Dear MoveOn,

A year and a half ago, you asked me to choose which Presidential candidate MoveOn, as an organization representative of my beliefs, should support and promote. I chose Barack Obama, as did many other MoveOn members. So many, in fact, that he received your endorsement for the Presidency; support which undoubtedly had a significant influence on the election results of 2008. Barack Obama is now President, thanks to our hard work.

And the country has yet to see the Change and Hope upon which he based his platform.

This is all the more disturbing considering the Democratic majority in Congress. Now that they have a so-called “super majority“, one would think that meaningful reform would be ushered immediately and gracefully onto the floor. But this has not happened, and according to any intelligent reading of the reports from Congress, it’s not about to happen. Despite their ability to enact real change which would have a significant impact on the American people…Congress is not inclined. It’s easy to say compromise is important, but when you have offered extensive compromise and your opponent says “Not good enough!”, it is time to walk away and carve a path on your own. Democrats do not need to compromise to enact health care reform, alternative energy research, net neutrality, or any other goal they strive to achieve…all they have to do is vote for it. Their reluctance to do so speaks volumes about their loyalties and their fears.

It is understandable, given the results of the last Democratic attempt to implement health care reform(1), that they would be cautious now. Recent polls(2), however, make it clear that the majority of American people want universal health care. It is traditional to try to ease in change, rather than rush it forward before a majority of the people understand the necessity. Immediate and goal-oriented action, however, is required if the United States is not only to survive, but to prosper, during the coming energy crisis. A belief in the efficacy of “trickle down” economics(3) has driven most Americans into debt and dishonor(4), and the very idea that Internet providers have a right to choose the future of ideas based on ability to pay is a demonstration of where such backward thinking has brought us. Congress can change the future, any time they wish. They just choose not to.

I am writing to you, then, MoveOn, to ask you to do what you do best: tell people their hopes and dreams are on the line, and it is up to them to make sure their elected representatives actually represent. If we want universal health care, we are going to have to demand it, louder than all the corporate interests and “Socialism Sucks!” naysayers who are making them wonder about the longevity of their appointment. If they supported the bill which makes the difference between life and death for the children of hard working, low income American families…they will be reelected, with or without the help of the insurance and pharmaceutical industries. If we want clean energy and energy independence, we are going to have to write them, call them, show up at their offices with statements, arguments, and petitions until they realize that voting for funding which leads to less pollution, more financial security, and higher employment rates will get them reelected even without the support of fossil fuel dependent corporations which are desperately trying to cling to the pipe dreams of their youth. We can insist upon Net Neutrality, so that the Internet remains a place where every idea has a chance of being heard. For that matter, we can go further and ensure equal rights for homosexuals, abolish no-victim crimes, and end a few unnecessary military engagements. We can release some innocent men from Guantanamo, ditch the Patriot Act, and make sure that no President can ever, ever again take such unwarranted liberties with our Constitution as the last one did(5). Just this once, we don’t have to compromise. We can make change happen.

And we must, because time is disappearing beneath us. If the current administration, the current Congress, continue to do nothing for the next year, we will lose the power to enact the changes we so desperately need. The Democratic majority will be lost in the next mid-term election, the Presidency two years after that. While action may risk failure, inaction guarantees it.

So please, use your influence, your ability to pull people together, to remind us all that our work is not even half done. We have one good chance, right now, to change our lives for the better. Please don’t let it slip away.

Thank You,

Celestina Adams

Notes:
(1) Yes, I just referenced Wikipedia. Because it’s often accurate. And when it’s not, it is at least more amusing than Fox News.

(2) Just gotta mention this part While seventy three percent of Democrats favor a tax increase to fund coverage, only twenty-nine percent of Republicans back such a move. Seriously, guys, this makes you look like a bunch of assholes. I know you probably have your reasons…but you probably need someone saner than Glen Beck to try to vouch for you at this point.

(3) One of the weirdest things that has happened in my lifetime is the idolization of Reagan. I know this is likely to get me crucified, but seriously people…he was a pathetic actor, and his Presidential highlights were largely based around watching Nancy throw her voice to cover his increasingly slurred/sugar-high gibberings. He was never, ever a “great” President. Get over it.

(4) New Appalachian farewell blessing: “May the wind be always at your back, and the repo man always under your heel…”

(5) Want to argue that point? Be my guest…

Just who is significant? Photo by highkey11, creative commons license

Could we possibly have a nominee who hasn’t won any of the significant states — outside of Illinois? That raises some serious questions about Sen. Obama.

This is a campaign which has stated its determination to fight for Michigan and Florida being included in the DNC because “every vote should count”, but all those votes in all the 21 states aside from Illinois which Obama won…are insignificant? Perhaps what Senator Clinton’s campaign is trying to say is that they care about the voters in Michigan and Florida because those states are significant. I guess I can see it from her perspective.

But then there’s how she claims she really cares about the middle class, the “everyman”, if you will. And yet, she rents out her donor lists cheap to a megacorporation whose CEO has helped her out in the past. It’s just weird, and I can’t quite get my head around it. Somehow her populist message isn’t sounding very populist. Perhaps corporate friends are more significant than mere citizens.

