So, I’ve gotten all sorts of feedback in response to my "Joe the Plumber" post, and some of it was actually positive and supportive (thanks, Carrie : ).
I’m not surprised by the anger and hostility; mostly, it just leaves me disheartened.
Though, I guess I was ridiculously provocative myself, calling Joe a “prick” and a “dumbfuck” and…
Huh.
Well, I have never pretended to be adept at using reason and logic to prove a point, especially since barbed-wire wrapped exasperation and sarcasm drip so easily from my tongue. In fact, I fear I am a little bit like McCain—huffing, puffing, impatient. Wow, I really cannot believe that I just drew a comparison between me and that ruddy little troll, but it sort of gets at something that has been nagging at me, especially since the first presidential debate—McCain’s supposed connection to the floundering American populace. Here is an excerpt from a writing project I was working on with my awesome friend Ryan, a smarty-pants who’s doing some really great thinking and writing regarding this year’s election. The passage here was written by me as part of an email conversation Ryan and I had following the first presidential debate:
My overall, shallow interpretation is that both candidates mostly seemed to merely repeat their already well-known policy positions as well as their criticisms of the other’s former decisions and future plans; I felt that anyone on the fence would not have been impressed enough with Obama to jump to his side; I have this idea that he lacks the sort of pugilistic, angry nature that Americans have come to expect and respect in their politicians. I worry that McCain, somehow, and so PERVERSELY, actually seems more populist than does Obama, because McCain seems angry for the citizenry in a way that Obama does not. It’s that damned cool, rational, intellectual nature of Obama’s—even if it’s a superior framework for leading nations and solving problems, it just seems detached, in some way, from the desperation of the truly fearful, even as it connects so solidly with most middle-and upper-class progressives …
While I feel infinitely more comfortable with Obama’s chances since last week’s debate, I am still wary and anxious, too, and sort of braced for a lashing. At my weakest moments, I wonder what makes me believe that this election will even take place (what will be our Reichstag, I wonder?) or that our votes will be tallied as they are cast. And I am still uneasy about the very same issues I mentioned above—if you spend any time reading news articles and subsequent reader comments, then you know there really does exist a significant portion of the American population who believe any number of unfortunate untruths: that Obama is a terrorist; that he is the anti-christ; that he is responsible for the housing crisis; that he wants to kill and eat tiny babies; and, of course, just as mind-boggling but more sinister, really, that McCain is better-qualified than Obama to lead this country…
You know, I started this post to talk about my use of the term “culture wars” in my “Joe the Plumber” post, but I have gone so far off-track that I’m just going to wrap this up by posting Ryan’s take on the first debate—“old news”, I know, but the message here is still current and vital. I referred to this earlier as a writing project of mine and Ryan’s, but I merely edited this a tiny bit; this is Ryan’s work, and the credit goes to him. Oh, and Ryan's objective was to strike that reasonable, logical tone that is so elusive to me--he lives in Texas and was writing this in order for it to be published in his local newspaper; his strategy was to avoid alienating Republicans while still providing ample reasons for supporting Obama over McCain.
And jesus, while you're reading, listen to Nina Simone’s “Funkier than a Mosquito’s Tweeter”. Absolute aural ecstacy. And then some Balkan Beat Box, and definitely do not miss "Damn", by Kinny and TM Juke.
It's all there, on my awesome jukebox, and I do it for you, for all of you, because, you know, I love you.
And stuff.
Be good.
And here, as promised, more reasons to vote for Obama:
Last night I nerded out with some colleagues over drinks while taking in the first debate between presidential hopefuls John McCain and Barack Obama. The polls are showing that Obama won this first bout, but I saw things differently. True, as the candidates spoke about the economic crisis, I felt bad for Johnny McSame—he looked out of his element and, frankly, like he was about to cry. If I had played the role he has played in deregulating the banking industry and stock market, I'd probably cry, too. But it was foreign policy discussion that took center stage this evening, and when all was said-and-done, I shocked my fellow Democrats by doffing my cap to the old hawk.
What I saw in McCain was the coolness of a guy who has been on the most important foreign policy committees since the war with the Barbary Pirates. The depth and breadth of his knowledge and experience are stunning, and for the most part, he presented that knowledge with remarkable clarity and force. A one-term senator, even one with Obama's foreign policy experience, just can't compete with that level of understanding and competence.
Still, McCain’s show of strength didn't make me waver in my vote one iota.
Why?
