David Brooks wavers, it seems to me, between thoughtful philosophical conservative and Republican talking head. Today he writes in his capacity as the latter.
John McCain, apparently, is at a disadvantage. He isn't getting to play the kind of politics he wants, where he appears to be the post-partisan healer of the country to Barack Obama's left-wing nutjobness. His campaign is being forced against his will to have structure, and to attack people. This isn't the kind of good-natured, easy-going presidential race John McCain signed up for. And this means that he's fallen behind and has had to turn to a more nasty, traditional kind of politics. Now, this doesn't come naturally to him, of course, and he's really had to work at it, but after long last his newly minted tactics of personal attacks and mocking of truth and justice have paid off. He's nearly neck-and-neck with Obama, and so in Brooks's own words, "a long-shot candidacy now seems entirely plausible."
And the American Dream is saved.
No. No no no. John McCain is not a long shot. He has never been a long shot. John McCain has held office in the United States Senate for over 21 years. He ran a nearly successful race for the Republican nomination for President in 2000, and has had more publicity than nearly all other senators for many years. He has the endorsement and financial support of hordes of super-wealthy Republican donors, not to mention a little cash in the bank of his own.
Barack Obama, on the other hand, emerged recently from extremely local politics, is the first viable African-American candidate ever, and defeated the most powerful family in the Democratic party to become the nominee. I'm not going to say it's truly a long shot, because his family does have some background in politics and he has served in the Senate, but he's a hell of a lot closer than McCain.
I know that I'm probably preaching to the choir here, but it really does irritate me when people use John McCain's poor policy choices and lack of charisma to characterize him as some kind of David to Obama's Goliath.
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
Monday, July 14, 2008
Two politicians walk into a bar
Apparently there's a stir about next week's New Yorker cover. It depicts Barack and Michelle Obama standing in the Oval Office in full terrorist regalia under a portrait of Osama bin Laden as a flag burns in the fireplace. Both the Obama and the McCain campaign have called it "tasteless and offensive," but I for one think it's time that everybody suck it up for satire.
I'm working backwards here, because my first instict is to defend everything the New Yorker does, and then figure out why it's okay. The cartoonist, Barry Blitt, defends his work by claiming that, "It seemed to me that depicting the concept would show it as the fear-mongering ridiculousness that it is." Sure, but he needn't be so diplomatic. One of my favorite things about this "new kind of politics" was that there weren't supposed to be any pulled punches. I want to see a cartoon of McCain cutting brush in a cowboy hat with Laura Bush (he's Bush III). I want to see Obama stubbing a cigarette out on the face of a helpless white man as he sips a fine red wine (he's an elitist who hates white people).
Come on, media, help us think more about the men who will run our country! Don't just give me soundbites, give me biting commentary. Don't give me scandals, scandalize me. Political discourse has the reputation of turning off millions of Americans who feel like it's such a dirty game that they can't get involved. But Americans love dirty games, let them participate! People know more Bush jokes than they know Bush policies. It's time to use that to everybody's advantage.
Q: How many Democrats does it take to change a lightbulb?
A: Only three, but they need healthcare and a living wage.
Q: How many Republicans does it take to change a lightbulb?
A: Let the market decide!
Those are just off the top of my head, but I feel confident that the more jokes we hear(constructive jokes, mind you, not Dennis Miller shit), the more invested we'll be. And so I applaud the New Yorker for spearheading what will hopefully be a trend of amusing understanding.
I'm working backwards here, because my first instict is to defend everything the New Yorker does, and then figure out why it's okay. The cartoonist, Barry Blitt, defends his work by claiming that, "It seemed to me that depicting the concept would show it as the fear-mongering ridiculousness that it is." Sure, but he needn't be so diplomatic. One of my favorite things about this "new kind of politics" was that there weren't supposed to be any pulled punches. I want to see a cartoon of McCain cutting brush in a cowboy hat with Laura Bush (he's Bush III). I want to see Obama stubbing a cigarette out on the face of a helpless white man as he sips a fine red wine (he's an elitist who hates white people).
Come on, media, help us think more about the men who will run our country! Don't just give me soundbites, give me biting commentary. Don't give me scandals, scandalize me. Political discourse has the reputation of turning off millions of Americans who feel like it's such a dirty game that they can't get involved. But Americans love dirty games, let them participate! People know more Bush jokes than they know Bush policies. It's time to use that to everybody's advantage.
Q: How many Democrats does it take to change a lightbulb?
A: Only three, but they need healthcare and a living wage.
Q: How many Republicans does it take to change a lightbulb?
A: Let the market decide!
Those are just off the top of my head, but I feel confident that the more jokes we hear(constructive jokes, mind you, not Dennis Miller shit), the more invested we'll be. And so I applaud the New Yorker for spearheading what will hopefully be a trend of amusing understanding.
