Did anyone else feel like President Bush snuck whoopi cushions on the seats of the Democrats when they stood in agreement with any of his, rather benign, promises during last night's State of the Union address? As they dutifully would arise when he brushed upon any 'bipartisan' policy, our commander in chief would smile and chortle like a frat boy who had pulled off his greatest prank yet.
The shear dullness of last night's speech made me long for the days of olde; 19th century presidential speeches to congress where the opposition party would shout obscenities, utilize colorful hand gestures and start a congressional wave when the president droned on...or so I would like to imagine it.
Among other American strongholds, the speech celebrated economic prosperity (Magic 8 ball says: Outlook not good), made jokes about the IRS (always a cocktail party hit) and hailed our scientific edge (rapidly diminishing as talent migrates to less restrictive environments). My blood began to boil, however, when the president began to wax 'on education'. Bush began by hailing his initiative to fund the education of 2,600 DC children in faith-based and private schools that are, according to him, disappearing at an alarming rate in all of the nation's inner cities. He proceeded to ask for greater financial support from Congress to "help liberate poor children trapped in failing schools."
Having taught some of the poorest children in our nations capital I am, to borrow his language, shocked and appalled. Public education system is PUBLIC, thus the charge and responsibility of the government. The children are not in bondage, in need of liberation- they are simply being under-served by a public institution and shoved into alternate locations so the problem can shift out of the sight and mind of the public. But these kids, many of whom are talented, driven and frustrated are left on their own while their noble leader works to liberate them rather than working on the more difficult task at hand: public education reform. Real reform! (Not the half-hearted pandering to teachers unions and band-aid solutions that simply shift budgetary issues to localities.) In the president's view, he can serve as the great liberator of poor kids by moving them around like chess pieces and imposing stringent and culturally insensitive standards.
The DC public school system has, by the way, made significant advances in the past year. Yet, none of the gains are of President Bush's doing. Control of the system shifted away from the grip of the federal government and into the jurisdiction of the mayor of the district. The mayor has appointed a dynamic, innovative superintendent who has already shaken things up with staff changes and genuine efforts towards accountability, communication and attraction of talent for school leadership. Real changes are hard and the president doesn't seem up to the task of taking on difficult situations with regards to domestic policy. But for the time being, I'd appreciate if he lay off my students.
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
Sunday, January 27, 2008
eh, I guess McCain
I have to admit, my face construed itself into an empathetic grimace for John McCain when he received the Trojan Horse of an endorsement from the New York Times. Just as the border-state senator struggles to overcome the GOP's perception of his (gasp!) anti-partisan politics, he is hit with the blow of a shout-out among all the news that's fit to print.
It's a sad day when the most well-respected newspaper in our nation is also the most reviled among 50%ish of the same nation's constituency.
As Florida looms near and the GOP race becomes more competitive by the minute, I'd like to engage in a liberal's geometry-esque proof to determine who I would like to see as the nominee.
Mitt Romney+Rudy Guiliani+ Mike Huckabee+ John McCain+Ron Paul= GOP nominees
- Fox News loves Mitt Romney. Fox news also believes that Bill O'Reilly is worthy of air time. Thus, by the associative property, Romney should be eliminated.
- The fire fighters union has been actively vocal regarding the farce of Rudy's 'heroism' during the September 11 attacks and aftermath. Said illegitimate basis for his campaign renders all claims of heroism false. He is, not a 'real number' and therefore can not be considered a part of this equation. (The people of Florida may take for of this for us anyway...)
Ergo...GOP nominees-Mitt(stud-muffin) Romney- Rudy(not as cool as the ND football player) Guiliani= Huckabee+McCain+Ron Paul
- Rush Limbaugh (the devil himself) noted, that nomination nod for either Mike Huckabee or John McCain would be the worst thing that ever happened to the Republican party*. I would argue that Rush, along with Ann Coulter, is the worst thing that ever happened to the GOP. If the two nominees are reviled by him than the inverse property would imply that they are ok with me. They stay...for the time being.
- See already published posts regarding Huckabee's negative stance on everything that people who love political discourse and/or choice love. At this point I would like to create a math theorem, I feel justified as Huckabee has created his own little theocratic reality as his platform and a tiny little theorem is way less outrageous. The new political property restricts the use of piety over rationalism a. Oh wait! The first amendment already has that covered! Nice. Mikey is eliminated for frequent, consistent violations.
