G
Gandalf Grey
Guest
Obama v. Hillary in Indiana
By JB Peebles
Created Apr 15 2008 - 8:04pm
Obama vs. Hillary
I've concluded the Obama can't beat McCain in the general election. I'm
basing this opinion on nothing more than my personal experiences living in a
very Red State, Indiana. Indiana, for the first time in years, also happens
to be a vital state for any would-be Democratic Presidential candidate.
Indiana, you need to understand, is the state that people on the coasts
think of as backward, and provincial. It is in many ways politically so. But
that's not the point and making it the point will only exacerbate the image
of elitism projected by a Democratic party which is dominated by an East
Coast establishment.
Now I wouldn't stereotype the people here beyond their political orientation
because deep down inside, people are people and all people everywhere have
redeeming properties (as hard as that is to believe sometimes.) This
stereotyping has become a hot button in the primary struggle between Obama
and Clinton, leading to accusations of elitism leveled by the opposing
camps.
Overcoming differences between us involves more than ascending race. Much of
Obama's support comes from people who are eager to show that race is no
longer a factor in their choice of candidate. Honorable yes, but choosing
Obama based on the fact he is black does require rejecting Hillary on the
grounds of her race. If the candidates are to be compared in a way that
transcends race, Obama's race shouldn't matter. This is the point Geraldine
Ferraro tired to make when she said that Obama would not be in the position
he now is if he'd been white--or, to be more accurate--a white man with the
same qualifications.
I don't think we've come to a point in American society that race doesn't
matter. Obama supporters could say that I'm rejecting a black man but I
don't do so because he's black. I'm not supporting Obama largely because his
race is a factor, not with me, but with millions who harbor racial
prejudices. I don't doubt that Obama has the ability to perform the job. As
much as my heart yearns for an America that can elect a black man, we
haven't come far enough. Call it realpolitics or racism, the truth is that
America isn't ready. Obama might not be either. In 2012, assuming Hillary is
not the incumbent, or 2016, Obama will be the man to beat, more experienced,
and more effective.
Most of the discrimination Obama has faced--and will continue to fight
against--isn't overt, but it's there. The Red states don't have a monopoly
on racism. In the Blue states, support from blacks and the young might
compensate for those who oppose Obama because he's black. With fewer blacks,
and fewer young people, the Red states are more vulnerable to racial
prejudices that might sink Obama.
Racists are more likely to be anti-female and anti-Hillary as well. I guess
the issue is whether race will be a bigger obstacle than sex. Among less
well educated white females, Hillary does well; support from this group
could well compensate for the racists who'll vote their prejudices come
November should Obama win the nomination. Gauging the extent of race's
impact on voter preference through polls might be hard. Many closet racists
won't lay bare their inner demons until voting curtain closes.
The Republicans can stimulate racial animosities quite subtly, like the way
Hillary's people darkened Obama's complexion in a television ad opposing
him. I've written about McCain's adopted daughter and her Bangladeshi
descent as a big reason for his outright rejection of racially-based smear
tactics. However McCain doesn't control the 527 groups that will contribute
massively to his campaign in the form of attack ads like those that made up
John Kerry's swift-boating.
Better that the Democrats, the party which has done the most to fight racial
discrimination, confront America's problem with race early on, before Obama
has to fight deep-seated, race-based prejudices in the general election.
Some people might identify with Obama regardless of his race, but the
majority of American won't choose him head to head with McCain.
Avoiding the Elitist Tag
The Obama/Clinton dialogue might go like this:
"You, you're even more elite. You went to Wellesley," Obama might say,
wandering shirtless on a beach.
"You went to Harvard...Law," Clinton might say, fiddling with a gun.
"You and that retired President husband of yours have made $100 million
since 2000," Obama might say. 'That qualifies you to be highly elitist."
"Yeah, maybe, but at least I don't act like an elitist," Hillary could say,
downing a shot as the cameras roll.
"Yeah, it's your pretending not to be an elitist that proves you are the
elitist you say you aren't," Obama might reply, adjusting his designer suit
and Gucci tie.