So, we’re on to talking about Texas and Ohio, two states which are significant and in which by all accounts Senator Clinton must win big if she is to continue to be significant herself. She is counting on the support of the Hispanic community (commonly ignored as insignificant, but not in election season), particularly as she seems to be losing ground with the (also normally insignificant) black and women demographics. Somehow, though, despite the recent change in staffing for her campaign and her declarations that she’s not done, yet, I don’t feel like Hillary is getting it. This whole grass-roots support concept that Obama has so successfully built his campaign upon is not trouncing her because their stated intentions are so very far apart. It’s because Obama makes each one of us feel significant.

Dismissing With Nonsense

The fact that we have a contest between a woman and a black man is a wonderful demonstration of how much prejudices are being eroded in this country. And the facts that Hillary is a woman and Obama is black have nothing whatsoever to do with their qualifications as a leader. It may have some bearing on their ability to withstand the general election, but they are equally at a disadvantage there, so it is well past time we stopped focusing on those external differences and got down to more important things.

Likewise, we can and should refuse to listen to inane babble such as how Obama is secretly Muslim and is therefore going to hand us over to the terrorists. Such childish slanders are beneath playground children, and they are certainly beneath us.

The fact that both Obama and Clinton have changed their position on issues over the years is not a sign of weakness or lack of leadership on either of their parts. It’s a sign of intelligence, a mind that reevaluates situations once given more information. A characteristic not present in our current President, much to the detriment of our nation over the last seven years. So stop harping about it, and pay attention to what they are saying they want to do now.

It’s time we stopped discussing “experience”. Senator Obama has served in his federal legislative position for three years, and Senator Clinton has served in hers for seven. Before that, Obama was an Illinois state senator for seven years, and Clinton was First Lady for eight. Neither of them has much experience, and neither of them has any experience being in the position of President of the United States. It is true that Senator Clinton lived in the White House while her husband was President, and it is true that she worked in a diplomatic capacity while First Lady and undoubtedly talked with her husband about many of the issues current to that time. This does not equate to having experience making those decisions. The whole experience argument is ridiculous, and best let rest when we are comparing two junior Senators and their qualifications for the Presidency.

The Real Differences

Senator Obama and Senator Clinton have remarkably similar positions on most issues. Much of the grandstanding on their differences is hogwash. Their stances on abortion are the same, their stances on climate change policy are very similar, their stances on illegal immigration are nearly identical (excepting Obama’s willingness to give illegal immigrants driver’s licences). They have similar approaches to improving the economy. At this point they are both opposed to the war in Iraq, and both have plans to slowly get the troops out. Obama would talk with the Iranian President and the leaders of other nations we “don’t like”, Clinton would not (or at least, not at first), though they both claim that they would engage in diplomatic talks with Iran before ever considering military force.

There are some significant differences in the Senators approaches to technology, in that Obama has presented a carefully-crafted plan which covers a broad range of tech-related subjects, including net neutrality, increasing the reach and speed of broadband, protecting children vs. First Amendment rights, and using modern technology to increase transparency and citizen participation in government. Senator Clinton’s plan looks sort of weak by contrast, particularly her support of the Connect America plan, which has come under fire for being based on the controversial Connect Kentucky plan which has been alleged to be a sop to Telecom lobbyists. If your life centers around the Internet (not that anyone reading this could possibly fall into that category, then Obama is a better choice.

Just a couple of days ago, Senator Clinton came out and said she would be willing to consider garnishing the wages of the uninsured, in order to get health insurance to all. It’s one solution to how she can make health insurance mandatory for all United States citizens. Senator Obama’s plan, by contrast, is an opt-in system, based on his idea that if insurance were affordable, people would not willingly choose to be uninsured. Your choice here basically boils down to how you feel about health insurance being mandatory.

If you are deciding your vote based on the candidates platforms, however, you can probably support one if you can support the other. It will not be the details of their disagreements which decides this election.

The real difference between these candidates is whom do you believe can and will carry through with their promises?

Obama has sworn not to take donations from federal lobbyists, whereas Clinton continues to do so and says she doesn’t see a problem with it. Obama’s “pre-politics” history is one of defending principle, while Clinton’s is largely one of defending corporate interests, with some charity work on the side.

Throughout the primaries, Clinton’s campaign has used steadily dirtier tactics in attempts to distort Obama’s history and message. She has been called on it again and again. As for Obama, he was accused of making underhanded attacks when he brought up Senator Clinton’s history sitting on the Wal-Mart corporate board, but this was a true statement, as far as it went, and a far cry from the blatant falsehoods being espoused by Clinton. Comparing the list of dirty plays, Senator Obama just comes up way short.

There is also the question of who would be the most effective and inspirational leader, and in this regard Obama wins hands down. Senator Clinton began this race as a polarizing figure, and her choices while it proceeds has only served to deepen that rift. We have lived through seven years of a deeply divided nation, no one wants to live through four more.

Lastly, let us consider who can actually win against a Republican candidate in November. Has anyone really forgotten the years of the Clinton Presidency? The controversies and scandals that were put down, rather than resolved? They will be back in a heartbeat, should Senator Clinton receive the nomination. They will take her down eventually, even if it’s just because the strain of withstanding them causes her to cry on camera a few too many times. The sympathy vote will only last so long, and sooner or later it will be recognized that she is simply too encumbered by ethical issues to serve as our President. Obama, however, has a remarkably clean slate thus far. While the Democrats are busy choosing which candidate to back, Republicans are already beginning to cross the aisle in support of Obama.