- The identity property states that any number times one is equal to the original number. When Ron Paul gets more than one delegate, this property will really come into play. Until then, let's eliminate him from the running. (though he does add some zazz to the debates)
It looks like it's John McCain. Though, I would guess that he would not be that excited about my half-hearted endorsement either.
It's a sad day when the most well-respected newspaper in our nation is also the most reviled among 50%ish of the same nation's constituency.
As Florida looms near and the GOP race becomes more competitive by the minute, I'd like to engage in a liberal's geometry-esque proof to determine who I would like to see as the nominee.
Mitt Romney+Rudy Guiliani+ Mike Huckabee+ John McCain+Ron Paul= GOP nominees
- Fox News loves Mitt Romney. Fox news also believes that Bill O'Reilly is worthy of air time. Thus, by the associative property, Romney should be eliminated.
- The fire fighters union has been actively vocal regarding the farce of Rudy's 'heroism' during the September 11 attacks and aftermath. Said illegitimate basis for his campaign renders all claims of heroism false. He is, not a 'real number' and therefore can not be considered a part of this equation. (The people of Florida may take for of this for us anyway...)
Ergo...GOP nominees-Mitt(stud-muffin) Romney- Rudy(not as cool as the ND football player) Guiliani= Huckabee+McCain+Ron Paul
- Rush Limbaugh (the devil himself) noted, that nomination nod for either Mike Huckabee or John McCain would be the worst thing that ever happened to the Republican party*. I would argue that Rush, along with Ann Coulter, is the worst thing that ever happened to the GOP. If the two nominees are reviled by him than the inverse property would imply that they are ok with me. They stay...for the time being.
- See already published posts regarding Huckabee's negative stance on everything that people who love political discourse and/or choice love. At this point I would like to create a math theorem, I feel justified as Huckabee has created his own little theocratic reality as his platform and a tiny little theorem is way less outrageous. The new political property restricts the use of piety over rationalism a. Oh wait! The first amendment already has that covered! Nice. Mikey is eliminated for frequent, consistent violations.
- The identity property states that any number times one is equal to the original number. When Ron Paul gets more than one delegate, this property will really come into play. Until then, let's eliminate him from the running. (though he does add some zazz to the debates)
It looks like it's John McCain. Though, I would guess that he would not be that excited about my half-hearted endorsement either.
Saturday, January 26, 2008
Seven and a half cents
The US Congress needs to take a field trip to the theater to get some sound economic advice. A memorable tune from a classic 1950's era musical, The Pajama Game, entitled "71/2 cents" chronicles the desires of struggling factory workers to gain a small hourly raise from their tight fisted boss. The laborers note that after continued, dedicated work to their less than desirable jobs, they could use the additional savings to purchase, among other things: a vacuum, a 40" TV set, carpeting for the living room and a year's supply of gasoline.
Such ambitious goals are laughable today; the weakness of the dollar and the steep price of gas alone would cost way more than the $852.74 estimated yearly savings of each factory worker. Yet, an interesting juxtaposition emerges when comparing the idealistic determination of the fictitious characters towards the possibilities of economic security and that of the current economic stimulus package passed in lightning fast hill time- which tends to own its own galaxial time zone for bipartisan bills- this past week by Congress. The stimulus package, while politically salient, is nothing more than a short term blip on the far vaster horizon of economic turmoil ahead. The continued short-sightedness and fiduciary neglect of the federal government towards its more monetarily regenerative investments, those of public education, scientific and medical research, and domestically focused worker programs, is coming to a head. A one-time, modest reallocation into the pockets of working Americans is neither a short term nor long term solution; rather a beautifully wrapped empty box that could not purchase even one item on the factory worker's wish list.
The union-members anthem follows with the lyrics, "...but give it to me every hour, 40 hours every week. That's enough for me to be living like a king." The fictional characters are more in touch with the reality than the current US congress. The workers don't request a one time bonus but a sustained, albeit modest, raise in real wages. Along with their presupposed knowledge of the values of long term savings, more productive workers and contributors to the economy will emerge.
