The Perils of Working Backward
Most of the people reading this blog will remember algebra, where you are given an equation and have to work backward in order to find the value of the variable(s). Unfortunately, there are too many people in politics today who seem to be working backward to try to find a reason to support candidates after already deciding who to support.
It seems like most of the people who are working backwards are doing so in their support of Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) in the 2008 Presidential election. [Note: I have not yet decided who to support in the 2008 election because I am waiting to see whether or not former Vice President Al Gore gets in the election.] Virtually every Obama supporter I come into contact with seems to just make up the reasons for their support of Obama on the spot just so it seems like they have one. On one message board for Obama supporters, one person asked why Obama was the best candidate, and the reason given was something along the lines of "he will bring about POSTIVE change in America!!!!!" (emphasis in original). The original poster asked what that meant, and I don't think that he ever really got an answer. (On one occasion, I was told to Google Obama. While I am not too lazy to Google, I must admit that that was a pretty sad conclusion for supporting someone.) Is some vague example such as "positive change" the real reason why this poster decided to support Obama? Unfortunately, I feel that Senator Obama does nothing to help explain the substance of the reasons for his own campaign, other than a vague notion of "hope." (He has complained about the money in politics, but he has refused to accept all matching funds for the Presidential election in the hopes of raising as much money as possible; and at the 2006 West Virginia Jefferson-Jackson Dinner, he had time for the $1000 donors who contributed the legal limit to the WV Democratic Party to become members of the JFK Society, but none for those who volunteered for the event or paid $75 in tickets, a sharp increase from the $25 from two years earlier. He has no proposal for public funding of campaigns or campaign finance reform, so this surely can't be the reason.)
Another invariable question from Obama critics (Let it be known that I do not doubt Obama's potential or his political skills, I just doubt that he is the best candidate for President in 2008.) is the fact that Obama has very little experience. I have actually heard Obamamaniacs (I'm not really sure what Obama supporters are calling themselves) say that this is a good thing because that means that he doesn't have much of a record that will be open to scrutiny by his opponents. I'm sorry, but to me, things like that emphasize everything that is wrong with politics. If someone is really so insecure in his/her beliefs that they want someone who won't run on issues, I have to ask why anyone like that would be involved in politics in the first place. (This same question goes to anyone who uses "we won, you lost" as a rebuttal in every single political conversation.) People who complain about how vapid politics are can look to statements like that for the reason so many campaigns avoid substance. If you seriosuly think that a lack of experience is a good thing for the Presidency, then you are the one to blame if too many electoral contests sound like student council elections. [NOTE: Author of post was elected class representative to student council his senior year. Had he been elected earlier, he would have opted out of running for re-election due to frustration over the fact that student council basically has power to do nothing.]
Then, there is the other argument (sometimes given by the same people as above) by those who insist that Barack Obama does have sufficient experience on the basis of his six years in the Illinois State Senate (Obama first won election in 1996. He gave up his seat for a failed Congressional race in 2000, only to regain his State Senate seat in 2002.) as an example of Obama's experience in addition to his four years in the US Senate as of the 2008 elections. However, let's be honest. If it was anyone else who was floated as a possible Presidential candidate based on experience in the state legislature, would anyone else seriously consider that person? Case in point: Delegate Barbara Evans Fleischauer. I admire her greatly and I think that she has done a lot of good for Monongalia County and the State of West Virginia, and at the end of this term, she will have served in the West Virginia House of Delegates for 12 years, but I don't know of anyone who thinks that she should be President. That is because the State Legislature is a qualification for one of two things: legislature and state offices. It was perfectly logical for Barack Obama to cite his experience in the State Senate as a candidate for US Senate, but not for President. If he wants to get a chief executive job on the basis of his time in the state legislature, he should run for Governor of Illinois in 2010. There are Obama supporters (including Obama himself) who point to Abraham Lincoln's time in the Illinois State Legislature as proof that state legislative experience counts as experience towards a Presidential run, but I wouldn't use Abraham Lincoln's experience in the Legislature as something to brag about (If you have questions about this, look up a biography, not a hagiography, of Lincoln's time in the state legislature, and you will see why in his lifetime Lincoln the statesman ran hard from Lincoln the legislator.) if I was trying to present someone as a serious Presidential candidate.
