Your Thoughts Exactly

So I was looking back at an interview with Bill Clinton, given by Amy Goodman on her program “Democracy Now.” The Q+A session, which took place on Election Day 2000, was supposed to be a quick get out the vote promo piece by Clinton. Goodman managed to extend the session and elicit pointed commentary from the acting President through doing her best to bring up controversial rabble rousing liberal issues, including whether the U.S. was responsible for starving Iraqi children due to the UN embargo of Sadaam Hussein, why Clinton hadn’t enforced a moratorium on the death penalty, and the Israeli “occupation,” of Palestinian territories. Clinton, who no doubt had many scheduled appearances on the day, was overcome by his desire to defend his administration and his own debating instincts, and actually did a pretty good job responding to Goodman’s queries.

From the perspective of 2006, it’s difficult to sympathize with Goodman’s whinging about what was wrong with the U.S. As Clinton said at the time, the major problem for the Left was that “the country is in great shape,” and forced to focus on secondary issues of morality that were not going the Left’s way. Six years later the budget deficit is out of control, both inflation AND unemployment are higher, (impressive!) more Americans have no healthcare, we have made no progress in solving the major long-term issues of this decade (environmental destruction and the social security crunch,) we are involved in a three year long war with no end in sight, and our relations with many of our allies are frostier than before.

But I can’t say “I told you so,” because in 2000, I was more in agreement with Goodman’s point of view than Clinton’s. I voted for Ralph Nader in the 2000 election. Now granted, I was voting in Massachusetts, where the chances of Gore losing were a solid zero percent. Had I been voting in a state that was a little closer, say Missouri, I don’t know whether or not my vote would have been different.

Why did I do such a thing? Because I was not that excited about the prospect of an Al Gore presidency. Because I thought that too often, he and Clinton caved to the right. More importantly, I voted for Nader because I was, and still am, sick of the monopoly that the Democratic and Republican parties hold on our country’s government. Both parties foster elitism by concentrating power in the hands of a few factions at the national level (through committee chairs, etc.), and through shaping the political system to insure entrenchment of elected representatives. Both are giant monoliths that have to attempt to facilitate the interests of too many groups of people. This leads to several negative outcomes in our political process, including influence being concentrated in rich corporations, a ridiculous amount of paternalism (sons succeeding fathers in districts…or as President… incumbents winning every time,) and huge barriers to entry for new parties.

These problems still exist today, and I don’t blame myself for throwing my vote away as a sign of protest. On the other hand, I overlooked a few of the positive outcomes of our system. The first is that the government of the 90s was doing a pretty good job, as the Republican Congress battled centrist Clinton to produce decent legislation and economic stability. The second was that, despite my unwavering belief in many liberal positions on secondary social issues like abortion and the death penalty, in 2006, there is a large part of the population of the United States that doesn’t agree with me. Why don’t they? I wonder. Today for example, I am watching Messrs. Brownback and Coryn passionately defend the constitutional amendment attempting to “protect,” heterosexual marriage through altering the living document that is supposed to govern the structure of our society. Is two men or two women getting married such a big deal for their constituencies that they have to force their viewpoints onto all of us through the one document that is supposed to speak for us all? What is their ultimate goal; do these people believe that they can snuff out homosexuality by curtailing freedoms and treating homosexuals as second-class citizens? Why can’t the Right just accept that many people in America do not care about the “sanctity” of marriage, many people want people to have this freedom, and many people want to get married to their loved ones?

Of course, this works both ways. For example, I think the death penalty is morally wrong, even without considering issues such as wrongful executions or discrimination in regards to Death Row cases. Most Americans disagree with me however; and therefore the death penalty continues to be part of our legal practices in most of our states. No universal consensus has been reached throughout the United States on these socio-cultural issues. In the end, at this time we are probably better off as a society allowing people to make up their own minds. But both parties have core constituencies who take the election of their party as a sign (Biblical or otherwise) of a universal resolution on these issues. Consequently, both parties want their elected representatives, who they zealously work for, to put these issues into law.

For the American political system to remain effective, it must thrive on the arrogance of both constituencies leading to their downfall. In the case of leftists like Goodman, challenging the Clinton Administration for not doing enough was particularly short-sighted considering the Republicans controlled both houses of Congress. Goodman and the left should realize that they are going to have to convince a whole bunch load more people that they are on the right side of issues like the death penalty, abortion, and the environment if they are going to build a consensus to pass the legislation they desire. We simply aren’t there yet as a country. And sitting in New York broadcasting to the people who are already on your side doesn’t seem to be the best solution.

Likewise, I hope that the Right’s attempts to constitutionally ban gay marriage as well as their semi-racist stance on immigration scares centrists into supporting the Democrats. The general incompetence of the Republican leadership should help.
What this illustrates however, is how quickly we lose sight of what our government should be doing, getting things done and passing legislation that insures the continued success of our country. I think that these issues are really very simple: the the finances of government, relations with other countries, maintenance of our population through investment in infrastructure, assistance programs for the less fortunate, healthcare, education, and the environment. Time spent on constitutional amendments around flag-burning and gay marriage is a waste.

So in 2006, when the Democrats are up for election, I will vote for them, recognizing that while they will not be fulfilling my leftist utopian fantasies, that it’s important to have them in power during the ten percent of time that our government actually works on issues that will effect our country for years to come, such as Immigration reform. The Republicans have had power for too long and we need to force Bush into learning how to compromise. Of course, you can’t teach an old dog new tricks: we could set a record for fewest bills signed into law if the Democrats win the house. But while I pretend to give token support to the monolith, I will hope that some day a legitimate third party rises, liberated from entrenched factions who with to impose their morality who only want to focus on issues. Who wants to wait with me?

# posted by Marmaniac @ 2:04 PM