I’m getting a little tired of candidates talking about change. Has anyone noticed that candidates always talk about change in the campaigns? And I’m not talking about just the candidates for the ’08 elections, but I’m talking about the candidates in all presidential elections. Just look it up… ANYWHERE, and each of the candidates talk about… you guessed it, CHANGE. In other words, you’re not a real choice unless you talk about change, even though the corporate elite that run DC render the talk of change as, of course, just talk.
As for Obama winning Iowa, I hear some people think that him winning one state attests to the improved status of the regular black person and of America’s tolerance of black people. Are you kidding? One rich guy who had the financial support and economic opportunities to go to good schools growing up thereby enabling him to get a proper education that eventually took him to Harvard Law speaks volumes not of the status of black people in this country, but of one man named Obama only and how money can buy you endless opportunities to make a better life for youself. Him winning one state does not change the fact that black people live in some of the most neglected neighborhoods in this country and are without the same economic and educational opportunities as people like Obama. Furthermore, Obama winning doesn’t change the fact that the US still systematically discriminates against black people in many arenas, even in the legal system.
In any case, in this two-party system (some call it a two-party dictatorship but I wouldn’t go that far), I’m still without a real choice for a candidate, at least one that actually stands a chance and has the ability to afflict change. What are your thoughts on the ’08 elections?
My thoughts on the ’08 Presidential Election:
I believe that every person in this country should vote, not because any one candidate is the perfect choice, but because the act of choosing a choice, albeit a limited one, is so vital.
An illustrative analogy: I purchased a Toyota Prius when it was first released in its hatchback verson in the US in 2004. I believe in the importance of alternative fuel/hybrids and am a strong advocate for the environment. It is not easy to care about the environment because it opens any one up to being called a hypocrit (can you care about the earth while buying leather shoes, for example–I say sure. Even changing 1% can make a difference if we all do something). The Toyota Prius is nowhere close to being a perfect environmental solution (but even the act of not driving, riding a bike, requires that the earth be stripped of rubber, metal, fuel used at manufacturing plants, delivery, etc..there is no perfect solution…you get the point…) The car is a 0% emission vehicle and came with a tax incentive created by, of all people, President Bush.
The bottom line is, in my search for an electric hybrid (I suggest you see “Who Killed the Electric Car?” by the way, if any blog readers here have not) I ended up with an imperfect solution. However, I sent a strong message to car manufacturers: THERE IS A MARKET FOR ENVIRONMENTALLY FRIENDLY/FRIENDLIER VEHICLES IN THIS COUNTRY. By buying one little car, I sent a message: people will buy this technology if it is further developed. As one consumer, I cannot change the attitudes of the country as far as ownership of SUVs goes, etc. I can only buy MY car. My point is simple: the act of making a choice sends a message that someone is willing to choose. If enough people purchased alternative fuel or hybrid vehicles, companies would be forced to respond to that demand by supplying them. Now, even Ford and GMC have hybrids. More are on the way. Likewise, if more people demanded that issues like immigration, education, the WAR(S)!!!!!, etc. be noticed by voting based on platforms about them, candidates would start singing a different tune. The would respond to the demand with better supply.
If people used the ’08 election as a chance to vote, it would send the message that people care about the political process. Young people are passionate on blogs, etc. about the next President of this country…but how many are voting in the Primaries? How many are even properly registered? How many will mark the calendar and actually show up to vote?
I think the candidates are all pretty much the same: some like social reform, some want Evangelicalism and to eliminate the IRS altogether; others want to use POW status to prove strength of character to lead, etc.
The point is not for whom to vote (the actual choice is perhaps the most private decision one can/should make, and this is why ballots are secret, cast in booths. In fact, intimidating one to change his/her vote is a crime in this country), but that each person in this country vote. Ironically, the very people who need the most help in this country are also least likely to have access to voting booths, the process, etc.
I believe that it is each citizen’s duty to vote.
I think it speaks volumes about our country that we have a man and a woman in the race who have broken the glass ceiling by participating in the election. And it also speaks volumes that we see the fact that this has occurred before we see the issues on which they will run for the highest office in this country, and, arguably in the world.
Hillary Clinton said something along the lines of “having a woman in office is change,” and that kind of ‘change’ just won’t cut it for me (I say this as a woman). Is having Clinton back in the whitehouse really that much change?
That brings me to a question that might interest Pouya: Knowing that we have legally created term limits in this country and that the law also sees a married couple as being so intertwined (“one”) that spousal immunity, etc. are defenses to testifying against one’s spouse, you can file jointly for the IRS, and property in some states is literally ‘community,’ how is Hillary a separate legal entity with regard to running for President/term limits? Hypothetically, if one spouse was President twice and the wife was there, wasn’t she ‘sharing’ interest in his Presidency in some ways just as she would be entitled to a portion of goodwill/reputation or income from any job outside of the whitehouse? This seems quite different to me than the father/son presidencies of the past. Spouses are “one” in this country in so many ways…something that crossed my mind…
My point is, I believe people should vote for SOMEONE to prove that we all will vote. The act of choosing itself is vitally important, but the specific choice is, in some ways, wholly irrelevant. It astounds me that in America, these candidates are the best we have. But at least they’re trying (none of us are running, right?)