Normally, I don't like to dabble in fear. But there is a nasty underbelly to American society that I think we're being a bit Pollyanna-ish about. It's called the Christian Right. Now, I don't mean the decent church-going folks who spend hours of their week organizing or participating in church activities, nor folks who pass along literature such as Gideon's Bibles to college students, nor even the ideal-minded voter who uses abortion as a litmus test for choosing a candidate. By "Christian Right" I mean the organized and fairly well structured affiliation of groups, causes, and leaders who misconstrue the U.S. Constitution as a religious document, who see the world only from their Christian ideology, who don't separate Christian doctrine from American and Western social norms, and who are currently using irresponsible scenarios to fan the flames of hatred and intolerance. See these two links in particular.
While it seems that this presidential election is offering many of the changes it promised (on both sides), what I fear is what happens in four or eight more years. I admit it seems unlikely that in 2012 or even in 2016 that we will be faced with President Palin, I admit that these years are frought with uncertainty. Hard times call for desperate measures, as the saying goes and the base supporting Palin will likely take this to heart as Paosner's article notes. This base feels that they -- and only they -- are the "real America" in Palin's own words. They are the base from which home-grown terrorists are likely to come in the guise of defending that real America.
Janet Folger, for example, has argued that her opponents are "not advocating tolerance. If that were the case, they'd live and let live. Instead, they do things like demand that the Boy Scouts change their position by accepting homosexuality. And they will sue anyone who doesn't agree with them. It's basically forcing people to embrace their behavior" (source). She conflates "tolerance" with maintaining an intolerant status quo, something which lost in the Boy Scout case anyway. But Folger was funded by Rev. James Kennedy and there are more like him -- from Pat Robertson to Rod Parsley, to James Dobson. These are the names of the Christian Right who have their own funding, their own access to power, and their own versions of what the political fringe understands as madrasahs -- radical schools of fundamentalism -- in order to inculcate their inflexible ideology.
On its own, I'd imagine this ideology might wither and die. I certainly don't think it is popular when exposed for what it is. However, the issues it raises resonate with a lot of voters -- even folks who are now going for Obama. Note how even the good Senator from Illinois has bluntly stated that marriage is between one man and one woman; anything else is just too secular for much of America, despite the fact that sanctioning committed relationships between people is the government's job. A marriage license is, after all, a legal document. Tolerance would be accepting ALL forms and religious sanctioning of the practice, regardless of gender and if you don;t want homosexuals to marry, then don't marry them! Furthermore, the McCain campaign has been warning its base about total democratic control of "all branches of government.. no checks and balances." This is malarkey of the first-order as the Court is still famously balanced, if tilting right for now and even in that center-right tilt, it often rules against the Bush administration. Further, there will still be a minority power in Congress and so the deals will not be signed, sealed, and delivered with no input from the Republicans.
Again, though, the point is how this will all unfold itself in the social fabric. Will a coalition of intolerance form under the guise of "real America" and a "real alternative" sort of like a perversion of the Green Party in 2000? Will home-grown terrorism shift the "War on Terror," apparently further legitimating the charges of government persecution? Or, will economic difficulties once again stir age-old racial tensions and divisions, thus muting the progress we have seen under an Obama candidacy? I think the answer remains murky at best, but I have hope that Obama is smart enough to already see this coming. However, there is a lot not within his control: the economy, the massive shift he proposes to a more eco-friendly manufacturing base, the confluence of intolerant ideologies and ideologues, and public perception of how we collectively handle these and other challenges.
Showing posts with label Barack Obama. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Barack Obama. Show all posts
10.27.2008
2.05.2008
The Politics of Hope
I'm posting this here and in other places because while it seems fairly slick and is professionally done, it is also why I support Obama. The message and the vision he has combats the cynicism in which we live and breathe in America today. If you watch this and are not moved, if not by the professional and amateurs who freely gave of their talents, then by the message itself and the hope it brings for current and future generations, then you are worthy of pity and I hope something awakens your heart to what is possible and how that is so very different from what has gone before.
If nothing else, something is waking up. You can feel it and hear it on the news. Even if Obama loses the nomination, what stirs will not go gently back to sleep.
If nothing else, something is waking up. You can feel it and hear it on the news. Even if Obama loses the nomination, what stirs will not go gently back to sleep.
1.10.2008
Stochastic Quantitative Reasoning
Still on the political thought-train... but I'm thinking of using this article in my writing classes. Holland does a good job of working not just with evidence, but also with the vagaries of probability. Since so many of my students want to just put up some percentages or polling data in support of their argument, I'm thinking this might 1) show them how it's done and 2) open up a space for talking about why Holland chooses to make clear the limits of his speculation.
