A Lesson from History, for My Beloved sds.

One quick thought, which I had while reading historical analysis of the 60s.
There was a huge upsurge in sds recruitment in the post election time period between 1968 and 1971. While this may be attributed to the media attention that the DNC protest of 68 garnered, I think there is another reason that is more plausible. The 1968 election was the population's chance to change the direction of the country. Many people who saw the millions crying out against the war would first try the typical method for changing the direction. When this failed, they would become more cynical about its viability, and look for other methods to change things. Plus none of the standard methods for the rank and file citizenry can change policy (i.e. voting) were coming up soon after the 68 election. So people naturally looked for alternatives, since they tried voting and that didnt work. They saw sds and the new left. While many of them may not have been happy with the yucky sectarianism and negative feelings floating around sds at that time, they were the only game in town. And so, tens of thousands joined.

I am afraid for the future of sds. If whoever is elected fails to end the war (and my cynical side tells me they probably will), then the new sds will be swamped by new recruits, more than we can handle. So, I think our task in the coming year needs to be building the institutional capacity to absorb and teach all these new recruits. And that is one overwhelming task.

A Glimpse of the Ocean of Hope Through the Oil Slick of Cynacism

Obama won in South Carolina!
I have spent a good amount of time (given my copious amounts of free time due to unemployment) observing the candidates and their campaigns. I have done some research, and I have to say that while Obama had my support from the start, he has only strengthened it. Edwards was also pretty awesome, but he is out of the race now.
Clinton, on the other hand, has always bothered me. It may have to do with the fact that I protested her when she visited Brown because she was to the right of Bush on the war at that time. She was saying we needed to commit more troops. But now she has changed her mind, and unlike Edwards she has not apologized for supporting the Iraq war in the past. That reeks to me of the acrid smell of an unwillingness to accept responsibility for one's actions. I have heard from friends in the Obama campaign that Clinton is using alot of nasty political tricks, like fake mailers. Clinton's campaign has seemed to be just trying to play the game and win that way. I have no respect for that, nor the use of underhanded politics. I found a webpage that outlines alot of the reasons I dislike Hillary... please refer people to this site: http://2parse.com/?p=210
Piled on top of all this, I recently read "The Left Hand of God" by Michael Lerner. He related the following account. The Clintons ran for the Presidency in 1992 on articulating a new "Politics of Meaning" (the same as the title of another one of Lerner's books). They wanted to make significant change, and had a fairly ambitious agenda. Lerner describes how he was called to the White House to advise them early in 1993. He describes how behind the scenes, they were excessively concerned about poll numbers and what they had support for. Lerner advised them to take a bold stand on issues, that if they made a good argument and appealed to people's moral compass, they would gain the support they need to make those ambitious changes. But, they chose to only do what they thought they had support to do (i.e. not much), to listen to what political consultants said, and abandon their politics of meaning. Especially with health care, Hilary chose to do what was "realistic" instead of taking a bold stand on something she knew was needed. Unfortunately, doing what is realistic is a self-fulfilling prophecy, it is like a runner deciding they will only try to run a 6 minute mile when they are actually capable of running a 4 minute mile with alittle more perseverance and courage. When I read this I understood why I could not support Hilary. She is not willing to be a leader and go against poll numbers. That is what is wrong with the Democratic Party overall, they do not have the confidence in their own beliefs to take stand based on them nor do they have the courage to do what is right even if it is thought to be unpopular. While I disagree with the Republicans on almost every issue, I do wish that the democratic politicians had their level of confidence and courage.

I am ever so thankful that the alternative to Clinton is an inspiring leader. I would hate to have another year when I am just voting for someone because the alternative is worse. I actually WANT to vote for Obama. I WANT to see him in office. He is not afraid to take a stand on issues (although still not as much as I would want), and he is smart. All the debates I have watched have shown the depth of his thinking, and his refusal to dumb it down when he presents it to the public. I feel like Clinton dumbs down her issues and does not believe the American people are smart enough to understand the nuance. Obama's policies, while not perfect, are a huge step in the right direction, and when you look at the details, they are quite different from Clinton's.
I feel that Obama could go farther than what is outlined in his current policies, especially given the way he is able to convey his message. A poorly written book is never read, even if its ideas are phenomenal. An engrossing book, however, will catch one's mind in an un-escapable lust to read it, even if it is void of good ideas. Well, Obama is that rare combination of an engrossing book with good ideas. He articulates his ideas to appeal to people's moral compass instead of their self-interest, which is far FAR more compelling than the typical Democratic party line of appealing to people's self-interest. Great leaders always as you to help others, not to help yourself. It is a far more appealing and engrossing message, and when coupled with good ideas, vision, and courage it will (and has) completely overhaul civilization as we know it.
But I would say the most inspiring thing I have read about Obama is how he treated Richardson during a debate. Richardson spaced out, and did not hear the question. Obama whispered "Katrina" to him. I found this story here: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/1/29/14329/8255/991/445490
To me, this tells me more about who he is, and his ability to be a leader than anything. Understanding people well enough to instantly sense what is on their mind, and the will to help them if they need it is a treasured combination.
I truly believe that he is running because he thinks he has the chance to do good for people, not out of self-interest or ambition. I can count the number of politicians who seem to possess this treasured outlook, on one hand. I still do not think he will be able to do too much because of the way the government is structured (even Eisenhower couldn't end an infant military-industrial complex). However, if he can manage to employ his movement organizing powers while he is still in office, than I can catch a glimpse of the ocean of hope through the oil slick of cynicism.