Then, there is the argument that Barack Obama is a proven winner based on the 72% that he received in his Senate race against Alan Keyes in 2004. I have not yet turned 30 so I am ineligble for a Senate bid, but if I were running for Congress and Alan Keyes were the Republican nominee, I would thank God daily for my good fortune. Do you really think that Alan Keyes is a challenging candidate? The man who called Mary Cheney "a selfish hedonist"? The man who criticized Hillary Clinton for moving to New York for a Senate seat as a "violation of the principles of federalism" only to move from Maryland to run for Senate four years later? The man who insisted that Barack Obama didn't know anything about the African American experience because he was not a descendant of slaves? The man whose MSNBC show lasted just a month longer than that of Michael Weiner-Savage?
Barack Obama has only had one serious race in his lifetime, and that was the 2000 Democratic Congressional primary against former Black Panther and sitting Congressman Bobby Rush (D-IL), who criticized Obama for living in Hyde Park, a cushy neighborhood in South Chicago, and his affiliation with the University of Chicago, which is in the southern part of the city by geography, but is seen as distant and removed from the community. Rush insisted that Obama wasn't really a part of the neighborhood so to speak, and Obama received 31% in the primary. Is that a proven winner?
I do not write this to criticize someone for the simple act of supporting Barack Obama, but I do think that it is fair to ask the reason for supporting Barack Obama. We are talking about the nominee for President of the United States, not student council president. If you have not yet decided who you support for President, take an honest look at what you want in a President and then base your choice on that (and don't say "charisma," because that is just reinforcing the vapid personality contest elections have become). But whatever you do, don't work backwards to find your candidate. You owe yourself, your party and your country more than that.
It seems like most of the people who are working backwards are doing so in their support of Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) in the 2008 Presidential election. [Note: I have not yet decided who to support in the 2008 election because I am waiting to see whether or not former Vice President Al Gore gets in the election.] Virtually every Obama supporter I come into contact with seems to just make up the reasons for their support of Obama on the spot just so it seems like they have one. On one message board for Obama supporters, one person asked why Obama was the best candidate, and the reason given was something along the lines of "he will bring about POSTIVE change in America!!!!!" (emphasis in original). The original poster asked what that meant, and I don't think that he ever really got an answer. (On one occasion, I was told to Google Obama. While I am not too lazy to Google, I must admit that that was a pretty sad conclusion for supporting someone.) Is some vague example such as "positive change" the real reason why this poster decided to support Obama? Unfortunately, I feel that Senator Obama does nothing to help explain the substance of the reasons for his own campaign, other than a vague notion of "hope." (He has complained about the money in politics, but he has refused to accept all matching funds for the Presidential election in the hopes of raising as much money as possible; and at the 2006 West Virginia Jefferson-Jackson Dinner, he had time for the $1000 donors who contributed the legal limit to the WV Democratic Party to become members of the JFK Society, but none for those who volunteered for the event or paid $75 in tickets, a sharp increase from the $25 from two years earlier. He has no proposal for public funding of campaigns or campaign finance reform, so this surely can't be the reason.)
