why I remain neutral

Jul 28, 2007 21:57

Since I first became politically conscious, I have thrown myself behind a candidate in every contested Democratic presidential nomination brawl: Jesse Jackson in 1988, Jerry Brown in 1992, Bill Bradley in 2000, and Howard Dean in 2004; all of whom were subsequently defeated. Of the four aforementioned, former Vermont Governor Howard B. Dean, M.D. received more of my time and energy (and money) than the other three combined. This was because (1) by 2003, my time and energy were largely my own and I could do as I pleased without parental permission; (2) I was newly enamoured with politics; (3) at the time I believed the 2004 election to be the most important election of my lifetime; and (4) I felt that Dean was the only mainstream candidate who spoke truth to power (opposed the Iraq war from the beginning, etc).
I wrote letters, blogged, drove a carpool to New Hampshire, and took an eighteen-hour bus ride to Iowa to rap on doors with bleeding knuckles in subzero temperatures. But while I never lost my admiration for Dean's candor and his Vermont record, I began to see some flaws in my candidate--a gaffe here, a minor skeleton in the closet there. While most of the problems with Dean were maginified 100x by the mainstream media whores who had it out for him from day one, I nevertheless found it increasingly difficult to defend my vigorous, unqualified support of the man. Questions nagged: wasn't Dean a 'moderate'? what of his support of Israel? if I was so bent on ideological purity, why not support Dennis "the gnome" Kucinich or Al Sharpton?
Then, I learned me a bitter lesson in Iowa: honesty is really, really bad politics. Previously, I had the idealistic notion that voters were generally able to see past their own noses. But most middle class people did not want to give up middle class tax cuts even if it meant paying down the national debt; most people don't know or care about such things and apparently don't have the time to learn about them. Most Iowa Democrats did not want to hear that the U.S. would not always be the most powerful nation in the world.
In the aftermath of Howard Dean's flameout, I found that I was unable to reconcile myself with my one-time enemy, Democratic nominee John Kerry. My support for the nominee was dampened by my lingering animosity, and I could not bring myself to go all out for the Kerry campaign.
Fast-forward three years: every Democratic candidate (Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, John Edwards, Bill Richardson, Joe Biden, Chris Dodd, Dennis Kucinich, Mike Gravel) is playing to the lefty anti-war vote in some way or another, and not a single candidate attended the "centrist" Democratic Leadership Council's annual back-slapping poobah fest this month. Hence, I am not particularly worried. I really think all of these candidates (with the possible exceptions of Kucinich and Gravel), despite their stylistic and rhetorical differences, would largely be the same in terms of policy. I like the idea of having a woman president or a black president. Beyond that, I find Hillary to be extraordinarily well-versed in almost any issue imaginable, while Obama is as thoughtful and nuanced as he is eloquent and charming. John Edwards strikes a chord of heart-felt populism reminiscent of RFK. Bill Richardson has an amazing resumé. Chris Dodd and Joe Biden are very intelligent senators with vast experience. And Dennis Kucinich is a gnome and Mike Gravel is a crazy old man.
Hence, I feel no need to get involved at this point.
Previous post Next post
Up