I just got back from an Obama rally on U.Va. Grounds that featured Michelle Obama, Jill Biden and Lily Ledbetter. It was inspiring to see the large, energetic crowd and to hear the words of these powerful, intelligent women. I SO want a president who will stand up for equal pay for women and for working people in general.
I have to admit that I'm feeling very jaded though. I was annoyed with a few things about the rally, like the gigantic American flag and the mandatory prayer and pledge of allegiance. The talk of helping the middle class when the poor and the working poor are suffering even more and the talk of rising co-pays when many are completely uninsured... I think they mostly get it but they don't completely get it. I understand that they are probably trying to reach the middle class and that to do so (and to make him "electable") they need to make Obama look like a patriot and a Christian but I'm wishing for someone who is a little more of a rabble-rouser--someone who isn't afraid to stand up to big corporations or for gay marriage.
I remember seeing Ralph Nader and Winona LaDuke back in 2000 at the Target Center in Minneapolis. The excitement I felt at that rally was incredible. The possibilities seemed endless. I was getting a degree in "Social Responsibility" and I was ready to change the world. After 8 years under Bush's rule, I feel a little bit lost. I'm very disenchanted with my country and with the electoral process. And yet I'm not really feeling like I can do anything about it. I'm not excited enough about Obama (like I was with Nader) to get out there and canvas. I feel like it would be half-hearted. I think it has to do with the fact that it feels like Obama is willing to settle for incremental and piece-meal changes. I want a fucking revolution already!
Anyway, I'm interested to read/hear your comments about this.
7 comments:
Re: gay marriage. I suspect that big changes in this area will come in the next ten-twenty years, as the younger generation (who by and large support gay rights) comes into the center of politics and the older generation (my grandparents' and McCain's generation) moves on out. I think that one will just take a little time, as it is dependent on cultural beliefs that themselves take time to shift. In this sense, I think Obama is correct in attempting to make small, incremental shifts, like the gesture he made in his acceptance speech at the Democratic convention.
I am excited about Obama, but then, I think that productive change and revolution often do come in small, measured steps rather than large jumps. Obama is a good politician, which means that he is a little slimey, like all the rest of them, and he is by no means perfect, but his speeches inspire me and I'm impressed with his intelligence. As for the prayer and flag aspect at the rally, that would annoy me too. On the other hand, Republicans who say that Democrats are godless people who are not patriots annoys me more.
i agree with you in some respects. it would be great if gay marriage were legal asap, but it will likely happen more slowly on a state-by-state level until the federal gov't catches up. with the state of the economy right now, and the great depression sequel that we may have just avoided (this is not over yet, it may still happen), it will need to take a backseat to talk on the economy.
as far as the middle class vs. working poor goes, i think that just has to do with who votes. a much higher percentage of middle class people vote than working poor as far as i know, so a campaign is going to talk primarily to them. this is not to say i don't agree with you, but just that we need to win this election and that means getting the most voters out and targeting the people who will help us win. if mccain and palin win, we could end up joining the ranks of the working (or unemployed) poor.
i'd like a revolution too, but we need to be pragmatic - 50% of the country wants to vote for two people who have supported the economic policies of the last 20 years that brought us to the edge of a very steep cliff this week. if the thought of four more years of that doesn't motivate you to get out and canvas for the other guy, i'm not sure what will. enough people decided to vote nader idealism instead of gore pragmatism in 2000 that we now have eight years of painful hindsight to see where that got us.
Thanks for your comments Alli and Peter.
Alli: What was the gesture Obama made in his acceptance speech?
Peter: I think it's a mistake for Obama not to include an appeal to the working class along with the middle class. Coming from a working class background, I know that they are just the people who might actually be fed up enough to vote and actually make things happen this time. But by and large they are distrustful of politicians b/c there are never any acting in their interests really.
As for Gore, he lost the election because he was too moderate. Nader didn't take democratic votes away, he brought in independent voters and first-time voters because he wasn't afraid to tackle important issues and has a history of standing up for what's right. I really think Obama should take a cue from this.
hey lissa, i think obama is making direct appeals to the working class, especially through joe biden. these appeals are more likely happening at campaign stops and events in minnesota, pennsylvania, etc. than in the national tv ads, which are more generally directed. living in cville, we simply don't see a lot of the localized aspects of the campaign in different states, but they're definitely there. i think they are making a pretty big push for those voters, as a lot of those voters are democrats who went for hillary in the primaries and obama certainly needs them to win.
as far as nader goes, i think we'll just have disagree on that one. to my knowledge, the post-election statistics from 2000 showed pretty convincingly that if nader had not run, the votes that went for him would have gone for gore. keep in mind gore only lost florida by a few hundred votes - votes easily covered by nader. i think in looking at gore's candidacy, one also needs to look at the administration he was following and the necessity for him to run toward the center. anything else and the race wouldn't have been close (remember, bush was promising to restore 'dignity' to the white house, and at the time, that resonated with a large number of voters).
ok, just one more thing. i saw this great post on fivethirtyeight.com today (the aggregate polling site that is really interesting and well-done - alli pointed me to it). the post is about the effectiveness of canvassing. worth a read:
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/09/on-road-grand-junction-colorado.html
I don't necessarily think that Nader lost the election for Gore. There were plenty of stupid mistakes in Florida, any of which could have cost him the election. Gore didn't run the best campaign. He came alive as a public servant a few years after his loss. Too bad he couldn't have communicated that sparkle in 2000.
Near the end of his acceptance speech, Obama briefly (and very eloquently, from my point of view) addressed the cultural issues that divide the right and left:
"We may not agree on abortion, but surely we can agree on reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies in this country.
The reality of gun ownership may be different for hunters in rural Ohio than they are for those plagued by gang violence in Cleveland, but don't tell me we can't uphold the Second Amendment while keeping AK-47s out of the hands of criminals.
I know there are differences on same-sex marriage, but surely we can agree that our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters deserve to visit the person they love in a hospital and to live lives free of discrimination."
Thanks for posting that text Alli. It does sound good. I am still wishing for a revolutionary though...
Let's get it straight, Gore lost the election for Nader.
Post a Comment