An Unfortunate Attitude

Recently, I've become concerned with aspects of American disillusionment and the upcoming Presidential campaign of 2008...


What does "progress" mean?

How can we improve the United States of America?

--

You know, some people say that the government is broken. People say that it is more than the pro-business, reactionary tone of the neo-conservative alliance that has run Washington D.C. for much of recent memory.

Nobody absolves the Republicans, but many people also blame the opposition Democrats for giving a rubber stamp to a wrong-headed policy agenda.

They say the two-party system itself has become castrated, incapable of making substantive improvements to the state of the nation.

Certain people say that the Democrats and Republicans are too similar, too entrenched in a corporate system to be capable of making any kind of structural improvements.

Other people say that the Right and the Left are too ideologically opposed. They say that the partisan gridlock in Washington has rendered the federal government unable to solve basic problems because of a material inability to forge compromise.
l
How do people go about fixing their government?

Some decide to vote for third party candidates whose political ideology aligns more directly with their own. Sometimes these candidates fall into the group that believe that the two major parties are too similar - the Green Party and the Libertarian Party come to mind. Those that believe that the major parties are too different work to find moderate insurgencies. The Unity '08 movement surrounding Mr. Bloomberg, Senator Hagel, and others comes to mind.

Other people are disillusioned with the two party system in a different way. They believe that the US government is so broken that it is beyond repair, as far as electoral politics are concerned. Some decide that the system is so stacked against the alternative party/ideology of their liking or they decide that none of the candidates in either major or minor parties truly represents their values. They opt not to vote at all. They determine it isn't worth it to do so.
-

Then, I think about my own values, my own virtues, my own ideas.

I think about how far away we are from achieving the Utopian America that I have envisioned in my brain and in my heart.

And we are so far... so far away from reaching it. There are times I've felt we are so far away that I think about scenarios in which I might consider giving up entirely.

Some people that are disillusioned shake their heads at those that decide to back a major party candidate:

...Naive, they are. They'll never get real change with candidate X. They might make a positive adjustment or two here and there but everything will be the same, for the most part. We'll still be far far away from the ideal America and then someone else will come in and take us backward in a circle to where we started the first time...

Sometimes, these attitudes make me upset. And it's not because I think the two party system is the ideal model for good governance, popular representation, or democracy. It's not because I don't agree that this nation needs striking and substantive change at some point or another.

I do agree. I do agree this country needs way more than an oil change. It needs more than new break pads.

There are major problems with the engine. I agree.

This country does totally messed up stuff to people all over the world. Our own government does totally messed up stuff to us here at home.

I agree!

A lot of people do, t00. So many people.

---
But I think about progress and I think about how to improve the United States of America.

I realize that there are also a lot of people out there that hate my Utopian America. There are so many ignorant, hateful, misinformed, reactionary people that have an irrational fear of all adjustments that I think would improve this nation.

I know that those people will fight my attempts to make changes.

I know that there are so many changes I'd like to make that the couldn't happen in one day, even if I were king of the world. Certain things would have to wait until day two or week two or year two, I mean, a man's gotta eat and nap and catch a ball game now and then.

But I'm not king of the world (yet)...

The closest person to king of the world is the President of the United States of America. We are going to elect a new one soon.

Which candidate will get us closer to the Utopian States of We Could Be Famous?

Which one is more likely to succeed in making enough lasting change during their four or eight years in office so that in 2010 I'm typing about the NEXT logical set of changes that need to be made to get us that much closer to the US of WCBF?

Some people that I agree with on a lot of things thought that that person was John Edwards and were planning to vote for him.

I like John Edwards and I can't really be mad at people that believed his policies would represent the most progress of the major candidates. I understand arguments that Mr. Edwards would have been the strongest candidate against the Republicans in the fall.

Now that Edwards has dropped out of the election, some of his former supporters are now lining up behind Barack Obama, who has always been my choice for most capable of leading a sustained generational push for a more progressive America. He is their second choice, they believe he is at least marginally more capable of creating positive progress than the other electorally viable choices available.

Others believe that Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton are too similar to each other or too similar to the Republicans.

These people may not vote at all. Some might consider voting for Ralph Nader, a candidate that will not win but provides a ballot choice for those wanting to express their disillusionment in electoral form.

I like many of Mr. Nader's ideas. I like his fearlessness in expressing politically unpopular realities that neither major party has the boldness to address.

But I don't think a disgruntled, self-righteous vote for Mr. Nader or a disillusioned, self-righteous decision to abstain from voting helps one iota.

Barack Obama's candidacy, even if you think it is mostly rhetoric, even if you think his enthusiastic supporters have become irrational followers of a personality cult, even if you don't think it advocates for authentic change, represents something substantially different from the candidacies we've seen from the Democratic Party in decades.

You might not agree that his ideas are any different. Other things are different, however.

Mr. Obama's grassroots support through small donations and his ability to attract large crowds is impressive and unprecedented in the TV age of politics.

His galvanization of young voters is unprecedented in the TV age of politics.

