If I have any regular readers, I promise to get back to the political stuff soon. I have some thoughts on the Democratic primary that I'd like to share and I plan to do a series of posts on different political topics as I try to suss out where I REALLY stand. But, for now I have a rant about classic novels.
What I really don't get is how most classics become classics. People talk about what great books they are, they end up on top 100 of all time lists and everybody who wants to look sophisticated will talk about how great these books are, but the bottom line is that most of them are boring and suck. Case in point, I recently picked up Catch-22 at my local used bookstore. I've read about 30 pages and I have no clue what's going on. The narrator will start in one direction, then all of sudden switch to something else without completing the thought. The story is not the least bit interesting yet, mostly because I can't figure out what kind of story the author is trying to tell. I plan to give it a little bit more, maybe try to get through 100 pages and finish it if I can find any reason to, but so far it's one of the worst books I've ever tried to read...and this is supposed to be a classic, one of the best novels of all time. I just don't get it.
Catch-22 isn't even close to the only example either. I once tried to read Catcher in the Rye and that was pretty awful too. To begin with, every other word is a curse word and that gets old real fast, furthermore, the story is incredibly depressing and not the least bit interesting. I think the main character was suicidal or something and I have to admit, I think it would be best if he just killed himself in the first few pages and got that thing over with. I actually made it all the way through Moby Dick a few years ago and I still have no idea what that book was about. It was boring, disjointed and I have no idea why anyone would want to read it, let alone talk about it like it was on of the best books of all time. In addition to those examples, there's Dickens, and although his books usually have a story that can be followed and good characters, they're also really boring. Jules Verne is boring, but at least I was able to follow 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea and it wasn't a complete waste like Moby Dick.
Now, don't get me wrong, I do like some classics. Robert Louis Stevenson is a great author. Treasure Island is one of my favorite books and Kidnapped was really good too. I'm sure there are also other classics that I've read and liked, but overall most classics are verbose and boring. Some, like Catch-22 and Moby Dick, also have stories that are impossible to follow and completely useless. I just don't get how books like this become classics. Why would anyone want to read them? I'm sorry, but I'll stick to books with good characters and good stories. I may not be able to consider myself as sophisticated as a lover of classics, but at least I'll get enjoyment out of them.
Thursday, February 21, 2008
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
War In A Rack
I want to talk a little bit today about the War in Iraq. I want to begin by saying that I've always been against this war. At the time that we went into Iraq I felt that it was a mistake and I still believe that today. However, I don't believe, as the Democratic Presidential candidates do, that we should simply pull all of our soldiers out of Iraq and leave as quickly as possible. That would probably be as big of a mistake as the original invasion was.
When we first decided to invade Iraq, the biggest justification given was that they had Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD). That was later proven to be wrong and I believe that it was a product of bad, possibly even falsified, intelligence. The idea was that Iraq had WMD, and the would use those against us if we didn't disarm them. To begin with, even if Iraq did have WMD, I don't think Saddam Hussein was crazy enough or dumb enough to use them against the most powerful country in the world. Saddam was not an idealogue, or a religious zealot, as the leaders of Al Quaeda who carried out the September 11th attacks were. Saddam cared about one thing only, power and he knew that attacked United States was not going to bring him more power. If he did claim to have WMD, it was probably to keep the other country's in the region, like Iran, from attacking HIM. He had enough problems without provoking us.
Another argument that has been used is that Saddam was a brutal dictator and we needed to depose him for humanitarian reasons. It's true, Saddam was a brutal dictator, but he was also holding together a country that was ripe for civil war. Iraq was drawn on a map with no eye to the various ethnic groups living in the region. The sunnis, shi-ites and kurds in Iraq hate each other much more than they hate us. Saddam, for everything that was wrong with him, kept that country from devolving into civil war, which it has done since we invaded and took him out. Now, our soldiers are dying and they try to act as police to keep Iraqis from killing each other. Saddam Hussein was too busy trying to keep his country together and keep other countries in the region at bay, he didn't have time to interest himself with attacking America.
I also don't believe that the humanitarian argument is a valid one. We have plenty of problems here at home; poverty, inner city drug and gang violence, 40 million Americans without health insurance, etc. When all of our problems here at home are solved, then we can go out and try to solve the world's problems. Until then though, we should be spending our money trying to solve the problems in our country. Furthermore, the Bush Administration will probably tell you that they thought that we could establish a democracy in Iraq, which would give democracy and freedom a foothold in the region. In a word, this is ludicrous. Democracy and freedom are not something that can be forced on people. I think that they have to happen on their own, or they simply won't work. The bottom line is that our government of the people, for the people and by the people, in this country, would not work without a respect for the rule of law. Our country works on ideas and not by force If a country or a people are too used to living under the iron-fist of dictatorship and force, they're simply not going to be able to make a quick and easy transition to following democracy and the rule of law.
So, instead of stabilizing the region and creating a foothold for democracy in the Middle East, we've created a hotbed of instability and hatred for America. The Muslims in the Middle East don't hate us for our freedom, they hate us because we're not Muslim and we don't have the proper respect (in their opinion) for the Muslim holy places. That wasn't a problem in Iraq, because it was a secular country run by a secular dictator. Now it is a problem, because we have to sects of Muslims fighting each other over there and the Kurds in Northern Iraq thrown in. We have a bloody civil war, that we have to try to police. We have major instability in a region that is vital to our national interests because of our dependence on oil.
