Don't Get Too Excited

[poliphilo]

In order to have a run at the Presidency of the USA you'll have had to eat a lot of crow and tread on a lot of fingers. Obama, Clinton, Romney, McCain- these are not nice people. 

And all of them- long since- will have ceased to have much to do with people like us- that is to say people without power or the hunger for power. The people they mostly consort with are those they can do deals with, those who can give them money or deliver support.

That's the nature of politics.

Whoever gets in they'll be beholden to the same baronial powers, in hock to the same military-industrial complex. It'll be nice to have a change of face at the top- and if that face turns out to be black or female it'll be a cheering indication of how social attitudes are changing- but that's all it'll be.

Comments

[upasaka.livejournal.com]

You are frighteningly correct. The whole system is flawed because no one can even begin to think about running for office without having access to a lot of money somehow. In the end, it's the money that gets people elected and it's the people with a lot of it who remain in control.

[poliphilo.livejournal.com]

Money always has the last word. I'm reading Balzac at the moment and he goes on and on about the power of money. Nothing changes.

[saare-snowqueen.livejournal.com]

I disagree. I think there is the possibility of real change here with Clinton or Obama. America is not as rock-rigid as you think.

[poliphilo.livejournal.com]

I'd like to agree. This isn't an attack on America. I could have said the same about any set of politicians in any Western democracy. As for the countries that aren't western democracies....

[algabal.livejournal.com]

I don't really see how Obama threatens to scale back the military industrial complex, which is going to be essential for any meaningful change. I suspect he will imitate Bill Clinton's foreign policy in Africa and the Middle East. Can you see him closing down our bases in South Korea, Japan and Germany?

Regardless of how you feel about him, Ron Paul is the only one here presenting an alternative philosophy.

[frumiousb.livejournal.com]

I've told this story before, and I suppose that it isn't really counter-evidence, but still. I have a friend who works at a bookstore. One of these candidates has been coming in there for years. He said that he is *unfailingly* wonderful to staff, genuinely interested in books and learning, and a really nice guy. It lightened my heart a bit.

[poliphilo.livejournal.com]

Obama?

I'd like to believe the next President will really change things round, I really would...

[frumiousb.livejournal.com]

Yes, I guess that it does no harm to say that it's Obama.

But there is a difference between good intentions and ability to turn the situation around, you know?

[poliphilo.livejournal.com]

I can't see any of the others spending time in a bookshop. (And Clinton's not a "he").

My concern with Obama is that he's all charisma and good vibrations with nothing much underneath.

[sculptruth.livejournal.com]

I wouldn't say there's nothing much underneath, but drive, inspiration, and charisma and all around good-guy won't make things happen in the White House. I don't want to be sold a dream; I want action from whomever eventually ends up there.

Not that I don't think he's electrifying and all the rest-- I just want concrete dynamism. We need a force.

Clinton, while I don't agree with everything, just comes across a little better as someone who while not wildly popular, could potentially get the job done.

I am as yet undecided. Unfortunately, because of our antiquated voting system, I can't get out of work to Caucus this Saturday and Washington State's primary election is an overblown popularity poll because it's A) too late in the game and B) Democrats only choose their delegates from the Caucus.

[poliphilo.livejournal.com]

Something that no-one here has mentioned yet is the dynastic element in Clinton's bid for power. It seems to me inherently unhealthy for power within a democracy to run within families.

[sculptruth.livejournal.com]

Oh people are definitely bringing that up around here, lately. It's not uncommon in our Presidential history though-- it's happened since the beginning. I guess that's why we don't think about it as much? It has a dangerous feel in this day and age, I'll admit.

[margaretarts.livejournal.com]

I would have to imagine it's Obama, as well. No one else fits the profile, as far as I can see!

[halfmoon-mollie.livejournal.com]

I work in a law school - yes, I know, boo for lawyers - and I've seen any number of now politicians come through here. MOST of them were really nice, very sweet, well mannered. But when it comes right down to it, you have to compromise yourself if you want to have power. It truly is a lot like West Wing, in that you have to compromise your beliefs. YOu write a bill giving (for example) the right to medical care to all the children in the United States. Then someone in the Senate who helped you out, who delivered votes for you to be elected, says "Well, all the children in the U.S. EXCEPT those whose parents are a same sex couple. And if you don't write it that way, I won't sign it and it will die in committee."

It is disillusioning.

[pondhopper.livejournal.com]

You're right but as sad as it sounds, it has to be better than what there is now and if anything, a lot more people are excited about voting this time around. If it weren't for politics I think both Hillary and Obama are probably pretty nice people as people go.