Beyond that, he's probably right. The media was caught up in Obamamania. Women turned out in greater numbers than in 2004 (57 v. 54 percent) and coupled with a switch in Biden voters (I can attest that in my own caucus precinct, we nabbed over 50% of Biden voters largely on the theory that supporting a clear front-runner in our precinct, Obama, might help erode a third-place show so that Biden might make up ground elsewhere in the scramble for that #3 spot. Risky and ultimately it lost, but that was what the Biden precinct captain advised, so I let him go with it.
Beyond that, he's probably right. The media was caught up in Obamamania. Women turned out in greater numbers than in 2004 (57 v. 54 percent) and coupled with a switch in Biden voters (I can attest that in my own caucus precinct, we nabbed over 50% of Biden voters largely on the theory that supporting a clear front-runner in our precinct, Obama, might help erode a third-place show so that Biden might make up ground elsewhere in the scramble for that #3 spot. Risky and ultimately it lost, but that was what the Biden precinct captain advised, so I let him go with it.
12.19.2007
The Power of Dreams
Part of moving to Iowa (at least this year for me) means a renewed attention to politics. Arguably, I haven't been as politically minded or active since volunteering for Nader/ LaDuke in 2000 (and more her than him, really). The Kerry/ Edwards ticket just wasn't all that: too entrenched, too old school and a re-hash of hippie visionaries v. straight-laced Americana. Nader and LaDuke both had remarkable policy insights and a far-sightedness that I still don't see in Edwards and only saw as a glimmer of a possibility in Kerry. From my then Madisonian perspective, Kerry/ Edwards were certainly better than Bush/ Cheney, but between 2002 and 2004, we had slid so far back into despair it looked to me that we were willing to settle for middle-of-the-road.
Things are different now, and not just because I'm looking out from Iowa instead of Madison (which is, as I imply, it's own little sphere only technically part of the state). Currently the mediasphere is ablaze with talk of Oprah's endorsement of Obama. Normally, I wouldn't care. Kevin Bacon was just here stumping for Edwards (yawn), but Obama has swayed Cornell West to follow up Oprah's appearance in Cedar Rapids. Despite the fun in 6 degree games, the Obama campaign is not only putting together a collection of the finest African-American thinkers and speakers, I think it has some of the finest American thinkers and speakers.
More importantly, with the support of Oprah, there is a sense of dreaming again -- not just a dream of schadenfreude where we get back to a democracy before our current fascist interruption, but a real dream that recognizes the democracy we had before Bush II was itself broken. We shouldn't forget how the rich grew richer under the "Clinton I" regime, how he signed NAFTA, and how corporate profits supported Clinton policies. As this article from The Nation points out, there is a real dream awakening here and I think the anger directed at Oprah is part of that awakening. As the article says, even if Obama doesn't get the nomination, it is always "not too much to hope that the redemptive power of an intelligent dream might reinvigorate the exhaustion of our embattled political landscape."
Things are different now, and not just because I'm looking out from Iowa instead of Madison (which is, as I imply, it's own little sphere only technically part of the state). Currently the mediasphere is ablaze with talk of Oprah's endorsement of Obama. Normally, I wouldn't care. Kevin Bacon was just here stumping for Edwards (yawn), but Obama has swayed Cornell West to follow up Oprah's appearance in Cedar Rapids. Despite the fun in 6 degree games, the Obama campaign is not only putting together a collection of the finest African-American thinkers and speakers, I think it has some of the finest American thinkers and speakers.
More importantly, with the support of Oprah, there is a sense of dreaming again -- not just a dream of schadenfreude where we get back to a democracy before our current fascist interruption, but a real dream that recognizes the democracy we had before Bush II was itself broken. We shouldn't forget how the rich grew richer under the "Clinton I" regime, how he signed NAFTA, and how corporate profits supported Clinton policies. As this article from The Nation points out, there is a real dream awakening here and I think the anger directed at Oprah is part of that awakening. As the article says, even if Obama doesn't get the nomination, it is always "not too much to hope that the redemptive power of an intelligent dream might reinvigorate the exhaustion of our embattled political landscape."
8.18.2007
My Birthday with Barack
Yes, I had a BBQ dinner with Senator Obama. I have to admit it ranks up there with meeting Sting as far as brushes with fame go... or at least admittedly with men far better looking than I. Now, that it was my birthday was even cooler but I assume you don't really want to know all that. You want to know: What did you think? Will you vote for him? Was he "real"? Maybe even, why should I vote for him so early in the race to '08? I can't honestly say this guy has some magic quality that demands anyone should support him beyond the policies he has already outlined. But, I can tell you what I know. But first, a funny story...
A Funny Story
When Obama arrived in his RV, he had to wait for the media to set up.
