February 6, 2008
-
Politics
So I haven’t written about politics here in a long while and feel compelled to weigh in.
The biggest reason I haven’t gone all political on your Xanga selves is that I’m not crazy about any of the major candidates. I have said for months, from the time when the field of candidates was very wide, that I believed every single candidate would make a perfectly capable president. I thought they all could do the job, and from a historical perspective would be likely to go down as effective and respected presidents. I thought they were all qualified, leaving the differences to those of ideology and personality.
I find myself hoping for the outcome of Hillary/Romney or Hillary/Huckabee, for a slimey and tactical reason: tons of people couldn’t bring themselves to vote for either. That would leave the door wide open for an independent or third-party ticket.
Mike Bloomberg could run. I would be very likely to support his campaign. While Obama is inspiring and talks about uniting, I have seen Mayor Bloomberg actually do it. He isn’t partisan, and yet he understands partisanship enough to navigate it effectively to get things done. Obama wants to unite, but he almost never crosses the aisle to work with Republicans as equals. Bloomberg crosses the aisle in his sleep.
Ralph Nader has formed an exploratory committee. If Hillary gets the Democratic nominations, I am confident that he will run. If Obama wins, Nader may run with the intention of pulling him in a better direction. You know the depth of my admiration and respect for Ralph Nader.
Then there’s the promise that the Green Party will nominate someone. It could be Ralph, or it may be someone different–most likely former Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney. I happen to think that Cynthia McKinney is crazy as all get-out. I love the promise that the Green Party holds, but I do not think McKinney would lead it in a good direction.
On the so-called “major” candidates…
John McCain has drifted far to the right to appeal to a selection of right-wingers who are conservative only in the sense that they like a ten- to twenty-year delay on everything. They don’t have an active agenda, they just distrust quick change and prefer to drag their feet. They call this being “traditional.” McCain is also an adamant supporter of President Clinton and of our unconstitutional occupation of the sovereign nation of Iraq. That’s bad. But I think he would conduct the war very differently and with much stricter oversight. He vehemently disapproves of any torture being conducted by our soldiers, and that is very important to me. He is fiscally conservative (unlike the Republicans in Washington for the past eight years), which I am also. He wants to restrain the influence of corporate influence on our self-governance. For me it’s a lot of bad with the good, or vice versa.
Hillary Clinton would get a heck of a lot done while in office. There’s no doubt about that. The question I would have is whether it would be the right stuff, or stuff that would take a long time to repair. A lot of both, I suspect, so again–bad with the good. I favor a single-payer universal healthcare system, and she favors a system of universal healthcare based more on legal requirement and privatization. But, I think there is a realistic chance of her system coming to be, and it would be better than what we have now. I don’t think we’ll see a single-payer system in this country in my lifetime, unfortunately. She of course is a supporter of the Iraq occupation, and that’s not cool. She also sees inherently selfish corporations as entities to work with, rather than undemocratic forces to be constrained. That’s no good either.
Barack Obama doesn’t do it for me emotionally, so I miss a lot of the magic he seems to be misting down upon my peers. He’s an orator, and I want someone who can just talk, and who rolls up his sleeves and gets things done. He is one to lead from behind, rather than to lead by, well, being in the lead. He would be the general who gives an inspirational speech and hangs in back, not one who is the first into battle. So stylistically he doesn’t resonate with me. And as you can tell, I don’t think there is a ton of substance to Obama. His substance is his charisma and his ability to inspire. Is that enough? Can a president be great by simply inspiring the country and those under him? I don’t know. I could vote for him, but if the vote was tomorrow it would still be a toss-up for me. The way I see it, if everything Obama dreams of became reality, I would still be dissatisfied. That’s in contrast to the dreams of Ralph Nader, for instance. Obama’s dreams are more likely to become reality (though only partially, and only some of them), but I don’t know if they’re bold enough dreams.
I love Huckabee’s style. But he’s a creationist, he favors flag-burning and marriage constitutional amendments, and he’s all jolly about his evangelicalism, which is so nicely compatible with American capitalism. Romney makes me want to slap him. Ron Paul would be cool in that he would do a good job of re-calibrating the country. I would not want to see all his dreams come true, but if he had a full term of pulling the country in his direction, I think we would be better off for it.