[poliphilo.livejournal.com]

Almost everybody will be glad to see the back of team Bush.

"nice people as people go"- well yes, we're none of us saints.:)

[msjann65.livejournal.com]

Contrary to the propaganda put out by the Republican machine, the Reagan years were terrible - for the economy and for the little people. He came into office after touting Jimmy Carter's 65 billion dollar deficit and within six months had tripled it. Less than a year later, he increased the national debt to its first trillion, meanwhile, cutting taxes (for guess who?). The Clinton years were good ones for the little people. The economy picked up, everyone (it seems) was working, there were no fuel "shortages". The only thing that was "terrible" about the Clinton years was the Republicans' harassment of not only him, but also of Hillary. That's right, they started on her the day after his election and have not let up since. Bill Clinton left office with a big surplus rather than a deficit, and George the Second spent it on tax cuts and "rebates" to the poor people (I sent mine back with a note to "please apply to the national debt, as Mr. Clinton suggested". John Kerry is a good and honest man, also a neighbor of sorts here on the Hill -- I have known his work ever since the days of the Vietnam protests. Republican lies are what defeated him, but only by a narrow margin. Now after seven years of George Bush the Second we have another unwinnable war and the national debt is seven trillion and growing daily. No, I am not afraid of Hillary Clinton. She is tough enough to beat the Republicans at their "swift-boat" campaign tactics without resorting to the same. She has done a great job for seven years in the Senate. She stuck to a philandering husband even after the public humiliation of it all. She has the guts to stick it out, no matter what happens.
However, I pity the next president, whether it is a Democrat or a Republican. He or she will have such a terrible mess to deal with, and after the last seven years the people want fast action.

[solar-diablo.livejournal.com]

The one thing in this entire process that gives me some degree of hope is that it looks as though the Evangelical Right has lost a great deal of its political influence. It's still a player, to be sure (it's the only thing keeping Huckabee in the race), but even in the GOP you can see it no longer has the stranglehold on power it once did.

[poliphilo.livejournal.com]

Obama attracts me because of his aura of youth and hope- but I think you're probably right- Clinton is battle-hardened and intelligent and probably the best bet.

I think the rest of the world will give whoever gets elected an easy ride (at least at first) on the simple strength of him or her not being Bush.

[halfmoon-mollie.livejournal.com]

the sad thing is, this is not the way our system was 'originally' designed. But, see, you have to have money in order to get into the race - and then of course, if you don't have money you have to get it from somewhere, so here are 'those you do deals with', etc.

People don't seem to realize it's just an illusion. I vote because it's my right and my duty, but I am under no illusions that the person I vote for - no matter WHO - will be much different from the last umpty nine presidents.

[poliphilo.livejournal.com]

Has there ever been a president who was a man of moderate means? I know some of them- Lincoln for instance- started off life in log cabins, but was there ever one who wasn't seriously rich by the time he ran for office?

I don't know my history as well as I should

[halfmoon-mollie.livejournal.com]

There is so much posturing. Last time around, poor John Kerry got roasted for wearing his 'Dickies' jacket (Dickies is the name of a popular brand of outdoor clothing here) and you could see he'd probably never had one before (and oh, yes, "Who among us does not love NASCAR.") He tried too hard. I can remember watching the debates the first time Bill Clinton ran, and he was down in the audience shaking hands. Probably a lot of 'us' think that when someone seems approachable, that makes them someone who knows what it's like to not be rich.

People ALSO forget that the prez can say he'll change such and such, but unless he has the support of Congress, it ain't happening.

This has nothing to do with your question, Tony. The answer to that is "I don't know."

Re: I don't know my history as well as I should

[poliphilo.livejournal.com]

Bill Clinton obviously likes being round people (it probably energizes him) so all that glad-handing comes across as sincere. He's a lucky guy. He's got a charismatic and attractive personality and he doesn't have to work too hard to convince the crowds that he's one of them.

Politicians who don't have the "common touch" are better off not trying to fake it. We're wise now to the forced smiles and the publicity stunts. If you can't convincingly present yourself as a man of the people then go for an image that plays to your strengths. Our own Gordon Brown is a grim, unclubbable soul and wisely (most of the time) has chosen to project an image of rectitude and competence. It's not very exciting, but it has always worked for him.