Saturday, April 12, 2008
Burke gets abused (as usual).
Matthew Yglesias linked to an article in the Atlantic about how John McCain is a Burkean conservative. Personally, I think it's trying too hard.
Perhaps, just perhaps, he isn't a neocon. But it isn't metered change he's doing, it's pandering. The reason he's for the tax cuts now is because it will get him votes. Same reason why he voted against the anti-torture bill. It isn't that he philosophically opposes changes and restrictive reforms, he's just more spineless than we give him credit for.
Yes, the James Dobsons and Rudy Giulianis of the American right aren't real conservatives. Yes, what the Republican party needs to get it back on some kind of philosophical path is more Burke. But John McCain just isn't the guy. He's a maverick, remember? He stands up for what he believes in, even if it isn't the norm! Granted, John McCain is as much a maverick as Mike Gravel is a libertarian, but conservatives (authentic or otherwise) can't have it both ways.
The way I see it, the Republican party has three directions they can go:
1. Neoconservatism. Like Reagan with a sadistic edge. Low taxes for the rich, strong military presence in every country between Egypt and India, and a centralized government doing whatever the hell it wants with its people, resulting in generations of debt, broken alliances, and wholly useless moral "highground."
2. Federalism. Starve Washington, let the libertarians run free in the streets, and kick back as the poor of America rise up and bring the long-awaited Proletarian revolution.
3. Real conservatism. Elitism. The kind of thing Burke wanted- social conservatism, economic protectionism, and a heavy dose of aesthetic power plays. This direction is actually impossible.
These options all have some stuff in common, and McCain has to an extent flirted with all of them without commiting to one. Intriguingly, this is one of the things that makes him so appealing to moderates. They don't know what kind of a conservative he is, so they can't be sure of all the terrible things he'd most likely do. He might invade a country, but he might not be a neocon. He might gut welfare and education and social security, but he might not be a small government libertarian. He might purely maintain the status quo and waste everyone's time talking a big game about America versus the ideological forces of evil. Is he John? Is he President McCain? Or is he J.S. McCain III? Hopefully, time will never tell.
In any case, he's no Edmund Burke, and he's still a bad candidate.
Perhaps, just perhaps, he isn't a neocon. But it isn't metered change he's doing, it's pandering. The reason he's for the tax cuts now is because it will get him votes. Same reason why he voted against the anti-torture bill. It isn't that he philosophically opposes changes and restrictive reforms, he's just more spineless than we give him credit for.
Yes, the James Dobsons and Rudy Giulianis of the American right aren't real conservatives. Yes, what the Republican party needs to get it back on some kind of philosophical path is more Burke. But John McCain just isn't the guy. He's a maverick, remember? He stands up for what he believes in, even if it isn't the norm! Granted, John McCain is as much a maverick as Mike Gravel is a libertarian, but conservatives (authentic or otherwise) can't have it both ways.
The way I see it, the Republican party has three directions they can go:
1. Neoconservatism. Like Reagan with a sadistic edge. Low taxes for the rich, strong military presence in every country between Egypt and India, and a centralized government doing whatever the hell it wants with its people, resulting in generations of debt, broken alliances, and wholly useless moral "highground."
2. Federalism. Starve Washington, let the libertarians run free in the streets, and kick back as the poor of America rise up and bring the long-awaited Proletarian revolution.
3. Real conservatism. Elitism. The kind of thing Burke wanted- social conservatism, economic protectionism, and a heavy dose of aesthetic power plays. This direction is actually impossible.
These options all have some stuff in common, and McCain has to an extent flirted with all of them without commiting to one. Intriguingly, this is one of the things that makes him so appealing to moderates. They don't know what kind of a conservative he is, so they can't be sure of all the terrible things he'd most likely do. He might invade a country, but he might not be a neocon. He might gut welfare and education and social security, but he might not be a small government libertarian. He might purely maintain the status quo and waste everyone's time talking a big game about America versus the ideological forces of evil. Is he John? Is he President McCain? Or is he J.S. McCain III? Hopefully, time will never tell.
In any case, he's no Edmund Burke, and he's still a bad candidate.
Thursday, March 27, 2008
Be true to your school (of thought)
Nicholas Kristof has an opinion piece in the Times today similar to opinion pieces in many many papers these days. Clinton is really going to fuck over the Democrats by staying in too long. While I somewhat agree, this isn't what I'm most worried about right now. What concerns me more than the general chances of the Democratic party in November is the poll Kristof cites indicating that 19% of Obama supporters would consider defecting to McCain if Clinton were the nominee, and 28% of Clinton supporters would vote GOP if Obama were picked at the convention.