So on and so forth. The two race for the bottom in the quest for identity
politics (to not seem so elite) and perception management (for the camera),
this time of their public images.
The last two candidates that the Democrats have offered to oppose Bush have
been retroactively labeled as "elitist." Nothing is a bigger wedge in
identity politics today than being elitist. Worse even than "pro-gay
marriage," the Rove-inspired wedge from '04.
"Elitism" accusations have surfaced in the squabbling between Hillary and
Obama, used like a hammer as if one of the Senators were "less elite" than
the other, and that simply accusing the other of elitism would somehow
diminish their own eliteness.
Almost every Presidential candidate has been elite. Would it be wise for our
country to be led by someone who wasn't an elite? Look at Jimmy Carter, a
peanut farmer from Georgia. While Carter did hold the line on federal
spending--unlike Reagan, who exploded the deficit--his Presidency is viewed
largely as a failure.
Our fragile American psyche makes us want to believe the perception even if
the reality is wholly different. Bush has been quite effective at disguising
his liberal New England origins to the point most everyone sees him as pure
West Texas. Image is everything. By seeming red-necky, the idea is that
average people, identifying more with rednecks than with East Coast
elitists, will vote with the person who's most like them, even if they
aren't like them at all.
At least the Democratic party leadership has become more sensitive to the
way their East Coast elitist candidates are perceived out here in the
vastness of the heartland. It's worth remembering Gore didn't win Tennessee
though he'd been from there prior to his term as Vice President; his father
had been a popular Senator from there.
I heard one conservative Democrat here attribute Kerry's 2004 loss to his
failure to kill any ducks for the camera. He recommended that Kerry brag
about killing some little innocent animals simply to identify more with
people from the Red states. It's not that people here are necessarily
sadistic, it's just that many do wear a big chip on their shoulders when it
comes to the Second Amendment. Hunting is viewed largely as an expression of
the right to bear arms. Any candidate that doesn't support hunting and gun
rights is in trouble out here. So kill the duck, do it publicly, the messier
the better.
I'd explained identity politics in a post a little while back. The idea is
that a politician doesn't win based on his positions, but rather the way he
identifies with the voter. Kerry could make a more logical case for why he
should be elected, but voters are motivated more by emotional affinity than
by logic. So just as Kerry could make appeal for reason, Bush could joke,
chuckle, and call him a flip-flopper, or assail his character to great
effect.
Hillary has just recently talked about guns. The media naturally made jokes
about her and Annie Oakley. That may have got some grins around the New York
City newsrooms, but woefully underestimates the power of the gun in the Red
states that determine the presidency, regardless of the attitudes among more
educated people on the coast. Hillary is clearly steering towards the
pro-gun demographic that Democrats likely "misunderestimated" in their last
two defeats, to borrow the Bushism. She will need to at least not alienate
this crowd to win Ohio and have a chance to win in other states which went
to Bush in 2004.
Now on to the bar drinking episode. Nothing could have displayed the
importance of identity politics than doing a shot of Crown. I could almost
like her for that alone, despite all the issues of hers which I disagree
with. Surrounded by beer-bellied bar patrons gives a impression of Hillary
as Everywoman, someone who's not without her faults, but also as someone
whom the voter can identify with.
Drinking shows a non-elitist side just as accusations of Barack's elitism
found their way into the media dialogue, the product of his "embittered
small town" comment. Living in a small town, and even if Obama had been
correct in his stereotyping, he did rub my ego the wrong way. Surely Obama
could have done a better job not to alienate small towns, places where he
should at least try to improve his popularity, considering rural areas and
small towns do constitute a much larger proportion of the heartland than the
areas where he has done is best, with their large African American
minorities.
Anyone who's spent any amount of time around Chicagoland also knows that the
kind of people in the bar where a hardy blue collar crew, compromised of
steel workers, cogs in the rusting machine in the heart of the Rust Belt.
This area is called "da region" in no small part due to its affinity with
the Chicago Bears, the monsters of the midway since the days of Dick Butkus.
