy grail of advertising, the Super Bowl itself. Makes you wonder how many 25 dollar donations had to be pieced together to pay for one of those spots. California, New York, Illinois, the big boys are in play now, and we are getting down to serious delegate counts, and also to the final four. It just also happens to be Fat Tuesday, the last day for revelment and debauchery before Lent, and to make things even more interesting, this is the day that New Yorkers will celebrate the Giants unexpected and most exciting Super Bowl victory with what figures to be a rousing ticker-tape parade. But the main issue at hand is presidential politics and getting one step closer to determining which two candidates will be vying to replace President Bush come next January.
So let's start with the candidate who offers the least change, Mitt Romney. Or more to the point, take Mitt Romney, please. This guy is so stiff he makes Al Gore look like a good time, he's a carciature of the stereotypical Republican, rich, white, and clueless. John McCain on the other hand is not your typical conservative. He is, or at least at one point was, in favor of a realistic and humane immigration reform policy, opposed to the illogical and irresponsible Bush tax cuts, and doesn't seem overly beholden to the trifecta of modern day GOP politics, the Jesus freaks, the talk-radio charlatans, and the bubba's who can't tell the difference between a Mexican and Osama bin Laden. But McCain is a hawk's hawk, apparently spending time in a P.O.W. camp gives you the right to support endless war against anyone and everyone. Just because he probably has an authentic brown leather bomber jacket doesn't make him any less dangerous than our current commander-in-chief.
The Democrats offer hope for a different direction, and the two candidates left are very similar in their policy stances, with the lone and important exception being the war in Iraq. Barack Obama offers the hope that the madness will end soon after he takes office, while Hilary Clinton promises meetings with generals and likely just different justifications for the same old failed policies. When it comes to taxes and economic fairness, sensible immigration reform, the chance at more widespread healthcare, and a break from the bomb first and ask questions later foreign policy that the conservatives favor, either Clinton or Obama would seem to be able to get the job done. The main difference between the two, outside of policy issues, is a break from the past and a chance at consensus, which Obama promises, versus a continuation of the orthodox divide and conquer policies of the past 16 years, which Clinton seems likely to support.
What happens today is anybody's guess, kind of like predicting who will win a football game. You can envision certain scenarios playing out, but we won't know what happens until it happens, and by then all the Monday morning quarterbacks on network and cable news will have told us how they knew it all along. Conventional wisdom holds that McCain will put a stranglehold on the Republican nomination, while the Democratic race will remain up for grabs, with one or the other gaining some momentum but not being able to deliver the knockout blow. Regardless, it makes for interesting theater, and it is heartening to see a public that is often lambasted for being apathetic tuning in and showing up to take part in the process. So enjoy Super Fat Tuesday, and here's hoping we don't get confused and end up seeing Hillary wearing Mardi Gras beads and Mitt Romney flashing his bare chest at the Giants victory parade.
So let's start with the candidate who offers the least change, Mitt Romney. Or more to the point, take Mitt Romney, please. This guy is so stiff he makes Al Gore look like a good time, he's a carciature of the stereotypical Republican, rich, white, and clueless. John McCain on the other hand is not your typical conservative. He is, or at least at one point was, in favor of a realistic and humane immigration reform policy, opposed to the illogical and irresponsible Bush tax cuts, and doesn't seem overly beholden to the trifecta of modern day GOP politics, the Jesus freaks, the talk-radio charlatans, and the bubba's who can't tell the difference between a Mexican and Osama bin Laden. But McCain is a hawk's hawk, apparently spending time in a P.O.W. camp gives you the right to support endless war against anyone and everyone. Just because he probably has an authentic brown leather bomber jacket doesn't make him any less dangerous than our current commander-in-chief.
The Democrats offer hope for a different direction, and the two candidates left are very similar in their policy stances, with the lone and important exception being the war in Iraq. Barack Obama offers the hope that the madness will end soon after he takes office, while Hilary Clinton promises meetings with generals and likely just different justifications for the same old failed policies. When it comes to taxes and economic fairness, sensible immigration reform, the chance at more widespread healthcare, and a break from the bomb first and ask questions later foreign policy that the conservatives favor, either Clinton or Obama would seem to be able to get the job done. The main difference between the two, outside of policy issues, is a break from the past and a chance at consensus, which Obama promises, versus a continuation of the orthodox divide and conquer policies of the past 16 years, which Clinton seems likely to support.
