|
Clearly you are not a person who is turned off by lengthy posts, so here goes:
I am thirty years old, and politically left of left. How in god's name could I possibly have ended up with an Obama icon next to my name?
I believe in practical idealism, not ideological purity. Now, please understand - I am about to criticize what I am calling "ideological purity" but I'm not attacking you. As if I know enough about you to point fingers! I'm speaking generally.
The problem with ideological purity is that it frequently gets in the way of actual change. For me, immediately cutting the defense budget by 50%, closing our overseas bases, using that money to build the best public education system in the world would be something I desire. But imagine if someone who promised to do that somehow actually got elected in 2008? What do you think would happen? Do you think it would be accomplished? No, not even a Democratic Congress would back that, massive entrenched business and establishment interests would block any attempt, and the complexities of doing what I am suggesting even if it could somehow become policy are so staggering that it would take years, maybe even decades.
So the person elected to make these great changes that sound so good to my heart would sit in the Oval Office and be a four year lame duck. At the end of his term he would likely lose the election, having both parties equally committed to his demise, and upon his defeat the GOP would trumpet the "utter failure of liberalism (or progressivism)" and usher in another decade or so of conservative dominance in government.
The kind of massive sweeping change we ultimately need doesn't happen overnight. And any hope for change will require a leader with a keen understanding of reality as it is right now - a clear understanding of how to work the system and the players with in it, and an ability to develop a plan for small, slow incremental steps toward larger change. The reason I did not support either Mike Gravel or Dennis Kucinich as my first choice was because, in my humble opinion, neither one of them demonstrated these capacities. Neither one of them showed me that they had the kind of practical idealism necessary to start the process towards greater change. Both of them have wonderful idealistic positions that my heart agrees with. Those are my ultimate goals too! But what we need in a president is someone practical enough to work within the reality that we have, with the system we have, and gradually - brick by brick - lay the foundation for a more progressive tomorrow.
My first choice of candidates was therefore John Edwards. In my opinion, I believed that of all the candidates John Edwards represented exactly the kind of practical idealism I am talking about. For example, Edwards endured some criticism from purists for not proposing an immediate single-payer health system. However, what he proposed was a graduated process that would lead to a transition into a sing-payer health system. He proposed allowing the public to choose between a government run system and private insurance, while at the same time passing legislation that would regulate the private health care industry and require it to provide comparable and adequate coverage - require them to provide dental, vision and mental wellness coverage, limit their ability to deny coverage over the recommendation of a patients doctor, and so on. He argued that as people were provided this choice, if the people chose the government run system then it would evolve into the ideal of a single-payer system.
To me that is a PERFECT example of practical idealism. That is the only kind of plan that could possibly get passed by congress and implemented. It does not demand an immediate change so large that it has no political support. It very strategically and incrementally paves the way toward a long term goal. That's the kind of leadership we need. Practical idealism.
So.... Edwards dropped out of the race. How did I end up an Obama supporter? This is what I wrote the day after Edwards announced he was suspending his campaign:
t will be a different kind of campaign, with different kinds of issues. Obama's focus is different, its not the same kind of populism that Edwards managed to briefly inject into politics. It's not as "liberal" in some respects, its not as strongly married to labor and other things.
But it IS a lot of things as well. Obama is a democrat, that much is clear. And as a true democrat, even if he is more moderate on some issues, he represents a clear alternative to Republican rule. He is an outsider, young and idealistic when it comes to change in Washington - he is these things right at a time when I feel the country needs it the most. He speaks of message of unity. That has led some to criticize him, fearing that he means caving into corrupt republican politicians like so many democratic washington insiders have done. I'm not sure how you can get that from his message. When he speaks of unity, he speaks in truly inspiring ways about how the time has come to unite the people.
Because when you strip away all the political spin, and the partisan entrenchment, the people of the United States actually SHARE many core beliefs and expectations for their government. A majority of ordinary people on both sides of the isle believe that we have a health care crisis. A majority of ordinary people on both sides of the isle believe that this war was either ill-advised or ill-executed or both, and that it is hurting us economically, hurting us diplomatically and that its time we brought it to a close. A majority of ordinary people on both sides of the isle believe that massive out of control spending and deficits combined with legal exemptions allowing multi-billion dollar corporations to pay less in taxes than a middle-class family is a failure of our system - regardless of what they think about higher or lower taxes in general or about the spending priorities of washington. A majority of ordinary people across both sides of the isle feel that the protection of constitutional rights for American Citizens matter, and that accountability in government is tragically missing.
The disconnect is between the polarizing propaganda of beltway politicians and the establishment media consistently bombarding the airwaves speaking for the American people and telling them what they believe. While reseach consistently indicates that when partisan rhetoric is stripped away, the American people are overwhelmingly in favor of a richer, progressive more community oriented America. It is time for a leader who will unite ordinary people across political divides around these common goals. That message of unity is not some secret scheme. It is the vision for a better tomorrow.
John Edwards shared that vision in common with Barak Obama. And while John Edward's emphasis was (I feel courageously) on taking on the power of corporate rule, I believe Obama's message, even if carrying a different issue focus, carries on that same spirit of unity and optimism that inspired me to become involved in the Edward's campaign. I don't now support Barak Obama crestfallen as if he were some unpalettable last option. Rather, I support him with great optimism, with a willingness to take a risk on a brilliant man who in many ways has not yet been entrenched and molded into any one category of politician. That freshness, that brilliance, and that optimism is something I'm willing to hope in. And vote for.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(342 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
