Nov 04
AndrewPolitics and Nation Election, Obama, Politics and Nation
It is always weird to me to watch the gloves come off during election season. For weeks now, my friends have been jousting over their support for Obama and McCain in ways that are none too pretty and seriously intolerant of the diversity of views that our country is supposed to stand for. Sure, so-called open-mindedness is largely a myth of inaction as opposed to some Utopian state where we exist in harmony, but does that really mean we have to go slinging insults just because someone disagrees with our political views?
I am sure if I confronted my friends, some of them (but not all) would express contrition and say that the war of words is all in good fun. It’s not a concession to the (lack of) strength of their political beliefs, but rather a concession that nobody takes the abuse seriously.
I guess I do take it seriously because it scares me to see the fervency with which people embrace their candidate. I have no problem with the strength of belief, and little problem with the attempt to convert people to your way of thinking than I do the method by which you go about it. It is no more comfortable for me to watch the candidates’ mudslinging commercials than it is to listen to my friends to rebuke and provoke people for supporting a different candidate.
It is fascinating to me that since Obama was declared the frontrunner in the election, McCain supporters have largely gone underground. I sat at a round table with friends who all said outright that they were “in the closet” of their support for McCain at work. They would rather pretend to be democrats than risk being ostracized at their jobs. That’s a value system we are trying to emulate in this country? (And no small irony the metaphor of being a Republican closet case, but I digress.) Those of my friends who haven’t backed down in supporting McCain have faced zealous opposition. Sure, it is still just words, but those words are merciless and sadly hostile.
The upside of all the talk is the heightened awareness that this campaign season is a big deal. Maybe you only go to the polls knowing the Republican and Democratic candidates, but while you are there, hopefully you see that there are initiatives and measures and other seats to be voted on. You are participating because you begin to understand the importance of participation, no matter that Obama is a surefire bet to take the presidency and that you have never heard of Proposition 1 before you got to the polling place. Every presidential election is an historic vote, and it is nice that we as a country are starting to get it. And next time, maybe you will vote in a non-presidential election year and maybe you will read up in advance on the measures being voted on in your precinct.
The downside is a stunning lack of respect that has been on display the last couple of weeks. Oh, it will evaporate tomorrow, regardless of the victor in the presidential election. I know that for another four years, at least, the political digs will take the backburner for most of us. But I can’t help but notice that all the talk and backtalk this election season has left a bad taste in my mouth.
Oct 29
AndrewPolitics and Nation, Society and Culture Election, Politics and Nation, President
As I was pulling into the parking lot at work, I saw a squirrel and a crow picking at the same layer of grain that lay smashed across the road. It was probably someone’s hamburger, dropped on ground before the last bite, ground into the gravel by a couple dozen cars driving back and forth over it since yesterday. This morning, it became a grand feast for two little creatures and blatant multi-cultural symbolism.
As much as the economy has sort of trumped any news stories lately including, remarkably, anything to do with the presidential election next week, I’m surprised the race issue isn’t more of an issue. It seems like Obama is the perfect target for the peculiarity of American-ized intolerance. It surprises me that religion is the greater trepidation. Romney was targeted for being Mormon, a few years ago, Lieberman was a controversial pick largely because of his religion, and even McCain has been charged with being deliberately vague about his faith. On the face of it, Obama is the ideal target to lobby slurs at from both sides. Either the fact that he’s black, or the fact that he’s not black enough will do. Everyone can take their shot.
Have we suppressed the bigotocracy? I would be doubtful except that when it was Clinton against Obama, there again, gender was a largely besides the point (unless you count the Hillary has a penis jokes but maybe those were kind of inevitable.) But is the alternative that we are more actively avoiding making the election about bigotry, that we aren’t judging our candidates based on stereotypes of race and culture but treating those things as ancillary?
Any talk of diversity acceptance (because let’s face it, tolerance is just a kind way of saying “out of sight, out of mind”) is supported only by anecdotal evidence. Even if Obama is elected, it’s hard to quantify just how much race affected, or not, people’s vote. Maybe a McCain/Palin ticket is just that hard to swallow (though it’s more likely that the Bush has set up the entire Republican party to be perceived by the general public as V.E.N.O.M.) But that’s just it. If that is true, then has race really not factored in by any substantial measure? That would be remarkably heart-warming.
I typically hate conversations about diversity because I think they largely miss the point. It is emphatically not about bridging the gap of racial and ethnic boundaries just for the sake of this “we are the world” shit. People are different, raised from different stock and with different traditions across huge cultural divides that make humanity so varied and interesting. Embracing the traditions and values of other cultures and ethnic groups (at least in so far as respecting their prerogative to celebrate those traditions away from you) just suggests that you are open-minded. Which is great for a short-term goal.
But the end goal of diversity should be about looking at the individual and seeing each person not as broad swaths of cultural and ethnic fabric, but as one person with all the idiosyncrasies, talents and quirks that separates us from one another. True diversity is looking to the individual and stripping away the broad categories. Then you can judge and embrace and accept as you see fit because you aren’t making sweeping generalities about one person based on your perception of a whole group of people who by and large are representative of their cultural upbringing and traditions, but not the sum total of it.
That is, in part, what fascinates me about this election. To all appearances, we have done that with our candidates. Sure, it’s not a perfect analysis. Racial and cultural biases are deeply ingrained in all of us. But there does seem to be an almost conscious effort not to give in to stereotyping and expansive generalities when talking about the candidates (except, and this part is strangely ironic, when it comes to Palin.)
