Quill and Wit

Here’s a sentence directly from the campaign rhetoric of Nader’s site. “People of color are tired of decades of bipartisan retreat from social justice.”

How about a candidate who did community organizing in Chicago? He is African –American. And guess what? He is running for President. Much of Ralph Nader’s work is now coming to full fruition. Sadly, it seems he does not realize that a new generation fully embraces and has taken to heart his insights and cultural contributions.

I doubt if most voters will deny the fundamental argument posed by Ralph Nader’s nascent candidacy-bid. Indeed the system does not work the way we would like. Yes, from the political theory perspective, the U.S.’ political system reveals but a hair’s width cleavage between the left – center – right.

This writer, with some experience in the intensity of campus-based political thought and action, (back in the day), heard Nader this morning and read his website tonight. I think to myself, as Nader literally shouted down a caller to NPR this morning, suggesting that he would not listen to the caller, naming the caller as a “political bigot”…I wonder what kind of real candidate treats any voter to the lovely label of “bigot” with a listening audience, no less.

Flip side: Ralph Nader is a man for the history books. His service to humans and the planet are undeniable. But…and this is what supporters of candidates like Obama and Clinton do see…the transforming movement is taking form. We move day by day through this election process. It is not just about words and intentions, anymore. Nader’s day has come and gone. The public is, in fact, ahead of you, Mr. Nader. They are beyond words. They are supporting a woman; they are supporting an African-American candidate. All the words and intentions of your candidacy, sadly, cannot compete with the amazing fact of their position, stewards to the throne of the Presidency, as it were.

Mr. Nader argues, I suppose, that they continue to be driven by the “Old” political system.

Okay, but they are fighting against entrenched forms of injustice that you have never encountered as a human.

On his website, Mr. Nader states this:

“We cannot guarantee that a full-scale voter insurgency will erupt behind a Nader candidacy. We can only recognize the potential and our responsibility to try to make it happen.”

Go for it.

Everyone loves a rebel.

On the day of this last “debate” before March 4^th, the Times did a good job of putting forth a few more questions that might be posed to either candidate for the Democratic Party. One must ask, “What about a whole myriad of attending and crucial issues?” Perhaps Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama do have similar records on environmental issues, for example. Why not institute “boutique” seminar-style conversations that allow voters to hear the thoughts of the candidates in a non-debate arena? Does the media believe that the only way the public can glean information from a conversation is when the candidates are put in opposition to each other? The debate in Texas rendered viewers, in my experience, into rather a large pool of breath-holding piranhas, just waiting for one of the candidates to slip up or, indeed, fall down.

Perhaps Jane Q. Public (the law’s average prudent person) is just as capable of analyzing a calm and collegially-informed conversation between candidates and perhaps some wise interlocutors. Candidates could express their thoughts and potential plans for addressing pivotal concerns such as “global warming.” Voters are capable of listening for themselves and deciding what they do or do not like about what the candidates say. The notion of a “sovereign” public as it originally informed the thinking of the founders derived from the strong post-Enlightenment belief that people could think for themselves. And if the people were capable of thinking for themselves, they therefore had the capacity to govern themselves without the intertwined authority of the church and state as it existed in Britain during the late 18^th century.

I’m not a libertarian, but I do find that revisiting the “grassroots” ideologies of the late 18^th century can be helpful. As those ideologies informed a politics of identity and, quite literally, a revolution, they can serve us, as 21st century citizens, to more clearly reveal the nature of the wedge a media-structured campaign event actually puts between voters and the candidates.

Well, anyway, that’s my two cents, (adjusted for inflation, of course).

Why the Faux Tete-a-Tete?

On the day of this last “debate” before March 4^th, the Times did a good job of putting forth up a few more questions that might be posed to either candidate for the Democratic Party. One must ask, “What about a whole myriad of attending and crucial issues, on the domestic and foreign fronts?” Perhaps Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama do have similar records on environmental issues, for example. Why not institute “boutique” seminar-style conversations that allow voters to hear the thoughts of the candidates in a non-debate forum? Does the media -- or either candidate -- believe that the only way the public can glean information from a conversation is when the candidates are put in opposition to each other? The debate in Texas rendered viewers, in my view, into rather a large pool of breath-holding piranhas, just waiting for one of the candidates to slip up or, indeed, fall down.