A president of moderate means

[margaretarts.livejournal.com]

I can't verify this quickly, but I'd imagine Jimmy Carter wasn't terribly rich. Both the Carters and the press made quite a big deal of his homespun ways during his presidency. And I'm sure there have been others. Not many, but some. Grant? Eisenhower? These were generals who seem to have come to the presidency not by money but through fame as war heroes. Washington was a war general, too, but I think he was also filthy rich.

To those who feel Obama is not intelligent, I strongly suggest watching an in-depth debate or interview (I'm sure YouTube has many archived) and see how well Obama handles the issues when given the chance, when not lobbed silly questions about whether he is black enough or too white or whatever! He's not fluff; he is brilliant. The last time we had a brilliant, optimistic president was JFK, and I'd love to see that happen again.

Clinton may be smart, too, but it's a mean kind of smart that seems to want nothing better than to smash the other side. I keep thinking her main goal is to pay back the world in general and her husband specifically for the pain we have all caused her. (Excellent reason to become president, by the way. Look how well it's worked with younger Bush rebelling against his father.) She doesn't seem to care a fig about the American people overall, but I believe Obama does. Call it naive; okay, give us naive.

Re: A president of moderate means

[poliphilo.livejournal.com]

Washington was a big landowner- which means he had slaves- something that tends to get airbrushed out of the picture.

As far as the outside world is concerned any of the likely winners- Clinton, Obama or McCain- would be a huge improvement on GWB.

Re: A president of moderate means

[margaretarts.livejournal.com]

Yes, that fact does get airbrushed out. Washington brought some of his slaves from Virginia to his executive mansion (then in Philadelphia) to serve him as president! And he rotated them back to Virginia so they wouldn't get their freedom after 6 months, a Philadelphia law. Imagine their frustration.

Plus ca change, plus ca meme chose. The state of Virginia, until just a few years ago (2000?), refused to honor our national holiday, Martin Luther King Day, and instead called it Jackson-Lee-King Day. Two white Confederate generals celebrated in front of a black Civil Rights leader. A kick in the groin if there ever was one.

Not sure if McCain would be an improvement. He has a temper and an ego -- both enormous. He seems unable to control either.

Political pragmatism trumps idealism in every time

[solar-diablo.livejournal.com]

I think Obama generates so much excitement and buzz because people see in him a break from the establishment you define here. But you and other people here commenting are spot on - a) the next president is inheriting a godforsaken mess, both foreign and domestic (Bush took two terms to reduce everything to a state of FUBAR, it will take a long time to correct it), and b) he or she is going to need to be able to play the political game of backroom deals and compromise to get anything of significance done.

I've a feeling that if Obama manages to win the White House, more than a few of his doe-eyed supporters will be disillusioned to the core after his first year in office.

Re: Political pragmatism trumps idealism in every time

[poliphilo.livejournal.com]

I don't have a vote- but if I had I think I'd be voting for Clinton. I don't like her as a person, but that's not what it's about, is it? I think, all things considered, she's the strongest candidate on offer.

Re: Political pragmatism trumps idealism in every time

[solar-diablo.livejournal.com]

I'm registered as an Independent, so in the case of the primary election I'm in the same boat you are (no vote). All I can say at this point is that I'm leaning toward voting for the Democratic nominee in November, and I'm more comfortable with Clinton than I am Obama. And like you, that leaning is based on something other than likeability.

[kishenehn.livejournal.com]

As your first commenter said, you are frighteningly correct. Much as we want to believe the system is truly participatory, as individuals we're just along for the ride ... and the true powers that be don't want real change. And so it goes ...

[poliphilo.livejournal.com]

Democracy is in crisis. We the people have seen through it. This isn't a happy state of affairs...

[poliphilo.livejournal.com]

"A politician is the Devil's quilted anvil,
He fashions all sins on him and the blows
Are never heard."

John Webster.

[internet-sampo.livejournal.com]

I agree.

Recently I said, who cares if it's a feminine soul or a african-american soul who gets elected when either one had to sell their soul to get this far?

On a more snarkier bent:
Last night as my wife and I walked to the polls we passed a Hillary campaigner and I addressed my wife: "So you're gonna' vote for Hillary and I'm voting for Obama?"

[poliphilo.livejournal.com]

It would be nice to be able to put cynicism aside...

At least, whoever gets elected it won't be Dubya. I think it's a brilliant that your system prohibits a president from serving more than two terms.

[solar-diablo.livejournal.com]

Those slave-owning Founding Fathers weren't complete idiots, I tell you.

[mokie]

Thank you.

Thank you, thank you, thank you.