The easy answer is, of course, judgment, and McCain’s lack of even a shred of it. And though Obama drove that point home again and again last night, my support for him is rooted not just in McCain’s dearth of good sense, but also in the very fundamentals of the commander-in-chief role and Obama’s understanding of those fundamentals.
For example, McCain's depth and breadth of foreign policy knowledge, as impressive as it is, is easily matched by other senators and lifelong government folks, including, of course, Joe Biden. Recognizing Biden’s experience and skill, Obama chose him as his running mate, beefing up the Democratic ticket’s foreign policy muscle. Obama recognizes that you need that sort of deep knowledge among all of your advisors—the National Security Administration, Secretary of State, and Secretary of Defense—and his well-reasoned choice of Biden suggests that he will stock those posts with equally knowledgeable folks.
Still, knowledge, as we all know, isn't enough. Not many people knew more about the international arena than did Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld. How well did that turn out? Ronald Reagan, on the other hand, entered office with not much more than the idea that Communism is Bad, and Democracy and Capitalism are Good. Still, even my fellow liberals have to admit that in the foreign policy arena, Reagan was pretty successful.
Now, it's dangerous to compare a relatively inexperienced politician with Ronald Reagan, but let's remember that upon taking office, Reagan actually had less foreign policy experience than Obama has now. What Reagan did have, and in spades, was the ability to inspire hope and confidence in scores of American people and in our allies during fairly difficult and scary times. Sound familiar? Because unless you flat out hate him, you just cannot look at Obama's travels through the Middle East, Africa, and Europe and not be impressed, nor can you deny the significance of his positive international image.
It is evident that foreign leaders, particularly in Europe—where our allies are alienated but much needed—love Obama and are willing to work with him. Like Roosevelt, Kennedy, and Reagan before him, Obama has inspired hundreds of thousands of Europeans to wave American flags, and—and this is significant—pro-American populations elect pro-American governments. This is no small thing; recall that after Bush invaded Iraq and gave Europe the finger, those Europeans elected leaders who were unwilling to work with America on a whole host of issues, particularly in the foreign policy arena.
Further, people and leaders in Africa, of course, adore Obama. Why does that matter? Because those impoverished African nations are prime breeding grounds for both anti-Americanism and terrorist recruitment.
Regrettably, neither of our presidential candidates is really able to scare any Middle Eastern terrorist groups. People who are willing to strap bombs to themselves and slaughter innocent men, women, and children are not cowed by angry posturing in the United States. If anything, they seem to get a sick jolt from it.
"Bring it on," taunted Bush.
And so they did.
It seems evident, too, that the leaders of any Middle Eastern country willing to work rationally with us would respond more positively to diplomacy than to additional angry posturing. And frankly, though probably not very importantly, that middle name of Obama's just might be a bit of an advantage in bending their ears…
Beyond everything else, Obama does what Roosevelt, Kennedy, and Reagan did best: he inspires. Now that Reagan is dead and gone, conservatives easily dismiss hope and inspiration as misplaced sentimentalism, as if they never anointed Reagan "the great communicator" or waxed poetic about his visions of a shining city on a hill. In sharp contrast, John McCain scares the bejeezus out of people, here at home and abroad. His hawkishness is resented in nearly every corner of the globe, and he is seen in foreign policy terms as the second coming of Bush, albeit a smarter version. Even if McCain's military strategy is superior to Obama’s—I certainly do not believe it is, and apparently more retired generals agree with Obama than with McCain, if that counts for anything—what is needed most desperately right now is successful diplomacy. If Iraq has taught us anything, I hope it's the bloody, costly, reputation-tarnishing lesson that we don't have the manpower or money to go it alone again.
Finally, there is the Palin factor. Not to be crass, but McCain is three years short of the average life expectancy, and his body has been brutalized by torture, 20 years of smoking, various surgeries, and every type of skin cancer known to science. The odds of Palin taking office are ominously high compared to other vice presidents across history, and after watching the three interviews that her campaign allowed her, it is clear why her advisors are so desperate to shield her from public scrutiny. The Couric interview alone was chilling, and that was Katie Couric—not exactly like staring down Putin, whose head, Palin seems to think, might any day soon come flying over Alaska…
In summary, while McCain most certainly does have foreign policy gravitas, he falls short in nearly every other measure of fitness for becoming commander-in-chief, and in Palin he has made a truly appalling and terrifying vice-presidential selection. Obama, on the other hand, has consistently shown himself to be a fully rounded candidate, ready to lead the United States into a safer, more prosperous future, with Biden a tested and talented counterpart.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment