I'm not willing to settle for a mediocre Democratic president if we have the viable option of a great Democratic president.
1) Obama will be viable in the general election. Polls show that he fares better than Hillary in head to head matchups against every prospective Republican contender. He appeals more to independents and to self-identifying liberals. Hillary commands the votes of those who first and foremost identify with the Democratic Party establishment. For this reason, I believe, she also attracts much higher negative ratings in polls.
2) More importantly: words matter.
Americans love to rank things. Colleges. Sports teams. Sexiest people alive. When we rank our past presidents, as we inevitably do, we consistently choose the same man as the Greatest. Over the past century, we've come to the consensus that Abraham Lincoln did more for this nation than any other man.
Lincoln's government experience before winning the presidency: 8 years in the Illinois House of Representatives, and a single term in the U.S. House.
Other experience: lawyer.
What's on his memorial: his two greatest speeches (two of the greatest ever given).
Lincoln was an amazing president because he could unite the nation around great ideas, centered on hope, destiny, the hand of God, and the redemption of a nation. He convinced longtime opponents to work together in his cabinet, he was gracious, solemn, funny, and he channeled for embattled Americans the grave hope that we could one day reunite as one people.
His management of the war was hardly exemplary. Completely unready to "Lead on Day One", he let General McClellan and others get away with far too many defeats. I can only imagine what it must have been like to pick up a newspaper in those days and read of the abysmal failures of Lincoln's latest general. The war dragged on; far more people died than had to.
But Lincoln accomplished what his political opponents would not have: national reunification. How did he do it? With words. Words that still penetrate through history and shake us with righteous morality.
Lincoln's great challenge was a single great war. Alas, our world has grown more complex, and a great war overseas is today but one issue on a presidential agenda. However, we should not fool ourselves. Our response, as a people, to the challenges before us carry as much existential import to the future of America as the Civil War did in Lincoln's term. In times that test the soul of our nation, we should turn to a man with the power to unite us. We should turn to an orator.
Monday, January 21, 2008
Friday, January 11, 2008
Voting Strategically
I'm so used to voting strategically by now that I wonder if I'm starting to forget what I stand for.
I saw a Kucinich bumper sticker just now -- you know, "Strength through Peace." And I thought, "Yeah!" Isn't peace just an unarguably good thing? Why aren't any other presidential candidates talking about it? Because it doesn't sound "tough", that's why. Candidates, if they're "serious", have to be tough on this, tough on that. The amazing thing is that this essential quality of toughness is really a hanger-on from the 1950's when the crucial thing was to determine who would be toughest on communism. We still have this image of our President being in some sort of negotiation with the president of another country, and the tenor of his (translated) words, the look on his face, will make all the difference. He must never back down.
Of course, no one can picture Dennis Kucinich making Nikita Khrushchev crap his pants. And so we don't vote for him.
Nevertheless, Kucinich represents the values want in a President, far better than my stated choice, Obama, does (at least publicly). So as an exercise in honesty, I will hereby declare what I support, even though I'm not always going to vote for it:
Maybe I can use this list as a blueprint for further posts...
I saw a Kucinich bumper sticker just now -- you know, "Strength through Peace." And I thought, "Yeah!" Isn't peace just an unarguably good thing? Why aren't any other presidential candidates talking about it? Because it doesn't sound "tough", that's why. Candidates, if they're "serious", have to be tough on this, tough on that. The amazing thing is that this essential quality of toughness is really a hanger-on from the 1950's when the crucial thing was to determine who would be toughest on communism. We still have this image of our President being in some sort of negotiation with the president of another country, and the tenor of his (translated) words, the look on his face, will make all the difference. He must never back down.
Of course, no one can picture Dennis Kucinich making Nikita Khrushchev crap his pants. And so we don't vote for him.
Nevertheless, Kucinich represents the values want in a President, far better than my stated choice, Obama, does (at least publicly). So as an exercise in honesty, I will hereby declare what I support, even though I'm not always going to vote for it:
- abortion on demand
- unlimited legal immigration
- peace over war, almost always
- marriage for anyone who wants it, including polygamy (uncoerced, not like FLDS does)
- power to the states to control guns
- internationalism (a renewed commitment to international institutions and treaties)
- freedom of drug use
- free trade (getting rid of export subsidies, tariffs, etc.)
- fair trade (build workers' rights, the environment, etc. into every free trade agreement)
- a tight cap-and-trade system for GHG's
- higher and higher gasoline and diesel taxes, giving alternatives a chance to break in
- putting Yucca Mountain to use, but disallowing any more nuclear power plants until the waste issue is solved
- freedom of suicide for the terminally ill
- affordable health care, but with fewer resources going toward end-of-life care
- assumption of consent for organ donation
- real commitment to the long-term health of Social Security, Medicare, and other "entitlement" programs
- unilateral nuclear disarmament
- making executions humane, if not abolishing them
- wide-reaching laws for government transparency
- full protection from search and seizure without probable cause or a court-issued warrant
- an end to CAFO's
- aggressive protection of public lands, air, water, and endangered species
- true aid to developing nations, to make them less, not more, reliant on us
- high taxes on wealth, low taxes on corporations and small businesses
- stringent separation of church and state -- especially in matters of science and education
Maybe I can use this list as a blueprint for further posts...