This is really really scary. I know that people have strong feelings about their favorite candidates, but they're really not that different. I think Obama's policies are slightly better, and that he's much more charismatic. Clinton supporters think her policies are slightly better, and that she's more experienced. Fine. Whatever. But none of those reasons are good enough to engender the kind of bitterness it takes to abandon a party.
I don't know what those 19% of Obama supporters are thinking, but I imagine it's along the lines of, "Clinton is too divisive and bitchy and won't get the world's respect, whereas McCain's a stand-up guy." So what if he's a more "real" than Hillary? He's still a Republican with very very conservative views; the kind of views we've all been hating on for nearly 8 years now. As to the 28% of Clinton's camp who would go to the Reps, I imagine you're thinking, "experience is too important for me to trust Obama. Clinton's gotten a lot of shit for her phone call ad, but there's some truth to it. I really don't think Barack is qualified to get stuff done." To you I say: okay, experience is helpful. But, once again, as we've seen with Bush, experience that's bad is worse than no experience at all. GWB was governor of a major state, has a gazillion connections and has since birth, has politics in his blood, and can't run a country worth jack. McCain may be a respected senator and a war hero, but that won't help him get America out of the problems we have now. The guy either doesn't know or chooses to ignore that Iran is a Shiite nation, and no doubt will do with both foreign and domestic policy whatever the fuck he wants.
Obama is better than McCain. Clinton is better than McCain. Al Gore is better than everybody, but unfortunately that's irrelevant.
Do the right thing. Vote Democrat in 2008.
Edit: Here's the link to the actual poll, and here's what you should do now.
This is really really scary. I know that people have strong feelings about their favorite candidates, but they're really not that different. I think Obama's policies are slightly better, and that he's much more charismatic. Clinton supporters think her policies are slightly better, and that she's more experienced. Fine. Whatever. But none of those reasons are good enough to engender the kind of bitterness it takes to abandon a party.
I don't know what those 19% of Obama supporters are thinking, but I imagine it's along the lines of, "Clinton is too divisive and bitchy and won't get the world's respect, whereas McCain's a stand-up guy." So what if he's a more "real" than Hillary? He's still a Republican with very very conservative views; the kind of views we've all been hating on for nearly 8 years now. As to the 28% of Clinton's camp who would go to the Reps, I imagine you're thinking, "experience is too important for me to trust Obama. Clinton's gotten a lot of shit for her phone call ad, but there's some truth to it. I really don't think Barack is qualified to get stuff done." To you I say: okay, experience is helpful. But, once again, as we've seen with Bush, experience that's bad is worse than no experience at all. GWB was governor of a major state, has a gazillion connections and has since birth, has politics in his blood, and can't run a country worth jack. McCain may be a respected senator and a war hero, but that won't help him get America out of the problems we have now. The guy either doesn't know or chooses to ignore that Iran is a Shiite nation, and no doubt will do with both foreign and domestic policy whatever the fuck he wants.
Obama is better than McCain. Clinton is better than McCain. Al Gore is better than everybody, but unfortunately that's irrelevant.
Do the right thing. Vote Democrat in 2008.
Edit: Here's the link to the actual poll, and here's what you should do now.
Saturday, March 22, 2008
The Issues
By now, I'm sure most of you have seen this, but if you haven't, do. It's possibly the best speech I've ever seen by a contemporary politician.
This isn't anything original to point out, but this is why Barack Obama is a better candidate than Hillary Clinton. If you want an issues-based campaign, these are the issues. If you want change in America, this is where it comes from: point out the problems, and try to find solutions. And be candid. Obama is the real deal in a way that most politicians, that most people, can't even begin to be. He, at least in this speech, is talking in a way that makes people listen. He isn't speaking for applause. He isn't spouting soundbites. The incidental applause, the quotations CNN puts at the bottom of the screen, are out of place. He answers all the questions. He speaks plainly. He eliminates the jargon and the doubletalk and all the political bullshit that disenchanted pundits and intellectuals have been ranting about for decades. The man is smarter than I took him for; not cleverer, necessarily, not craftier, but smarter. I have never seen a politician look to the root of America's soul, love the country so much. I have come to trust him like I might trust an old teacher. It isn't charisma he's exuding. I thought that was all it was. I didn't like the "yes we can" change crap because I thought it was a tool. I knew it was a good tool, so I voted for him because I knew others would and because I wanted a Democrat in the White House. But his "yes we can" goes beyond the rallies and the posters and the psychology. He wants to try to fix America the way nobody has perhaps since Roosevelt. I have never before valued truth so much.
He'll probably still lose Pennsylvania. It will probably still come down to the superdelegates, and they may or may not choose to make him the nominee. But I hope they do because there is a chance--just a chance--that Obama will be the kind of president that the president is supposed to be.