Where You Cast Your Vote Matters

Despite misgivings over the voting system, the message you send with your vote is deeply important. In casting your ballot, you choose between a known quantity — that of Hillary Clinton and all the good and bad which she represents, or an untested option — that of Barack Obama and what his promises might bring. It’s not enough to say that Washington is corrupt and there is no hope anywhere. You are still making a choice, and whether you believe the spiel of either candidate, your vote represents what you want to see happen in this nation. It is a message which will be read and understood, and with enough effort, it is a message which may yet make a difference.

Just look at that crowd… — Photo by roxannejomitchell’s photos, Creative Commons.

There are no false hopes. We need all the hope we can get. We have been living in a cultural dark ages, and it’s time we crawled out of it.

Seeing the terribly serious look on my son’s face as he said this sent shivers up my spine and reminded me what all the politics is really for. We are fighting these battles not for ourselves, to see our own ideas writ large across the face of this country, but for our children and our neighbors and all the people with whom we don’t agree. We all want to feel safe in our homes, we all want to believe that justice can once again be a word whose meaning we all understand. We all want our children to be fed and cared for, and we all want our elders to be able to retire with dignity. We all want clean air and clean water, and we all want each person to have an equal opportunity to make their mark on the world. We all need a release from the fear and the cynicism and the paralyzing sensation of helplessness which has become an inherent and accepted tradition among American citizens. We are all fighting so hard because we care so much, and in the end we care about the same things. We need to believe once more that perhaps there is something valuable our nation has to offer. That we can overcome our surface differences, our disparate religions and political parties and notions of what solutions will provide the best way forward to recognize that we are all, in the end, looking for the same thing: America.

It’s not a false hope to say that perhaps we can find a way forward. It’s not a false hope to say we can talk to each other and take the best parts from every system of belief and meld them into a new whole which may be greater than its various parts. We would be fools to let the cynics dictate our future. If all you ever have are small dreams, then the best you can ever achieve is a small vision, not much greater than where you started. But with big dreams, the dreams that have lain dormant in the hearts and minds of every person in this nation as we felt our country spinning farther and farther away from its original promise, every step we take forward is one piece in a much greater whole. We are at a juncture where only big dreams and the courage to hope will spark real change.

The quality that Barack Obama has which Hillary Clinton will never share is the ability to inspire. The President of the United States does not make the laws. He cannot enforce justice or ensure that our babies are born safely or promise care for our elderly. But what he can do, must do, is be the inspiration to others to try harder, work together, to make change happen. He must be a force which people want to follow, who gives us a reason to believe. Listening to people talk about Obama, reading the editorials, the bloggers, and even those who have come forward to endorse him, it is clear that not only do they want him for President: they believe in him. In Obama they see not a single man, they see a movement in which we are all a part, a slowly swelling tidal wave which can sweep over this nation and perhaps create something greater than any individual could ever accomplish.

Think, for just a moment, of the potential in that belief, of the power of a nation which could once again see past the divisive politics of the last seven years. And then please, when you close that little curtain and cast your vote, have the courage to hope.

Reminds me of “The Hanged Man”…*sigh* - Photo by Austen Squarepants. (License: Creative Commons Attribution)

Your Vote Kinda Counts

In the Democratic Presidential primaries, some votes count more than others. Which is to say that your vote counts just as much as everyone else who shows up at your polling station, but we all know that the Democratic candidate is not chosen by the people. He or she is chosen by the Democratic delegates. Which, you may say, is essentially the same thing, since the delegates vote for whomever received the most votes in their district. Not so fast. You are aware, aren’t you, that there are in fact two classes of Democratic delegates? There’s the regular 3,253 delegates, which depending on where you live, will be elected or appointed in mysterious ways at some point or other over the next five or so months. These delegates must vote for whomever their district chooses. And then there are the “super-delegates”, who are appointed by the Democratic National Committee. All 796 of them. That is, in case you were wondering, right about 20% of the Democratic primary vote. So working it out, (using 2004 Democratic primary turnout statistics), each delegate’s vote in the DNC is worth approximately 3,989 of our votes, but a fifth of those voting will not be bound in any way to vote according to the will of the people. They’re old-school political hacks, such as Bill and Hillary Clinton (guess who they’re voting for?), appointed by the party to make sure that the will of the people doesn’t conflict with the tried-and-true methodology of party wisdom. Just bear that in mind, when you go into the little booth and pull the curtain to choose your Democratic party Presidential candidate. Assuming you actually get a vote. Which brings us to…