I have been writing this post over a few days, and in the course of this my Grandpa has passed away. He was a kind and generous man who placed his family above all else. I am reminded of Exodus Chapter 19-ish, where it is explained that living a mean and selfish life will have ill effects lasting three or four generations in one's family, while living a generous and loving life will see rewards unto the thousandth generation. My Grandpa is a prime example of this, I can see the glow of his love reflected in my family, strengthening and helping us throughout our lives. Thank you Grandpa.

Iowa Caucus Aftermath

The iowa caucus turned out exactly the way I wanted it to. Obama won by a large margin, and Edwards came in second. I hope things go well in New Hampshire. I have a good feeling about this race, I think Obama can go all the way, and I think it is his style of politics that is driving the large democratic turn-out (that and the fact that everyone is upset about the direction Bush has taken the country). But Obama is giving them an outlet for that feeling of frustration, and giving them a meaningful vision that they can believe in. Overall, I am very skeptical of politicians, and their ability to affect change (even well-meaning ones), but Obama has sparked hope in me.
I think part of his appeal is that he addresses what Rabbi Michael Lerner called "the meaning needs." The right has been very adept at appealing to the American people's search for meaning. The religious right has essentially monopolized talking in moral terms and appealing to people's spiritual needs, and the left has been left politically castrated. Atleast, until Obama. His rhetoric and style do appeal to the meaning needs of people. His concentration on hope and unity are very inspiring, and if he can walk the walk as president, I believe he would go down as one of the great presidents. IF he can walk the walk.
Still, it is very inspiring to see an organized and enthusiastic youth movement backing him. WE HAD THE SAME TURNOUT AS SENIORS IN IOWA!!!! How awesome is that. We equalled the numbers of the age group that always has the most turnout. Take that establishment, and chew on it for awhile. The youth are starting to find their political voice, and we will no longer be known as the silent generation. Like our forefathers in the 60s, who were too once know as the silent generation, we are going to stir things up and try to achieve lasting positive change. And Obama could be a huge part of that. It always helps to have a sympathetic person in power.

I am certainly excited to see how the democratic primary will turn out. If Obama receives th nomination, I have no doubt he will win. I have alot of conservative friends who like him enough to vote for him. It is also interesting to see a republican field that resembles the democratic field of 04. There is really no one there that people like. In 2004 I didnt really like anyone but Kucinich. And now so many people are saying they dont like anyone except Ron Paul, the republican equivalent of Kucinich. It is almost like a party will put forward a weak field for elections they do not think they can will. And, of course, that is a self-fulfilling prophecy. They tend to lose when they put forth a bad field.

It is an exciting time to be politically involved, let me tell you.

A Better Way of Electing a President

I have been thinking more about the election process. All the spending on ads seems wasteful to me, even if it is educating the public about the candidates. It seems more important for a candidate to create the impression of being able to be a good president than for them to actually be a good president. It is really similar to the "branding" process that companies use to get people to buy their products. They create an aura of goodness around their product, which (so I have heard) has more of an impact on sales than the quality of the product. Now, I tend to think this is a problem, and not a good way for our society to choose its leaders.
The real question is, what kind of system would work better than this one? Well, giving the discourse over picking candidates more of a direction would help. Something more substantial than those CNN debates, which seem more about talking points than debating the issues and trying to find practical solutions to the problems our society is facing. In fact, I think our leaders should have to prove their organizational and leadership abilities with more than their past. We could create a system of rites that the candidates have to complete to be eligible for the post. These rites would be designed to themselves strengthen our country and make things better. So, it would be a win-win... instead of deciding who rules us based on talking points, we would judge it based on their actions and effectiveness. Plus, all that campaign money would be siphoned into making our country better. The news agencies would be required to give equal coverage to all the candidate's activities, so they need not worry about advertising for their campaigns. They might need to advertise for the rites though, so that could be problematic.
Here are a few ideas i came up with while brainstorming. A "rite of development" which would be trying to improve a economically depressed town. A "rite of peace" which would be traveling to an opponent nation to try to increase ties. A "rite of poverty" which would require the candidate to fully live in poverty for a month. A "rite of leadership" which would involve coordinating a group of people to solve a problem. And you can design rites to address some of the major problems of the day, like the environment and inequality.
I think this would generally be a better way of judging the worth of a presidential candidate.

Well, with this and the last post, I think I am back up to the 1 post a week average.