Today’s Mercury News says that there hasn’t been a single presidential election from 1980 onward in which California’s primary had a chance to determine the result. I guess it’s easy to forget that people in the 49 other states still outnumber us. But it looks like this Tuesday’s primary will be a big one. I’ve been thinking about what to do with my part in it.
I gained a lot from the work of Steve Kirsch, who’s done the best and most thorough analysis of political candidates that I’ve ever seen. Since I have a lot of the same values as Steve, that means that my candidate (John Edwards) now isn’t in the race.
I’m a registered independent, and since the Republican primary is closed to independents, my choice now is Clinton or Obama.
With Clinton, we know her past idealism, her failures and successes, and her determination. Democrats criticize her for “triangulating” her positions, but her right-wing opponents aren’t worried about that. They believe she would get things done – and that’s what some of them fear, but I think it’s time for some changes. I’m not happy that she’d be another link in a chain of family connections in the White House, but that also means that we know that she’s not going to be surprised by what she finds when she gets there.
Obama’s 2004 keynote was brilliant. It was an optimistic and inclusive vision of America that we haven’t seen since Reagan, and as an American who’s moved around and who has friends and family in many different states, I’ve gotten very tired of red and blue. Like Reagan, Obama is a candidate who can play for a landslide, and I think that America needs one again.
Obama’s been enjoying a surge in popularity. So have lots of other “Web 2.0” startups, and they are daily proof of popularity’s shallowness. There’s a virginity of idealism, and it’s taken when people realize that the movement and leaders that seemed to arise from them is really a completely separate thing with an agenda and priorities of its own. Like Tom Hayden,
I have been devastated by too many tragedies and betrayals over the past forty years to ever again deposit so much hope in any single individual, no matter how charismatic or brilliant.
Back to the candidates: To me, John Edwards was a bulldog who was right on the issues: tough, tenacious, and ready to fight to bring changes to places where we need them, but he’s out of the race. Hillary Clinton is less aggressive but still tough at her core. Obama is much more variable. In many ways he seems the least capable of the three candidates, and thus is the one who needs the most help to define his mission and succeed.
So to me, it’s harder to support Obama because to do so is to accept a challenge. If I would believe in one America – or world – what would I do to help build it? How would I treat my neighbors and my adversaries? People whose religion I disagree with? People who have more or less than me?
Optimism is great, but I can’t ignore Steve Kirsch’s outlook. If he’s just partly right, we have serious problems ahead. We should know by now that it’s easier to keep a balloon from overinflating than reassemble it after it’s burst. If you can live with the politics of division: red vs. blue, civilized vs. infidel, progressive vs. “backwater”, “saved” vs. “lost”, America vs. “the terrorists”, then all that you have to do is get on the winning side. That seems to be what a lot of Obama supporters are doing; I see and hear them making lots of references to age and “their generation”. But what’s new about that? People have been singing My Generation for over forty years now! And if this is about looking out for my personal interests, I can find a better candidate for that. To me, the reason to support Obama is my belief that the foundation of human success is empathy and cooperation, and that that’s the best hope for our future. Obama seems like the best candidate to build on that.
I’ve got two more days to think about this, but this is a start.
5 comments ↓
I read this blog for the coding, not the politics – but it is an important question you raise, so I’ll weigh in with my two cents.
As you said, Clinton is a fairly well-known quantity, with some resounding successes in the past. She has a few blots on her record (an overly hawkish foreign policy best exemplified by the vote to authorize war) but all in all, probably not a lot of surprises. As a pragmatist, I’m worried about her viability in the general election, especially since McCain’s weaknesses are going to be with Christian conservatives likely to be rallied by opposition to Clinton. She’s basically the only one who can unify the Republicans. Once again, functional programming proves its point – side-effects can be a pain in the neck.
I don’t agree with Obama in terms of all of his policies. And he is a bit of a gamble, I’ll grant you that, but I see my vote for him as a kind of meta-vote as well. Not just on policies, but because I think he has demonstrated a sustained ability to inspire ordinary people to take up the responsibility for their country. That’s a positive change. I also think he has the best tech platform of any of the candidates, but that’s really not the deciding factor – his commitment to a more open, transparent government is. I don’t favor a major rewrite of politics (revolution) but I think some serious refactoring could be in order. And I get the sense that not only does Obama know he’d have to deliver on that promise or be a one-term President, I think he actually believes in change. At least, his books and personal story seem to corroborate this.