The people are largely descendants Polish immigrants, tough, and not the
type to back down in a fight. I've counted those I've known as good, loyal
friends; they'd make the worst enemies I could imagine.
Back Home Again
Indiana is the root of the nation in many ways. Politics do tend to be very
conservative, but there are bastions of Democrats in the northern portion of
the State (da region), Bloomington (Indiana University) and Indianapolis.
Conservative Democrats do tend to do much better than traditional liberals,
evidenced by the 2006 success of Congressional candidates Baron Hill and
Brad Ellingsworth.
We are also a loyal state, giving up far more to the federal coffers than we
ever take in. This ratio is expressed as a "patriotism" index. Indiana has
been on the bottom for decades, although I did see on the Tax Foundation
website [1] that we'd moved up in the rankings to 35th by 2005, after
spending decades at no better than 43rd in the total amount of federal tax
dollars that are spent here per capita. On that scale, things have been
looking up for the state since 1982 when we were 46th in the nation in
getting our money back.
The Tax Foundation data shows that "Spending Received Per Dollar of Tax
Paid" of $1.05 received per dollar of taxes paid. The nickel Indiana gets
back in addition to revenues it sent in must be borrowed.
The $1.05 still isn't enough to qualify Indiana for the top half. Giving
more out than they take in has become the new benchmark of the Federal
government. To get back what we put in is simply not enough for most
recipients of Federal monies. States expect to get back more than what they
put in, even if it means the Feds will borrow it and the deficit will grow.
This borrowing is of course deferred taxation, plus the interest our
children will have to pay on that debt. Another method of reducing the debt
burden is to just printed the stuff up, resulting in inflation, a more
innocuous form of theft than outright taxation.
In an era of growing budget deficits, the patriotism index has become a race
to the bottom. Whoever gets the most out of federal spending is also
responsible for the most debt that our children and their children will have
to pay off. This reality means that the states compromising this country
really are in it for themselves, like greedy individuals, and will take as
much as they can, now, regardless to the long-term impact on the whole of
these United States.
Back to Obama
I've been forced to support Hillary for no other reason than my prediction
that Obama can't win here. Hillary might still lose to McCain, being that
Indiana is very socially conservative and Republican, but she will do better
than Obama, if primary results in Ohio are any indicator of future returns
here.
By winning in Ohio, and emerging victorious in Indiana, Hillary could flout
her Red State credentials over Obama. Red states are where Presidencies are
won or lost. Black voters might be taken for granted and eat away at
Democratic support should Hillary win, but I'd rather lose some black
support than reduce the chances of a Democratic victory in states like
Indiana, Ohio and Florida.
I know the poll data has shown that Obama can be competitive, but Kerry and
Gore were competitive. Progressives need a victory, not a competitive
candidate. Yes, Clinton may not be much of a progressive, but she is more
progressive than McCain, isn't she?
Progressives who are thinking about a protest vote on Nader should think
again. The idea that somehow a vote cast away will punish the Democrats for
being less progressive is sheer idiocy. Upset though many are with Hillary's
establishment background, progressive must unite under her if she's the best
candidate.
By taking votes away from Gore, this obstructionist rabble enabled the
ascension of George Bush, who went on to win a Nobel Prize for his work
fighting global warming. The result of the protest action was a triumph for
the Republicans, who will be egging on and funding Nader in the upcoming
election too. As in 2000, the Naderites will have the Republicans grinning
over the defections.
Don't expect the GOP to protect the environment, which they tend to see
victimized as the natural consequence of free market economic growth. To
this group, economic expansion comes only at the expense of the environment.
As I understand it, private ownership in the traditional libertarian view is
the right to do anything with what one owns, regardless of the environmental
impact on others. I've tried to reason with Lew Rockwell but never seem to
get a response back. I'll therefore surmise Lew doesn't live in the
ever-shortening shadow of a mountain pulverized daily by explosions to get
at its coal, even as the slurry and dust pile up and doom the surrounding
community to permanent ecological disaster.