How Independents Get Screwed

Perhaps you look at the two major political parties in the United States, and they both strike you as corrupt, mismanaged, and generally not anything to which you ever want your name attached. So you sign up as an “Independent”. It seems like a simple decision, until you get to primary season, where, depending on your location, it can become quite a big problem. In some states, as an Independent you get the joy of voting in either the Democratic or Republican primary. Seeing as there are no “Independent Primaries”, this makes sense and you are probably rather pleased that you can choose between all the candidates in an attempt to pick the least offensive one. In other states, however, you get no vote whatsoever. Like North Carolina, the location from which I am writing this little rant. Now mind you, I wouldn’t really be annoyed about not getting to vote in the Democratic and Republican primaries if there were any viable third-party candidates and I could go choose one of them. But there aren’t, that our system is designed to keep it that way. Consider for example public funding of the Presidential elections, wherein a third-party candidate can receive some portion of the funding the Democratic and Republican candidates get, based on how well that party’s candidate did in last year’s election compared to the two “real” candidates. You folks who check “yes” on the voluntary checkoff box on our tax forms which is the source for public funding (though I sure wish you could chuck it at scientific grants or public education or something more useful), doesn’t it bother you just a little that you are fueling a process which limits the playing field without significantly reducing corruption? Ah well, probably not as much as it irritates Independents in Arizona, California, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Kentucky, Maryland, Massachusetts, Nebraska, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Utah, and West Virginia, none of whom get a vote in the primaries, even if they pay their $3.

And the Machines Still Suck

Look, I have harped on this so long I am sick of hearing myself go on about it. So to just sum up: the voting machines are still screwed, and we are going to hear accusations of fraud every single time they are used, from now through next November. You would think people would demand their replacement, if for no other reason than to get the conspiracy theorists to shut up.
Until and unless that happens, you have absolutely no assurance whatsoever that your vote was counted.

Expecting Change, Are You?

I am the last one to tell people to give up and sit quietly. As a nation, however, we cannot even begin to fix the problems we have institutionalized until we recognize them and call them by name. Obviously, these are just a few of the issues with our election system, the few that happen to be highest on the list if you happen to be an Independant voter who really wishes they could vote for a particular Democratic candidate in a back-assward state. But no matter who you are or where your beliefs fall in the political spectrum, if you truly want a democratic system, with the will of the people fully expressed, it is in your benefit to demand change. Not just for yourself, but for every single other person in this country.

Sock Monkeys Unite!! — Photo by Bolobilly on Flickr. (License: Creative Commons Attribution)

We have had plenty of evidence for seven years that our electoral system is shot through with flaws. The 2004 Presidential election merely underscored this point. And here we are again, after years of neglect and head-pats, facing an election that no one in their right mind is going to believe accurately reflects the votes cast. No matter who wins the 2008 Presidential election, if the system is not fixed, there will be many who question their right to hold the title of President of the United States. Why, in a country where we hold the democratic process in such high regard, has so little effort been made to ensure that election results are valid? Why have our Congressmen not demanded careful oversight of elections (in order to ensure that no one is unfairly disenfranchised or discouraged from voting), and proof of security and 100% accuracy from the voting machines our tax dollars purchase? For that matter, why have the American people, as a body, not been demanding more from our representatives?

My best guess on the last is that too few people realize that voting irregularities are not just conspiracy theories, they are real and verified fact. The machines we use to cast our votes are insecure and unreliable, and there is no reason they should be. You don’t have to believe that the 2004 election was “stolen” in order to recognize that the system is damaged and must be repaired. It doesn’t matter whether the machines have ever been hacked. They could be, and that is intolerable in a society which claims to base its representation on the will of the people.

Still sound “loony tunes” to you? By all means, don’t take my word for it. There are plenty of well-respected sources to fuel your righteous indignation. Please remember, as you read through the sources listed here, that not only are these your votes being potentially ignored or altered, but also your tax dollars paying for the privilege.

• Maryland’s 2004 independent review of its voting systems The inspecting agent claimed that the Maryland system, comprised of Diebold touch-screen voting machines contains considerable security risks that can cause moderate to severe disruption in an election. Diebold apparently fixed a bunch of machines some time after the election, but they continue to have problems.
• An Information Security Institute (John Hopkins University) report on Diebold’s AccuVote-TS machine found significant and wide-reaching security vulnerabilities. Diebold responded to their findings here, and the Institute rebutted Diebold’s rebuttal here.
• The Democratic National Convention report on voting irregularities in Ohio during the 2004 Presidential election found more than one quarter of all voters in Ohio reported some kind of problem on Election Day, including long lines, problems with registration status and polling locations, absentee ballots and provisional ballots and unlawful identification requirements at the polls, as well as significant problems with the voting machines used.
• Ohio is not the only state with problems. What is listed on this page is only the tip of the iceberg, a representative sample.
• Despite improvement, These problems have not been adequately resolved.
• These problems can be fixed.

No other election year issues really matter if we can’t ensure that every single vote cast is counted. As the numbers come in from the first hand recount of the election season, we are getting a clear demonstration that this is not the case. No election is valid if the results could be compromised. It doesn’t matter if they have been, we should never have to wonder. Please, take a few moments and write your Congressmen and your local board of elections and demand reform immediately.

History

Kucinich was born in Cleveland, Ohio in 1946. He was the eldest of seven kids, and the family moved around a lot as he was growing up, even living out of their car on occasion. He graduated from Case Western Reserve University with a MA in 1973. He was elected to the Cleveland City Council in 1969, and ran for a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives in 1972. He lost the election, but ran again in 1974…when he also lost. Undeterred, Kucinich was elected mayor of Cleveland in 1977. It was a controversial tenure, with the most glaring spotlight coming with his refusal to sell Cleveland’s municipal power company to a private industry competitor. In his staunch determination to not back down on this issue (one of his campaign promises), he refused to accept the ultimatum of six banks who threatened not to renew credit on Cleveland’s loans unless he capitulated. The end result: Cleveland was the first American city to go into bankruptcy since the Great Depression. He survived (barely) a mayoral recall, but was voted out of office by a landslide with the next election.