To being with, we need to end our dependence on foreign oil. If we can do that, we can leave the people in the Middle East to fight among themselves over the minute differences in their religious beliefs. But, until then stability in the region is important to us. If we simply back out of Iraq and leave, there will be a bloody civil war in Iraq and further instability in the region. In addition, we'll be putting our tail between our legs like a whipped dog and showing the rest of the world that America can be defeated. Other countries and terrorist groups, especially radical Islamists, will no longer fear us. They will feel free to attack us in whatever manner they wish and American soil will be in more danger than it has ever been in our history.
Sadly, we're mired in a very bad situation and I blame President Bush and his Administration for getting us into a mess that they had no idea how to get out of. Unfortunately, now that we're in this mess, we have to stay until we can find a good way out, and simply withdrawing the troops as quickly as possible is not the right plan.
When we first decided to invade Iraq, the biggest justification given was that they had Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD). That was later proven to be wrong and I believe that it was a product of bad, possibly even falsified, intelligence. The idea was that Iraq had WMD, and the would use those against us if we didn't disarm them. To begin with, even if Iraq did have WMD, I don't think Saddam Hussein was crazy enough or dumb enough to use them against the most powerful country in the world. Saddam was not an idealogue, or a religious zealot, as the leaders of Al Quaeda who carried out the September 11th attacks were. Saddam cared about one thing only, power and he knew that attacked United States was not going to bring him more power. If he did claim to have WMD, it was probably to keep the other country's in the region, like Iran, from attacking HIM. He had enough problems without provoking us.
Another argument that has been used is that Saddam was a brutal dictator and we needed to depose him for humanitarian reasons. It's true, Saddam was a brutal dictator, but he was also holding together a country that was ripe for civil war. Iraq was drawn on a map with no eye to the various ethnic groups living in the region. The sunnis, shi-ites and kurds in Iraq hate each other much more than they hate us. Saddam, for everything that was wrong with him, kept that country from devolving into civil war, which it has done since we invaded and took him out. Now, our soldiers are dying and they try to act as police to keep Iraqis from killing each other. Saddam Hussein was too busy trying to keep his country together and keep other countries in the region at bay, he didn't have time to interest himself with attacking America.
I also don't believe that the humanitarian argument is a valid one. We have plenty of problems here at home; poverty, inner city drug and gang violence, 40 million Americans without health insurance, etc. When all of our problems here at home are solved, then we can go out and try to solve the world's problems. Until then though, we should be spending our money trying to solve the problems in our country. Furthermore, the Bush Administration will probably tell you that they thought that we could establish a democracy in Iraq, which would give democracy and freedom a foothold in the region. In a word, this is ludicrous. Democracy and freedom are not something that can be forced on people. I think that they have to happen on their own, or they simply won't work. The bottom line is that our government of the people, for the people and by the people, in this country, would not work without a respect for the rule of law. Our country works on ideas and not by force If a country or a people are too used to living under the iron-fist of dictatorship and force, they're simply not going to be able to make a quick and easy transition to following democracy and the rule of law.
So, instead of stabilizing the region and creating a foothold for democracy in the Middle East, we've created a hotbed of instability and hatred for America. The Muslims in the Middle East don't hate us for our freedom, they hate us because we're not Muslim and we don't have the proper respect (in their opinion) for the Muslim holy places. That wasn't a problem in Iraq, because it was a secular country run by a secular dictator. Now it is a problem, because we have to sects of Muslims fighting each other over there and the Kurds in Northern Iraq thrown in. We have a bloody civil war, that we have to try to police. We have major instability in a region that is vital to our national interests because of our dependence on oil.
To being with, we need to end our dependence on foreign oil. If we can do that, we can leave the people in the Middle East to fight among themselves over the minute differences in their religious beliefs. But, until then stability in the region is important to us. If we simply back out of Iraq and leave, there will be a bloody civil war in Iraq and further instability in the region. In addition, we'll be putting our tail between our legs like a whipped dog and showing the rest of the world that America can be defeated. Other countries and terrorist groups, especially radical Islamists, will no longer fear us. They will feel free to attack us in whatever manner they wish and American soil will be in more danger than it has ever been in our history.
Sadly, we're mired in a very bad situation and I blame President Bush and his Administration for getting us into a mess that they had no idea how to get out of. Unfortunately, now that we're in this mess, we have to stay until we can find a good way out, and simply withdrawing the troops as quickly as possible is not the right plan.
Thursday, February 7, 2008
McCain/Huckabee '08
Super Tuesday, two days ago, produced a clear front-runner in the Republican primary and a clear front-runner for the VP slot. I wasn't surprised that John McCain continued to outperform both of his rivals and came out looking like the clear favorite for the nomination. I was surprised however, by how well Mike Huckabee did. He won virtually every state in the South, and I think that was very significant. I'm certain that Huckabee won on the backs of christian conservatives, who make up a large portion of the Republican base, especially in the South. Conservatives have tended to very much dislike John McCain, who I guess is seen as too moderate for the Republican base. Personally, I think the fact that McCain appeals to moderates and independents is very good for the Republican party, and greatly helps their chances of winning the general election in November. But, I digress.