US congress of today, mired in partisan priorities and quid pro quo obstacles, is far less progressive while developing their economic stimuli. The need for a minimum wage increase and or policies that incentivize personal and national savings were dismissed for the band-aid, $300 per individual reimbursement. The dedicated funds are most likely to be financed through a large loan from a sovereign bank, further increasing our debt to emerging economic superpowers such as China and India while weakening our global economic standing and reputation.
A meager raise in individual earnings, especially among the lower income workers in America, in the words of the musically apt factory workers, "doesn't mean a hell of a lot...Doesn't mean a thing." But when consistently earned and incentivized to save, a small increase in minimum wage does add up to a lot. Such measures would stimulate the economy far more than the one-time small bonus allocated by the Congress which truly doesn't mean a thing.
Such ambitious goals are laughable today; the weakness of the dollar and the steep price of gas alone would cost way more than the $852.74 estimated yearly savings of each factory worker. Yet, an interesting juxtaposition emerges when comparing the idealistic determination of the fictitious characters towards the possibilities of economic security and that of the current economic stimulus package passed in lightning fast hill time- which tends to own its own galaxial time zone for bipartisan bills- this past week by Congress. The stimulus package, while politically salient, is nothing more than a short term blip on the far vaster horizon of economic turmoil ahead. The continued short-sightedness and fiduciary neglect of the federal government towards its more monetarily regenerative investments, those of public education, scientific and medical research, and domestically focused worker programs, is coming to a head. A one-time, modest reallocation into the pockets of working Americans is neither a short term nor long term solution; rather a beautifully wrapped empty box that could not purchase even one item on the factory worker's wish list.
The union-members anthem follows with the lyrics, "...but give it to me every hour, 40 hours every week. That's enough for me to be living like a king." The fictional characters are more in touch with the reality than the current US congress. The workers don't request a one time bonus but a sustained, albeit modest, raise in real wages. Along with their presupposed knowledge of the values of long term savings, more productive workers and contributors to the economy will emerge.
US congress of today, mired in partisan priorities and quid pro quo obstacles, is far less progressive while developing their economic stimuli. The need for a minimum wage increase and or policies that incentivize personal and national savings were dismissed for the band-aid, $300 per individual reimbursement. The dedicated funds are most likely to be financed through a large loan from a sovereign bank, further increasing our debt to emerging economic superpowers such as China and India while weakening our global economic standing and reputation.
A meager raise in individual earnings, especially among the lower income workers in America, in the words of the musically apt factory workers, "doesn't mean a hell of a lot...Doesn't mean a thing." But when consistently earned and incentivized to save, a small increase in minimum wage does add up to a lot. Such measures would stimulate the economy far more than the one-time small bonus allocated by the Congress which truly doesn't mean a thing.
Thursday, January 24, 2008
For Boston
Matt Ryan is speculated to be the next starting quarter back for the Atlanta Falcons. Go Eagles. He is stepping into Michael Vick's place and, from what I know of the well-spoken quarter back, Ryan has no animal-abusing (or otherwise egregious) behavior patterns. He also seems like a genuinely nice guy, based solely on my experience in the dining hall when he allowed my sister and me to cut in front of him for the bulk candy.
While I think Atlanta scored big with nabbing Ryan, I also am saddened by the fact that another black hero has fallen-and is replaced by a clean-scrubbed white guy. Upon Vick's arrival from Virginia Tech (where he TROUNCED BC every time we played them), the Falcons began a pursuit for more black managerial positions-on the field and off. The organization took a giant step backwards when it's emblematic player self-destructed. I know a lot of athletes claim to not want the 'hero' title, but the fact of the matter is that lots of little kids -and not so little adults- became jaded by Vick and the implications about race that followed.
This is not to say that teams should draft QBs due to minority status- in the same way they should not seek players that are good looking. But Vick's fall out could have far-reaching consequences that cause the perceptions of Atlantan minorities which, from their feats of Hartsfield-Jackson airport, have historically been pace setters for minority achievement in a white world, to take a step backwards.