What happens today is anybody's guess, kind of like predicting who will win a football game. You can envision certain scenarios playing out, but we won't know what happens until it happens, and by then all the Monday morning quarterbacks on network and cable news will have told us how they knew it all along. Conventional wisdom holds that McCain will put a stranglehold on the Republican nomination, while the Democratic race will remain up for grabs, with one or the other gaining some momentum but not being able to deliver the knockout blow. Regardless, it makes for interesting theater, and it is heartening to see a public that is often lambasted for being apathetic tuning in and showing up to take part in the process. So enjoy Super Fat Tuesday, and here's hoping we don't get confused and end up seeing Hillary wearing Mardi Gras beads and Mitt Romney flashing his bare chest at the Giants victory parade.
Sunday, February 3, 2008
The Tyranny of Orthodoxy
A question was posed during the democratic presidential debate from Los Angeles that hit home with me, as a 37 year-old who voted for the first time as an 18 year-old in 1988. The question had to do with the fact that in every presidential election of my adult life, there has been either a Bush or a Clinton running. While I am proud to say I have never voted for a Bush despite having the opportunity four times to do so, what the question brings up is the divisiveness and bitterness that have become the norm in our political dialogue over the last twenty years, especially the last sixteen that have seen Bubba and Dubya manning the ship.
I know, as an unabashed liberal I am supposed to look on the Clinton era as they golden age and the Bush era as the Dark Ages. While there is some truth to that, the two eras may have more in common than it would seem at first glance. In addition to the aforementioned divisiveness, they share an adherence to political and partisan orthodoxy that hasn't necessarily served the country well. To borrow the line from Ronald Reagan used during the 1984 election, are we better off now than we were 16 years ago? To be sure, there has always been partisan politics in our democracy, at least since Adams took on Jefferson in 1796 and the two party system took shape. Our first president warned famously in his farewell speech of the dangers of division, geographical as well as political. He also warned of unnecessary foreign entanglements, making this a speech that should be required reading for all would be politicos, as well as cable news talking heads. In my opinion, the five most important presidents in our nation's history, two of them Republicans, two of them Democrats, one a man without a party, all share one thing in common, namely they worked more for consensus than they did for the good of their political party. George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, and Ronald Reagan, while having their own ideology and adhering to party orthodoxy, did not put that ahead of the interests of the national common good.
The same can certainly not be said of Mr. Clinton and Mr. Bush, who have presided over administrations that have seen the rise of fractious talk radio and cable news talking heads, the artificial division of the nation into red and blue states, and the labeling of every outlet and publication as either liberal (as in the New York Times) or conservative (Fox News Channel). All the while, the ship of state has been headed dangerously off course, headed for iceberg fields while the captains simply rearrange the deck chairs. Debate and discourse has turned vitriolic, with talking heads becoming shouting evangelizers, and supporters of either liberalism or conservatism substituting demonization and belittlement for respectful and productive discourse.
Enter stage left, a man who, at least to this point in the performance, seems like someone capable of taking our great republic to a higher place, a place where civility and unity are no longer antiquated notions of a byegone era. A man who represents the possibility for a post-partisan, post-racial, and hopefully post-war era in American politics. While the question seemingly being asked in the media is whether or not America is ready for a Black president, the better question is can we handle four more years of red vs. blue, with red symbolic of the blood that is sure to be shed in Iraq, Afghanistan, and possibly Iran or elsewhere, blue representing the mood of the populace as they see their nation continue to disintigrate into something that would hardly be recognizable to our founding fathers.