The point is that McCain will need to put a conservative on the ticket with him, in an effort to help him appeal to his party's base. A christian conservative like Mike Huckabee would be perfect for him. With Huckabee on the ticket the Republican base should turnout to vote for McCain and he should sweep the South, something that has been vital to Republicans in the last few elections. This could become even more important to the Republican party if Barack Obama wins the Democratic nomination, as Obama should pull a ton of black voters, which are abundant in the South. If the christian right in the South stays home in a McCain vs. Obama election, it could be a long night for Republicans. Due mostly to Huckabee's success in the South and with the more conservative wing of the Republican party, I believe a McCain/Huckabee ticket is almost assured at this point.
Finally, here's a great article from CNN.com today regarding McCain and the perception that he's not conservative enough.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/06/roland.martin/index.html
The point is that McCain will need to put a conservative on the ticket with him, in an effort to help him appeal to his party's base. A christian conservative like Mike Huckabee would be perfect for him. With Huckabee on the ticket the Republican base should turnout to vote for McCain and he should sweep the South, something that has been vital to Republicans in the last few elections. This could become even more important to the Republican party if Barack Obama wins the Democratic nomination, as Obama should pull a ton of black voters, which are abundant in the South. If the christian right in the South stays home in a McCain vs. Obama election, it could be a long night for Republicans. Due mostly to Huckabee's success in the South and with the more conservative wing of the Republican party, I believe a McCain/Huckabee ticket is almost assured at this point.
Finally, here's a great article from CNN.com today regarding McCain and the perception that he's not conservative enough.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/06/roland.martin/index.html
Monday, February 4, 2008
The Governator
On January 31st, two fairly important things happened in the Republican primary. Rudy Giuliani dropped out of the race and California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger endorsed John McCain. Schwarzenegger, more commonly known as "The Governator," had stayed neutral up til that point due to his friendship with both Giuliani and McCain. With Rudy dropping out, he was free to endorse McCain, so he did. It occurred to me while I was watching the speeches, how strange it seemed that Schwarzenegger was now a very relevant, serious political figure whose endorsement really means something.
Schwarzenegger was born in Austria, came to America in the 1970's and got his start in public life as a champion bodybuilder. He parlayed that into a successful career starring in action movies such as The Terminator, and if that's where it ended Arnold would have been a great American success story. He came here with very little money in his pocket and became a multi-millionaire and a movie star. But, Schwarzenegger wasn't done. When California Governor Gray Davis was recalled in 2003, and Schwarzenegger ran to replace him and won, I don't think many people really took him that seriously. It looked like kind of a stunt. This was an action movie star, not even a member of the hollywood elite who are always sticking their nose into politics. Yet, not only was Schwarzenegger successful in his bid for the Governorship, he's now respected in political circles and considered by most to be a very successful Governor.
When Schwarzenegger took over, the state of California was in disarray. There was a massive budget deficit and a major energy crisis, with large portions of the state being hit by blackouts. Now, the budget is in better shape (though I believe California has done it through floating billions of dollars worth of bonds, which of course they will eventually have to pay back), and the energy crisis is no more. In fact, California is now leading the way with green technologies and alternative energy sources, something that is very important in an era where oil prices continue to go up and our dependence on foreign oil continues to be a major problem for this nation. California has the 8th highest GDP (Gross Domestic Product) in the WORLD and the state is now thriving. But, is it because of Schwarzenegger or despite him?
According to the Governor's official website at www.gov.ca.gov, "Since he took office, Governor Schwarzenegger's responsible fiscal policies have brought California back from the brink of bankruptcy, reinvigorating the economy, creating a better environment for business and creating more than 680,000 new jobs. Improved state revenues have paid down the state's debt and afforded record investments in schools, roads and affordable healthcare for children. " The site also states that some of "Governor Schwarzenegger's most notable accomplishments include a bipartisan agreement to reduce California's greenhouse gas emissions by signing landmark legislation in 2006, increasing the minimum wage while lowering the state's unemployment rate and overhauling the workers' compensation system - cutting costs by more than 35 percent. " The Governor's site goes on to tout Schwarzenegger's environmental record and how he has made California a leader in creating alternative energy methods, cleaner fuels and cleaner air.
From what I can find on the Governor's official website he seems like a man with very balanced policies. Using government to help move business in the right direction and stimulate the economy when necessary, but still being fiscally conservative and attempting to keep a balanced budget. Schwarzenegger's 2008-09 budget proposes a spending cut of 10% in virtually all government departments and when he took office in 2003 he voluntarily gave up his salary of $175,000 and offered to work for free as a good will gesture toward his goal of cutting government spending and balancing the budget. It seems to me that Schwarzenegger is taking baby steps in the right direction as he attempts to reduce out of control government spending.