I’m very much wait and see on this one. I still think the field is still way more wide open than we realize even now.
Comments (6)
thanks for weighing in. you’re someone i can trust and i found that pretty helpful
one thing that irks me to no end about Sen. Clinton is that she seems insanely ambitious for ambition’s sake. i guess i see her as selfish in a way, and just wanting to become president so she can check it off her list of things to do before she dies… maybe that’s not a fair assessment on my part, but it really bothers me. i can’t help but think about it every time i see her…
our Primary isn’t until May 20, so, it’s a long way off still… who knows what will be happening by then!
It’s a formal name change in that they’re calling the non-profit organization “the simple way” and the actual community “potter street.” In reality, we all sort of stumble over it–we still call them “the simples” (as in, “The simples are coming over for dinner”). “The potters” just doesn’t have the same ring. Anyway, they explain it on their website.
My little brother really wants Bloomberg to run, at least as the running mate. I haven’t really followed Bloomberg’s actions, though. I was kind of rooting for Richardson while he was still in the race.
Wow, I thought our primary was late!
I think you’re absolutely right about Hillary being extremely ambitious. She really is. But, I think she has overall harnessed that ambition well, to do good and meaningful things through public service. Also, I think she has dealt pretty well with the tension between her ambitions and not wanting to come across as conniving. (Her run for a New York Senate seat was a model of this… she was often called a “carpet bagger” and accused of “using” the state to achieve her goal–but, in the end, I think she has been an excellent senator for New York state.)
Sometimes I think it does go wrong. I think her fundraising machine is one of them. She has realized the unfortunate truth that money is often key for winning elections, and so she has applied her usual ambition to establishing a huge network of financial support and figuring out how to tap it. I think she often focuses too much effort there, and ends up giving people the impression that she thinks elections can be bought. I don’t think she really thinks that, but it would be good to see her focus her energies differently.
But, you know, it’s the presidency of the United States we’re talking about. George W. Bush is a consummate slacker, and that’s no good. I think we want one of the most over-achieving over-achievers in that office. Someone who has set his or her eyes no lower than that great height. It takes a lot of drive to get there… but we know how much of a difference it makes when someone really wants something in a visceral way.
Thanks for the comments.
Sarah, no doubt in my mind that Richardson was the most qualified person in the race, in either party. I think he has a good shot at being a v.p., still. (Though he has grown a nifty little beard since dropping out of the race.) The one thing I had trouble with with him is that his thoughts on healthcare aren’t really advanced, and he is not a supporter of universal healthcare.
Dr. Paul tirelessly works for limited constitutional government, low taxes, free markets, and a return to sound monetary policies. He is known among his congressional colleagues and his constituents for his consistent voting record. Dr. Paul never votes for legislation unless the proposed measure is expressly authorized by the Constitution.
“Ron Paul personifies the Founding Fathers’ ideal of the citizen-statesman. He makes it clear that his principles will never be compromised, and they never are.”
“There are few people in public life who, through thick and thin, rain or shine, stick to their principles. Ron Paul is one of those few.”
He has never voted to raise taxes.
He has never voted for an unbalanced budget.
He has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership.
He has never voted to raise congressional pay.
He has never taken a government-paid junket.
He has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch.
He voted against the Patriot Act.
He voted against regulating the Internet.
He voted against the Iraq war.
He does not participate in the lucrative congressional pension program.
He returns a portion of his annual congressional office budget to the U.S. treasury every year.
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/about/
~ Micah
not crazy about any of the candidates either. i wish there would be a third party that could just hit it, ya know. somehow just get the pulse on whatever this country needs, which is not petty arguments on party lines. i’m not an avid supporter of any of the candidates. one thing to say for your comment (more than for the candidate himself) of whether it would do to have a president who only has an ability to inspire, considering the power of the voter, if he could inspire action into the voters of this country, perhaps action would be the result. but that’s more an argument to your vocabulary than it is to the candidate. i’m not convinced that would be the case. but i hope to be optimistic and say… something’s gotta get us outta this government slump. i’d like to go with my to-be husband to brazil next year without the american president climbing on my back wherever i go. maybe if i tweak my portuguese a bit people will think i’m south african….