After close to five years of wandering, and difficulty finding employment due to his reputation as the mayor who went into default, he returned to Cleveland in 1983 and managed to win a seat back on to the council. The difference was that now people were beginning to see the benefits of his choice as mayor:

In 1993, then-Cleveland Mayor Michael White cited Kucinich’s “wisdom” in not selling the utility, and in 1998 the council honored the deposed mayor for having the “courage and foresight” to stand up to the banks. The utility, now known as Cleveland Public Power, provides low-cost electricity that saved the city an estimated $195 million between 1985 and 1995. One of the new buildings in its expanded plant is named for Kucinich.

source

In 1994 Kucinich made it to the Ohio state Senate seat, and in 1996 he was elected to the United States House of Representatives, where he remains today. He made an unsuccessful bid for the Presidency in 2004, and on December 11, 2006 announced his intentions to run for President in 2008.

Kucinich has earned for himself the reputation of being a man guided by his inspiration and his ambition. He has been variously labeled as loopy, pugnacious, mystical, and visionary. His history is certainly that of a man who is willing to stand behind his dreams and relentlessly fight to see them realized, and he is not at all shy about laying out those dreams in sparkling color for everyone else to see.

Developing the Vision

Of all the candidates thus far in the running, Kucinich has one of the longest political histories and one of the most clearly elucidated visions. He claims to comprehend the systems of power from the national to the local, and believes that the nation which was not ready to hear his message in 2004 is ready to hear it now.

Kucinich’s vision is well established both in his voting record and his own words. Domestically, he envisions an America made strong through rational policy. All children will be given the opportunity to begin public preschool at age three, and all children will be given the opportunity to attend public college. Drugs will be legalized (and rehabilitation centers will replace our overcrowded jail cells), and gun fatalities will become a thing of the past, due to the fact that people simply will not want or need guns anymore for anything other than recreation, and potential gun owners will be carefully evaluated for their competency. The death penalty will be abolished, and mercy will rise again in our courts, which will no longer be clogged and overworked due to the reduction in nonviolent crimes prosecuted.

Our unionized workers will contribute their efforts to environmentally conscious businesses which will pay fair wages, care for their employees, and be required to shut down to allow everyone to vote on election day (along with, perhaps, offering free tai chi classes and lunch break massages and meditation). Health care will be universally available, and will support not only allopathic but also alternative therapies. Locally grown, organic produce will grace every table as our people become strong and healthy again (meat will not be an issue, as everyone will have realized the moral turpitude associated with carnivorism, and will have become vegan). Oil dependency will be replaced by a wide range of alternative energy resources, improving the lives of American citizens while releasing us from some of our more contentious strategic efforts abroad. Abortion will remain every woman’s choice, though the necessity for it will lessen due to an increased awareness of both the advantages of abstinence and the availability of various means of birth control. Homosexual couples will finally attain the same rights as other couples in love, and we will all reclaim our rights as American citizens to be secure in our persons, houses, papers, and effects. Injustice, inequality, hatred, illness, and insanity will fade into the unfortunate past as we embrace the calmer, more peaceful, and more governmentally regulated possibilities.

On the international scale, war will become a thing of the past. We will negotiate in solidarity with other nations and take up our heavy role as the leader of peace and democracy in the world. We will work to correct injustice and inequality wherever we find it, addressing terrorism at its roots, rather than continually combating its symptoms.

From our new position of affluence and respect, we will reach out to aid those less fortunate than ourselves. We will join with other nations in endorsing the Kyoto Protocol, the Biodiversity Treaty, the Forest Protection Treaty, the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty, the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, the Landmine Ban Treaty, the Biological Weapons Convention, the Chemical Weapons Convention, the International Criminal Court, and others. Efforts to discourage other nations from actions which are considered damaging to the international community will be confronted on an international level, through the United Nations and other alliances. The United States will, however, withdraw from the WTO and NAFTA, for the sake of preserving its sovereign right to determine for itself what is best for its own workers. In short, we will stand tall and proud in our own accomplishments, while opening our arms to the rest of the world.

It is a beautiful vision, replete with scenes of love, peace, and harmony. The question remains, however, whether the United States is yet ready to embrace it. Perhaps The Smiths said it best back in 1987 when Morrissey crooned, “…maybe in the next world, maybe in the next world…”
Or perhaps, as Dennis Kucinich believes, the time is now

Note: This article is part of a series examining the visions of America presented by the 2008 Presidential candidates. The necessity for such a series is explored here, and an exploration of Rudy Giuliani can be found here

Rudy Giuliani once was, for many, a name vaguely associated with New York, police brutality, and perhaps personal controversy for those addicted to tabloid headlines. It was not until September 11, 2001, when the World Trade Center came tumbling to the ground and New York became the center of America’s anger, fear, and grieving, that Mayor Guiliani became a household name.