Easy it is to live within your principles if you don't have to contend
directly with the direct negative consequences. most notably the impact on
the environment. NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) not only describes
self-obsessiveness over property ownership but also implies a willingness to
put neighbors at a distance. A YOYO (You're on your own) world encourages
the individual to forsake the group for the purposes of wealth generation
and retention. It's worth noting that the United States was first settled as
a commune, and almost didn't survive as a result. Only private ownership
entitled individuals sufficient reward for their own productive effort. The
Colonies prospered. Times have changed.
Patriotism is easy without having to sacrifice. Launch a draft and watch the
previously patriotic scream in rage against their sons and daughters being
sent off to war. With the oil setting new highs almost daily, the inflation
that Bush's wars have caused will produce genuine concern about where the
President's military and energy policies have taken this country. Until the
impact of Bush's decisions are felt, they don't exist, but felt it will one
day be! Runaway spending and open-ended, extralegal treaty agreements with
Maliki's regime in Iraq will resolve itself financially. As it did during
Vietnam, the economic impact of too much borrowing will lead us into a
prolonged recessionary spiral that ended up affecting all.
I'd love a system of proportional representation which would allow
Libertarians, Greens, whoever, to have their representatives. Being that
non-associated candidates rarely win in our two-party system, Americans who
don't live in Vermont (Bernie Sanders) or Kucinich's district are out of
luck. They are therefore destined to a future devoid of representation at
the federal level. While the trend may be looking up for independent
candidates, the two-party system is too entrenched to allow a threat to
emerge to its duopoly.
While the duopoly and the false dichotomy it represents may be an inadequate
system, the fact remains that political actors need to exert influence
through that system to affect changes. Ignoring the political basis in
reality that modulates the exercise of politics is self-destructive.
Progressives shouldn't assume that the GOP is a dead end, although there is
of course a socially conservative movement which has seized the helm of the
Republicans' national leadership. After the 2006 debacle, their future may
be limited if the GOP has follow-on failures in 2008.
Message to Would-be Protest Voters
Nader voters are people I'd consider my friends if they'd leave their naive
assumption on their doorsteps instead of denying the need for compromise in
the battle against the real enemy, which is in Marxian terms the
exploitation of the working classes by the rich. It's not like they have to
go out for dinner together afterwards, to quote a recently departed Vietnam
Veteran and antiwar activist from Chicago.
If you like what Bush II has done, vote for Bush III (McCain) by not voting
for the Democrat in the fall. Responsibility for the consequences, which
include mountaintop removal, removal of EPA standards, perversion of FDA
oversight responsibilities, abandonment of New Orleans, two wars, torture,
surveillance society, falls to the protest voters, particularly in Florida,
who could have prevented it all.
In the present political system, rejecting the Democrat because they aren't
progressive enough is tantamount to voting Republican, in a close election.
While being true to one's beliefs is honorable, it doesn't help get a
Democrat elected as President, which will invariably mean that a Republican
will be more likely to win.
McCain may be what some environmentalists want. He's certainly an
improvement over Bush. But to assume McCain better represents progressive
values simply because Hillary isn't an ideal progressive would be a mistake.
My advice to those who really care, and are perhaps wise enough to value
compromise, is to hold back on their pride, avoid the protest vote, and work
to get independents and Greens elected at the local level, where the bulk of
meaningful change tends to originate.
Voting Nader might make a progressive feel good, but results do matter. A
choice of lesser evils might be a bad choice, but it is a choice that must
be made nonetheless. Better to have one's vote count than to not be counted.
In the fall, progressives should vote for the most progressive candidate
available, not against her, should it be Hillary.
--
NOTICE: This post contains copyrighted material the use of which has not
always been authorized by the copyright owner. I am making such material
available to advance understanding of
political, human rights, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues. I
believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material as
provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright
Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107
"A little patience and we shall see the reign of witches pass over, their
spells dissolve, and the people recovering their true sight, restore their
government to its true principles. It is true that in the meantime we are
suffering deeply in spirit,
and incurring the horrors of a war and long oppressions of enormous public
debt. But if the game runs sometimes against us at home we must have
patience till luck turns, and then we shall have an opportunity of winning
back the principles we have lost, for this is a game where principles are at
stake."
