Day 30
So the news has broken: the only white man left seriously contending for the democratic party nomination in the USA (John Edwards) is dropping out. This leaves Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, and it is now a guarantee that one of them will run for president.
I quite like this. Not once in the last 219 years and 43 different presidents has anyone other than white men made it to an official party nomination. F-ing finally!
I no longer have cable television, but from what I did watch before it got disconnected, I honestly couldn't get much of a read on either candidate. The process down there is so utterly rigid - lines of argument, lines of motivation, lines of ideology; they are pre-cut and simply chosen by candidates to run with. In a funny way, the system is designed such that frivolous things will inevitably become of great importance to the decisions of voters. I mean, if every candidate is just recycling the same talking points that previous candidates used (and yet not much seems to change over time), then hell, let's decide based on who spends the most/least on haircuts, or on who's best looking.
But by far the most common way to rule out candidates these days is to punish them severely for showing 'lapses' and breaking out into periodic moments of honesty and candid expression.
For example, one of my favorite American politicians (admittedly, he's often on the fringe), Mike Gravel: "Americans are getting fatter and dumber... If things are going bad, just remember who put these people in power."
And yes, he said this while running for president. The media response wasn't one of disagreement, becauase everybody knows he's got it spot on, but rather along the lines of "he's not going to get elected saying stuff like that, he'll alienate his voters, etc."
Presumably the idea is that in order to get elected, you have to compliment your voters. All the soldiers are brave heroes, all the poor are victims, all the middle class are victims too, obesity and stupidity are the fault of failed government, not the failure of the people.... right?
I guess, maybe. But Gravel has a very good point. What he wants to express is that when we elect people for office we, the people, bear a great deal of the responsibility when they go ahead and f*ck it all up. That, and we're all getting fatter and stupider.
Anyway, for what it is worth, I believe that Gravel and people like him deserve a great deal of credit for telling it like it is. I know it equates to a lifetime out of the spotlight, but often the best way to get people to understand the problems thay have is to confront people with those problems, and give an honest assessment of who's at fault, and what can be done. What Hillary and Obama do is distance the failure of Government from the people, labelling the Government an institution gone awry, and the voters as victims. This is flat-out dishonest, because such a disconnect simply does not exist.
And yes, while "stupider" isn't actually a word, it sure ought to be.
I quite like this. Not once in the last 219 years and 43 different presidents has anyone other than white men made it to an official party nomination. F-ing finally!
I no longer have cable television, but from what I did watch before it got disconnected, I honestly couldn't get much of a read on either candidate. The process down there is so utterly rigid - lines of argument, lines of motivation, lines of ideology; they are pre-cut and simply chosen by candidates to run with. In a funny way, the system is designed such that frivolous things will inevitably become of great importance to the decisions of voters. I mean, if every candidate is just recycling the same talking points that previous candidates used (and yet not much seems to change over time), then hell, let's decide based on who spends the most/least on haircuts, or on who's best looking.
But by far the most common way to rule out candidates these days is to punish them severely for showing 'lapses' and breaking out into periodic moments of honesty and candid expression.
For example, one of my favorite American politicians (admittedly, he's often on the fringe), Mike Gravel: "Americans are getting fatter and dumber... If things are going bad, just remember who put these people in power."
And yes, he said this while running for president. The media response wasn't one of disagreement, becauase everybody knows he's got it spot on, but rather along the lines of "he's not going to get elected saying stuff like that, he'll alienate his voters, etc."
Presumably the idea is that in order to get elected, you have to compliment your voters. All the soldiers are brave heroes, all the poor are victims, all the middle class are victims too, obesity and stupidity are the fault of failed government, not the failure of the people.... right?
I guess, maybe. But Gravel has a very good point. What he wants to express is that when we elect people for office we, the people, bear a great deal of the responsibility when they go ahead and f*ck it all up. That, and we're all getting fatter and stupider.
Anyway, for what it is worth, I believe that Gravel and people like him deserve a great deal of credit for telling it like it is. I know it equates to a lifetime out of the spotlight, but often the best way to get people to understand the problems thay have is to confront people with those problems, and give an honest assessment of who's at fault, and what can be done. What Hillary and Obama do is distance the failure of Government from the people, labelling the Government an institution gone awry, and the voters as victims. This is flat-out dishonest, because such a disconnect simply does not exist.
And yes, while "stupider" isn't actually a word, it sure ought to be.
Comments
=P
As far as the possible election of Clinton, I really don't think that it will have profound effects on how women are perceived around the world. Perhaps women in the U.S. may feel more inspired in some odd way - like "they" have made it, vicariously through Clinton. As far as possible effects of the election of a women in U.S. having far reaching effects around the globe, I think that it doubtful. (The effects of her election will be more in a change in politics than anything to do with gender. After all, in a number of other countries, women have been elected heads of state for a while now (Margaret Thatcher, Michelle Bachelet, and Tarja Kaarina Halon to name a few) and have been quite successful in their political endeavors. Indeed, they are still far out-numbered my men at the world table, but having a women at the table would not be a new thing in and of itself.
Ok kidding. That wasn't helpful at all.