Why Obama can count on my vote tomorrow
I'm not much of a joiner. In particular, I am not a member of a political party. I certainly have no desire ever to run for any office. For some people, political affiliations are like their religions, but I am an agnostic.
I encounter web sites (and magazine articles) that try to classify my politics. Those simplistic political quizzes generally classify me as a centrist. I am so not a centrist; my opinions on various issues are all over the map. The quizzes always ask for simplistic answers to complex questions, and the kindest replies I can give them are, "Yes, but..." Party platforms are generally a grab-bag of such simplistic answers, and I have yet to encounter such a package I'd be willing to adopt. There are always at least half a dozen show-stoppers on both sides.
I vote in every election. I used to vote Republican. Not all the time, but as likely as not. I live in Massachusetts, which in my (voting) lifetime seems to have been a reliably Democratic state, but my votes helped put Republican governors into the State House to be at odds with the legislative establishment. I also helped put the current President's father in the White House, and tried to keep him there.
(My theory there was that the presidency was more about foreign policy than the domestic economy, with Congress deserving much of the blame for government spending, and that Bush XLI, a former CIA director, knew where the international bodies were buried. In fact, Clinton's first term was not outstanding from a foreign-policy standpoint. On-the-job training takes time.
(I still think that was valid then, when doing the job competently was still the highest priority. More recently, Bush XLIII and his administration have bungled so badly, both domestically and internationally, that the executive branch is first in line for the blame game, not that Congress gets off unscathed.)
The first presidential election I could vote in was right after Watergate, and for that year I voted Democrat for president, but that scandal did not much affect my vote for any other offices.
Fast-forward to the Clinton impeachment. That changed things. The Republican establishment took a year off from the serious business of government and pursued a boondoggle that largely displaced the real news from the pages and screens of our nation. This was an act of cosmic irresponsibility, and showed (to me) that the Republicans as a party had become unfit to govern. They only went downhill from there.
If the complaint had been brought by Monica Lewinsky against the sitting President of the United States, it would have been a textbook example of workplace sexual harassment, and I'd have joined the pack baying for Bill Clinton's resignation. However, though it was portrayed that way, that isn't what happened. It was instead a classic example of politically-motivated prying into the private acts of consenting adults. I don't have to approve of what was going on behind closed doors to conclude that exposing it was wrong. And this was only the most glaring example. Remember Ken Starr? $40,000,000 and no indictment?
That was when I began voting reliably Democratic. I will continue to do so until the rascals are turned out of office. This is a long-standing tradition in U.S. politics. When rejected by the electorate, political parties (and politicians with staying power) reinvent themselves. And they keep doing so until they are able to win elections. After that, the pressure is off them; incumbents have an advantage, which (at its best) provides some hysteresis in the system to make it more stable.
The Republicans are badly in need of such reinvention. Perhaps I will get it together to post separately about that what I think is wrong with the party, but for now, I will just note that the qualifications for winning elections are not (in the short run) the same as those for good governance, and the party became more adept at the former while becoming much worse at the latter.
I look forward to becoming willing to vote for a Republican again on the ticket, when the issues of a particular election make that person the better candidate. Without the cloud of malfeasant Republican governance, I'd have voted for the McCain who once existed, before the Republican party machinery Rove-ized him, but now he's become what he previously scorned, a man who has sold his soul to a system which in serious need of a fork-lift upgrade (wholesale replacement).
In the Democratic primary, I voted for Hillary Clinton. She certainly has her flaws, but she has enough track record that I am comfortable with my estimate of what she would do in office. I could live with her flaws. That's pretty much the position I take with any candidate I vote for.
I am less comfortable with my estimate of what Barack Obama would do in office (much bigger error bars), but it doesn't matter. If he is only a mediocre president, he'll have only two years to do the damage to the Republican agenda that the Republicans have earned, and then the mid-term election will offer a correction. I don't think he will be worse than his predecessor. If he governs to the center, as seems likely, the Democrats may be able to hold onto power longer. In those two years, I hope to see addressed the worst of the damage that Bush the 43rd did to the Supreme Court. As for longer, we will see.
It's pretty amusing to see the Republican FUD (Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt) campaign questioning Obama's experience. Preach to Fox news the choir. It's pretty much like watching Microsoft ads, actually. When the ship appears to be sinking, the incumbent advantage evaporates. FUD worked for the tobacco companies for more than 30 years. It's nice to suppose that cycle is shortening up some as the voters get wiser.
Why am I writing this? Well, perhaps to put a stake in the ground before the election. Certainly if I influence the vote of one reader, in either direction, then my effort will not have been wasted.
I wrote in another forum (a huge, off-topic thread in rec.music.filk) a number of years ago about my position on invading Afghanistan, before that invasion. I have to find that old posting before expanding on that theme here, so it also will have to wait for another day, since I want to post this before Election Day. The summary, as I recall it, was that going into Afghanistan was the right thing to do; Iraq was not, and I feared the latter would starve the former and prevent doing what was necessary. Which is what happened. So this is where I store up I-told-you-so points, if I am lucky.