History

Rudy Giuliani was born in Brooklyn, NY in 1944 to second-generation Italian-American parents. He grew up in a working class, Catholic family, with a mix of “honest, decent citizens” and more dubious characters. He attended Manhattan College, and then New York University School of Law, from which he graduated cum laude in 1968. During these years he had student deferments to keep him out of the draft for the Vietnam War, and after graduation he became employed as a clerk for Judge Lloyd MacMahon, who wrote a special request to the draft board asking for another deferment for Giuliani, classifying him as an “essential employee”.

In 1970, Giuliani moved on to join the Office of the U.S. Attorney, and three years later became chief of the Narcotics Unit. In 1975, he became Associate Deputy Attorney General and chief of staff to the Deputy Attorney General in Washington, D.C. From 1977-1981 Giuliani worked in private law, until in 1981 he was appointed Associate Attorney General under President Ronald Reagan. In 1983 he was made U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, where he started making some headlines with high-profile cases.

In 1989, Giuliani ran for mayor of New York, losing the race to David Dinkins. Undeterred, he ran again in 1993, where his vows to clean up the city and crack down on crime won him the election by a relatively small margin. In 1997 he won his reelection by a much larger percentage, mostly due to his image as a “tough” mayor who had been responsible for the turn around in New York’s crime rate. It has been debated whether his hard-line tactics actually were the cause of the improved crime rate, or whether he was simply the beneficiary of a nation wide trend resulting from an improvement in the country’s economy, but either way the end result was the creation of an image of Giuliani as a man who gets things done. The other face of this image, however, is that of a man who turns a blind eye to police brutality in a Machiavellian stance of “the end justifies the means”. Under Giuliani’s watch, New York received the highest number of reports of police brutality and misconduct in its history.

On 9/11, Giuliani found himself facing one of the most tragic and overwhelming events in America’s past. New York City was awash in fear and speculation, and he gained national recognition in his efforts to keep order and soothe a devastated constituency. His frequent television and radio appearances assured the nation that everything was as under control as it could be, that recovery efforts were moving forward, that America would prevail. Critics allege that Giuliani’s speeches were merely that: speeches. That behind the nobly grieving facade, Giuliani bumbled repeatedly in his organizational efforts, making decisions both before and after 9/11 which cost lives during the rescue. Nevertheless, the image of Giuliani as “America’s Mayor” stands, mostly untarnished.

Developing the Vision

As Giuliani begins to rev up for his Presidential bid, he seems anxious to present America with a vision of strength and safety. He often references his presence at “Ground Zero” on 9/11, as a model for what kind of leadership he believes we need. Likewise, he references his success in turning around New York City’s crime rate as a model for what the United States can become. Thus far, he has been noncommittal with regards to international issues, saying that withdrawal from Iraq would be a mistake, but hedging that losing the war in Iraq will not end the War on Terror. He has not taken a stand on international trade or how to deal with an increasingly powerful China, but he has stated that we should open the oil reserves as a means of dealing with rising fuel prices. He recently revealed that he does accept the evidence of global warming, and feels that large corporations must be forced to limit pollution if we are going to combat it. Based on his previous actions, then, and his current statements, let’s take a look at what Giuliani’s vision for America might look like.

Giuliani appears to envisage a world which balances delicately on the juncture where conservatism meets liberalism. Gay marriage would be accepted and abortion would continue to be legal, but there would be “decency standards” for publicly funded institutions. Exactly what standards these would be is unclear, for while Giuliani is a Catholic, he does not support prayer in school or using religion as a foundation for government. The government would become smaller, with less bureaucracy and more technology. Taxes would be cut, but so would welfare, as Giuliani believes staunchly in a social contract where every service has a responsibility to accompany it. Job training centers would replace welfare centers, and everyone would have a job, including illegal immigrants, whom would swiftly be set on the right track for full citizenship.

Crime would be a thing of the past in Giuliani’s future, but at the sacrifice of personal privacy and some civil rights. An extensive, detailed computer network would hold fingerprints and DNA information for all American citizens, and law enforcement would be given great leniency to pursue even the smallest crimes. Graffiti, panhandling, and shoplifting would become a thing of the past, and more heinous crimes would be met with swift punishment. Children would walk safely through the streets, if only because no one would dare to provoke the wrath of the well equipped and infallible civilian police force.

The education system would be revamped, with an emphasis on competition and consumer choice, with a wide range of public, private, and charter schools available. Technological advancement would be pushed on many levels, from the classroom to the laboratory, with computers on every desk and stem cell research being federally funded. With such encouragement, who knows what other scientific advancements would be right around the corner?

On the international stage, we can only guess with regards to Giuliani’s vision, but his statements thus far regarding Iraq and his belief in zero-tolerance policies allow us to make an educated guess. We can assume aggressive military action would be a route Giuliani would be willing to continue to follow, though perhaps preceded by efforts at “tough talk” diplomacy, in the tradition of President Reagan, whom he admires deeply. His professed belief in the need to crack down on large corporations in order to curb global warming would be at odds with his previous actions to ensure economic growth in New York City, and so perhaps he would offer incentives, rather than legal requirements.

Giuliani’s vision of the future is a picture of blue-white tranquility, with the silent evenings coasting by the windows of the righteously resting. We the people work hard by day, keep the system moving with the financial rewards of our efforts in the evenings, and settle down in complacent tranquility at night to sleep the sleep of the innocent. The worries with which we trouble ourselves now will fade into the past like the bad dreams they were, and we will put our trust in the representatives of the government to keep all moral detritus swept off of our streets and out of our grasp.