While I think Atlanta scored big with nabbing Ryan, I also am saddened by the fact that another black hero has fallen-and is replaced by a clean-scrubbed white guy. Upon Vick's arrival from Virginia Tech (where he TROUNCED BC every time we played them), the Falcons began a pursuit for more black managerial positions-on the field and off. The organization took a giant step backwards when it's emblematic player self-destructed. I know a lot of athletes claim to not want the 'hero' title, but the fact of the matter is that lots of little kids -and not so little adults- became jaded by Vick and the implications about race that followed.
This is not to say that teams should draft QBs due to minority status- in the same way they should not seek players that are good looking. But Vick's fall out could have far-reaching consequences that cause the perceptions of Atlantan minorities which, from their feats of Hartsfield-Jackson airport, have historically been pace setters for minority achievement in a white world, to take a step backwards.
Do Actions Speak Louder Than Words This Time?
I really don't think that Bill Clinton is racist. If actions speak louder than words, and I really do think that they do, his record is one of pragmatic support of the African American community. My experience in inner-city classrooms was an instruction on the importance of grandma's and mom's in the lives of young African Americans, as the 'daddy crisis' is hitting the streets and classrooms of the urban poor hard. The rearing of #42 by only women in a trailer park in AS profoundly influenced his world view and his actions, indeed reflect, a deep commitment to those with similar challenges.
I do, however, think that Bill Clinton knows a lot of racists. He is a master at playing both sides of the coin and gussied up to both parties of the (mind the pun) black/white issue. He knows how to speak in subvert racially charged language without actually saying anything politically incorrect. The danger in this (aside from the obvious 'racism is not cool' element) is alienation of a critical party base and the perpetuation of racial undertones in politics during a time when, perhaps since the civil rights movement, such attitudes have the capacity to dissipate.
I get why he is doing it; the Clinton's are infamous Machiavellians when it comes to campaigns and their willingness to put forth racial charges as the means to accomplish the presidential end is not surprising. Pres. Clinton is playing the Vice Presidential role of scapegoat while allowing his presumed incumbent president to rise above the fray and bring peace, love and goodness to the race. The only problem is, that the supposed incumbent is his wife- and he is not the vice president, rather a life partner and thus the shadow he casts falls darkly upon Hillary as well. And what if Obama wins? After all this hullabaloo, can #42 with his (fragile) 84% approval rate among democrats flip to join the Obama wagon? Can Bill become a spokesperson for change with the candidate he has systematically reviled over the past few weeks? Can he offer support to his 'brother' in a heated fight against the republicans who will undoubtedly have their guns a blazin' (blatant 2nd amendment quip right there)?
I do, however, think that Bill Clinton knows a lot of racists. He is a master at playing both sides of the coin and gussied up to both parties of the (mind the pun) black/white issue. He knows how to speak in subvert racially charged language without actually saying anything politically incorrect. The danger in this (aside from the obvious 'racism is not cool' element) is alienation of a critical party base and the perpetuation of racial undertones in politics during a time when, perhaps since the civil rights movement, such attitudes have the capacity to dissipate.
I get why he is doing it; the Clinton's are infamous Machiavellians when it comes to campaigns and their willingness to put forth racial charges as the means to accomplish the presidential end is not surprising. Pres. Clinton is playing the Vice Presidential role of scapegoat while allowing his presumed incumbent president to rise above the fray and bring peace, love and goodness to the race. The only problem is, that the supposed incumbent is his wife- and he is not the vice president, rather a life partner and thus the shadow he casts falls darkly upon Hillary as well. And what if Obama wins? After all this hullabaloo, can #42 with his (fragile) 84% approval rate among democrats flip to join the Obama wagon? Can Bill become a spokesperson for change with the candidate he has systematically reviled over the past few weeks? Can he offer support to his 'brother' in a heated fight against the republicans who will undoubtedly have their guns a blazin' (blatant 2nd amendment quip right there)?
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
Retraction
I take back any love I may have felt for Mike Huckabee. He has ODed on crazy pills lately. Chuck Norris no longer acts as the candidate's bizarro Ed McMahon to his Carson but as a spokesperson on the life expectancy of rivals. He wants God to descend from the mountain top again to mess with the 'more perfect' constitution that has been governing us pretty darn well and allowed us to build an incredibly fortuitous nation in a short period.
But most of all his tax proposal (shifting from income to sales tax) is incredibly regressive. The economic nerd in me can not and will not forgive him for that.