So I voted Obama. I think the risk is worth it – and honestly, I don’t think the fallout of high expectations is the worst risk we could have. I think the certainty of Clinton’s foreign policy is scarier, personally.
The most important thing is that you’re carefully considering your decision. Even if you disagree, I respect the process you’re going through!
I haven’t been thrilled with any of the candidates, but I’m slowly becoming convinced by the Obama barrage of optimism.
(1) Kirsch’s article says that we’re doomed, Q.E.D, no matter if you think Edwards has the best plan or not. Well, fuck us, then, Dave.
(2) agnoster’s penultimate paragraph. Really, if ever in your life you take a risk in placing too much hope in a politician, Obama’s probably your best bet. If you lose, what harm is there? Obama will be 100,000% better on the environment than the GOP candidate, and that’s the long term issue that needs solving right f’ing now.
You should also note that Obama’s positions on high-tech issues such as net neutrality are the clearest and best informed of all the candidates.
(3) The president is not a dictator (unless they’re a Republican, of course. Even the Dem congress actively capitulates to dictatorial demands by Chimpy—this won’t apply to a Dem president. That’s how DC seems to work now. Thanks, traditional media!). Any plan put forward by the Executive Branch must be approved by Congress. Nobody’s plan is going to exit Congress without substantial editing.
(4) Tangentially, you need to pay more attention to the congressional races if you really want to fix anything in the long term. They are just as important as the presidential race, or more so. In theory, the president and should be removed from office for doing what Bush has done (violating the Constitution and oath of office, multiple counts). In practice, your current congress has taken that “off the table” because half of the Democrats cower in fear anytime the Republicans walk by, and the Republicans always vote in lockstep with their leadership on bills important to their base.
In California, in particular, you need to remove Senator Feinstein from office at the next opportunity, as she’s consistently a capitulator, the opposite of Senator Boxer. I think Trent Lott’s been boning her, so we’ll see if that changes now that he’s resigned from the Senate, but her husband is in the defense industry… Nearer term, there are also several local representatives you could replace.
This is a tough one for me. I, too, favored Edwards, mostly for his stance against what I see as “corporate socialism”.
Now that he’s gone, and I don’t really believe in either of the candidates left to me, I’m forced to go with the lesser of two evils.
The big knock against Hillary is that she (like no other candidate) could be a galvanizing force for the Rep candidate. Obama’s is his junior Senator status (lack of experience).
I’m not sure how I’ll decide, but I’ll certainly be doing some reading over the next day (or so).
I apologize for quoting another person’s writing, but Michael Chabon is one of my favorite authors. I love what he wrote on today’s Washington post opinion page. A couple of of quoted paragraphs here:
“It is through our fear of falling prey to the calamity and misadventure from which the media promise faithlessly to protect us
- a fear manufactured and sold by the media themselves –that we accept without question the media-borne canard (tainted, in my view, by a racism as insidious as any that hides behind the curtains of voting booths) that Barack Obama, a seasoned and successful 46-year-old husband and father of two, a man sweeping into the prime of his life with all his sails and flags unfurled, is too young and inexperienced for a job that demands vitality and flexibility and that, furthermore, has made nonsense of glittering resumes, laughingstocks of practiced old hands and, in a reverse of Popeye’s old trick, ravenous alligators out of years of accumulated baggage.”“But the most pitiable fear of all is the fear of disappointment, of having our hearts broken and our hopes dashed by this radiant, humane politician who seems not just with his words but with every step he takes, simply by the fact of his running at all, to promise so much for our country, for our future and for the eventual state of our national soul. I say “pitiable” because this fear of disappointment, which I hear underlying so many of the doubts that people express to me, is ultimately a fear of finding out the truth about ourselves and the extent of the mess that we have gotten ourselves into. If we do fight for Obama, work for him, believe in him, vote for him, and the man goes down to defeat by the big-money machines and the merchants of fear, then what hope will we have left to hold on to?”
One a tactic note: if you have registered as an independent voter (non-partisan) in California, you CAN vote in the democratic primary.
Lawrence Lessig has posted a persuasive video supporting Obama
Leave a Comment (sign in with Twitter)