The power of the people

Well folks, we did it! Almost two years ago I said that America would never elect a man named Barack Obama to be their president and I have never been happier to be wrong. And for the first time in almost a decade, it wasn't a squeaker. He won with a healthy victory of more than 7 million popular votes and trounced in electorate votes. I am so proud of and grateful to my friends who donated money, phonebanked, bakesaled, drove to Nevada, registered voters, knocked on doors, posted information, emailed information and made sure their friends and family knew what an Obama victory would mean to us and the world. THANK YOU.

Have you ever seen a headline like this? "Election Unleashes a Flood of Hope Worldwide." I have never seen this level of participation in politics and more people voted in this election than any since LBJ won by a landslide in 1964 when the nation was reeling from the Kennedy assassination. Beyond his own victory as an African-American, Obama inspired millions of previously disenfranchised voters to cast ballots and brought young people into the process in a way no candidate has before. This country has once again proven the power of the people, if only we will use it. I hope America keeps its eye on the prize for the next four years and pitches in to help this guy out, he's got his work cut out for him. Yes we can!

Do we really hate each other?

Holy mackerel, every time I’m about to post about what’s going on in the election, another ridiculous thing happens. Why just this week…
- Famous conservatives jump ship to endorse Obama.
- Colin Powell, the only man in the White House who didn’t want to invade Iraq, endorses Obama and is dismissed by McCain because he's got the support of plenty of other military folks.
- Joe the Plumber turns out to be a fraud in every way but Palin's still chanting his name at rallies.
- The McCain camp continues to call Obama a terrorist and supporters at a rally in Minnesota held signs comparing him to Charles Manson.
- Palin is suddenly a feminist and shows up at a rally with a cadre of Clinton supporters despite the fact that NOW and Hilary herself have endorsed Obama.
- A Republican club in California mails out a racist anti-Obama flyer and makes one of their members cry for 45 minutes.
- Palin makes an appearance on SNL and Alec Baldwin, who made fun of her on Bill Maher only a week before, tells her she’s hotter in person.

I mean, you can’t make up stuff like this! It’s juicier than any TV show. Once again, this election has brought out the worst behavior and the ugliest thoughts of the Americans. But here's what’s really disturbing to me. Last night I saw these videos from the Alfred E. Smith annual charity dinner that all these people were at: McCain, Obama, and Hilary Clinton. It's traditional during election years for the candidates to roast themselves/each other, so John McCain gets up there and makes jokes about replacing his staff with Joe the Plumber and hiring him to work on his seven houses while Barack Obama makes jokes about his middle name really being Steve and how he wasn't really born in a manger, and they both joke about Hilary voting for McCain. They make jokes about Acorn registering Mickey Mouse and are all cracking up at each other; they can barely contain themselves.

So here they are, really, making fun of all of us for getting sucked into the bullshit: Democrats versus Republicans, us versus them, everyone calling each other ignorant and stupid and even the candidates call us names. And all the while, this is just what they do to win. It doesn’t mean anything. McCain doesn't REALLY think Obama is a terrorist; it's just a campaign tactic and Obama knows it. They oh-so-casually make stuff up about themselves, relying on the fact that we'll use it to make assumptions about how they'll govern. But while Americans are hating each other and fighting over this stuff, these guys go to a fancy dinner and have a laugh about it. At the end of the day, they're all buddies and they’ll still be running our government no matter who ends up as president.

Noam Chomsky said in an interview that if anyone is undecided, they should just vote Democrat because most people’s lives improve when a Democrat is in office. It’s that simple. Unless, he says, your personal beliefs are more important, in which case, vote that way. Then he said something else, about how public policy isn’t based on what the people want anyway. Politicians don’t talk address issues that are important to us, they talk about issues that are important to business and sometimes they just happen to be the same thing. For example, he says, health care has been the number one issue for the voters for decades. It’s a horrific system, totally broken, and another embarrassment to the rest of the civilized world that has already socialized their medical system.

Here we are being brainwashed, repeating “socialism is bad” without most people even understanding what it means. We have already socialized parts of our government and taxes are a form of socialism that, in fact, enable the American Dream and McCain knows that as well as Obama. Socialism is a red herring, it's just a campaign strategy to get elected. The reason health care is on the agenda this year, says Chomsky, is because big business is finally complaining about it. When GM says it’s cheaper to make cars in Canada because of the outrageous cost of providing health care in this country, lawmakers start to listen. See, the fighting isn't real. They just pretend to fight and disrespect each other so they can get into office. The two parties, Chomsky says, are really two branches of the same party, the business party.

I just finished watching Why We Fight, which is totally excellent and I highly recommend it. One point made in the film – which was also discussed at length in Gore’s book, Assault on Reason – is where was the fighting when it really mattered, when our Congress was deciding whether to go to war? The truth is, there wasn’t any debate. Republicans largely voted for it and Democrats mostly voted against it but they didn’t convene for a week or two to hash out the details and make sure this was the right thing to do. Not only that, they gave Bush the power to decide all of that for himself! They totally circumvented the checks and balances and said “Sure, the President can do whatever he wants in Iraq with our permission,” and sent us war with no budget and no exit strategy.