But most of all his tax proposal (shifting from income to sales tax) is incredibly regressive. The economic nerd in me can not and will not forgive him for that.
Calla Se Senor!
What the hell is wrong with Bill Clinton? The party prince is evolving into the party pooper very quickly and I can't help but be afraid of the long term impact of his (very calculated) actions.
I was, admittedly, shocked when Obama continued to speak of Hillary as part of a team, insinuating that as a political pair the Clintons are decisively divisive (what's up alliteration?). Who really goes up against the Clinton machine in democratic politics and wins? But, recent comments and stances that Sir Clinton, the once flawless politico, have taken are downright bad for the party. And if the party goes down, so does it's reluctant maternally feminist princess. Thus, I am asking #42 to clamp it.
I was, admittedly, shocked when Obama continued to speak of Hillary as part of a team, insinuating that as a political pair the Clintons are decisively divisive (what's up alliteration?). Who really goes up against the Clinton machine in democratic politics and wins? But, recent comments and stances that Sir Clinton, the once flawless politico, have taken are downright bad for the party. And if the party goes down, so does it's reluctant maternally feminist princess. Thus, I am asking #42 to clamp it.
Friday, January 11, 2008
You're a pain in the...back
Woke up with a massive back ache today. This is interesting only because I used to build a back ache over the course of the day and wake up miraculously better, and the pattern has completely reversed. It's doubtless I will never understand the inner workings of my body; days occur when I feel like super woman followed by days that I'm convinced that lasting until 3pm is a insane expectation.
The recent back pain has prompted a visit to the doctor and a prescription for physical therapy...which I am not going to lie, I'm pumped for. The whole situation has resulted in one of my dad's favorite cheesy jokes playing on repeat in my head. It goes along the lines of: "When did you get that weak back?" "Oh, about a week back." Ahh, homonyms.
I wonder if universal health care would cover a Swedish masseuse to handle my back issues...preferably named Sven.
The recent back pain has prompted a visit to the doctor and a prescription for physical therapy...which I am not going to lie, I'm pumped for. The whole situation has resulted in one of my dad's favorite cheesy jokes playing on repeat in my head. It goes along the lines of: "When did you get that weak back?" "Oh, about a week back." Ahh, homonyms.
I wonder if universal health care would cover a Swedish masseuse to handle my back issues...preferably named Sven.
Thursday, January 10, 2008
I like Mike
I like Mike Huckabee. I can’t help myself. I want to not like him, I want to characterize him as bad for America and dismiss him as a nut job but I can’t. Among the reasons I SHOULD consider Huckabee vile:
- Evolution: Let’s put the obvious one out there right away. The man is of the ‘intelligent design’ set and believes that all of God’s creatures appeared on the 6th day. BAM. This does not bode well for the woefully neglected financial needs of the NIH or the NSF, two institutions that I prioritize. Scientific and artistic progress has what has advanced what’s best in strong nations throughout the ages and sustained weakened nation states in troubled times. Denying the scientific foundation for humanity is not only a threat but a drastic step backwards into the theocratic universe that jailed Galileo and deemed women witches in Salem. If progress of men to something better, stronger and more capable of survival among our fellow capitalists is not an American ideal, I don’t know what is. Evolution is in our blood, literally and figuratively.
BUT, I still like Mike because he talks about Poverty in a real way and can level even the staunchest conservative on issues regarding the poor and education with both anecdotes and facts.
- Choice: He is anti-choice of any kind. Ask the man paper or plastic and he may say that plastic is the only ethical choice. He wants to add an amendment banning choice to the constitution. The constitution has been amended on only 27 occasions over our history and he feels that choice warrants incidence #28. Choice is the cornerstone of women’s rights, the key to unlocking the gate of stem cell possibilities and lies at the very center of American liberty.
BUT, I still like Mike because he is quick witted and acutely aware that the real crisis in American education lies not in the classrooms but on the streets and in the homes where at risk youth play and dwell.
- First Amendment: “Faith doesn’t influence my decisions, it drives them.” But Mike, what about the separation of church and state? We are fighting states and not so states that are theocratic, why would we want to become one?
BUT, I still like Mike because he frames this viewpoint as being a good steward to the earth, becoming energy independent and serving all Americans not only those that feed the GOP’s coffers.