-Thomas Jefferson
By JB Peebles
Created Apr 15 2008 - 8:04pm
Obama vs. Hillary
I've concluded the Obama can't beat McCain in the general election. I'm
basing this opinion on nothing more than my personal experiences living in a
very Red State, Indiana. Indiana, for the first time in years, also happens
to be a vital state for any would-be Democratic Presidential candidate.
Indiana, you need to understand, is the state that people on the coasts
think of as backward, and provincial. It is in many ways politically so. But
that's not the point and making it the point will only exacerbate the image
of elitism projected by a Democratic party which is dominated by an East
Coast establishment.
Now I wouldn't stereotype the people here beyond their political orientation
because deep down inside, people are people and all people everywhere have
redeeming properties (as hard as that is to believe sometimes.) This
stereotyping has become a hot button in the primary struggle between Obama
and Clinton, leading to accusations of elitism leveled by the opposing
camps.
Overcoming differences between us involves more than ascending race. Much of
Obama's support comes from people who are eager to show that race is no
longer a factor in their choice of candidate. Honorable yes, but choosing
Obama based on the fact he is black does require rejecting Hillary on the
grounds of her race. If the candidates are to be compared in a way that
transcends race, Obama's race shouldn't matter. This is the point Geraldine
Ferraro tired to make when she said that Obama would not be in the position
he now is if he'd been white--or, to be more accurate--a white man with the
same qualifications.
I don't think we've come to a point in American society that race doesn't
matter. Obama supporters could say that I'm rejecting a black man but I
don't do so because he's black. I'm not supporting Obama largely because his
race is a factor, not with me, but with millions who harbor racial
prejudices. I don't doubt that Obama has the ability to perform the job. As
much as my heart yearns for an America that can elect a black man, we
haven't come far enough. Call it realpolitics or racism, the truth is that
America isn't ready. Obama might not be either. In 2012, assuming Hillary is
not the incumbent, or 2016, Obama will be the man to beat, more experienced,
and more effective.
Most of the discrimination Obama has faced--and will continue to fight
against--isn't overt, but it's there. The Red states don't have a monopoly
on racism. In the Blue states, support from blacks and the young might
compensate for those who oppose Obama because he's black. With fewer blacks,
and fewer young people, the Red states are more vulnerable to racial
prejudices that might sink Obama.
Racists are more likely to be anti-female and anti-Hillary as well. I guess
the issue is whether race will be a bigger obstacle than sex. Among less
well educated white females, Hillary does well; support from this group
could well compensate for the racists who'll vote their prejudices come
November should Obama win the nomination. Gauging the extent of race's
impact on voter preference through polls might be hard. Many closet racists
won't lay bare their inner demons until voting curtain closes.
The Republicans can stimulate racial animosities quite subtly, like the way
Hillary's people darkened Obama's complexion in a television ad opposing
him. I've written about McCain's adopted daughter and her Bangladeshi
descent as a big reason for his outright rejection of racially-based smear
tactics. However McCain doesn't control the 527 groups that will contribute
massively to his campaign in the form of attack ads like those that made up
John Kerry's swift-boating.
Better that the Democrats, the party which has done the most to fight racial
discrimination, confront America's problem with race early on, before Obama
has to fight deep-seated, race-based prejudices in the general election.
Some people might identify with Obama regardless of his race, but the
majority of American won't choose him head to head with McCain.
Avoiding the Elitist Tag
The Obama/Clinton dialogue might go like this:
"You, you're even more elite. You went to Wellesley," Obama might say,
wandering shirtless on a beach.
"You went to Harvard...Law," Clinton might say, fiddling with a gun.
"You and that retired President husband of yours have made $100 million
since 2000," Obama might say. 'That qualifies you to be highly elitist."
"Yeah, maybe, but at least I don't act like an elitist," Hillary could say,
downing a shot as the cameras roll.
"Yeah, it's your pretending not to be an elitist that proves you are the
elitist you say you aren't," Obama might reply, adjusting his designer suit
and Gucci tie.