His appeal amongst independents is something that I have not witnessed from a Democratic candidacy in my lifetime.

These things are encouraging developments. I like these things. I believe that his policies are decent. I disagree with him on lots of things. I want his health care plan to be more universal, I want him to end the death penalty, I want him to favor gay marriage.

But I think he can lead an electoral coalition that can get us closer to the Utopian States of We Could Be Famous than any other major candidate left running. I think he can get us closer than Ralph Nader could, even if Mr. Nader magically broached the magical 5% number to earn the media coverage of a major party candidate.

That marginal moral victory would bring way less change than a landslide victory for Barack Obama would.

A landslide victory, a mandate would allow at least some changes. Depending on Mr. Obama's competency it could lead to a few medium-sized changes. It would allow people like me that want to see big changes to demand them in an environment receptive to arguments about change-oriented policy. A Democratic Presidency, if it succeeds in making improvements to this country, would allow a person like myself, a person that wants big changes, a better environment for the advocacy of my longterm policy ideals. A Democratic Presidency, if it fails to make this country better, puts me in a better position to criticize politicians for not offering enough change or for being too complacent.

A Republican Presidency puts in me in a place where I'll be arguing against more reactionary and backward policies. It forces me to abandon my Utopian States ideas in order to argue against the agenda of neo-conservative dystopia advocates that they'll be a better position to put forth.

Why is it stupid for like-minded people that hate the neo-conservative agenda to resoundingly unite behind a candidate, even if he's not the most perfect thing of all time? Isn't it worth it to work together to see how much change we can get? To see how far along we can get? To move this nation to a new set of debates?

Franklin Roosevelt was an awesome President that changed lots of things about this country for the better. He also made some vile and sinister decisions that violate my ideals regarding liberty and human rights.

But I'd certainly take him as President over and over again. He was able to forge a generational coalition that lasted for a long time and made substantial progress in terms of establishing a social safety net and extending civil rights.

Now I want a better social safety net and I want civil rights extended further. He didn't finish the job. I don't expect Mr. Obama to do so either. I think we could move the boulder, though.

If it isn't worth it to give it a shot, then why are you living in this country still?

I'm ready to leave when I reach that determination, myself. I want to live in a society that I respect. I think America still is that society, I'd like to think we can make it a better match.

When I don't think that's possible anymore, I'm gone.

It seems like people that are conscientiously abstaining from voting or voting for Ralph Nader have already made that determination. They're engaging in the discourse without really engaging in the discourse.

Give this coalition a shot. It's not perfect, it never is going to be. We can get closer to it though.

Why is it not worth it to enthusiastically support Mr. Obama's coalition? What is there to lose?
Don't we have more to lose by remaining disillusioned? Don't we have more to lose when an enthusiastic change coalition could mean the difference between another backward Republican administration or a Democratic one receptive to making things at least somewhat better? Don't we have more to lose when an enthusiastic change coalition could be the difference between an anemic Democratic administration that struggles to force the passage of progressive bills in Congress and one that has a mandate from the American people and wide majorities in the House and Senate?

I disagree with Mr. Obama on many fronts. I am not seduced by the hope he inspires.

But I have hope. I have hope that this country can be better if we can build a coalition of like-mined people, even if we differ on a lot of different little things. Mr. Obama provides as viable a pretext for progressive unity as I've ever experienced in the United States of America.

How could this not be worth a shot?

I'm gone if it fails and we're left in the same position we're in now in eight years. But, I tell ya, I'm gone sooner if we don't try.

Mr. Edwards, Endorse Barack Obama Today!

He's leaving the Presidential race today. The announcement will be made from the Lower Ninth Ward.

I really admire the campaign he has run and think he'd make a good President.

I think he's making the right decision.

There's one more right decision for him to make.

All of the media reports are indicating that Edwards will NOT make an endorsement today but may do so later.

I hope "later" means sometime later today or tomorrow.
Or I hope it means immediately.

Is there any doubt that he is closer, personally and ideologically, to Mr. Obama than Mrs. Clinton? To me, his choice is obvious. Explain to me how my assumptions are misguided, if you think otherwise. Timing-wise, I don't understand how Mr. Edwards could think his endorsement would have any more value than it does right now, just before the Feb. 5th monster primary. Pushing it any closer to next Tuesday and you risk burying the endorsement in an election day news cycle that won't give proper coverage to anything but will give bad coverage to everything.

Caucus Prediction Time

Big day for soap opera fans. This storyline has been tirelessly built since 2006. The first payoff is tonight.

Did you buy into the inevitability of Hillary Clinton's victory? Remember when she was considered unbeatable? It happened. Shame she just blasted through so many millions of dollars... because Iowa democrats are voting the anti-establishment ticket.

I never believed that invincibility bullsh*t. That never appeared to be the case to me. Nice narrative for the media to run with, though.

'90s Democrats are out.

Progressive populism is in.

Flannel is in.

Patterned zip-up hoodies are out.

When these turn out to be the results tonight, I will be happy happy:

1. Barack Obama: 40%
2. Jon Edwards: 33%
3. Hillary Clinton: 27%

I'm having a harder time handicapping the Republican race because Republican voters are... I just won't say anything.