Friday, January 4, 2008
In Defense of Unfair Primaries
Looks like the New York Times is the latest to argue for a revamped primary process. This talk is based on a common complaint that comes up every year: Why do Iowans and New Hampshirites get do decide who the party nominates? Why not me? New Yorkers and Louisianans deserve an equal vote.
Two new processes have been proposed to make the system more fair:
1) Divide the states into regional blocs. All states in the bloc vote on the same night. Rotate the order of the blocs each election cycle.
2) Divide the states into blocs based on population. All states in the bloc vote on the same night. The small-state blocs vote before the large-state blocs.
And that's all well and good. The first plan would introduce a new kind of caprice into the process, since the nomination could hang on which regions come early in the rotation for that election year. But it's harly less capricious than the current system.
More importantly, these new processes, and the complaint of unfairness upon which they are founded, miss the point of what a primary should be designed to do. "One man, one vote" is a fundamental principle of a democratic election, it is true. But these are not elections to office, they are merely contests for nomination, in which the U.S. government plays no active role. Therefore, a different principle than "one man, one vote" applies in this instance: freedom of association.
These are parties, not governments. If you believe that your party should do everything lawful, honorable, and honest in its power to win the presidential election and elect someone who generally agrees with your positions on the issues, you should also believe the party should set up primaries to do the following:
1) Minimize party infighting and unify the party around a candidate.
2) Maximize the likelihood that the the winner of the primaries will beat the nominee of the opposing party.
3) Generate fanfare and excitement about the process, the party, the choices, and the nominee.
The Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primaries accomplish these objectives very, very well. By holding them in relatively conservative states, the party increases the likelihood of a moderate, electable candidate. The early primaries do an incredible job of narrowing the field and fostering unity absolutely as soon as is practical. And whatever you say about the Iowa caucuses, you can't say they don't produce a truly incredible amount of fanfare.
I don't see the new proposals accomplishing these objectives as well. Particularly, the regional-bloc solution would do a horrible job of uniting the party, and could even splinter it (informally, of course). Plus, it makes no sense to have NY, MA, and ME making the first choice -- ever. As much as I'm an Edmund Muskie fan, it makes no sense from here on out. The population-bloc proposal would give excessive sway to libertarian states, to the disadvantage of the sort of populist campaign (or even establishment campaign) that normally does better. By having lots of states making different decisions at the same time, the party would be reducing the chance of unity and increasing the chances of a brokered convention -- historically very divisive and opaque ways of making nominations.
The current process is not perfect. Especially after this cycle, it's clear it needs tinkering. The front-loading and early-February clumping need to go, and maybe the parties should introduce some rotation into the schedule. Minor changes to keep it fresh without messing too much with what works.
I live in Montana, and I'm a Democrat. I vote at the butt end of the primary season: June 3, the same as South Dakota. My vote will mean less than my emails to comments@whitehouse.gov. Yes, the primary calendar is unfair. I just care more about electing a Democrat.
Two new processes have been proposed to make the system more fair:
1) Divide the states into regional blocs. All states in the bloc vote on the same night. Rotate the order of the blocs each election cycle.
2) Divide the states into blocs based on population. All states in the bloc vote on the same night. The small-state blocs vote before the large-state blocs.
And that's all well and good. The first plan would introduce a new kind of caprice into the process, since the nomination could hang on which regions come early in the rotation for that election year. But it's harly less capricious than the current system.
More importantly, these new processes, and the complaint of unfairness upon which they are founded, miss the point of what a primary should be designed to do. "One man, one vote" is a fundamental principle of a democratic election, it is true. But these are not elections to office, they are merely contests for nomination, in which the U.S. government plays no active role. Therefore, a different principle than "one man, one vote" applies in this instance: freedom of association.
These are parties, not governments. If you believe that your party should do everything lawful, honorable, and honest in its power to win the presidential election and elect someone who generally agrees with your positions on the issues, you should also believe the party should set up primaries to do the following:
1) Minimize party infighting and unify the party around a candidate.
2) Maximize the likelihood that the the winner of the primaries will beat the nominee of the opposing party.
3) Generate fanfare and excitement about the process, the party, the choices, and the nominee.
The Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primaries accomplish these objectives very, very well. By holding them in relatively conservative states, the party increases the likelihood of a moderate, electable candidate. The early primaries do an incredible job of narrowing the field and fostering unity absolutely as soon as is practical. And whatever you say about the Iowa caucuses, you can't say they don't produce a truly incredible amount of fanfare.
I don't see the new proposals accomplishing these objectives as well. Particularly, the regional-bloc solution would do a horrible job of uniting the party, and could even splinter it (informally, of course). Plus, it makes no sense to have NY, MA, and ME making the first choice -- ever. As much as I'm an Edmund Muskie fan, it makes no sense from here on out. The population-bloc proposal would give excessive sway to libertarian states, to the disadvantage of the sort of populist campaign (or even establishment campaign) that normally does better. By having lots of states making different decisions at the same time, the party would be reducing the chance of unity and increasing the chances of a brokered convention -- historically very divisive and opaque ways of making nominations.
The current process is not perfect. Especially after this cycle, it's clear it needs tinkering. The front-loading and early-February clumping need to go, and maybe the parties should introduce some rotation into the schedule. Minor changes to keep it fresh without messing too much with what works.
I live in Montana, and I'm a Democrat. I vote at the butt end of the primary season: June 3, the same as South Dakota. My vote will mean less than my emails to comments@whitehouse.gov. Yes, the primary calendar is unfair. I just care more about electing a Democrat.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