Is this the whole story though? Obviously, the Governor's official website is going to be a bit biased, so I went in search of an alternate opinion. The strongest criticisms I could find of Governor Schwarzenegger are on the website www.ArnoldWatch.org, which claims to be "watching the hidden hand of special interests in the Schwarzenegger administration." The folks at Arnold Watch say that Schwarzenegger stated during his campaign that he would "make decisions that are the wisest decisions for the people and not what is best for the special interests," then, they say, he "immediately began taking campaign contributions from some of the biggest special interests in Sacramento." While this is a fairly strong criticism, I think it may be a bit overly harsh. Unfortunately, contributions from businesses and special interests are what drive politics today, and I think that what influence special interests have on the Governor and whether that influence is good or bad, is certainly a matter of opinion and something that is very much up for debate. The other major criticism I saw on Arnold Watch, seemed to be an objection to proposals to deregulate the energy industry and other similar ideas. Frankly, this is part of an argument about the role of government which is very much a matter of opinion.
I would probably conclude that, overall, Governor Schwarzenegger has done a good job as Governor, but it still amazes me that this man is now a serious political figure and one with influence on a national stage.
As always, I'm very open to the thoughts and opinions of my readers on this subject.
Schwarzenegger was born in Austria, came to America in the 1970's and got his start in public life as a champion bodybuilder. He parlayed that into a successful career starring in action movies such as The Terminator, and if that's where it ended Arnold would have been a great American success story. He came here with very little money in his pocket and became a multi-millionaire and a movie star. But, Schwarzenegger wasn't done. When California Governor Gray Davis was recalled in 2003, and Schwarzenegger ran to replace him and won, I don't think many people really took him that seriously. It looked like kind of a stunt. This was an action movie star, not even a member of the hollywood elite who are always sticking their nose into politics. Yet, not only was Schwarzenegger successful in his bid for the Governorship, he's now respected in political circles and considered by most to be a very successful Governor.
When Schwarzenegger took over, the state of California was in disarray. There was a massive budget deficit and a major energy crisis, with large portions of the state being hit by blackouts. Now, the budget is in better shape (though I believe California has done it through floating billions of dollars worth of bonds, which of course they will eventually have to pay back), and the energy crisis is no more. In fact, California is now leading the way with green technologies and alternative energy sources, something that is very important in an era where oil prices continue to go up and our dependence on foreign oil continues to be a major problem for this nation. California has the 8th highest GDP (Gross Domestic Product) in the WORLD and the state is now thriving. But, is it because of Schwarzenegger or despite him?
According to the Governor's official website at www.gov.ca.gov, "Since he took office, Governor Schwarzenegger's responsible fiscal policies have brought California back from the brink of bankruptcy, reinvigorating the economy, creating a better environment for business and creating more than 680,000 new jobs. Improved state revenues have paid down the state's debt and afforded record investments in schools, roads and affordable healthcare for children. " The site also states that some of "Governor Schwarzenegger's most notable accomplishments include a bipartisan agreement to reduce California's greenhouse gas emissions by signing landmark legislation in 2006, increasing the minimum wage while lowering the state's unemployment rate and overhauling the workers' compensation system - cutting costs by more than 35 percent. " The Governor's site goes on to tout Schwarzenegger's environmental record and how he has made California a leader in creating alternative energy methods, cleaner fuels and cleaner air.
From what I can find on the Governor's official website he seems like a man with very balanced policies. Using government to help move business in the right direction and stimulate the economy when necessary, but still being fiscally conservative and attempting to keep a balanced budget. Schwarzenegger's 2008-09 budget proposes a spending cut of 10% in virtually all government departments and when he took office in 2003 he voluntarily gave up his salary of $175,000 and offered to work for free as a good will gesture toward his goal of cutting government spending and balancing the budget. It seems to me that Schwarzenegger is taking baby steps in the right direction as he attempts to reduce out of control government spending.
Is this the whole story though? Obviously, the Governor's official website is going to be a bit biased, so I went in search of an alternate opinion. The strongest criticisms I could find of Governor Schwarzenegger are on the website www.ArnoldWatch.org, which claims to be "watching the hidden hand of special interests in the Schwarzenegger administration." The folks at Arnold Watch say that Schwarzenegger stated during his campaign that he would "make decisions that are the wisest decisions for the people and not what is best for the special interests," then, they say, he "immediately began taking campaign contributions from some of the biggest special interests in Sacramento." While this is a fairly strong criticism, I think it may be a bit overly harsh. Unfortunately, contributions from businesses and special interests are what drive politics today, and I think that what influence special interests have on the Governor and whether that influence is good or bad, is certainly a matter of opinion and something that is very much up for debate. The other major criticism I saw on Arnold Watch, seemed to be an objection to proposals to deregulate the energy industry and other similar ideas. Frankly, this is part of an argument about the role of government which is very much a matter of opinion.
I would probably conclude that, overall, Governor Schwarzenegger has done a good job as Governor, but it still amazes me that this man is now a serious political figure and one with influence on a national stage.
As always, I'm very open to the thoughts and opinions of my readers on this subject.
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
R.I.P. John Edwards
No, he's not dead, but today John Edwards dropped out of the Democratic Presidential Primary.