So on and so forth. The two race for the bottom in the quest for identity
politics (to not seem so elite) and perception management (for the camera),
this time of their public images.
The last two candidates that the Democrats have offered to oppose Bush have
been retroactively labeled as "elitist." Nothing is a bigger wedge in
identity politics today than being elitist. Worse even than "pro-gay
marriage," the Rove-inspired wedge from '04.
"Elitism" accusations have surfaced in the squabbling between Hillary and
Obama, used like a hammer as if one of the Senators were "less elite" than
the other, and that simply accusing the other of elitism would somehow
diminish their own eliteness.
Almost every Presidential candidate has been elite. Would it be wise for our
country to be led by someone who wasn't an elite? Look at Jimmy Carter, a
peanut farmer from Georgia. While Carter did hold the line on federal
spending--unlike Reagan, who exploded the deficit--his Presidency is viewed
largely as a failure.
Our fragile American psyche makes us want to believe the perception even if
the reality is wholly different. Bush has been quite effective at disguising
his liberal New England origins to the point most everyone sees him as pure
West Texas. Image is everything. By seeming red-necky, the idea is that
average people, identifying more with rednecks than with East Coast
elitists, will vote with the person who's most like them, even if they
aren't like them at all.
At least the Democratic party leadership has become more sensitive to the
way their East Coast elitist candidates are perceived out here in the
vastness of the heartland. It's worth remembering Gore didn't win Tennessee
though he'd been from there prior to his term as Vice President; his father
had been a popular Senator from there.
I heard one conservative Democrat here attribute Kerry's 2004 loss to his
failure to kill any ducks for the camera. He recommended that Kerry brag
about killing some little innocent animals simply to identify more with
people from the Red states. It's not that people here are necessarily
sadistic, it's just that many do wear a big chip on their shoulders when it
comes to the Second Amendment. Hunting is viewed largely as an expression of
the right to bear arms. Any candidate that doesn't support hunting and gun
rights is in trouble out here. So kill the duck, do it publicly, the messier
the better.
I'd explained identity politics in a post a little while back. The idea is
that a politician doesn't win based on his positions, but rather the way he
identifies with the voter. Kerry could make a more logical case for why he
should be elected, but voters are motivated more by emotional affinity than
by logic. So just as Kerry could make appeal for reason, Bush could joke,
chuckle, and call him a flip-flopper, or assail his character to great
effect.
Hillary has just recently talked about guns. The media naturally made jokes
about her and Annie Oakley. That may have got some grins around the New York
City newsrooms, but woefully underestimates the power of the gun in the Red
states that determine the presidency, regardless of the attitudes among more
educated people on the coast. Hillary is clearly steering towards the
pro-gun demographic that Democrats likely "misunderestimated" in their last
two defeats, to borrow the Bushism. She will need to at least not alienate
this crowd to win Ohio and have a chance to win in other states which went
to Bush in 2004.
Now on to the bar drinking episode. Nothing could have displayed the
importance of identity politics than doing a shot of Crown. I could almost
like her for that alone, despite all the issues of hers which I disagree
with. Surrounded by beer-bellied bar patrons gives a impression of Hillary
as Everywoman, someone who's not without her faults, but also as someone
whom the voter can identify with.
Drinking shows a non-elitist side just as accusations of Barack's elitism
found their way into the media dialogue, the product of his "embittered
small town" comment. Living in a small town, and even if Obama had been
correct in his stereotyping, he did rub my ego the wrong way. Surely Obama
could have done a better job not to alienate small towns, places where he
should at least try to improve his popularity, considering rural areas and
small towns do constitute a much larger proportion of the heartland than the
areas where he has done is best, with their large African American
minorities.
Anyone who's spent any amount of time around Chicagoland also knows that the
kind of people in the bar where a hardy blue collar crew, compromised of
steel workers, cogs in the rusting machine in the heart of the Rust Belt.
This area is called "da region" in no small part due to its affinity with
the Chicago Bears, the monsters of the midway since the days of Dick Butkus.
The people are largely descendants Polish immigrants, tough, and not the
type to back down in a fight. I've counted those I've known as good, loyal
friends; they'd make the worst enemies I could imagine.
