I don't anticipate too many more posts about politics. For someone who can get really into things (and jumps to conclusions a little...), I'm not all that political.
Throughout the democratic race, I've found myself very solidly behind Hillary Clinton. This sets me apart from many of my friends, in part because we're young, and likely in huge part because many of us are from Illinois. For the record, I think Obama is very likely a honest man, a smart man, and a good choice. Should he win the Democratic nomination, I'll back him 100% against the goof on the other side (McCain seems like a nice guy, but come on...). But as I said, he's just not my first choice.
For the last few weeks, I've been really trying to examine whether or not my position is because Hillary is a woman. After all, she and Obama have very similar ideas (well, we think. it's a little difficult to tell what Obama might do if elected) and platform is really not an easy way to separate them. I'll admit that Hillary's gender doesn't hurt, but I've also had this heretofore inexplicable...something...tugging at my sleeve. Something bothered me about Obama's campaign and I couldn't figure it out. Until now.
Remembering again the similar platforms of the two Democratic candidates, I though about what Obama was selling (I don't mean that in a bad way - they're all trying to sell themselves). He's big on the non-Washington insider thing and it's been pointed out many times by better theorists than I that his affability might even rival JFK's.
The 'new guy' thing has never really held much sway for me. After all, isn't the president's job essentially to work with people in Washington to effect change? Our political system is set up to change slowly (if at all!). Large-scale, rapid sweeping reforms are not in our history and they won't be in our future either.
The 'good guy' thing is generally well, good, but in combination with the above, it raises a serious red flag for me. I can think of someone else, someone pretty darn recent, who ran on the basic platform of down-home-nice-guy and inexperience in national politics. I'll give you three guesses.
I'm not saying they're the same by any means, but the similarity makes me nervous and I do wish people wouldn't be so darn quick to leap. These are important times.
3 comments:
Out of curiosity, what's your take on the New Deal?
My concern with the current collection of candidates is whether or not we will really get a fresh set of eyes to look at our country.
Since McCain has mathematically locked up his nomination, the more and more he sounds like he wants to continue the Bush Administration's policies and strategies. No new ideas here.
With Clinton on the other hand, it puts us in a spot where it feels like we've been under two political "dynasties" for the last two decades: Bush and Clinton. I say this because it always seems to be the case that they will bring the same cast of characters to work with them. Potentially no new ideas here.
Finally, Obama focuses his talk on change. The two things that work against him so far is his lack of experience, both as a senator and as an executive leader; and the fact that there isn't a lot of specifics to any of his ideas.
This is going to get a lot more interesting the further we get along with the season.
The concept of the New Deal, or Obama's take on it?
I'm not an expert on the specifics, but ideally there should be enough government intervention/supervision to help the greatest amount of citizens in our country. Realistically, I think that this should expand and contract in a cyclical fashion. Despite people's best intentions, I think that all government programs need to be reviewed in terms of effectiveness, so that we're doing more of feeding the hungry, rather than paying for golden faucets because no one is looking.
Post a Comment