Not that this came as a galloping shock to anyone. I don't think anyone following the primary campaigns expected Edwards to win the nomination, but this news certainly has the possibility of having a major impact on the Democratic race. To begin with, Edwards was probably the best candidate the Democrats had. He's a southern man (remember that the Democrats haven't had a President who wasn't from the south since Kennedy almost 50 years ago), and he was also probably the most liberal Democrat in the race, even though that wasn't necessarily the perception. In a lot of ways, Edwards is perceived as more moderate than he is, probably because he's from the South. But, Edwards campaign was all about poverty, the plight of the lower middle class and the poor; the lack of health insurance that plagues miliions of Americans; and the idea that increasing trade and globalization of corporations has taken away American jobs. Edwards saw himself as a champion of the little guy and that was the central theme of his campaign.
Edwards hasn't endorsed anyone yet, but CNN is reporting that it's more likely for him to endorse Obama than Clinton as they see Obama's campaign being more about the issues that Edwards cared about and Clinton as more of a product of the establishment. I believe things are almost certainly more complicated than that. Four years ago John Kerry chose John Edwards as his running mate in the 2004 Presidential election. The hope was that Edwards would bring in southern voters and help Kerry to win a few states in the south, something no Democrat but Bill Clinton has done in a long time. This strategy didn't work; Bush won every Southern state, but I believe that the principle behind it still works.
Whether Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton wins the Democratic nomination, they'll need to pick a running mate. I think it unlikely that we'll see Clinton/Obama or Obama/Clinton as the ticket. The divisiveness of the campaign and who these two candidates are makes me doubt very seriously that either will choose the other as his or her running mate. Ideally, a Vice-Presidential nominee helps a candidate bring in a few votes he wouldn't otherwise get, but doesn't overshadow the top of the ticket. I believe that Barack Obama and Hilary Clinton are so close in national polls and notoriety, that each would be seen as taking attention away from the other if they were put on the same ticket. Furthermore, there has already been tension between these two in the early primaries and they are so close in the polls that this could drag out a long time with even more bickering, sniping and tension between the two candidates. For these reasons, it seems unlikely to me that we'll see these two on the same ticket. Instead, I think we'll once again see John Edwards on the bottom of the Democratic ticket.
What I find most interesting about John Edwards decision to drop out today is the timing. A week after the South Carolina primary (which he'd probably expected to make a better showing in) and a week BEFORE Super Tuesday when nearly two dozen states will vote. It could simply be a matter of his campaign running out of money, but I think there may be more at play here. Edwards knows he's not winning the nomination and he wants to get the VP nod again. I think his decision to drop out now could very well be a play to get that nomination. Either, one of the candidates has offered it to him (in exchange for his endorsement), or he wants to give them time to make that offer and he can throw his support behind that candidate before Super Tuesday. The latter scenario seems more likely to me since he hasn't endorsed anyone yet.
While it's entirely possible that I'm seeing more in this situation than is really there, it makes sense that there would be something behind it. No matter who he gives his support to, Edwards has the potential ability to swing this election. He's been consistently polling in the 20% range and he's been talking about issues that the other candidates aren't really touching on. Edwards' supporters seem to represent a significant block of Democratic voters who could have a definate impact on whether Hilary Clinton or Barack Obama wins this primary.
Not that this came as a galloping shock to anyone. I don't think anyone following the primary campaigns expected Edwards to win the nomination, but this news certainly has the possibility of having a major impact on the Democratic race. To begin with, Edwards was probably the best candidate the Democrats had. He's a southern man (remember that the Democrats haven't had a President who wasn't from the south since Kennedy almost 50 years ago), and he was also probably the most liberal Democrat in the race, even though that wasn't necessarily the perception. In a lot of ways, Edwards is perceived as more moderate than he is, probably because he's from the South. But, Edwards campaign was all about poverty, the plight of the lower middle class and the poor; the lack of health insurance that plagues miliions of Americans; and the idea that increasing trade and globalization of corporations has taken away American jobs. Edwards saw himself as a champion of the little guy and that was the central theme of his campaign.
Edwards hasn't endorsed anyone yet, but CNN is reporting that it's more likely for him to endorse Obama than Clinton as they see Obama's campaign being more about the issues that Edwards cared about and Clinton as more of a product of the establishment. I believe things are almost certainly more complicated than that. Four years ago John Kerry chose John Edwards as his running mate in the 2004 Presidential election. The hope was that Edwards would bring in southern voters and help Kerry to win a few states in the south, something no Democrat but Bill Clinton has done in a long time. This strategy didn't work; Bush won every Southern state, but I believe that the principle behind it still works.
Whether Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton wins the Democratic nomination, they'll need to pick a running mate. I think it unlikely that we'll see Clinton/Obama or Obama/Clinton as the ticket. The divisiveness of the campaign and who these two candidates are makes me doubt very seriously that either will choose the other as his or her running mate. Ideally, a Vice-Presidential nominee helps a candidate bring in a few votes he wouldn't otherwise get, but doesn't overshadow the top of the ticket. I believe that Barack Obama and Hilary Clinton are so close in national polls and notoriety, that each would be seen as taking attention away from the other if they were put on the same ticket. Furthermore, there has already been tension between these two in the early primaries and they are so close in the polls that this could drag out a long time with even more bickering, sniping and tension between the two candidates. For these reasons, it seems unlikely to me that we'll see these two on the same ticket. Instead, I think we'll once again see John Edwards on the bottom of the Democratic ticket.