See, here’s what I think. I think people are angry, and rightfully so. We inherently know we aren’t being represented. We can’t trust our government and frankly, we don’t know whom to trust. We’re seeing our lives get worse and don’t know how to make them better. We see other people’s lives getting much better and suspect massive corruption, but aren’t sure if laws have been broken or if those people are just smarter than we are. We might also understand, although it’s difficult to admit, that for the last fifty years this country has taken whatever its wanted from the rest of the world and we’ve prospered even as we’ve fallen behind in education, health care, industry and infrastructure. The anger, though, has mistakenly been directed at each other as if all of this is the fault of people who don’t believe in God, people who hate gays or Jews or blacks, people who abort babies, drug addicts, perverts, socialists, because it must be someone’s fault, right?

This is, I must admit, the main reason that I support Obama. It's been a very long time since a politician has been so positive. He has managed to keep his head above the negativity and continue to call for togetherness and understanding. It's also a major reason that Colin Powell endorsed him. He says this country can't afford to be torn apart and I agree completely. Of course, the internet amplifies the negativity with its continuous critique and rehashing of every moment. Now a negative event doesn't happen once, it happens thousands of times. And people don't seem to need much encouragement for joining in the fray. But it makes me wonder yet again, if we are as backward as we appear. After all, we're about to elect a black man as our president, so clearly we are a progressive society no matter what the candidates or the media lead us to believe.

Raging at the dying of the light

I am very excited. A friend of mine in L.A. has finally started a blog. One of the most interesting, informed and opinionated people I know, he writes as he speaks and his blog is eloquent, witty and a delight to read. The reason I'm so excited, however, is because his passion is for politics and he has started his blog just in time to cover, blow by delicious blow, the 2008 Presidential Election. I am also opinionated and interested but don't seem to have the inclination to follow politics in quite the same way.

Now, I can read a well-spoken and summarized rally cry without the misery of slugging through The Economist or watching television. Topics covered in his impressive first week: The excitement of having Obama as the Democratic nominee, why Clinton did not lose because of sexism, how Obama's camp is using the Internet to squelch rumors and who should be his V.P. It's great stuff and I recommend that you check out Free Radical.

An unreasonable man

Well folks, it looks like we've got ourselves a Democratic candidate. While I still support Obama, and will follow through with my promise (to myself) to volunteer for his campaign now that he has the nomination, I have to say a word about Ralph Nader. I just watched the documentary, An Unreasonable Man, about Nader's work and his bid for the 2000 presidency and I have to say, the guy has a point. If you haven't seen the film, I recommend it.

Dissent is an extremely critical part of our political process, it is the basis of free speech. The right to criticize our government doesn't apply just to the people already in power and the policies they enact, it also applies to those who want to represent us, the policies they promise to enact and the process by which those people and policies are elected. If we can't question those things, if we can't shine a light in the crevices of our candidates' contributions and connections and voting and personal histories, then we don't really have free speech or a democracy. Nader says he ran in 2000 because in a two-party system where both parties are heavily subsidized by corporate contributions, there really isn't that much difference between them. He was demonized for that sentiment and subsequently blamed for the Democrat's loss in 2000.

I do not believe he cost the Democrats the election. I do believe that he activated a group of people previously too disillusioned to vote, who largely in the end voted for Gore. Mostly though, I believe in what he's fighting for, real representation of the people. No, I don't think the two parties are indistinguishable, and we've seen that difference in this presidency more than any, but as the father of consumer rights he's right that they owe more to their corporate contributors than they do to us.

The Economist, in their World 2008 special, published their forecast of how much money will be spent in this years election compared to previous years. We started, in 1976 with $25 million spent by all candidates. It increased each election to $38m in 1980, $53m in 1984, $59m in 1988, $70m in 1992, $83m in 1996 and then jumped to $140m in 2000. Strangely, spending almost quadrupled in 2004 to $494m! What in the world is going on? How is that possible? The Economist predicts this year will shoot up $1 billion spent on the 2008 elections but then counters that figure with a quote from the columnist George Will who says that is only half as much as Americans spend every year on Easter candy. Oddly terrifying.

The point is that we need to consider this trend. How comfortable are we with this kind of money being spent on campaigns? Are we willing to examine where this money is coming from? And how, ultimately, does this affect how these people govern our country? They are voted into office by us, they are supposed to be representing us but if their financial backers feel they are representing their interests, we have a serious problem. This is the problem that Ralph Nader was the first person to address back in the seventies. He was the first person to claim rights on the behalf of the consumer. He said it's not acceptable for corporations to bypass those rights in the name of profits. Without Nader, we would not have seat belts, airbags, anti-lock brakes and a host of other features in our cars that keep our families from dying when the car loses control. It took a while for corporations to mobilize efforts against Nader and consumers but they have finally figured out the best way is through our elected officials.

In developing countries, people just starting to fight against corporate corruption, pollution and neglect, base their struggle on Nader's. They see him as an American hero. Here, Democrats have the gall to blame him for the atrocities committed by Bush in office. This is my request. Support your candidate but listen to what Nader has to say because he, as always, is the only one saying it. This issue on his platform, Corporate Personhood, illustrates how our rights are not being respected by our government or our candidates. He says:

In 1886 the Supreme Court, in the case of Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad, was interpreted to have ruled that corporations were “persons”—before women were considered persons under the 19th amendment to have the right to vote.

But corporations are not humans. They don’t vote. They don’t have children. They don’t die in Iraq.

We cannot have equal justice under law between real people and corporations like Exxon Mobil. There is no way even an individual billionaire can approximate the raw power of these large corporations with their privileged immunities, and their control over technology, capital and labor.

The constitution reads, “we the people”, not we the corporations.

We put these people into office, they need to be beholden to what we want and it's up to us to make that happen. Think about it.