"Ch-ch-ch-changes" (New Hampshire – Part Deux)
The word "Change" has been bandied about for the last 2 weeks so often, it has completely lost its meaning. For god's sake, Romney is using it. Before the NH Primary results came in, and the polls were all about Obama, Jill and I were talking about the concept of "change" and what it means in this context. Is Obama too much of one? Is Hillary not enough of one? We can both see reasonable arguments made for either candidate.
Then Clinton won New Hampshire and I felt frustrated. I perceived it as the NH Democrats resistance to change.
Whereas Jill said this:
"Why was I sorta, in a funny way, glad that Hillary won? I still am for Obama, but I had to admit, in the last two days, that I was feeling for Hillary and pissed at all the pundits (on the right and left)who gave her grief -for her "welling up" moment.
It kind of reeked of "what happens when a female president has PMS"? Or, like the asshole Rush Limbaugh said, "are we ready to see Hillary age"?So, it is not just a gender thing, but also an old gal bias. And that just pisses me off, because I know one day...I will be an old gal. And you will too, all you Yahoo Music reader teeny bopper girls, who care more about Britney and Dr. Phil, then who is our next leader.
It was also fun to see all those talking heads and pollsters beside themselves while scrambling to explain what happened. They were really the losers of the evening.
On the McCain win? Nah, it's just not as fun to talk about."
She also wanted me to add this link to further her point.
Spin is a crazy thing - when we began talking about this (only a couple of days ago), the Hillary tears were just a sidebar to her win. Now it's reason for it. And I've come around to agreeing with Jill... that this is one of those subconscious (or conscious, depending on your cynicism quotient) examples of sexism in the cultural zeitgeist.
Sadly, I believe we are going to see lots of these examples in the weeks to come.
But, so as not to end on a downer - as this post is about the concept of "change" in politics - what changes would YOU like to see? Think positively and idealistically for a minute before you respond. I could use a little lift right now :)
xo - Michelle
Here's something to watch while you think:
First the problem that it is easy to overlook, but has been the reason for so much hate and violence.
Imagine yourself as a father in Iraq who is proud of who he is, his culture, his beliefs. They all ground him in this very uncertain world. Looking around, he sees everything being Americanized. After all our way is obviously the right way. Everything he believes in is being undermined and treated without respect or understanding. He feels lost and without hope. I pray he does not choose the wrong path to try to make himself understood. It doesn't matter if one lives in a small hut or a big white house, violence only destroys this world.
So how do I say this without sounding trite? Without sounding like the child of the sixties I am? Ah, the hell with it...what exactly is so bad about peace, love and understanding anyway? We elect a caring person who looks at the whole world as a place to understand and improve. We find someone who can really listen and try to understand that we live in a world with so many cultures and views -- all of which are of value and at their heart good. So do I want someone who might tear up now and then, well, that's not a bad sign -- really.
Dang, I want to vote for a "sister" but...
I would love to see real change. Bring back the draft so that the people who fight and die are equally distributed across all social classes. I want automatic citizenship for any immigrant (legal or non) who serves honorably for at least one tour of duty in the armed forces. If you are willing to die for this nation - bingo - you're in the club.
I also want compulsory service of some type for all americans, especially if you are getting any type of government assistance or federal aid for college or graduate school. People should give something back for what you get. And I think if you think giving back is just about paying taxes, please go visit a disabled vet and tell me if you think your taxes equal his or her sacrifice.
Voting should be a legal requirement. I do not care if you write in Mickey Mouse once you get there, but if you want to enjoy the rights and freedoms of this country - you should be obligated to participate in the process.
Now which candidate supports these things? II am earnestly scanning the horizon, but I just can't seem to find one. I am sorry if that is cynical, but I think it is far easier to talk about PMS, abortion, and family values because these things do not cost real money or require real sacrifice. I know Jill is a WW II history buff. So, tell me then, where is Winston Churchill when you need him.? Someone who says, "I have nothing to offer you but blood, sweat, tears, and toil." This election seems more like Dire Straights running for president and their slogan is, "Money for nothing and your chicks for free."
/cynicism
What would I like to see changed? First of all, I'd like a shortened election. I'd like to see campaigning limited to 4 months; maybe 6. Shorten the primary and election season. After the 2 candidates from these parties are picked in February we're going to be in for an awful, long period of jousting. Most people don't pay attention to the election until September or October.