Back Home Again
Indiana is the root of the nation in many ways. Politics do tend to be very
conservative, but there are bastions of Democrats in the northern portion of
the State (da region), Bloomington (Indiana University) and Indianapolis.
Conservative Democrats do tend to do much better than traditional liberals,
evidenced by the 2006 success of Congressional candidates Baron Hill and
Brad Ellingsworth.
We are also a loyal state, giving up far more to the federal coffers than we
ever take in. This ratio is expressed as a "patriotism" index. Indiana has
been on the bottom for decades, although I did see on the Tax Foundation
website [1] that we'd moved up in the rankings to 35th by 2005, after
spending decades at no better than 43rd in the total amount of federal tax
dollars that are spent here per capita. On that scale, things have been
looking up for the state since 1982 when we were 46th in the nation in
getting our money back.
The Tax Foundation data shows that "Spending Received Per Dollar of Tax
Paid" of $1.05 received per dollar of taxes paid. The nickel Indiana gets
back in addition to revenues it sent in must be borrowed.
The $1.05 still isn't enough to qualify Indiana for the top half. Giving
more out than they take in has become the new benchmark of the Federal
government. To get back what we put in is simply not enough for most
recipients of Federal monies. States expect to get back more than what they
put in, even if it means the Feds will borrow it and the deficit will grow.
This borrowing is of course deferred taxation, plus the interest our
children will have to pay on that debt. Another method of reducing the debt
burden is to just printed the stuff up, resulting in inflation, a more
innocuous form of theft than outright taxation.
In an era of growing budget deficits, the patriotism index has become a race
to the bottom. Whoever gets the most out of federal spending is also
responsible for the most debt that our children and their children will have
to pay off. This reality means that the states compromising this country
really are in it for themselves, like greedy individuals, and will take as
much as they can, now, regardless to the long-term impact on the whole of
these United States.
Back to Obama
I've been forced to support Hillary for no other reason than my prediction
that Obama can't win here. Hillary might still lose to McCain, being that
Indiana is very socially conservative and Republican, but she will do better
than Obama, if primary results in Ohio are any indicator of future returns
here.
By winning in Ohio, and emerging victorious in Indiana, Hillary could flout
her Red State credentials over Obama. Red states are where Presidencies are
won or lost. Black voters might be taken for granted and eat away at
Democratic support should Hillary win, but I'd rather lose some black
support than reduce the chances of a Democratic victory in states like
Indiana, Ohio and Florida.
I know the poll data has shown that Obama can be competitive, but Kerry and
Gore were competitive. Progressives need a victory, not a competitive
candidate. Yes, Clinton may not be much of a progressive, but she is more
progressive than McCain, isn't she?
Progressives who are thinking about a protest vote on Nader should think
again. The idea that somehow a vote cast away will punish the Democrats for
being less progressive is sheer idiocy. Upset though many are with Hillary's
establishment background, progressive must unite under her if she's the best
candidate.
By taking votes away from Gore, this obstructionist rabble enabled the
ascension of George Bush, who went on to win a Nobel Prize for his work
fighting global warming. The result of the protest action was a triumph for
the Republicans, who will be egging on and funding Nader in the upcoming
election too. As in 2000, the Naderites will have the Republicans grinning
over the defections.
Don't expect the GOP to protect the environment, which they tend to see
victimized as the natural consequence of free market economic growth. To
this group, economic expansion comes only at the expense of the environment.
As I understand it, private ownership in the traditional libertarian view is
the right to do anything with what one owns, regardless of the environmental
impact on others. I've tried to reason with Lew Rockwell but never seem to
get a response back. I'll therefore surmise Lew doesn't live in the
ever-shortening shadow of a mountain pulverized daily by explosions to get
at its coal, even as the slurry and dust pile up and doom the surrounding
community to permanent ecological disaster.