What I find most interesting about John Edwards decision to drop out today is the timing. A week after the South Carolina primary (which he'd probably expected to make a better showing in) and a week BEFORE Super Tuesday when nearly two dozen states will vote. It could simply be a matter of his campaign running out of money, but I think there may be more at play here. Edwards knows he's not winning the nomination and he wants to get the VP nod again. I think his decision to drop out now could very well be a play to get that nomination. Either, one of the candidates has offered it to him (in exchange for his endorsement), or he wants to give them time to make that offer and he can throw his support behind that candidate before Super Tuesday. The latter scenario seems more likely to me since he hasn't endorsed anyone yet.
While it's entirely possible that I'm seeing more in this situation than is really there, it makes sense that there would be something behind it. No matter who he gives his support to, Edwards has the potential ability to swing this election. He's been consistently polling in the 20% range and he's been talking about issues that the other candidates aren't really touching on. Edwards' supporters seem to represent a significant block of Democratic voters who could have a definate impact on whether Hilary Clinton or Barack Obama wins this primary.
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
Our Primary System
Every four years in this country, we get to elect a new President. This is one of the many good things about our system of government. We don't have to suffer under bad or corrupt leadership for indefinate periods of time. If you don't like the current President, take heart because you'll always be able to elect a new one in a few years. Throughout our history, we've had some great leaders. Washington and Lincoln spring to mind immediately. But, we've also had some really lousy ones; George W. Bush, Andrew Johnson and James Buchanan, to name a few. Of course who your favorite President is, or whether you like the current one is always up for debate and it's almost always, at least partially, a matter of opinion.
Who was the last great President? Some would argue Kennedy, others FDR, others woudl say Reagan, and you might even get a few people to say they think it was Bill Clinton. However, I don't believe any of these would be universally accepted as our last great President. In fact, I think the last man that you could get the largest number of people to agree on would be our friend Honest Abe Lincoln. Somehow, our country has gotten by for almost 150 years without a President that is nearly universally haled as a great Leader. Of course, every President has his detractors and some were more universally liked than others, but the bottom line is that our system rarely seems to produce true greatness in our leaders.
I think that the main cause of this is our system of primary elections. We have a two-party system in this country and each party gets to nominate a candidate for the highest office in the land. Unfortunately, the nominating process seems to ensure that we end up with the most marginal candidate from each party. Not necessarily the best, in many cases, not even the most electable, just the one that managed to emerge from the fray in his party's primary.
I see a couple of major issues with the primary process. The first is that it causes division and dissension within the ranks of each party. Since most members of the same party have similar stances on the most important issues, each candidate has to try to find a way to distinguish himself from his opponent(s). This leads to the politics of personal attack. The candidates look for ways to discredit their opponents, to make them look bad, and they attempt to highlight minor differences between themselves and their opponents. What we end up with is dirty politics and dirty campaign tactics.
The second big issue I see with the primary system is the role of the media. Primary campaigns move from state to state and proceed rather slowly. The early primaries are held one state at a time, and often in places that are not likely to be indicative of the way the majority of the populace would vote if given the chance. In this age of the 24 hour news cycle, the media always has to have something to talk about, so they spend their time highlighting minor differences between candidates, and talking about personalities and human interest stories much more than issues. Furthermore, the media has a tendency to decide how they think someone should be portrayed, then make their perception into reality.
There are numerous examples of this. In 2004 Howard Dean was a frontrunner for the Democratic nomination, he gave a speech after narrowly losing the Iowa caucuses, in which he showed enthusiasm and emotion in trying to fire up his supporters. The media decided that he didn't look "Presidential" in this speech and they proceeded to bury him. In current primaries, this effect is just as clear. The media decided early on that the Democratic primary was going to be a race between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, they had a perfect story, a black man and a woman (two groups that had never been represented in the White House) were both viable candidates for the Democratic nomination. That's how the story was presented, and John Edwards simply became "that other guy who refuses to give up." Edwards consistently gets around 20% in the polls and he may be the most electable (good looking southern democrat who speaks with an accent) and probably also the most "democratic" (e.g. most liberal) of the three candidates, yet he barely gets mentioned in the media because it would distract from their perfect Hillary vs. Obama story.
What we end up with is essentially a system where the media picks our candidates for us. Which ties us into our final problem with the current construction of the primary system. The general public tends to have something of a herd mentality. Most people don't want to go through the effort of thinking about the issues or the candidates for themselves (and of course, it's hard for primaries to be about issues anyway since the candidates opinions are likely to be very much alike), instead they just follow the pack. So, we have these early primaries in out of the way places like Iowa and New Hampshire and the media anoints their winners as the "frontrunners." Then, since everyone wants to vote for a winner, voters in the later primaries tend to vote for these frontrunners and all of a sudden we find ourselves with the most marginal candidate on each side.