Rudy Giuliani clearly has a vision. The only question remaining is whether it is one in which we want to live.

The United States of America has been hurtling down a damaging track for the last twenty years at least, and in the last decade we decided to throw out the handbrake and barrel full tilt into the horizon with blind faith as to our eventual destination. How did this happen?

Americans were sold a dream, a vision, which promised prosperity for all our citizens, a secure place at the top of the global food chain, and complete impunity from anyone foolish enough to oppose us. The foundation work for this vision could be argued to stretch as far back as the Revolutionary War, was strengthened through our triumph (and economic turn-around) in World War II, and was tested on the world stage through the 1970’s and ’80’s. The real, public marketing campaign, however, began in 1998, with an open letter sent to President Bill Clinton signed by members of the Project for the New American Century, which advocated:

• The removal of Saddam Hussein and his minions from power, using military force, in order to ensure that Iraq could not have weapons of mass destruction.
• That the United States not allow itself to be “crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council”.

In their Statement of Principles, which was written in 1997, PNAC lists four “consequences” of the lessons of recent history:

• we need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global
  responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future;
• we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values;
• we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad;
• we need to accept responsibility for America’s unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles.

These, then, are the foundation stones for the vision PNAC has given The United States. Lacking any cohesive alternative, this is the vision we have pursued. Yet despite our fevered attempts, the PNAC vision is not working out quite as planned. Perhaps, we have simply not given it enough time. A few more decades, a few more wars, and America’s role as supreme force in the world will be secured, with all Americans healthy, wealthy, and wise. Only a few facts stand in the way of this evaluation.

While we have been hammering away in an attempt to challenge hostile regimes, we have found that it alienates our democratic allies. While we promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad, we are struggling with domestic economic issues and have reason to question our own political freedom. In short, while trying to shape the world in our image, we have found that perhaps our image is flawed and that those failings translate quickly to the other nations we try to “save”. This is a trend which will continue as long as we continue to pursue a fundamentally flawed vision.

What is needed, then, more than specific promises and myopic principles, is a new vision for America. We must evaluate our candidates for the Presidency not just on their reactions to various immediate issues, but also (and perhaps primarily) on their capability to envision a future America which will better serve our needs and desires. What role should we seek for our country on the global stage? How can we provide the necessary tools for happiness and opportunity to a nation of 298,444,215 (and growing)? We must demand a President who can think both broadly and deeply, a candidate who comprehends both history and current events and can place them in a context for the future. The vision provided us must be both appealing and practical.

After a recent article in which I attempted to find “dirt” on Presidential hopeful Barak Obama, I promised that I would follow up with an article enumerating his positive traits. This I intend to do, but in the context of an evaluation of his vision. I will then proceed through all the Presidential candidates in turn, examining their past actions and the vision they are presenting the American people. We must decide what compromises are reasonable in our more immediate concerns, in order to bring about a vision which will eventually serve us all.

An effective vision must answer the broad, sweeping questions about our future (“What role will the United States play on the global stage?”), but it must answer them in a way which makes it possible to see clearly how it will directly affect our concerns about specific, easy to visualize issues, if it is to be accepted by the majority of the American people. The question of how America will interact with the rest of the world, for example, must hold within its answer a clear picture of how we will end the war in Iraq. How we will become a happier and more prosperous nation must directly demonstrate how we will tackle poverty in our own borders, a lack of affordable healthcare, and millions of functionally illiterate citizens.

This is no small feat, in itself. Beyond the actual structure of the vision, though, it must be delivered by a candidate who can convey personal conviction, and a personal history to back up that conviction. Practically speaking, the American public is used to effective marketing, and evaluates the advertising campaign as much (if not more) as the product itself. Quite possibly no candidate yet running can successfully run this gauntlet. With two years yet to go to the election, however, it is not too late for them to realize the opportunity in front of them. With this election, they have the potential to lay the corner stones for deep change in United States policy. All they have to do is give us something in which to believe.

Some quick background on Obama, for those of you who may have (somehow) missed the exhaustive (and repetitive) anecdotes displayed so prominently in the news and in Obama’s own speeches:

Barak Obama’s father was from Kenya, his mother was from Kansas, and they met in Hawaii. His Dad took off when Obama was two, and his Mom later remarried and moved to Indonesia. Barak spent a couple of years in a Muslim school there, followed by a couple of years at a Catholic school (and the reports of his being a closet Muslim appear to be greatly over exaggerated). He slacked off in high school, smoked some dope and did some coke, and then went on to college at Occidental University in Los Angeles. He transferred in his junior year to Columbia University, where he majored in political science with a specialization in international relations and, by his own accounts “finally buckled down”. After Columbia, he worked for a couple of years as a “grass-roots community organizer”, and then applied to Harvard Law School, where he wound up becoming the first African American to be elected president of the Harvard Law Review. After that, he took jobs working for civil rights cases and lectured on Constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School.

Obama was elected to the Illinois State Senate in 1996, doing lots of good liberal deeds and earning a lot of respect for being able to cross partisan lines and hammer out compromises. In 2004, he made his run for one of the United States Senate seats for Illinois. Everybody said he was not “electable”, and yet he pulled 52% of the votes in the primary race…and with the incidental help of some nasty controversy surrounding his original opponent, Obama was elected Senator with a solid 70% of the vote.