I'd like to see rules changed to make it easier for third party candidates to run, let alone participate in the debates. We're supposed to be an open society yet the 2 parties conspire to limit the opinions expressed. What are they afraid of? Also, I'd like some proportional representation in Congress a la other country's parliaments. It would require a Constitutional change, but while I'm wielding my fairy wand it is what I'd like to see.
I'd like to see more civility and less animosity (you know, more leadership?) by elected officials. Yes, they can and will disagree, but I'd like them to play nice and compromise when it makes sense. All too often they sound like rotten kids on the playground.
I'd like to see a cabinet with members of both parties, but I don't think that will happen much beyond what Bill Clinton did. No matter his reasons behind it, having a Republican in his cabinet was the right thing to do.
I'd like to limit lobbying by corporations. Corporations would get around it because I'd still allow lobbying by individuals, but I'd like to see it happen in some way. To that end, I want a LOT more transparency in politics (donors, lobbying visits) and make it available in accessible formats (electronic, websites).
Public funding of elections. Take the money out and require that this be the only funding. Hey, make those folks prove that they can live within a budget. And how about a national election weekend (instead of Tuesdays) in which businesses would be required to give at least one of the two days off to allow employees to vote? Results would not be allowed to be announced until the end of the second day.
Also, here is a new website with a great name:
sweetjesusihatechrismatthews.blogspot.com
I'm not saying that public service is a bad idea. It sounds great, but I don't know if the cost to implement/manage a public service program would require that we take money away from some other program. It would be painful to say to cut education spending, medicare, etc. so that we could fund a public service program.
Same thing with bringing back the draft. We'd have to increase military spending because now we'd have all these additional people in the armed forces. That money has to come from somewhere.
Also, once you've got all these extra people in the armed forces, military leaders can become more likely to seek out action. Do you know the XTC song, Generals and Majors? They always seem so unhappy unless they've got a war and they are tired of being actionless. Bringing back the draft = more military = more generals and majors. That worries me a little.
Sometimes an idea that begins with the best of intentions can do more harm than good. Know what I mean?
When faced with a problem the first question one should ask, as you rightly point out, is if it is better to do nothing than make it worse? I respect your points, but just because you have more of something does not mean you have to use it. We and our allies have several thousand nuclear warheads. More than enough to just blow up the rubble that would be left from the first thousand. A draft would not necessarily mean a larger military. You could cap the number and then use the draft to rotate people in and out from all economic levels of our population. I mean if Elvis can do it, let's get Brittney in the Army. The structure and responsibility would probably help her far more than a visit from Dr. Phil
I certainly think your points about the financial costs are good ones, but these programs could result in a return on investment. Student loans, for example, are really a good deal for all of us because people with higher levels of education earn more and pay far more in taxes than they borrowed in the first place. I think that we certainly could figure out a way to make national service cost-neutral and with some creative thinking - a revenue generator. As a percentage of federal discretionary income spending, we spend far less on the military now than during the cold war. I don't feel any safer - do you?
I also think we are all "Bowling Alone" and some type of national service could help galvanize a real feeling of national unity. I mean we have a whole infrastructure that needs to be rebuilt, we need a manhattan project for energy self-sufficiency, and a multitude of other needs. You are right that in absolute costs it may be a net loss, but as a way to engage people in a lifelong habit of civic responsibility we need to have an expectation that we all need to ask, "what can we do for our country?" How about having to document 1000 hours of community service before you get a high school diploma. That would just mean an average of 30 minutes per day during your high school years (assuming 30 minutes a day for 50, five-day work weeks per year). I know it's probably not perfect, but is it worthy of consideration?
I much rather see an engaged citizenry no matter what your politics than an uninterested populace. Apathy is the velvet glove in which tyranny slips in its iron hand.
So, Jill, if I vote for Obama, will you iron my shirt? Sorry, I just could not resist that one.
One thing, though.
There are very few things that our government does which are "revenue generators". A national service program that actually makes money for our country sounds great, but I'd like to see the numbers before I sign on as a believer.
In Boston we have a program called "City Year". It's a community service program that President Clinton talked about when discussing the "AmeriCorps". I haven't seen any numbers so I can't be certain but, I don't think that City Year is a revenue generator.
Maybe he will be asked to be Vice President. Do you think?
I would not be surprised to see Chris Dodd and Joe Lieberman considered as VP candidates for Obama. I think Hillary will look for someone from outside the northeast.