I know this commentary probably sounds pretty pessimistic. In most cases like this, I don't have all the answers, nor is the purpose of this blog to offer answers, rather it's to get people thinking, but in this case I will offer a couple of possibilities and you, the reader, can decide what you think or even discuss it in the comments section. I see 3 possible reforms to the primary system; 1) Hold every primary across the country on the same day, just like we do with the general election, 2) Scrap the whole primary system and hold two elections about a month apart. In the first election anyone from any party can run and if anyone gets more than 50% of the vote he (or she) wins outright. If no one gets to 50%, a run-off election is held between the top 2 candidates, even if they're both from the same party. 3) We eliminate the primary system altogether. Each state elects delegates to the national conventions, and those delegates hold meetings and discussions at the convention, then select a nominee.
None of these is perfect, but I think they would probably all produce better candidates and less overall rancor than the current system. What do you think?
Who was the last great President? Some would argue Kennedy, others FDR, others woudl say Reagan, and you might even get a few people to say they think it was Bill Clinton. However, I don't believe any of these would be universally accepted as our last great President. In fact, I think the last man that you could get the largest number of people to agree on would be our friend Honest Abe Lincoln. Somehow, our country has gotten by for almost 150 years without a President that is nearly universally haled as a great Leader. Of course, every President has his detractors and some were more universally liked than others, but the bottom line is that our system rarely seems to produce true greatness in our leaders.
I think that the main cause of this is our system of primary elections. We have a two-party system in this country and each party gets to nominate a candidate for the highest office in the land. Unfortunately, the nominating process seems to ensure that we end up with the most marginal candidate from each party. Not necessarily the best, in many cases, not even the most electable, just the one that managed to emerge from the fray in his party's primary.
I see a couple of major issues with the primary process. The first is that it causes division and dissension within the ranks of each party. Since most members of the same party have similar stances on the most important issues, each candidate has to try to find a way to distinguish himself from his opponent(s). This leads to the politics of personal attack. The candidates look for ways to discredit their opponents, to make them look bad, and they attempt to highlight minor differences between themselves and their opponents. What we end up with is dirty politics and dirty campaign tactics.
The second big issue I see with the primary system is the role of the media. Primary campaigns move from state to state and proceed rather slowly. The early primaries are held one state at a time, and often in places that are not likely to be indicative of the way the majority of the populace would vote if given the chance. In this age of the 24 hour news cycle, the media always has to have something to talk about, so they spend their time highlighting minor differences between candidates, and talking about personalities and human interest stories much more than issues. Furthermore, the media has a tendency to decide how they think someone should be portrayed, then make their perception into reality.
There are numerous examples of this. In 2004 Howard Dean was a frontrunner for the Democratic nomination, he gave a speech after narrowly losing the Iowa caucuses, in which he showed enthusiasm and emotion in trying to fire up his supporters. The media decided that he didn't look "Presidential" in this speech and they proceeded to bury him. In current primaries, this effect is just as clear. The media decided early on that the Democratic primary was going to be a race between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, they had a perfect story, a black man and a woman (two groups that had never been represented in the White House) were both viable candidates for the Democratic nomination. That's how the story was presented, and John Edwards simply became "that other guy who refuses to give up." Edwards consistently gets around 20% in the polls and he may be the most electable (good looking southern democrat who speaks with an accent) and probably also the most "democratic" (e.g. most liberal) of the three candidates, yet he barely gets mentioned in the media because it would distract from their perfect Hillary vs. Obama story.
What we end up with is essentially a system where the media picks our candidates for us. Which ties us into our final problem with the current construction of the primary system. The general public tends to have something of a herd mentality. Most people don't want to go through the effort of thinking about the issues or the candidates for themselves (and of course, it's hard for primaries to be about issues anyway since the candidates opinions are likely to be very much alike), instead they just follow the pack. So, we have these early primaries in out of the way places like Iowa and New Hampshire and the media anoints their winners as the "frontrunners." Then, since everyone wants to vote for a winner, voters in the later primaries tend to vote for these frontrunners and all of a sudden we find ourselves with the most marginal candidate on each side.
I know this commentary probably sounds pretty pessimistic. In most cases like this, I don't have all the answers, nor is the purpose of this blog to offer answers, rather it's to get people thinking, but in this case I will offer a couple of possibilities and you, the reader, can decide what you think or even discuss it in the comments section. I see 3 possible reforms to the primary system; 1) Hold every primary across the country on the same day, just like we do with the general election, 2) Scrap the whole primary system and hold two elections about a month apart. In the first election anyone from any party can run and if anyone gets more than 50% of the vote he (or she) wins outright. If no one gets to 50%, a run-off election is held between the top 2 candidates, even if they're both from the same party. 3) We eliminate the primary system altogether. Each state elects delegates to the national conventions, and those delegates hold meetings and discussions at the convention, then select a nominee.
None of these is perfect, but I think they would probably all produce better candidates and less overall rancor than the current system. What do you think?