Easy it is to live within your principles if you don't have to contend
directly with the direct negative consequences. most notably the impact on
the environment. NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) not only describes
self-obsessiveness over property ownership but also implies a willingness to
put neighbors at a distance. A YOYO (You're on your own) world encourages
the individual to forsake the group for the purposes of wealth generation
and retention. It's worth noting that the United States was first settled as
a commune, and almost didn't survive as a result. Only private ownership
entitled individuals sufficient reward for their own productive effort. The
Colonies prospered. Times have changed.
Patriotism is easy without having to sacrifice. Launch a draft and watch the
previously patriotic scream in rage against their sons and daughters being
sent off to war. With the oil setting new highs almost daily, the inflation
that Bush's wars have caused will produce genuine concern about where the
President's military and energy policies have taken this country. Until the
impact of Bush's decisions are felt, they don't exist, but felt it will one
day be! Runaway spending and open-ended, extralegal treaty agreements with
Maliki's regime in Iraq will resolve itself financially. As it did during
Vietnam, the economic impact of too much borrowing will lead us into a
prolonged recessionary spiral that ended up affecting all.
I'd love a system of proportional representation which would allow
Libertarians, Greens, whoever, to have their representatives. Being that
non-associated candidates rarely win in our two-party system, Americans who
don't live in Vermont (Bernie Sanders) or Kucinich's district are out of
luck. They are therefore destined to a future devoid of representation at
the federal level. While the trend may be looking up for independent
candidates, the two-party system is too entrenched to allow a threat to
emerge to its duopoly.
While the duopoly and the false dichotomy it represents may be an inadequate
system, the fact remains that political actors need to exert influence
through that system to affect changes. Ignoring the political basis in
reality that modulates the exercise of politics is self-destructive.
Progressives shouldn't assume that the GOP is a dead end, although there is
of course a socially conservative movement which has seized the helm of the
Republicans' national leadership. After the 2006 debacle, their future may
be limited if the GOP has follow-on failures in 2008.
Message to Would-be Protest Voters
Nader voters are people I'd consider my friends if they'd leave their naive
assumption on their doorsteps instead of denying the need for compromise in
the battle against the real enemy, which is in Marxian terms the
exploitation of the working classes by the rich. It's not like they have to
go out for dinner together afterwards, to quote a recently departed Vietnam
Veteran and antiwar activist from Chicago.
If you like what Bush II has done, vote for Bush III (McCain) by not voting
for the Democrat in the fall. Responsibility for the consequences, which
include mountaintop removal, removal of EPA standards, perversion of FDA
oversight responsibilities, abandonment of New Orleans, two wars, torture,
surveillance society, falls to the protest voters, particularly in Florida,
who could have prevented it all.
In the present political system, rejecting the Democrat because they aren't
progressive enough is tantamount to voting Republican, in a close election.
While being true to one's beliefs is honorable, it doesn't help get a
Democrat elected as President, which will invariably mean that a Republican
will be more likely to win.
McCain may be what some environmentalists want. He's certainly an
improvement over Bush. But to assume McCain better represents progressive
values simply because Hillary isn't an ideal progressive would be a mistake.
My advice to those who really care, and are perhaps wise enough to value
compromise, is to hold back on their pride, avoid the protest vote, and work
to get independents and Greens elected at the local level, where the bulk of
meaningful change tends to originate.
Voting Nader might make a progressive feel good, but results do matter. A
choice of lesser evils might be a bad choice, but it is a choice that must
be made nonetheless. Better to have one's vote count than to not be counted.
In the fall, progressives should vote for the most progressive candidate
available, not against her, should it be Hillary.
--
NOTICE: This post contains copyrighted material the use of which has not
always been authorized by the copyright owner. I am making such material
available to advance understanding of
political, human rights, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues. I
believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material as
provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright
Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107
"A little patience and we shall see the reign of witches pass over, their
spells dissolve, and the people recovering their true sight, restore their
government to its true principles. It is true that in the meantime we are
suffering deeply in spirit,
and incurring the horrors of a war and long oppressions of enormous public
debt. But if the game runs sometimes against us at home we must have
patience till luck turns, and then we shall have an opportunity of winning
back the principles we have lost, for this is a game where principles are at
stake."
-Thomas Jefferson