I encounter web sites (and magazine articles) that try to classify my politics. Those simplistic political quizzes generally classify me as a centrist. I am so not a centrist; my opinions on various issues are all over the map. The quizzes always ask for simplistic answers to complex questions, and the kindest replies I can give them are, "Yes, but..." Party platforms are generally a grab-bag of such simplistic answers, and I have yet to encounter such a package I'd be willing to adopt. There are always at least half a dozen show-stoppers on both sides.
I vote in every election. I used to vote Republican. Not all the time, but as likely as not. I live in Massachusetts, which in my (voting) lifetime seems to have been a reliably Democratic state, but my votes helped put Republican governors into the State House to be at odds with the legislative establishment. I also helped put the current President's father in the White House, and tried to keep him there.
(My theory there was that the presidency was more about foreign policy than the domestic economy, with Congress deserving much of the blame for government spending, and that Bush XLI, a former CIA director, knew where the international bodies were buried. In fact, Clinton's first term was not outstanding from a foreign-policy standpoint. On-the-job training takes time.
(I still think that was valid then, when doing the job competently was still the highest priority. More recently, Bush XLIII and his administration have bungled so badly, both domestically and internationally, that the executive branch is first in line for the blame game, not that Congress gets off unscathed.)
The first presidential election I could vote in was right after Watergate, and for that year I voted Democrat for president, but that scandal did not much affect my vote for any other offices.
Fast-forward to the Clinton impeachment. That changed things. The Republican establishment took a year off from the serious business of government and pursued a boondoggle that largely displaced the real news from the pages and screens of our nation. This was an act of cosmic irresponsibility, and showed (to me) that the Republicans as a party had become unfit to govern. They only went downhill from there.
If the complaint had been brought by Monica Lewinsky against the sitting President of the United States, it would have been a textbook example of workplace sexual harassment, and I'd have joined the pack baying for Bill Clinton's resignation. However, though it was portrayed that way, that isn't what happened. It was instead a classic example of politically-motivated prying into the private acts of consenting adults. I don't have to approve of what was going on behind closed doors to conclude that exposing it was wrong. And this was only the most glaring example. Remember Ken Starr? $40,000,000 and no indictment?
That was when I began voting reliably Democratic. I will continue to do so until the rascals are turned out of office. This is a long-standing tradition in U.S. politics. When rejected by the electorate, political parties (and politicians with staying power) reinvent themselves. And they keep doing so until they are able to win elections. After that, the pressure is off them; incumbents have an advantage, which (at its best) provides some hysteresis in the system to make it more stable.
The Republicans are badly in need of such reinvention. Perhaps I will get it together to post separately about that what I think is wrong with the party, but for now, I will just note that the qualifications for winning elections are not (in the short run) the same as those for good governance, and the party became more adept at the former while becoming much worse at the latter.
I look forward to becoming willing to vote for a Republican again on the ticket, when the issues of a particular election make that person the better candidate. Without the cloud of malfeasant Republican governance, I'd have voted for the McCain who once existed, before the Republican party machinery Rove-ized him, but now he's become what he previously scorned, a man who has sold his soul to a system which in serious need of a fork-lift upgrade (wholesale replacement).
In the Democratic primary, I voted for Hillary Clinton. She certainly has her flaws, but she has enough track record that I am comfortable with my estimate of what she would do in office. I could live with her flaws. That's pretty much the position I take with any candidate I vote for.
I am less comfortable with my estimate of what Barack Obama would do in office (much bigger error bars), but it doesn't matter. If he is only a mediocre president, he'll have only two years to do the damage to the Republican agenda that the Republicans have earned, and then the mid-term election will offer a correction. I don't think he will be worse than his predecessor. If he governs to the center, as seems likely, the Democrats may be able to hold onto power longer. In those two years, I hope to see addressed the worst of the damage that Bush the 43rd did to the Supreme Court. As for longer, we will see.
It's pretty amusing to see the Republican FUD (Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt) campaign questioning Obama's experience. Preach to Fox news the choir. It's pretty much like watching Microsoft ads, actually. When the ship appears to be sinking, the incumbent advantage evaporates. FUD worked for the tobacco companies for more than 30 years. It's nice to suppose that cycle is shortening up some as the voters get wiser.
Why am I writing this? Well, perhaps to put a stake in the ground before the election. Certainly if I influence the vote of one reader, in either direction, then my effort will not have been wasted.
I wrote in another forum (a huge, off-topic thread in rec.music.filk) a number of years ago about my position on invading Afghanistan, before that invasion. I have to find that old posting before expanding on that theme here, so it also will have to wait for another day, since I want to post this before Election Day. The summary, as I recall it, was that going into Afghanistan was the right thing to do; Iraq was not, and I feared the latter would starve the former and prevent doing what was necessary. Which is what happened. So this is where I store up I-told-you-so points, if I am lucky.