Another invariable question from Obama critics (Let it be known that I do not doubt Obama's potential or his political skills, I just doubt that he is the best candidate for President in 2008.) is the fact that Obama has very little experience. I have actually heard Obamamaniacs (I'm not really sure what Obama supporters are calling themselves) say that this is a good thing because that means that he doesn't have much of a record that will be open to scrutiny by his opponents. I'm sorry, but to me, things like that emphasize everything that is wrong with politics. If someone is really so insecure in his/her beliefs that they want someone who won't run on issues, I have to ask why anyone like that would be involved in politics in the first place. (This same question goes to anyone who uses "we won, you lost" as a rebuttal in every single political conversation.) People who complain about how vapid politics are can look to statements like that for the reason so many campaigns avoid substance. If you seriosuly think that a lack of experience is a good thing for the Presidency, then you are the one to blame if too many electoral contests sound like student council elections. [NOTE: Author of post was elected class representative to student council his senior year. Had he been elected earlier, he would have opted out of running for re-election due to frustration over the fact that student council basically has power to do nothing.]
Then, there is the other argument (sometimes given by the same people as above) by those who insist that Barack Obama does have sufficient experience on the basis of his six years in the Illinois State Senate (Obama first won election in 1996. He gave up his seat for a failed Congressional race in 2000, only to regain his State Senate seat in 2002.) as an example of Obama's experience in addition to his four years in the US Senate as of the 2008 elections. However, let's be honest. If it was anyone else who was floated as a possible Presidential candidate based on experience in the state legislature, would anyone else seriously consider that person? Case in point: Delegate Barbara Evans Fleischauer. I admire her greatly and I think that she has done a lot of good for Monongalia County and the State of West Virginia, and at the end of this term, she will have served in the West Virginia House of Delegates for 12 years, but I don't know of anyone who thinks that she should be President. That is because the State Legislature is a qualification for one of two things: legislature and state offices. It was perfectly logical for Barack Obama to cite his experience in the State Senate as a candidate for US Senate, but not for President. If he wants to get a chief executive job on the basis of his time in the state legislature, he should run for Governor of Illinois in 2010. There are Obama supporters (including Obama himself) who point to Abraham Lincoln's time in the Illinois State Legislature as proof that state legislative experience counts as experience towards a Presidential run, but I wouldn't use Abraham Lincoln's experience in the Legislature as something to brag about (If you have questions about this, look up a biography, not a hagiography, of Lincoln's time in the state legislature, and you will see why in his lifetime Lincoln the statesman ran hard from Lincoln the legislator.) if I was trying to present someone as a serious Presidential candidate.
Then, there is the argument that Barack Obama is a proven winner based on the 72% that he received in his Senate race against Alan Keyes in 2004. I have not yet turned 30 so I am ineligble for a Senate bid, but if I were running for Congress and Alan Keyes were the Republican nominee, I would thank God daily for my good fortune. Do you really think that Alan Keyes is a challenging candidate? The man who called Mary Cheney "a selfish hedonist"? The man who criticized Hillary Clinton for moving to New York for a Senate seat as a "violation of the principles of federalism" only to move from Maryland to run for Senate four years later? The man who insisted that Barack Obama didn't know anything about the African American experience because he was not a descendant of slaves? The man whose MSNBC show lasted just a month longer than that of Michael Weiner-Savage?
Barack Obama has only had one serious race in his lifetime, and that was the 2000 Democratic Congressional primary against former Black Panther and sitting Congressman Bobby Rush (D-IL), who criticized Obama for living in Hyde Park, a cushy neighborhood in South Chicago, and his affiliation with the University of Chicago, which is in the southern part of the city by geography, but is seen as distant and removed from the community. Rush insisted that Obama wasn't really a part of the neighborhood so to speak, and Obama received 31% in the primary. Is that a proven winner?
I do not write this to criticize someone for the simple act of supporting Barack Obama, but I do think that it is fair to ask the reason for supporting Barack Obama. We are talking about the nominee for President of the United States, not student council president. If you have not yet decided who you support for President, take an honest look at what you want in a President and then base your choice on that (and don't say "charisma," because that is just reinforcing the vapid personality contest elections have become). But whatever you do, don't work backwards to find your candidate. You owe yourself, your party and your country more than that.
posted by Albert McStephenson at 6:57 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home