One Tenth of Honest Abe
We live in a time not unlike the period leading up to the Presidency of my tenth cousin Abraham Lincoln. Our nation is split along partisan and socioeconomic lines. The level of vitriol and venom from both sides of the aisle is disturbing. In the time of Lincoln, we were headed toward a bloody civil war over the questions of slavery and states' rights. Today, while we are unlikely to see another civil war, the level of contentiousness in the national debate rivals that of the mid 19th century. The splits are very different though.
In the time of Lincoln, things were somewhat more clear cut. The split was between North and South, slave states and free states; the debate was over whether new states would allow slavery and how strong the Federal Government would be. Today, we see a much more blurred line, yet the intensity of the debate on both sides is similar. The battle today is not between North and South, or even between "red states" and "blue states." In fact, "red states" and "blue states" are really a myth. The true split is between urban and rural (and to a lesser extent suburban) populations. If you look at a map, you'll notice that in the blue states there are still large red areas and in the red states there are pockets of blue, usually centered around large cities. In other words, red state or blue state is really defined most by whether the number of people in urban areas outnumber those in rural areas, or vice versa.
We have a two party system where the true difference between parties is very small, yet the level of rhetoric would suggest that there is a huge chasm between what the two sides stand for. That rhetoric is slowly tearing this nation apart. Politics has turned personal; no longer is the debate about what someone stands for, or how well (or poorly) they might govern. Instead, it's about what mistakes they've made in the past or present, what dirt can we dredge and up how we can paint the picture or frame the debate to make our opponent look bad. I believe the reason for this is quite simple; it serves as a distraction. It keeps people fired up and it keeps the party base energized, in a time when neither party is doing a particularly good job of governance, nor is it all that easy to distinguish between the practices of the two. It's true, the party platforms have major idealogical differences in them, but if we look closely at the reality of government, we'll see that nothing much ever changes.
It is in this climate that I begin my foray into political analysis and commentary. I'm 25 years old and soon I will be starting a career in the United States Air Force. I graduated college almost 4 years ago with a degree in political science, and I've always been fascinated by the political process. God blessed me with a keen intellect and a very open mind. Unfortunately, as a result, I've had a hard time over the years coming to concrete conclusions of my own on major issues or choosing to fully support one political party over another. However, it has given me to ability to see the logic and reason in all sides of almost any issue. I believe that this gift has allowed me to see the world a little more clearly. My opinions are not usually colored by unshakeable views, religious or otherwise. Instead, I'm able to open my mind, see all sides of an issue and attempt to draw a conclusion.
Abraham Lincoln is my tenth cousin and while I don't pretend to be as insightful or gifted as he was, I hope that by attaching his name to this blog, I can someday live up to at least a tenth of his legacy. I will try in this blog to offer my opinions and conclusions on political issues of the day and the political process. But, mostly I hope to provide sound analysis of happenings in the political arena and leave an opening for my readers to draw their own conclusions.
In the time of Lincoln, things were somewhat more clear cut. The split was between North and South, slave states and free states; the debate was over whether new states would allow slavery and how strong the Federal Government would be. Today, we see a much more blurred line, yet the intensity of the debate on both sides is similar. The battle today is not between North and South, or even between "red states" and "blue states." In fact, "red states" and "blue states" are really a myth. The true split is between urban and rural (and to a lesser extent suburban) populations. If you look at a map, you'll notice that in the blue states there are still large red areas and in the red states there are pockets of blue, usually centered around large cities. In other words, red state or blue state is really defined most by whether the number of people in urban areas outnumber those in rural areas, or vice versa.
We have a two party system where the true difference between parties is very small, yet the level of rhetoric would suggest that there is a huge chasm between what the two sides stand for. That rhetoric is slowly tearing this nation apart. Politics has turned personal; no longer is the debate about what someone stands for, or how well (or poorly) they might govern. Instead, it's about what mistakes they've made in the past or present, what dirt can we dredge and up how we can paint the picture or frame the debate to make our opponent look bad. I believe the reason for this is quite simple; it serves as a distraction. It keeps people fired up and it keeps the party base energized, in a time when neither party is doing a particularly good job of governance, nor is it all that easy to distinguish between the practices of the two. It's true, the party platforms have major idealogical differences in them, but if we look closely at the reality of government, we'll see that nothing much ever changes.
It is in this climate that I begin my foray into political analysis and commentary. I'm 25 years old and soon I will be starting a career in the United States Air Force. I graduated college almost 4 years ago with a degree in political science, and I've always been fascinated by the political process. God blessed me with a keen intellect and a very open mind. Unfortunately, as a result, I've had a hard time over the years coming to concrete conclusions of my own on major issues or choosing to fully support one political party over another. However, it has given me to ability to see the logic and reason in all sides of almost any issue. I believe that this gift has allowed me to see the world a little more clearly. My opinions are not usually colored by unshakeable views, religious or otherwise. Instead, I'm able to open my mind, see all sides of an issue and attempt to draw a conclusion.
Abraham Lincoln is my tenth cousin and while I don't pretend to be as insightful or gifted as he was, I hope that by attaching his name to this blog, I can someday live up to at least a tenth of his legacy. I will try in this blog to offer my opinions and conclusions on political issues of the day and the political process. But, mostly I hope to provide sound analysis of happenings in the political arena and leave an opening for my readers to draw their own conclusions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)