From inside, we could see them file past the front windows lugging their boom mics, cameras, etc. After they did, the Senator came out and began greeting relatives of the hosts who had assembled on the front lawn. Then, we saw the media folks file the other way past the windows and rather hurriedly. From out the side window, then, we could see Barack at the neighbor's porch -- suddenly filled with about ten people wielding their own personal cameras and craning their necks. Definitely a political move, but what else ya gonna do?
Character
First, he's cool, but in that politician way. He's no dummy. He knows the tricks of persuasion as any politician does. He's very gracious when he meets you and takes time to say your name, to get it right and to make you feel included. He makes eye contact. He's also casual and yet careful in his speech and movement. As I said, he's a politician. He's "on" at venues like this and unavoidably so.
But what he takes time for and what he does in the interactions spoke a lot, too. As we were running overlong in our group conversation, he made a concerted effort to politely remind us that he wanted to get everyone's question in. At that moment, he knew there were still three people who had not asked their question and -- here's the important point -- he knew which three people out of the ten of us.
Third, he really thinks about what he says when he talks. He does not spout platitudes or talking points. His speech is less polished and he doesn't hesitate to stutter a little, backtrack, or clarify. In this forum, at least, he seemed to genuinely respond to questions he said he had not heard before that moment. Jess, who saw him speak last Wednesday, said she had the same impression.
But I think what I have written here could be said of most politicians, at least the good ones, no matter which side of the aisle they claim to sit. So, why Barack? Why not Edwards? Why not Clinton? Hell, why not go for Kucinich at this point just in the hope that it moves the Dems more"left"? Responses to the first two candidates should be obvious -- Edwards is a hypocrite (even if a well-intentioned one) and Clinton is just too polarizing. The difference between Kucinich and Obama, though is a tough one.
Economy
Where Obama is inexperienced, Kucinich is at least a veteran of political office. Yes, Kucinich is the strongest supporter of unions on nay ticket, he's vegan, he's a member of the Green party in all but name. But Naomi Klein's recent talk "Lost Worlds" and her book, The Shock Doctrine, has been weighing heavily on my mind. I think her analysis is sharp, her view of history insightful, and she's one of the sharpest thinkers we've got. But, if unfettered capitalism is bad for recovering communist countries, why should we think we can shock our own economy out of its excesses? If we withdrew from NAFTA and GATT as Kucinich has declared he would, what would happen? What void would be left and what would move into it?
Obama, on the other hand, recognizes the wide berth needed to steer the ship of the U.S. state. He may be inexperienced compared to some, but he's got a clear picture of just how much can be accomplished without precipitating disaster. Obama's health care reform works similarly -- we can't go to single-payer without untold consequences from large players like Blue Cross/ Blue Shield. He admitted that were he design a health care system from scratch, single-payer would be it. But we have to work with what we have.
Education
As far as education goes, I have both the most respect for his plan and the most questions. He talked a lot about including actual teachers in formulating education policy -- something other Dems are only just now starting to do. I also like his stance on limited standardized testing, whole child education, and pairing experienced teachers with newer ones as a form of merit for the experienced ones AND as a professional development opportunity for the newer. But this is where my question comes in -- he characterized this pairing and professional development model as a form of "assessment" instead of how NCLB does it. But I was confused over what was being assessed -- the teacher, the student, or the school. And how does an assessment of one bear on an assessment of another? Moreover, when I pressed him on the question of who does the assessment, he said he was in favor of a nation-wide consensus agreed upon "by experts." This puzzles me, too. Who determines an "expert?" Moreover, I tried to steer him toward some response regarding the diversity of the U.S. population and honoring different cultural norms. Sadly, his consensus response doesn't seem compatible with this.
That criticism aside, he is capable of seeing these points. He commented on how disillusioned teachers are under NCLB and on how the students who fail do so largely because they do not "fit" anywhere in the current was we school our children. Yet, his response seems to be simply that we educate poor and disadvantaged earlier and earlier like their white, middle-class counterparts. In effect, it's a 0-12 public education system. I would agree with him on the problem, but not the solution. The ways we assess child, teacher, and school have to accept difference -- racial, cultural, economic, regional, etc.
Fin
Explanations like the ten of us got are hard to come by on national news. So, it will be up to his team to see how he gets the message out. Certainly, he has the money. I think he's got the talent and the drive. He's better than what we have now, but what isn't? But I think I learned something today about this whole crazy election stuff -- it really is just a big job interview. That's all. Who do you really want to do this job? Does experience matter over principles? Does crude pragmatism translate to success? Or does the past record at many different levels transfer to the one being sought out by a candidate? If you have really looked at all the available candidates and you have a favorite, vote for that person. No. Matter. What. Anyone. Else. Says.
A Funny Story
When Obama arrived in his RV, he had to wait for the media to set up.
