Given the overall mood of the political blogosphere . . .
I posted this as a comment over at Anglachel's blog earlier, thought I'd repost it here (for a more positive take, see here: http://www.taylormarsh.com/archives_view.php?id=27616) (from an electoral horse-race point of view, NC was about what I expected and Indiana
( Read more... )
No, I haven;t read the books. I've been taking a deliberate tack away from reading books and general wonkiness. Politically, I grew up in a one-party town where the republicans ran as democrats because they couldn't win otherwise. I've seen what a corrupt DP looks like.
As a lawyer I know that words are far too slippery to trust by themselves. Position papers, bills, even votes can be interpreted and reinterpreted to mean different things. So, what I have been deliberately listening at the very surface of the mainstream media. I want to see what the candidates have the guts to say and what they are working to force through the din.
Some things are easy to say - "Support the environment", "create jobs", "fix health care". Other things are not so easy to say "This war was wrong", "We need to bring troops home now", "A woman should have the right to a free abortion at any time for any reason."
According to sites that track *key* votes, Obama and Clinton are 90% the same. How deep would we have to dig to find out what that really means? Bills are complex and slimy. The procedural crap is twice as bad. Give me time and I can *prove* to you that McCain is really more progressive than Kucinich. It's all about perception.
And that's much of what the presidency is about - perception. *IF* congress is doing its job. I've watched the clip of Clinton with Code Pink, I was left very unimpressed. That little tiff has been going on since she took office. I admit, I'm willing to trust Code Pink on stuff like this, they have the time and energy to put to it.
Yes, spin is everywhere and on everything. It's not really about who we *support* it's about who we are willing to forgive for gaffs, misstatements and who we are willing to trust to come around to the right way of thinking.
So, my question remains - why our difference in perception? I thought you were a generation ahead of me but you're not, you're barely a year older than me, so that isn't it.
In can say that one difference we have is priority. The environment was my #1 priority until Gore gave up the election. When that happened I found that restoring American democracy had to take precedence over environmental policy because, no matter how good a given pres my be on this issue, if we, the people no longer controlled our government that policy would inevitably turn against us.
Clinton's embrace of globalization had already undermined that control, it further undermined our intellectual property system and it undermined our economy. Sustainable economics must go hand-in-hand with sustainable ecology. If we continue on the course we are on, economic collapse will result in environmental disaster or vise-versa.
I see Obama bringing a lot of people into the process and a lot of people back to the process. It may be his downfall if he expects people to suddenly stop being active after he wins. He'll have to prove up his rhetoric. But I've seen Hillary's record. Her first health care plan was a sellout to BigMed. I see no reason to believe she won't do the same again. I have a good idea of what to expect from Hill and McCain and I don't like it. I'll take my chances with an unknown Hope Monger.
But then, I've always embraced chaos.
Reply
Leave a comment