I thought Howard Dean saw America the way it should be, and I liked him for it. He was smart and able and had good ideas in a time when almost all the ideas coming out of Washington were bad. But Obama doesn't see America the way it should be, he sees it the way it is. America can be distrusting and cynical and even hateful. It can destroy lives and it can cripple communities. But he has also seen the part of America that can make men strong and give them fulfillment and joy. Clinton's presidency would be historic. The first female president. She would be fine. She would break down barriers. But Obama's presidency wouldn't be remembered for being the first time a black man sits in the Oval Office. It would be remembered for showing America what it is, for better or for worse, and for trying to make it as great on the inside as we say it is on the outside.
Obama still panders. In Ohio, in Iowa, in Texas. I wish he wouldn't. He is still a politician, and Washington is still run by those who want it most. But maybe, just maybe, he can make some of the citizens want it more than the farmers. He wants a more perfect union. Excelsior, Alex. If you want Excelsior, look to the man who wants to change the way Americans think, not the way they pay their taxes or the way they buy their corn. Bush and Cheney have showed us how a country can start to hate itself. Obama can help us love ourselves, not because America has a bigger cock than the other guys, but because America cares for itself and makes great men who care for America.
I don't know precisely what policies he would implement. I leave that research to Ted Kennedy, to Bill Richardson, to David Broockman. I don't know how being a "community organizer" will help him correctly respond to that 3 AM phone call. But what I see in Barack Obama is more than a talking head, more than a bleeding heart, more than a helping hand. I see a man, a flesh and blood person, who wants to be president of the country that made him great so that he can make the lives of its citizens better. More perfect. Yes we can? I don't know for sure. But at this point I can't help but try.
This isn't anything original to point out, but this is why Barack Obama is a better candidate than Hillary Clinton. If you want an issues-based campaign, these are the issues. If you want change in America, this is where it comes from: point out the problems, and try to find solutions. And be candid. Obama is the real deal in a way that most politicians, that most people, can't even begin to be. He, at least in this speech, is talking in a way that makes people listen. He isn't speaking for applause. He isn't spouting soundbites. The incidental applause, the quotations CNN puts at the bottom of the screen, are out of place. He answers all the questions. He speaks plainly. He eliminates the jargon and the doubletalk and all the political bullshit that disenchanted pundits and intellectuals have been ranting about for decades. The man is smarter than I took him for; not cleverer, necessarily, not craftier, but smarter. I have never seen a politician look to the root of America's soul, love the country so much. I have come to trust him like I might trust an old teacher. It isn't charisma he's exuding. I thought that was all it was. I didn't like the "yes we can" change crap because I thought it was a tool. I knew it was a good tool, so I voted for him because I knew others would and because I wanted a Democrat in the White House. But his "yes we can" goes beyond the rallies and the posters and the psychology. He wants to try to fix America the way nobody has perhaps since Roosevelt. I have never before valued truth so much.
He'll probably still lose Pennsylvania. It will probably still come down to the superdelegates, and they may or may not choose to make him the nominee. But I hope they do because there is a chance--just a chance--that Obama will be the kind of president that the president is supposed to be.
I thought Howard Dean saw America the way it should be, and I liked him for it. He was smart and able and had good ideas in a time when almost all the ideas coming out of Washington were bad. But Obama doesn't see America the way it should be, he sees it the way it is. America can be distrusting and cynical and even hateful. It can destroy lives and it can cripple communities. But he has also seen the part of America that can make men strong and give them fulfillment and joy. Clinton's presidency would be historic. The first female president. She would be fine. She would break down barriers. But Obama's presidency wouldn't be remembered for being the first time a black man sits in the Oval Office. It would be remembered for showing America what it is, for better or for worse, and for trying to make it as great on the inside as we say it is on the outside.
Obama still panders. In Ohio, in Iowa, in Texas. I wish he wouldn't. He is still a politician, and Washington is still run by those who want it most. But maybe, just maybe, he can make some of the citizens want it more than the farmers. He wants a more perfect union. Excelsior, Alex. If you want Excelsior, look to the man who wants to change the way Americans think, not the way they pay their taxes or the way they buy their corn. Bush and Cheney have showed us how a country can start to hate itself. Obama can help us love ourselves, not because America has a bigger cock than the other guys, but because America cares for itself and makes great men who care for America.
I don't know precisely what policies he would implement. I leave that research to Ted Kennedy, to Bill Richardson, to David Broockman. I don't know how being a "community organizer" will help him correctly respond to that 3 AM phone call. But what I see in Barack Obama is more than a talking head, more than a bleeding heart, more than a helping hand. I see a man, a flesh and blood person, who wants to be president of the country that made him great so that he can make the lives of its citizens better. More perfect. Yes we can? I don't know for sure. But at this point I can't help but try.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)