From inside, we could see them file past the front windows lugging their boom mics, cameras, etc. After they did, the Senator came out and began greeting relatives of the hosts who had assembled on the front lawn. Then, we saw the media folks file the other way past the windows and rather hurriedly. From out the side window, then, we could see Barack at the neighbor's porch -- suddenly filled with about ten people wielding their own personal cameras and craning their necks. Definitely a political move, but what else ya gonna do?Character
First, he's cool, but in that politician way. He's no dummy. He knows the tricks of persuasion as any politician does. He's very gracious when he meets you and takes time to say your name, to get it right and to make you feel included. He makes eye contact. He's also casual and yet careful in his speech and movement. As I said, he's a politician. He's "on" at venues like this and unavoidably so.
But what he takes time for and what he does in the interactions spoke a lot, too. As we were running overlong in our group conversation, he made a concerted effort to politely remind us that he wanted to get everyone's question in. At that moment, he knew there were still three people who had not asked their question and -- here's the important point -- he knew which three people out of the ten of us.
Third, he really thinks about what he says when he talks. He does not spout platitudes or talking points. His speech is less polished and he doesn't hesitate to stutter a little, backtrack, or clarify. In this forum, at least, he seemed to genuinely respond to questions he said he had not heard before that moment. Jess, who saw him speak last Wednesday, said she had the same impression.
But I think what I have written here could be said of most politicians, at least the good ones, no matter which side of the aisle they claim to sit. So, why Barack? Why not Edwards? Why not Clinton? Hell, why not go for Kucinich at this point just in the hope that it moves the Dems more"left"? Responses to the first two candidates should be obvious -- Edwards is a hypocrite (even if a well-intentioned one) and Clinton is just too polarizing. The difference between Kucinich and Obama, though is a tough one.
Economy
Where Obama is inexperienced, Kucinich is at least a veteran of political office. Yes, Kucinich is the strongest supporter of unions on nay ticket, he's vegan, he's a member of the Green party in all but name. But Naomi Klein's recent talk "Lost Worlds" and her book, The Shock Doctrine, has been weighing heavily on my mind. I think her analysis is sharp, her view of history insightful, and she's one of the sharpest thinkers we've got. But, if unfettered capitalism is bad for recovering communist countries, why should we think we can shock our own economy out of its excesses? If we withdrew from NAFTA and GATT as Kucinich has declared he would, what would happen? What void would be left and what would move into it?
Obama, on the other hand, recognizes the wide berth needed to steer the ship of the U.S. state. He may be inexperienced compared to some, but he's got a clear picture of just how much can be accomplished without precipitating disaster. Obama's health care reform works similarly -- we can't go to single-payer without untold consequences from large players like Blue Cross/ Blue Shield. He admitted that were he design a health care system from scratch, single-payer would be it. But we have to work with what we have.
Education
As far as education goes, I have both the most respect for his plan and the most questions. He talked a lot about including actual teachers in formulating education policy -- something other Dems are only just now starting to do. I also like his stance on limited standardized testing, whole child education, and pairing experienced teachers with newer ones as a form of merit for the experienced ones AND as a professional development opportunity for the newer. But this is where my question comes in -- he characterized this pairing and professional development model as a form of "assessment" instead of how NCLB does it. But I was confused over what was being assessed -- the teacher, the student, or the school. And how does an assessment of one bear on an assessment of another? Moreover, when I pressed him on the question of who does the assessment, he said he was in favor of a nation-wide consensus agreed upon "by experts." This puzzles me, too. Who determines an "expert?" Moreover, I tried to steer him toward some response regarding the diversity of the U.S. population and honoring different cultural norms. Sadly, his consensus response doesn't seem compatible with this.
That criticism aside, he is capable of seeing these points. He commented on how disillusioned teachers are under NCLB and on how the students who fail do so largely because they do not "fit" anywhere in the current was we school our children. Yet, his response seems to be simply that we educate poor and disadvantaged earlier and earlier like their white, middle-class counterparts. In effect, it's a 0-12 public education system. I would agree with him on the problem, but not the solution. The ways we assess child, teacher, and school have to accept difference -- racial, cultural, economic, regional, etc.
Fin
Explanations like the ten of us got are hard to come by on national news. So, it will be up to his team to see how he gets the message out. Certainly, he has the money. I think he's got the talent and the drive. He's better than what we have now, but what isn't? But I think I learned something today about this whole crazy election stuff -- it really is just a big job interview. That's all. Who do you really want to do this job? Does experience matter over principles? Does crude pragmatism translate to success? Or does the past record at many different levels transfer to the one being sought out by a candidate? If you have really looked at all the available candidates and you have a favorite, vote for that person. No. Matter. What. Anyone. Else. Says.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)