Usual Politics

Dear Friend or Friend of a Friend,

So, I thought about entitling this bit, Usual Suspects, to indicate who is running for office, but I figured that analogy was inapt, which would make the word inept. Because although there is a Clinton and a McCain, and though, there are senators and governors running for nominations, and the politics, ideologies, and tactics are pretty much the same, this is not your usual set of candidates. Some of the favorites include a Black guy, a woman, a Mormon, and a Catholic. Then, I thought about the old phrase, "politics as usual," which does describe the situation, and decided to merge the concepts. Of course, because the title of this blog was two steps removed, I felt the need to explain it. But as always, I stand by my firm policy, that it's not a good joke, story, or turn of phrase, unless I have to explain it. So, who are these cooky kids that want to lead us and make decisions on our behalf? Who are these people that want to replace President Bush on the burning effigies?

Because the topic is so sensitive and potentially explosive, I have decided to come clean with many of my political biases, so that I am not accused of the subtle and not so subtle biases of Fox News, CNN, or the New York Times. Additionally, should I choose to not disclose my slants, as in any journalism, I would necessarily be either partial to my favorites or decidedly against my favorites should I try to mask my slants. To be fair to the journalists, they are put in a terrible quandary, because a part of their job is to uncover the best stories, and often those stories are about the meek, and often the meek, tell tales of woe and misfortune, and often the misfortune will be blamed on the fortunate (regardless of whether the blame was deserved). Of course there is an appeal to blame the fortunate, the wealthy, or the powerful because, at the very least, they are not doing enough for charity (because there is never such a thing as enough for charity), and at the very most, they are the root cause of the suffering, via war, plundering of resources through importing goods and services, or exporting consumerism and commercialism. Globalization is dangerous, which is part of the reason I don't care to relearn any of the languages I've studied.

So, without further ado, I reveal my biases, which you will find are heavily personality dependent:

Rudy Giuliani: My uncle actually knows the mayor and presidential hopeful, and aside from being an ardent supporter of the candidate, considers the man a friend. My family, including myself, have long been fans of the mayor's and give the mayor a great deal of credit for the transformation of New York City from a veritable crack den in 1990 to a thriving metropolis in 2000. There are valid arguments to be made that the thriving economy played a role, and even that President Clinton's plan to add 30 police officers aided in the reformation, but in my opinion, having been in New York at the time, the transformation occurred almost instantaneously when Rudy took the reigns of the city. Many of the people outside of the city know of his heroics in the hours and days after 9/11, but to those of us who knew what he did for New York already, his forceful personality and its impact on the city again was not surprising. Of course, his harsh tactics, his policy towards controlling city funding for the arts, keeping various people out of City Hall, failing to improve the education system (while cutting the education budget substantially by getting rid of bureaucracy), and his boundless support of the police and firefighters (perhaps to a fault, if you see his support for officers accused of various torture tactics), was easy fodder for his many staunch detractors. And that was before we learned about the Kerik scandals (and his marital foibles and his excessive repetition of his 9/11 heroics). But his opinions, on the issues that matter to me, such as an aggressive foreign policy on terrorism, strong support for the nation of Israel, a focus on tax cuts over federal spending increases, emphasis on fighting crime (both national and international, such as terrorism,) and emphasis on freedom of the market (not total freedom, but vast freedom), and his predominantly socially liberal viewpoints, Rudy is my favorite candidate. Despite his gruff exterior, he is an articulate, well thought-out, authoritative leader, who was effective at achieving various goals for New York City, and notably, he was an inspirational leader during a time of crisis, which could be a useful asset for a president.
I have also read his book, Leadership.
Would he make a great president or a good president? We cannot predict the future, but we can undertake to make educated guesses about a candidate's future performance as a leader based on that candidate's prior "experience" and the "changes" that that person initiated. I am guessing, he would not make friends with any foreign leaders, but he often manages to get things done, and considering how often I agree with him, those are probably things that I want to be done.

John McCain- I worked for him in the 2000 election, trying to get his name on the Republican ballot in New York. I revere the man, and respect his war record, his political integrity, and his ability to bring both sides together. I respected that in the 2004 Republican Convention, he was the voice of reason, reminding the other speakers and listeners that in order to try to improve the country, it's best practice, if we could collaborate. He scares the Republicans because he is old, but also because when he does differ from the Republicans, he does not defer to the Republican Party, but instead he leads joint coalitions like in Campaign Finance Reform or Immigration. He scares the Democrats because even though he is actually the "uniter, not a divider," he is just about as conservative as President Bush (whatever the term conservative means anymore and probably one of the three main reasons why he "caved in" and forgave Bush for the brutal 2000 attack ads (another reason is because likely he wanted to be able to continue to lead in the Senate and he places great value in civility and finally because he wanted to be the Republican candidate for president)) Despite his respectability, he is pro-life, pro-Iraq war without assigning arbitrary deadlines, and whatever else you think it means that someone is conservative nowadays. I don't assign a premium on his age because he seems at least as healthy as the other candidates. I already explained why I like him so much, despite our numerous disagreements, so I will spare you further gushing.
I also read his book, Faith of Our Fathers.