The time has come for someone who can build consensus, who can lead the nation and not just advance the agenda of one party or another. I am cautiously optimistic that Barack Obama is that person, which is why I have decided to stay tuned in for at least one more election, in hopes that the reality of an Obama presidency will match the promise of the campaign. The fact that he would be our nation's first Black president, while of historical significance, and certainly of importance to the cause of civil rights and a source of pride for Black Americans who have seen their share of disillusionment, is nearly beside the point. What is relevant here is that Mr. Obama, while being compared to various members of the Kennedy clan, is perhaps the first true leader to take the reigns of power since Dwight Eisenhower, and possibly the greatest voice of the people, all the people, since FDR. It is possible that he would offer us a presidency that for once would require no one to clean up afterward, but would afford the next president the opportunity, eight years hence, to continue to chart the course of progress that Mr. Obama has put us on. That is the hope that I have, the dream of this generation, that we can lose the tyranny of the orthodox, and shed the partisan ways that have come to define our system, to be replaced with a politics of consensus, unity, and most of all, hope for a better world with America as the ship that leads the way, the city on a hill that our colonial and republican founders envisioned us to be.
I know, as an unabashed liberal I am supposed to look on the Clinton era as they golden age and the Bush era as the Dark Ages. While there is some truth to that, the two eras may have more in common than it would seem at first glance. In addition to the aforementioned divisiveness, they share an adherence to political and partisan orthodoxy that hasn't necessarily served the country well. To borrow the line from Ronald Reagan used during the 1984 election, are we better off now than we were 16 years ago? To be sure, there has always been partisan politics in our democracy, at least since Adams took on Jefferson in 1796 and the two party system took shape. Our first president warned famously in his farewell speech of the dangers of division, geographical as well as political. He also warned of unnecessary foreign entanglements, making this a speech that should be required reading for all would be politicos, as well as cable news talking heads. In my opinion, the five most important presidents in our nation's history, two of them Republicans, two of them Democrats, one a man without a party, all share one thing in common, namely they worked more for consensus than they did for the good of their political party. George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, and Ronald Reagan, while having their own ideology and adhering to party orthodoxy, did not put that ahead of the interests of the national common good.
The same can certainly not be said of Mr. Clinton and Mr. Bush, who have presided over administrations that have seen the rise of fractious talk radio and cable news talking heads, the artificial division of the nation into red and blue states, and the labeling of every outlet and publication as either liberal (as in the New York Times) or conservative (Fox News Channel). All the while, the ship of state has been headed dangerously off course, headed for iceberg fields while the captains simply rearrange the deck chairs. Debate and discourse has turned vitriolic, with talking heads becoming shouting evangelizers, and supporters of either liberalism or conservatism substituting demonization and belittlement for respectful and productive discourse.
Enter stage left, a man who, at least to this point in the performance, seems like someone capable of taking our great republic to a higher place, a place where civility and unity are no longer antiquated notions of a byegone era. A man who represents the possibility for a post-partisan, post-racial, and hopefully post-war era in American politics. While the question seemingly being asked in the media is whether or not America is ready for a Black president, the better question is can we handle four more years of red vs. blue, with red symbolic of the blood that is sure to be shed in Iraq, Afghanistan, and possibly Iran or elsewhere, blue representing the mood of the populace as they see their nation continue to disintigrate into something that would hardly be recognizable to our founding fathers.
The time has come for someone who can build consensus, who can lead the nation and not just advance the agenda of one party or another. I am cautiously optimistic that Barack Obama is that person, which is why I have decided to stay tuned in for at least one more election, in hopes that the reality of an Obama presidency will match the promise of the campaign. The fact that he would be our nation's first Black president, while of historical significance, and certainly of importance to the cause of civil rights and a source of pride for Black Americans who have seen their share of disillusionment, is nearly beside the point. What is relevant here is that Mr. Obama, while being compared to various members of the Kennedy clan, is perhaps the first true leader to take the reigns of power since Dwight Eisenhower, and possibly the greatest voice of the people, all the people, since FDR. It is possible that he would offer us a presidency that for once would require no one to clean up afterward, but would afford the next president the opportunity, eight years hence, to continue to chart the course of progress that Mr. Obama has put us on. That is the hope that I have, the dream of this generation, that we can lose the tyranny of the orthodox, and shed the partisan ways that have come to define our system, to be replaced with a politics of consensus, unity, and most of all, hope for a better world with America as the ship that leads the way, the city on a hill that our colonial and republican founders envisioned us to be.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
