My Modified Views
This is made in reference to the fact Obama has just won the democratic primary.
Not the best that I could have hoped for, and knowing me, I have supported many longshots.
Obama certainly has an eloquence and a knowledge of history that informs his thinking. Most importantly, we need a strong candidate who will end this war.
So I am after some deliberation, giving him my support with some reluctance due to my previous positions and attitudes.
Let me start out by saying that I believe that one must always use their judgement and their conscience when they vote. Unfortunately, in a system as imperfect as the American system, both politicians and voters have to make decisions which are not always the best. I have vigorously believed that voting for the winner is the wrong mentality, and that the values and the issues are of primary importance when voting. However, we cannot always in an election - not just in America, but in any country, and I know this because I live in Canada and have studied politics - that the politicians you elect will agree with you on everything. Such an assumption is of equal ignorance and false hopes as an assumption that the best policies are always going to be adopted when you want them to be. Even in a system where the people have direct voting power, there will still be elections, and there will still be instances where some ideas are never brought to the table so people can vote, albeit much less often than in our current system. We must realize that while the system is broken, and changing it is necessary, it has some potential and real positive changes have occured however slow those changes were adopted.
I believe working within and without the system is necessary. We should both the best parts of the current system as well as outside political activism to bring about the changes we seek: to adopt new policies that benefit all Americans, and to fix the imperfections of our system so that those policies are not hindered by such imperfections. This is not a black-and-white, either-or scenario, where you have fringe candidates demanding changes while threatening their "corrupt" opponents who could bring about some of those changes, and scaring away supporters with adversarial tones. Successful polticians are very conscious of the fact that one must be able to speak to everyone. One must be against a war and promote the cause of peace, but must also show awareness that the soldiers who are in that war, and may even believe they are doing the right thing are not going to lend their support to an anti-war candidate if that candidate does not show them proper respect. It may sound like Macchiavellian political double talk, but it is not. It is a way of making sure that even those who disagree with you at first, are able to come around and do the right thing, and not be turned off by petty criticism and partisan bickering.
While one may be tempted to attack an opponent using the strongest words, it is not wise and does not appeal to voters. In fact, for any leader to simply make personal attacks and adversarial heat when the only difference that matters to voters is a policy or a new direction, demonstrates hubris, a lack of humility, and rash thinking. It was hubris and rash thinking that got us into these foreign entanglements, and we need a leader who demonstrates to voters that America is proud, but also humble. We need a leader who shows that while America has made mistakes in the past, it could atone for those mistakes. We need a leader who will motivate the people to do the right thing, and not divide them into factions, which the early founding father's feared would be the ruination of America. This may all sound like rhetoric, but I don't think America could either afford or is even capable of electing otherwise. Bush has stolen the elections that brought him to power and Americans are ready for a change. Other changes will come in time, and while electing a third party candidate may be sufficient (and it may not due to their lack of success) to bring about those changes, it is not necessary to bring about those changes. And I regret that for now, third party candidates in a plurality system with first past the post voting, winner take all, and the electoral college, according to Duverger's Law, we're not going to see a third party candidate come to power any time soon, so it would not be feasible to bring about any of the changes we seek by merely voting for someone who hasn't got a chance.
However, let us not denigrate all those who are running as third parties, and blame them for endangering the big parties. I would honestly prefer a third party or multiparty system like that in Canada and many countries in Europe. And Ralph Nader even acknowledges that the role of third parties is to enlighten the public and even to influence the opponents. Therefore I salute him for running. He, Barr, Paul, Swift and McKinney, Kucinich and Gravel were all on my list as a possible choices before I decided to pick Obama.
So here, with both reluctance and some respect, I humbly state my case for Barack Obama. Obama is more than the lesser of two evils. Obama could potentially be a great leader. He may not be as eloquent as JFK is anymore, so I can tell you it's not for his speaking that I'm saying this. But because he reiterates the purpose of his campaign: to bring together Americans for a common purpose, to end the war, to change the politics in Washington, and restore our broken image. It may not be as innovative as Gravel's National Initiative which I support full heartedly, but at least it is on the right track. Kucinich who I previously supported said that Obama would be a good second choice.
We cannot risk John McCain, who is a f@#$%ing idiot who blatantly stands for the military industrial complex, religious extremism, and corporate control of America. Obama makes change in Washington, the central theme of his campaign. This is very similar to the theme of bringing about the systemic changes to the constitution like the National Initiative, and also similar to Ralph Nader's theme of ridding America of corporate crime.
More important than this election is the National Initiative for Democracy which was Mike Gravel's idea. It is important that this piece of legislation is passed so that America can become a better democracy and truly be of the people by the people and for the people. I voted for the National Initiative so that will make more of a difference than a vote in this election for any candidate.
The truth of the matter is politics in Washington has got to change. The two ruling parties have not shown much strength on the pertinent issues. It is up to the people to bring about the changes they seek, and the absolutely surefire way to do it is by voting online for the National Initiative for Democracy at www.ni4d.us. I think that's the website but you can search for it on Google.
One of the interesting things Obama said in his speech tonight is that we are Americans first before we are Democrats or Republicans. I would like to add that we are above all human beings. We all live together on this small planet. Before we talk about how great the country is, we must not presume we are the best are "use patriotism as a bludgeon." We are not the best country in the world. We have got a long way to go. While I think it is important for the Democrats to defeat the Republicans, I also think that Americans need to realize that neither of these parties are perfect and that there are other choices. On the other hand, I also think it is important for people to unite for a common purpose, and to collectively address an issue that's important to them by voting for that issue. If electing a candidate is at least an indirect, though not always effective way, of tackling a particular problem, than that is a necessary step in the process.
I think it is absolutely important to end this war. While Obama's record is not perfect, neither is Hillary's. Obama has repeatedly voiced his opposition to the war, and has emphasized the importance of diplomacy and talking to enemies long before Hillary Clinton accepted his position.
I regret that Obama fails to acknowledge Jimmy Carter meeting with Hamas, but Jimmy Carter himself understands the political pressure Obama is under and realizes that with the big media and the big endorsements, one must be careful about what they say. This need not be interpreted as dishonesty or political cowardice. For any politician to be successful, and for any person who wishes to assume to office of the presidency, and use that office for a higher purpose, one must win. That is the reality whether you like it or not. It is not only true of America, but true for any democracy, representative government or whatever term you wish to apply.
Power to the People. Give Peace a Chance!
End the War '08.
PS: Regarding Obama's statements with regard to Pakistan, Obama never said he would invade Pakistan, but only if there was actionable intelligence to do so. The conspiracy theorists, and the punditry will jump on this and his voting record and say that his reveals him to be a hawk. But knowing the nature of politics, we must realize politicians are not angels. They are human beings like we are and are prone to mistakes. It is a logical fallacy to say that based on one's voting record as a Senator, they will be a bad president. Obama has accomplished much in the Senate (or he claimed to in his speeches citing various examples) on his own. But don't take my word for it. You will have to look it up. I'm lazy.