Barack Obama- I respect his integrity, his reluctance to attack his fellow candidates, and his youthful vision of a kinder gentler nation. He scares Democrats because he is named Barack, Arabic for blessing, Obama, a surname of African descent: he is of multi-racial lineage, and he comes from a unique family with an absentee father and a well-traveled mother; and he also admitted to drug use at one point in his life. "How are the Republicans or America going to vote for someone like that?," the Democrats ask themselves as they pull the lever for Hillary Clinton. Of course, a lack of experience could be a factor in people's decisions, but Hillary Clinton, the "experienced" Democratic candidate, does not have presidential experience, does not have gubernatorial, mayoral, or any executive experience (save one task assigned to her by her husband, expounded upon below). Additionally, the only actual preparation for the presidency is being the president, and I have no reason to believe, Bush was better in his second term than he was in his first term (or Clinton or Reagan, regardless of your opinion's of any of them individually, their presidential experience did not noticeably improve their performance.) The idea of his lack of experience is only relevant if he is not able to handle new job responsibilities and pressures, but with his calm demeanor and intelligence, (probably the smartest politician since Bill Clinton, who I believe was brilliant, despite his flaws,) there is little reason to believe someone who knows more Washington people would be better than a president who maintains 1 or 2 staff members that know even more Washington people.
He scares Republicans, because despite all of his posturing, and tolerance for Republicans, despite his eloquence and commonality, he is, at his core, a very liberal candidate, both with his views on domestic policy and his views on foreign policy, such as his notions of open dialogue with enemies (which in certain circumstances could be interpreted as weakness). This is not to say that he is wrong, but it is part of a larger vision of the world whereby dialogue is a gateway drug to world peace. Also, he would be a calm intelligent presence on the world tours, and in the United States, he would be a rock star, of almost JFK proportions. True, JFK was a war hero, pulitzer prize winning author, and part of a widely known family, in addition to the fact that like Obama, he was an intelligent, charming, young, handsome senator with an appealing family. But our previous president was not some conquering general. So, our expectations might be diminished.
I also read his book, The Audacity of Hope.

So, those are my three favorite candidates in particular order, and now I follow with my varied opinions on other candidates in no particular order.

Mike Huckabee- he seems to be a good hearted folksy guy. He is also pretty quick on his feet, and is a Baptist Minister, who preaches to his flock. Fiscal Republicans believe that he is liberal when it comes to spending on welfare issues. So, he probably loses a large chunk of Republican money, and a portion of the Republican base. What about the Democrats, you ask. How could Democrats vote for a guy who is basically a more Christian version of George Bush? Would it be the end of the world if he won? No, but how in the world does this guy have a chance? Oh, right...

Hillary Clinton- now don't get me wrong, I don't blame her much for the debacle of her only executive experience: when Bill put her in charge of the healthcare system twelve some odd years ago. (That is in mild contrast to me not blaming Bill Richardson at all for the twin fiascos that attacked him upon taking over as the Secretary of Energy (sale of nuclear secrets and skyrocketing oil prices, neither of which had anything to do with him.)) True, she has an impressive diploma and probably a genius husband (I do not use that term lightly.) I will even go so far as to say that she served adequately in the Senate, but has anyone inspired more venom (with the possible exception of our current president) than this woman? Truth to tell, she has inspired more than a little ire in me over the years, from various stories, probably of varying degrees of truthfulness. And she is the one candidate that I have already decided, perhaps irrationally, to vote against (or at least to abstain in the case of me disliking the other candidate). Practically, I don't know where she stands on any of the issues because her whole "career" has been posturing for Bill Clinton's political fortunes, followed by her actual career, which started less than ten years ago, where she treads lightly hoping to float into the presidential seat (like Bush did riding his father's coattails). (See her stance on the Iraq war, she was for it before she was against it.) And perhaps more importantly, I have no clue what her vision for the future is. While Edwards and Obama have given us vague policy initiatives and an exuberance to their specific issues and demographics, they bring an excitement about their vision that Clinton lacks. Obama displays a particular and passionate interest in uniting the country from its vitriolic recent rift, while Edwards harps admirably on the health care issue. Instead, Clinton takes aim at the other candidates and runs against them, even when she was in the lead, such as attacking Obama for his lack of experience. Maybe someone with prior executive experience would be in a place to criticize like Romney or Huckabee or Rudy (and he had to deal with emergency and tragedy, {wink}), but a fellow senator with about 4 extra years voting on random crap, who has barely led any initiatives in the Senate, criticizing Obama's lack of experience? Or is her experience the fact that her husband was president? Or the healthcare debacle? The fact that she dealt with years of scrutiny does not prepare her for the presidency, no more than Paris Hilton is prepared to be president (or to be an actress or a singer) because she has dealt with fame. Or, as I believe Chris Rock put it (paraphrasing, you don't want a pilot's wife flying a plane or comedian's wife telling jokes). The fact that Hillary has been around D.C. for a long time is not the mark of experience because presidential experience is not obtained through osmosis or diffusion, it is obtained through action and leadership. And yes, Hillary is now experienced enough to serve as an adequate senator or a scrutinized first lady, but not experienced enough to criticize someone else's lack of leadership experience.