It all sounds lovely so far…but we all know that no one gets into politics without some skeletons in their closet. I was determined to find Obama’s. Many hours and ten sore fingers later…I was dismayed. This is the summary of the fruits of my efforts:

• Obama used to smoke marijuana, did some cocaine, and still smokes cigarettes (though the latest reports claim that he is quitting). This was big news when it first hit the stands…but the American public by and large appears to be forgiving. After all, about 45.1 million people in the United States smoke cigarettes, nearly half of all Americans have smoked marijuana at least once, and 33.7 million Americans have tried cocaine. Guess most of us aren’t in the position to throw stones.
• Obama once bought a ten foot strip of land next to his property (apparently so he could put up a fence) from a woman who was married to a man who was a fundraiser for Obama, and who also is awaiting trial for trying to collect kickbacks on government deals. It’s really not Obama’s fault that the guy he bought land from is in trouble, so moving on…
• Obama once voted against having mandatory medical care available for aborted fetuses which survive the procedure. That really does not sound good. To my dismay, however, I also found his explanation: “It would essentially bar abortions because the equal protection clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this was a child then this would be an anti-abortion statute.” He realized a potential loophole in the wording. Ever play Nomic? Sadly, it appears that the man thinks, and thinks well.
• He voted against letting people use a self-defense argument if charged with violating local handgun bans by using weapons in their homes. This could be considered voting against the Second Amendment…if you have no logical capacity at all. It seems he was trying to maintain some consistency within the legal system. Hmmm…
• Salon.com went on a mission to dig some dirt on Obama’s environmental record, but wound up concluding: “This guy is a bona fide, card-carrying, bleeding-heart greenie.”
• As far as financial corruption, the man is reported as not even allowing anyone to “buy him a coke”. Apparently, he is squeaky clean here, as well.
• He voted “yes” on the Secure Fence Act of 2006. This was a foolish, short-sighted bill, and his support for it seems contradictory to much of his stated beliefs as to the means and methods for overhauling immigration policy. Ha! I’ve got you now, Obama! Too bad the rest of what you have to say on immigration reform makes so much damned sense.
• In March of last year, Obama voted to reauthorize the modified Patriot Act. This should have been the crowning blow…until I read his statement on the bill. Looks like he didn’t much like it, but thought it was better than nothing. On the one hand, we could consider this a sign of Obama being unwilling to strongly defend his beliefs. On the other, we are in desperate need of some diplomacy in our government, and this appears to be a diplomatic gesture. What to think?

This, so far, appears to be the worst of it. Unfortunately, in digging up all of these tidbits (only two of which could be considered “dirt”, the rest being a matter of voter opinion), I also ran across page after page of legislation he has sponsored with which I thoroughly agree, interviews in which he was both insightful and humorous, and speeches he has written which were so bloody articulate and clever that I felt a distinct longing to run out and buy his damned books. My conclusion, after reading Obama speeches and quotes until my eyes crossed, is that we appear to have a rare specimen on our hands: a thinking politician. No one is going to agree with Barak Obama on every single issue, because he appears to be a man with a broad vision and the intelligence to consider multiple angles on any issue. The result is as with any thinking person; he comes to logical conclusions which do not toe the party line. He appears to possess a deep and multifaceted mind comfortable with ambiguity and paradox, yet confident that satisfactory conclusions can be reached. In short, against all my wishes, I like the man. I respect his decisions, even when I do not agree with them.

The next question, then, is can he be elected? This is the hot topic in the news today, and the general underlying consensus appears to be “No!”. He is too inexperienced and too idealistic. He is too liberal, too fringe, he takes too strong a line on divisive issues. The Democrats, in short, think Hillary has a better shot at winning, and don’t want to gamble on a young, multiracial man with only a couple of years in national politics under his belt. They have been burned before, and all they want at this point is the Republicans out of the Chief Executive’s office.

The Democrats are missing something vital in their assessment, however. America is ready to gamble on a miracle. The last six years have so disheartened, so broken our nation that we will place our bets on a longshot and go for broke. The midterm elections were a demonstration of how disgusted the people have become. The initial acts of Congress this year have been, overall, a surprising show of recognition of the watchful eye of the American people. The 2008 election could be a quiet revolution.

The American people are exhausted from trying to sort through the lies and doublespeak of our politicians. We are war-weary, sick of partisan politics, burned out on fear. Americans are begging for hope and change, and offering up a middle of the road Republicrat will only discourage them more. Cynics, intellectuals, farmers, and craftsmen are enamored of Obama. Republicans and Democrats alike respect him and his ability to bring all sides of any issue to the table.

In short, the only thing keeping Obama from being “electable” is the Democratic Party’s fear of what will happen if they take a chance. It would be a pity to see that fear create a reality which merely ensures we will continue down a predictable path to a whimpering ruin. We have a chance, perhaps, to jump the rails. To take off into places we cannot predict, cannot guarantee, and right now do not quite even dare to dream that we could go. It is time. Just one last time, let’s muster our courage and dare to dream that it could be different. Truly, we have nothing to lose.