Perhaps Jane Q. Public (the law’s average prudent person) is just as capable of analyzing a calm and collegially-informed conversation between candidates and two or three wise interlocutors. Candidates could express their thoughts and potential plans for addressing pivotal concerns such as “global warming.” Voters are capable of listening for themselves and deciding what they do or do not like about what the candidates say. The notion of a “sovereign” public as it originally informed the thinking of the founders derived from the strong post-Enlightenment belief that people could think for themselves. And if the people were capable of thinking for themselves, they therefore had the capacity to govern themselves without the intertwined authority of the church and state as it existed in Britain during the late 18^th century.

Well, anyway, that’s my two cents, (adjusted for inflation, of course).

By A.A. Addicott, Quill and Wit

On the Obama side? He was good, darn good. Good enough to be a former Editor of the Harvard Law Review, good enough to be a Presidential-contender. Further, Mr. Obama stayed within the lines, as it were. He did not venture out into needless jabs. That is the force of strategy, the insight of his entire campaign. Simply put, Barack Obama resists temptation. He is an amazing example of the force of resisting temptation, resisting the use of the jab, of going for the jugular. His campaign resists the reliance upon special interests…it has paid off. He resists tit-for-tat with HRC. And now, the power of that strategy is just beginning to pay off as well. What many people do not notice is that, like a philosophy of “non-violence,” this strategy is absolutely not about “doing nothing.” His strategy is one that must be rooted in an invisible yet highly structured and proactive plan to create a new pattern of discourse, method, behavior, and outcome. When undertaken by Mr. Gandhi many years ago, such was the underpinning of non-violence as philosophy. It is not powerful as a strategy of passivity. It is powerful because it is an active political ideology based upon a principle that change can happen only when the one refuses to acknowledge the game of the lesser mind. It takes intelligence, guts, and an amount of fortitude so far rarely at cross-paths with the Oval Office. Until now.

A theme manifested in the “conciliatory” gesture offered by Mrs. Clinton. She may have been unwilling to go for a full court press against Obama, but part of that unwillingness and the concomitant shift toward circling Democratic wagons does reveal the effectiveness of the Obama strategy of unifying the country, beginning with the party itself. A Clinton victory would see the party split. Obama’s unwillingness, I believe, to point out many of Hillary’s potential Achilles heel issues, like the impeachment/Monica Lewinsky era of Clintonian politics that would be visited upon another Clinton White House is but one example of his resistance method. He could point out her weaknesses, her “experience” as First Lady as one that in fact douses the fire of her attempt to show a unilaterally-created professional resume. First woman, former First Lady with an almost-impeached President in tow as a spouse all the way back to the White House for another four years? Bill at every state dinner playing footsy, perhaps, just because he can? And what about all the business dealings of the former first couple since they left the Oval Office in debt from legal fees? It seems that Mr. Obama has revealed a belief and ability to abstain from stirring up junk. Would the American electorate truly prefer a dirty fight to one that represents a higher calling…what is it Americans are being offered, and can anyone see it?

Clinton, perhaps to her credit, did not take up Jorge Ramos’ offering of an opportunity to parse Obama’s qualifications as Commander-in Chief. On the one hand, it was another conciliatory move, possibly intended to keep the party fabric knit together under the notion of a total Democratic preparedness to excel in all Oval Office duties. It seemed to me, though, also, as she pushed Ramos’ interrogatory back in the drawer from whence it came, as a moment that could ring as a rather offhand brush off of the important presence of Univision, Ramos, and the Hispanic audience represented in the debate with his presence. Such a move, enacted only with an explanation that she “needed” to explain (yet again) the health care topic seemed uniquely self-serving in the face of possibly seriously offending Hispanic voters, who might read the move as one that just shut down Ramos’ voice and question altogether. I simply offer that analysis, and rely upon feedback to learn how the Univision audience read her action at that moment. I just wonder.

The Xerox comment: Not much substance here. Old hat. Clinton herself seems above such a low-minded jibe. It was an almost non-sensical low point in the conversation. Besides, isn’t “Xerox” as a verb losing its place in the English language?

Mr. Obama, to his credit, even managed to get a grasp on Clinton’s critique of his supporters in a brilliant way, by simply charging her with trying to dummy-down his constituency as ‘delusional”. That brilliant rhetorical move took the wind out of her comment, revealing the “silliness” of it, and forcing her to back down. What else could she do if the two must pay attention to keeping the party together in the long run?

Last minute note: the sad news of the death in Mrs. Clinton’s motorcade. No one needs this kind of publicity, contrary to the overarching belief that all publicity is good publicity. Death is death. It is just not a pretty picture.