Will the world end if she becomes president? No, but will anything change? She said it herself, since she's been in a position to make a difference, a few hundred people in New Hampshire now have healthcare. That's it. I suppose anything we do is technically change and anything a politician votes for is change that affects others, but is that really the change the voters are looking for? I doubt it, and Iowa agrees with me.

And lest you think that a woman being president is the embodiment of change, wouldn't it be a bigger deal or a bigger change if Obama won? Look around the "Western" world, and you will see not many, but sparse female leadership, from Thatcher to Meir, (and to stretch the Western world, the late Bhutto,) and look to modern Germany and Argentina. But, a Black person winning the dominant governmental position in a predominantly White country, where has that happened? (Seriously, if you know, please tell me.) And the serious historical significance of the movement for racial equality would be greatly affected (regardless of where you believe we currently are in the state of racial equality or on the spectrum of racial tolerance). So, many of us, including myself have candidates we are rooting for, but we also believe that if Obama wins, it would be a sign of improving racial tolerance in the United States, and a beacon to the world. (It is true there are more females than Black people in the United States, including a large percentage of combined female Black people, (as it would appear on a venn diagram,) so, Hillary represents a larger population of people who have not had a representative president, but either Hillary or Obama winning would be an accomplishment for this country. But, it is my firm opinion, that a president of the United States, a leader of the free world should not be selected based on affirmative action for females and considering what I mentioned above, she is not the right person for the job.)

Fred Thompson was very disappointing because in addition to being a "Reaganite" with political experience and acclaim and fame for his acting (in roles demonstrating he had a command and presence)... in addition to him having a booming voice and a large, imposing frame with a Southern gentility... in addition to him having a voting record that has just enough mystery to give him allure, but just enough substance to give him a "conservative" core of "Christian" values. In addition to all of that, he is a ginormous dud. And I was wrong. Three months ago, I was willing to bet money that this guy would be our next president (if Al Gore didn't enter the race), and now, again, I repeat, I was wrong. The guy just doesn't look like he wants to be bothered by the hassle that is the presidency, let alone running for president. I didn't know anything about his views a few months ago, but the guy looked like our next president (before I saw that he looked older than McCain). He is still technically alive, according to the medical profession, but I guess, his unique form of sleeping-walking is a cloudy gray area.

Romney, Edwards tickets... A couple of slicksters, these guys: the money candidate and the anti-money candidate, who are according to my best guess, the wealthiest candidates. Both have strong healthcare records, and both are traditionally handsome men because they have good hair. Edwards seems like a bright fellow who has earned himself a nice chunk of change and now wants to give back to the community by volunteering our money to the cause of universal healthcare. It's a noble cause, in theory, that everyone should be able to go to the hospital, and be mended, take pills and be cured. Right now, the system of free clinics is seriously flawed and ridiculously expensive. The method of dealing with the uninsured is painfully ineffective and the methods for keeping people insured is dreadfully inefficient. But the qualm of non-universalists is, "why should I pick up the check for a guy who doesn't opt to get healthcare?". If you can't afford healthcare or you reach a certain age, there should be Medicaid and Medicare to assist in your plight, but if you have the money, and choose to spend it on a vacation to Disney World for your family, should I be required to pay for your care? Everybody is in support of expanding health care, but at what cost, both financially and/or in terms of the United State's incredibly high standard of care, which is the root of our medical tourism? So, Edwards's socialist plan is a very legitimate solution to a complicated problem, and while I admire his passion and zeal, the costs of his plan are great. Though, as an issue candidate, he makes valuable points about the power of health insurance lobbyists, and others make similar points about oil company lobbyists preventing research and development of alternative fuel sources, and still others make about trial lawyer lobbyists preventing substantive tort reform, (Edwards is clearly not among this last group.) Thus, he adds a valuable discussion, even if he is at best, vice presidential material.