Yes, all of that came to me while watching a squirrel and a crow share a meal on the road. But if they can do it, then we can too.
Sep 01
JeremyPolitics and Nation Election 2008, hillary clinton, Politics and Nation, running mate, sarah palin, vice president
A few years ago, I had the unfortunate experience of accidentally viewing the trailer for a Tara Reid movie. I couldn’t tell you what the movie is and I don’t have the ambition to go find it on IMDb (UPDATE: I went and found it and here’s a link to her look in the film). Our girl Tara was portraying a scientist of some kind in a horror movie, an anthropologist or paleontologist or something like that. To accomplish this remarkable transformation from party girl to intellectual sophisticate, the movie’s creative team used the opposite of the time-honored tactic that we have seen in so many teen dramas: they put her hair up in a knot and had her don dowdy glasses. It was hard enough for us to buy that she was a smart-and-sexy college reporter in Van Wilder, but this movie passed Tara into the ludicrous. A few days ago, I experienced an unfortunate sense of déjà vu when I saw my very first photo ever of Sarah Palin on boston.com. All I could think when I saw her was that someone had accidentally switched up a promotional photo of Tara with that of Republican presidential candidate John McCain’s running mate, the governor of Alaska.
Now, I do not say this to disparage Governor Palin’s intelligence. For that matter, I don’t disparage Ms. Reid’s, since I don’t actually know her. I have no way of knowing whether one is more intelligent than the other. But when it comes down to image, the governor and the decade-younger actress both leave a lot to be desired. In fact, I would venture to say that I do know more about Tara Reid and who she is based on the media coverage she’s experienced in the last decade as an actress than I do about Sarah Palin’s less than a decade in politics. Despite days’ worth of media coverage, Palin remains much of a mystery. I know that she was the runner up for Miss Alaska, her teenage daughter is preggers, she hates polar bears, and likes oil. She sounds like a dirty old Republican man’s naughty dream. So far, though, I have yet to understand what role she would take on in a theoretical McCain administration and what qualifies her to take control of the Oval Office “just in case.”
The only conclusion that I’ve come to is that our suppositional Veep Palin would take on the old role of ceremonial tie-breaker, with no real participation in the heart of our nation’s government, far the opposite of the co-presidency current VP Dick Cheney enjoys. Effectively, the vice president has little more standing and authority than the first lady. Heck, 14th President Franklin Pierce’s VP William King died just a few weeks after inauguration, leaving the office unfilled for most of four years — and NO ONE MISSED HIM! While that may have been feasible in the small government of the 1850s, I don’t believe it’s desirable today. Hence, I’m not sure what a seemingly irrelevant Sarah Palin has done to truly crack the glass ceiling, rather than serve as a figurehead. She’s become the national scene’s version of former Massachusetts acting Governor Jane not-so-Swift, who bowed out of the race as soon as a suitable male candidate appeared. Geraldine Ferraro was our first token female Veep candidate back in 1984. I would have hoped that in 2008, a woman appearing on a national party’s executive ticket would be more than a symbolic figurehead. Instead, the best slogan the McCain campaign can put out now is “If you average their ages together, you get two candidates the right age to be president!”
On the other hand, Senator Hillary Clinton’s failed bid to become the Democratic party’s presidential nominee has shown us that a woman can compete with the boys on the national field and succeed just like they can. While she did fail, it is important to note that Hillary came in second among a field of men with their own impressive credentials. Not only that, but she also has established herself as a force to be reckoned with for the Obama campaign. I’m not, nor have I ever been, Hillary’s biggest fan, but the differences between the two are striking.
I can’t help but be impressed at the way Senator Clinton handled herself at the Democratic National Convention last week. Indeed, if she had shown that kind of spirit during her campaign, I may have voted differently in the primary a few months ago. Analyzing her tactics, Hillary had enough clout to get a plum spot in the speaking order and delivered a rousing speech of the kind that I was never sure she could give. In a masterfully orchestrated deal, she was able to have her cake and eat it too. Not only was she able to bargain for a role call vote, she was also the one who called for party unity in ending the vote (after receiving recognition from some delegates of states preceding New York). Such a savvy understanding of politics is rarely seen in anyone, let alone her male opponents.
Many speculated that Hillary Clinton was on the short list of vice presidential candidates for Barack Obama to choose from, even though he eventually went with Joe Biden. The main criticism of this possibility revolved around the fact that Vice President Clinton would prefer to be co-President Clinton, much like the Bush administration’s current political landscape. She clearly was not content to take a back seat role as First Lady in the 90s and even as number two in the White House, she would have been a positive political force. Chances are, though, that Hillary herself didn’t want to be Vice President. Why settle when she still has chances in the future?
Because she worked so hard and functioned so effectively as a candidate, Hillary Clinton gave a healthy kick to the glass ceiling, far more than Sarah Palin’s light tap. She showed us that women can be not just serious candidates, but serious contenders for the presidency of the United States. While she was not my candidate of choice, she gave me hope that future women will take seriously their duty to have a strong voice in American politics at every level. Despite her failure, she is the woman that history will remember as changing politics. Sarah Palin strikes me as nothing more than a misspelled footnote and fodder for a doctoral dissertation no will ever read. Anyone who thinks otherwise is surely…well…cracked.
RSS
