Pragmatic Muse

Well, since Edwards dropped out of the race I admit to being quite busy and I haven't posted for a while.  First, the mourning period over his failure to get the traction his message deserved.  Second, the period of drying my eyes and reassessing the remaining landscape.  Third and lastly, hitching a ride on the "Hope Train".

Let me preface, for the umpteenth time, that any of the available democrats would be such an astounding improvement over any of the republicans, that we're discussing the nuances, not of apples versus oranges, but of which flavor of juicy fresh apple to pick versus which dusty roadside turd, which is all the republicans have been feeding us since Ronnie dressed up their turd in an outfit of great Hollywood theater in 1980, leaving a national stink only fleetingly relieved under Bill Clinton.  And even Bill, I’m convinced thinking he was doing the right thing for well-intentioned reasons, still gave the republicans some of their greatest gifts, weapons they've used to engineer their all-but-total coup d’état in Washington: gifts like the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which led directly to a level of media consolidation that stripped the media of any residual inclination to report the news (see earlier posts); or NAFTA--who'd've thought that Ross Perot could've been so right with his warnings of the "great sucking sound" from the south; and the WTO, which few Seattleites can even discuss without images of rioting policemen in otherwise peacefully protesting streets. 

And that's the thing.  Bill Clinton, though a great statesman and diplomat in many ways, and a notable relief from "directly" republican rule, was really kinda republican-lite.  A close examination of his policies reveals an administration not vastly different in its policies from Richard Nixon, and by that I mean the father of the EPA Nixon and the opens-relations-with-China Nixon, the Nixon one can feel positively nostalgic for when compared with the neo-con-fascists who've perverted the very meaning of American democracy. 

Let’s state, for the record, and loud and clearly, that the difference between republicans and democrats isn’t a difference of philosophical approaches to doing what’s best for America any more, it’s a difference between fascist oligarchs maneuvering to pervert this experiment in freedom into a 3^rd world harvest for the elite, versus those who would fulfill the basic dreams and founding ideals of this nation.  I’m sorry to say it really has come to that, and whether there are a large number of folks naively and innocently supporting the evisceration of their own rights because they’ve bought into the neocon fears and neocon lies doesn’t change empirical reality. 

I seem to remember my favorite definition of American democracy as, "the rule of the majority so long as it doesn't infringe upon the rights of the minority."  A stark contrast with our current, 'rule of the neocons so long as it most profits the top .2% of the blindingly wealthy,' which, I submit, is a sentiment that would make the founding fathers spin in their graves.  (See earlier entries for using this effect as a possible alternative energy source.)  Mind you, none of this would surprise the founding fathers; after all, a pragmatic knowledge of the infinite corruptibility of human kind is why they built a system with as many checks and balances in it as they could think of.  They knew Karl Rove was coming and they wanted to be ready.  Only time will tell whether their system has weathered this latest assault successfully.

But, Heaven help me, against all odds and evidence I remain an optimist.  I remind myself that Thomas Jefferson's presidency followed that dictator Adams (a miracle this country ever got off the ground), that Teddy Roosevelt followed the robber baron era, that Hoover's depression was answered by Franklin Roosevelt and the New Deal, that the McCarthy era was followed by the 60s era of political and social justice, so, with "hope", perhaps we can beat back this latest and most perfidious assault on our American experiment in democracy.

Yeah, while I may have gravitated more to Edwards' hard dates, clearly articulated initiatives, and non-equivocal rhetoric, when he was removed from the election equation it really didn’t take but a tearful 15 minutes for me to realize where my allegiances were to lie going forward.

(Weird twist of fate, that’s me looking all serious between Gregoire and Nichols)

Obama truly represents a phenomenon the like of which I haven’t seen since I was eight, growing up in a sufficiently mega-political household that I was abundantly aware of the phenomenon that was Robert Kennedy.  I know that’s not a particularly original observation, but aside from the obvious it’s significant in an interesting way and brings me to my first point, about the age divide between Clinton and Obama supporters. 

I stumbled upon the reason for this in conversation with my chiropractor (Dr. Jeffrey Abrams, truly the angel from the film Jacob’s Ladder) when we realized that the reason he and most of his friends had a problem with Obama was actually fear.  They had all been young men and women in the late 60s and the body count of their heroes was just so damn high that they were simply having a hellish hard time allowing themselves to believe in something as honest and earnest as Obama and the movement that’s grown up around him.  The under 40s didn’t experience having Martin, Robert and Malcolm shot before their very eyes so they don’t share their elders’ fear.

The conclusion to be reached from this? 

If there’s anything the Bush years have taught Americans, don’t be ruled by fear, it gets you Bushwhacked!  Fear that it could be taken from you is no reason not to reach for what’s right!

The second point percolating in my head at the moment was put there by a magnificent elderly woman who spoke up most eloquently at the recent Washington caucuses on why she was supporting Obama.  Not for he himself, although certainly a large factor, but for the people around him and the people he is likely to further surround himself with as he goes forward.   That and the converse, the well-placed fear of the James Carvilles, the DLC republicrats with which Hillary Clinton is and will be surrounded.  I’m really not calling into question their intentions, but from the results of their policies under Bill Clinton I am seriously calling into question their wisdom.  After all, as long as there’s a Clinton or equivalent in the White House, such policies are unlikely to be totally abused.  It’s just that we’ve spent a very painful 7 years learning what those self-same policies can be turned to if there ISN’T a Clinton in the White House. 

Like the founding fathers knew, government needs to be run in large measure to protect us from the worst proclivities of mankind.  So, a dose of honesty and transparency, a candidacy built on candid realism and fresh blood and ideas, built on some genuine perception of what inequity means (and make no mistake, there isn’t a black person in America who hasn’t learned some perception of what inequity means), built on a politics of unification rather than division, outreach rather than divide-and-conquer stratification—that’s what America needs most and that’s why Obama’s caught our hearts and imaginations and that's why he must (and, always the optimist) just might win!

What happened?  We are really letting the press annoint the candidate, and the press isn't looking for a winning Democrat.

Cool, Obama makes you believe in hope.

Cool, Clinton would be the first woman president.

But what about actual policy plans to change something, the ideas that would work, enough fire in the belly to actually make something happen, and honest-to-God head-to-head-against-all-the-Republicans-running just plain ELECTABILITY!?!

It's not merely that "my guy" doesn't appear to be winning that I begin to submit there's something even more wrong with the system than I had thought.  I genuinely believed there was no way a Republican could win this upcoming election, after 8 years of Bush, but I am beginning to sniff out that things might be subtly worse than I ever imagined.

Let this be dated today that I offer my first worried prognostication that, against all odds, and against all sanity to the contrary, we could very well end up with a Republican for another 4 years, and then, my friends, the founding fathers' experiment is toast!

This isn't business as usual; this isn't even as scary as a second term for Bush was.  This is nothing short of make or break for American democracy.

Love, hope, emancipation, and all the finest hopes and dreams aside, I just have the feeling that the "machine" is selecting for the most credible beatable Democratic candidate, and that gives me the willies.