By many accounts, Romney's Massachusetts plan of penalizing and mandating group rate health insurance is the most successful one in the nation. But, at a time when CEO's are making hundreds of millions of dollars in bonuses, while their companies are losing money and making layoffs, is Romney, the person we want for the job of president? I am sure he was successful at his Olympics venture and others and he made some money for others and hired some folks, but this guy embodies the slick CEO, and nurtures the role.
People are making it seem that Romney's big problem is that he's a Mormon, as if there is something wrong with believing something different, like a Catholic, or a Jew, or a Scientologist (which is important for Will Smith finally converts to scientology and then becomes president along with evil Vice President, Tom Brady). Really, Romney's problem is that he's not "Christian" enough for the right, and not un-Christian enough for the left. He volleys back and forth on issues like abortion, and it makes one wonder how he stuck to the decisions that made him his billions. All that having been said, would Edwards or Romney be a bad president? No, my guess is that either would be a typical president... which is not saying much.

Al Gore, Michael Bloomberg- if its Huckabee against Hillary, I invite you both to join, otherwise, steer clear. Al Gore's newfound popularity is not that new, considering more than half of the American voters voted for him in 2000, but his Obama status (having won an Oscar, a Grammy, an Emmy, a Tony, and an Espy,) in addition to his "political experience," would make him a shoe in for the presidency. The thing that bothered me about Gore in 2000 is that Gore had been fighting for the environment for 30 years as a pretty much single issue candidate, but when he was running for president, he backed down (and his campaign partner, Lieberman backed down even further from his conservative viewpoints). But, after the loss, he left lockboxes behind, and resumed his Gaia plight, and now many scientists are on the global warming bandwagon, and his issue somehow now resonates with voters. So, he would be undefeatable (unless he is an even bigger dud than Thompson.)

Speaking of lacking personalities, Bloomberg is an incredibly successful, down to earth CEO and a very efficient mayor of New York. If all there was to being a president was being an efficient bureaucrat, he would have my vote. He sometimes seems to care about people and children in schools and the environment, but mostly he is most effective when he is working behind the scenes because he does not inspire (me or anyone else I know). In addition, many of his ideas, particularly his environmental ideas, such as reducing car traffic in New York City, strike me as unfair to drivers (and to subway riders like me,) so even though I do not dislike him, I do not like him either... my aunt uses the phrase for Bloomberg, "not fish, not meat". I think that sounds about right.

The reason that I say that the world will not end if Hillary is president is because the world has an impressive track record of not ending, and the genius of the founding fathers, is that they protected us as a nation from her (and Bush). The system of checks and balances is more than just the executive and the legislature and the judicial branches, it also includes the bureaucracy. The incredible amount of red tape makes it hard to get anything done, which protects us from the passing whims of our populace and the lasting whims of our presidents. So, let's say, this year, we all decide that Edwards should be the president because the majority of the state electoral delegates or representatives, which kindof represents a majority of the people, believes that the healthcare system should be overhauled. Congress might not let him do something so drastic because it might jeopardize their constituents. Or maybe, the enforcement by the various food and drug agencies might determine a different course of action, or implement the plan over extended time increments. Or maybe, the Supreme Court will insist that the federal government does not have the power to create socialized medicine or mandate state and local governments to provide healthcare for legal and/or illegal immigrants. So, even though change does happen (See Iraq War happening), it's very difficult to change things (See continuation of Iraq War), which sometimes works to our benefit (See The Surge... hopefully). So, while some change can be manufactured from sheer (mostly) passion, (see Afghanistan War,) some change comes mostly from reason, such as Brown vs. Board of Education (not constitutional reason, but clear logic and commonsense), and most change takes prolonged bombardment of reason and passion. You can be a good president with either passion or reason or a bad president with either, but ideally, the candidate has both.

So, at this point, based on financial situations and state-wide and nation-wide polling data, it appears the presumptive favorites are Hillary and Romney, but things could change. They always do. But, I guess, in most ways, they never really do.


Your next presidente,
The Papa Bear, Mark Ellis