I like Mike for many reasons. But I would never, ever vote for him.
Obama and I, on the other hand, agree on most everything. The issues that he values most, I value most. He makes me want to get up and celebrate democracy and sing “I am proud to be an American.” In fact, I will most likely vote for him when the primary track finally hits PA, despite the ‘inevitability’ of the candidate that leads following Super Tuesday. I realize I may believe that Obama stands a chance because my liberal, educated-self hopes it to be so.
YET, I would argue that most Americans like Obama. They like him because of his ability for brilliant orations. They enjoy his ‘real guy’ manner with press, voters and other politicians alike. They like his call for change and believe he really means it. But a lot of the change he calls for is considered vile to those opposite of my political leanings. So they like him, but they would never, ever vote for him.
So I can’t help but wonder, a la Carrie Bradshaw, am I the democratic equivalent of a bible-belter enamored with the new guy from Hope?
- Evolution: Let’s put the obvious one out there right away. The man is of the ‘intelligent design’ set and believes that all of God’s creatures appeared on the 6th day. BAM. This does not bode well for the woefully neglected financial needs of the NIH or the NSF, two institutions that I prioritize. Scientific and artistic progress has what has advanced what’s best in strong nations throughout the ages and sustained weakened nation states in troubled times. Denying the scientific foundation for humanity is not only a threat but a drastic step backwards into the theocratic universe that jailed Galileo and deemed women witches in Salem. If progress of men to something better, stronger and more capable of survival among our fellow capitalists is not an American ideal, I don’t know what is. Evolution is in our blood, literally and figuratively.
BUT, I still like Mike because he talks about Poverty in a real way and can level even the staunchest conservative on issues regarding the poor and education with both anecdotes and facts.
- Choice: He is anti-choice of any kind. Ask the man paper or plastic and he may say that plastic is the only ethical choice. He wants to add an amendment banning choice to the constitution. The constitution has been amended on only 27 occasions over our history and he feels that choice warrants incidence #28. Choice is the cornerstone of women’s rights, the key to unlocking the gate of stem cell possibilities and lies at the very center of American liberty.
BUT, I still like Mike because he is quick witted and acutely aware that the real crisis in American education lies not in the classrooms but on the streets and in the homes where at risk youth play and dwell.
- First Amendment: “Faith doesn’t influence my decisions, it drives them.” But Mike, what about the separation of church and state? We are fighting states and not so states that are theocratic, why would we want to become one?
BUT, I still like Mike because he frames this viewpoint as being a good steward to the earth, becoming energy independent and serving all Americans not only those that feed the GOP’s coffers.
I like Mike for many reasons. But I would never, ever vote for him.
Obama and I, on the other hand, agree on most everything. The issues that he values most, I value most. He makes me want to get up and celebrate democracy and sing “I am proud to be an American.” In fact, I will most likely vote for him when the primary track finally hits PA, despite the ‘inevitability’ of the candidate that leads following Super Tuesday. I realize I may believe that Obama stands a chance because my liberal, educated-self hopes it to be so.
YET, I would argue that most Americans like Obama. They like him because of his ability for brilliant orations. They enjoy his ‘real guy’ manner with press, voters and other politicians alike. They like his call for change and believe he really means it. But a lot of the change he calls for is considered vile to those opposite of my political leanings. So they like him, but they would never, ever vote for him.
So I can’t help but wonder, a la Carrie Bradshaw, am I the democratic equivalent of a bible-belter enamored with the new guy from Hope?
Either/Ors and Neither/nors
New Hampshire did not go the way that the polls predicted nor did the spewing of the punditry influence a vast ‘Obama-wing conspiracy’ to take hold against the Clinton machine. Big woop. We are marginalizing what has turned out to be the longest election of all time into a 2-week period centered upon the relatively inconsequential, albeit momentum building, tiny delegacies of IA and NH. There is great potential for a movement that builds excitement, continues large voter turn out and more importantly a greater constituency of people who feel that the government and its leaders really matter and are willing to converse about it, rather than a large constituency who feels that politics is a joke that doesn’t relate to everyone and everything…which it does…
We have an election that finally focuses on issues rather than brush-clearing abilities, engaging rather than polarizing Americans. The political cynic in me, of course fears the worse.