For weeks, I've been going back and forth with Oyster and Jeffrey regarding this race. I've been saying again and again that Huckabee would be able to sustain his momentum enough to carry Iowa. I still believe that argument is compelling.

He is uniquely positioned as the grassroots populist Republican answer to the progressive movement that is threatening to unite Democrats on the other side.

Romney and Giuliani are actually quite similar candidates due to their position changes on a variety of social issues and they're support for and from the traditional bastions of economic and industrial neo-conservatism.

McCain holds down prudent, moderate lane. The thinking man's Republican, as it were. Still crazy, but seems less crazy.

I've been arguing that this would be enough, in spite of the traditional Republican thirst for a war-hawking type.... I thought that McCain would surge a little bit and I thought Romney would continue his collapse. Mostly, I thought Huckabee would take the caucus with surprising ease.

But Huckabee's recent MAJOR AND INEXCUSABLY EMBARRASSING gaffes on foreign policy, namely the idiotic statement he made last week about illegal immigration from Pakistan, have really poisoned his candidacy.

Thus, Romney has inexplicably regained ground in spite of the fact that he's Gordon Gekko with a creepy sweater. So the Republican race is going to be tighter than I initially thought.
Either way McCain is in great position. He'll be in third, I believe. He'll easily be able to spin third place as a big plus given how he's largely ignored campaigning in Iowa as he did in 2000. He's rocking in New Hampshire right now and blast ahead to a surprisingly easy victory there, riding the momentum and positive media attention from his better-than-anticipated Iowa showing.

Here we go:

1. Huckabee: 27%
2. Romney: 27%
3. McCain: 20%
---
I don't think Obama is going to finish lower than first in a single primary until Nevada. I think he's going to get Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina before pundits even have the chance to find this blog to anoint me caucadomis.

Will Senator Clinton's Rivals Ever Attack?

For the past several weeks now, various national media outlets and political figures have been ejaculating about Hillary Clinton's campaign skills and the consolidation of her early lead in the polls running up to the first Presidential primaries in January.

"Can Clinton Be Stopped?"

"Proudly Wearing the Front-Runner Label"

"Bayh Endorses Clinton"

"Bush: Hillary Clinton Will Be Democratic Nominee"

Chris Cillizza of the Washington Post sums it up:

It's official: Washington insiders believe Hillary Rodham Clinton will be the Democratic presidential nominee.

All of these stories have originated this very week. She has clearly gained a great deal of momentum, picking up endorsements and pundit praise while slowly adding to her lead in national polls over Barack Obama, John Edwards, and the rest of the field.

My question is, when will her rivals begin to really criticize her at her greatest point of weakness: the very insider support for which she has garnered so much positive attention?

A wide variety of polls consistently show American voters' dissatisfaction with the performance of government, both before and after the Democratic takeover of Congress. Here is one from Gallup released this week. On Election Day, in 2006, although many believe that dissatisfaction with the War in Iraq drove voters to elect a Democratic Congress, more voters cited corruption and ethics as more influential in their minds. The American people have little faith in the Federal Government and have consistently flocked to candidates running as "outsiders." For my whole life, one of the most common insults to hear on the campaign trail is when one candidate labels another "one of those Washington insiders." Voters, regardless of party affiliation, are largely disillusioned by the campaign circus and a money-driven electoral process.

Yet the links above point to the insider love inundating the Clinton campaign as a strength. True, her chief rivals for the Democratic Nomination, Barack Obama and John Edwards are running outsider campaigns. Both are taking up the mantle of change, and the message has resonated some amongst grassroots supporters. While the juxtaposition between Clinton the Insider vs. the Agents of Change seems to be clear to those that are following the campaign closely, Clinton's Democratic rivals have been largely timid about criticizing her as a representative of the Washington establishment that voters are so eager to rebuke. Sure, Edwards and Obama have alluded to some of the issues of the Clinton Administration during the 1990s: Hillary's failed healthcare initiative, NAFTA dissatisfaction, etc. Yet, a full-frontal assault on Hillary Clinton the Insider or Hillary Clinton the Shady Fundraiser do not seem to be forthcoming.

Obama, in particular, seems to be in a tough place because so much of his support has coalesced from his pledges not to engage in attack-based campaigning. Yet, Clinton's rivals are passing up on the chance to exploit her most glaring weakness with Democratic and Independent voters, instead waiting for her perceived "unlikability" to catch up to her.

It won't. At least not during primary season.

They had a golden opportunity to draw a distinction between Clinton the Insider and themselves after the Norman Hsu fund-raising scandal broke. Or after even more sensational details broke about the ties between the Clinton campaign and Hsu.

Those problematic disclosures, while still open as the case against Hsu develops, have largely slipped through the cracks, replaced by the above puff stories touting insider praise and endorsements from this week's news cycle.

So the question remains, will rival Democrats challenge Senator Clinton directly on this issue?

If they don't, and Clinton wins the nomination, you can certainly bet the Republicans will.