Americans are more complex than the insider/outsider view that the Bushies have propagated upon us throughout his disastrous administration. We can think far more deeply than: ‘Voters are either with us or against freedom/democracy/love/puppies/insert any positive concept that we would all like to be for’. Complex decisions and individuals have been simplified into five word catch phrases; foreign policy decisions are summed up into ‘clear’ good guys vs. bad guys scenario where our culpability is excused in all major decisions and the perilous state of the economy is classified as neither a result of the tax cuts for the rich nor the egregious deficit spending on the war. Yet, at the end of the day, we don’t want a leader who is simple, who can be classified as an either/or or policies that are neither/nor. We want someone who is as complex as we are, individually, but can address global and national complexities without making us feel unnecessary fear or helplessness.
The HRC emotional breakdown has the potential of evolving into a simplified version of her and her campaign; one that classifies her, an incredibly complex individual, as human v. inhuman. I have to admit, I was moved when I saw Hillary well-up. I believed what she was saying, if only for the fact that her resuscitated, folksy-Chicago accent was conspicuously absent for a precious few seconds. Her campaign’s careful calculations are in fact what has turned me off from her and I think that a brief un-programmed moment proved more about her leadership capacity than the tears themselves.
Yet, how will this play out in the general election? In a world where you tube clips can bring anyone too their knees and are limited to only 8 minutes of what is, of course, a much larger story, what will be the attack the republicans choose to take against Hillary? Democrats need to remember that regardless of momentum and graceful speeches, the republican attack machine is effective, brilliant and nasty. As a woman she faces the oft-noted gender double standard but she also has to combat the simplification standard. She is not either as vile and untouchable or soft and connectable; in the same way she is not either towing the liberal line or pandering to the moderate republicans. If simplified, she can be swallowed by the republican machine; if complex she can be a force among Americans. Even if she doesn’t get elected or the nomination nod, she is at least inspiring conversation and thought among even the most politically disengaged sections of America- conversations about the silent but deadly preconceptions about women and politics in general.
We have an election that finally focuses on issues rather than brush-clearing abilities, engaging rather than polarizing Americans. The political cynic in me, of course fears the worse.
Americans are more complex than the insider/outsider view that the Bushies have propagated upon us throughout his disastrous administration. We can think far more deeply than: ‘Voters are either with us or against freedom/democracy/love/puppies/insert any positive concept that we would all like to be for’. Complex decisions and individuals have been simplified into five word catch phrases; foreign policy decisions are summed up into ‘clear’ good guys vs. bad guys scenario where our culpability is excused in all major decisions and the perilous state of the economy is classified as neither a result of the tax cuts for the rich nor the egregious deficit spending on the war. Yet, at the end of the day, we don’t want a leader who is simple, who can be classified as an either/or or policies that are neither/nor. We want someone who is as complex as we are, individually, but can address global and national complexities without making us feel unnecessary fear or helplessness.
The HRC emotional breakdown has the potential of evolving into a simplified version of her and her campaign; one that classifies her, an incredibly complex individual, as human v. inhuman. I have to admit, I was moved when I saw Hillary well-up. I believed what she was saying, if only for the fact that her resuscitated, folksy-Chicago accent was conspicuously absent for a precious few seconds. Her campaign’s careful calculations are in fact what has turned me off from her and I think that a brief un-programmed moment proved more about her leadership capacity than the tears themselves.
Yet, how will this play out in the general election? In a world where you tube clips can bring anyone too their knees and are limited to only 8 minutes of what is, of course, a much larger story, what will be the attack the republicans choose to take against Hillary? Democrats need to remember that regardless of momentum and graceful speeches, the republican attack machine is effective, brilliant and nasty. As a woman she faces the oft-noted gender double standard but she also has to combat the simplification standard. She is not either as vile and untouchable or soft and connectable; in the same way she is not either towing the liberal line or pandering to the moderate republicans. If simplified, she can be swallowed by the republican machine; if complex she can be a force among Americans. Even if she doesn’t get elected or the nomination nod, she is at least inspiring conversation and thought among even the most politically disengaged sections of America- conversations about the silent but deadly preconceptions about women and politics in general.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)