 |
|
 cbertsch | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In reading the latest in a series of incisive critiques, thanks to ankh156, of French President Nicolas Sarkozy -- a man who seems to inspire good sentences, if not good policies -- it occurred to me that much of the trepidation people in the United States feel with regard to Barack Obama's campaign for President has to do with the fact that he represents a new generation of political thinking. Although Sarkozy falls squarely within the span of the American Baby Boom, he goes out of his way to appear younger than he actually his. Some would place Obama, born in 1961, within the tail end of the Baby Boom. Personally, I think that date qualifies him as someone caught between the Baby Boom and Generation X, as the differences between his reception and that of Hillary Clinton suggest. The fear, I believe, is that the Obama who is running for office might, like Sarkozy before him, struggle to translate the call for a break with convention into political results. Roger Cohen had an interesting editorial in The New York Times yesterday in which he sought to ease fears in the American Jewish community that Obama, because of his worldly upbringing and personal experience of Muslim cultures, might constitute a "Manchurian candidate" where Israel is concerned. I agree with Cohen that such worries are baseless. But the notion that Obama, once elected, might turn out to be a lot different than he presents himself on the campaign trail is harder to dismiss. Indeed, I have the sense that many Americans, myself included, are hoping that he will turn out to be a bit of a "Manchurian candidate" where issues of social and economic justice are concerned, someone who really will try to shake up the establishment by turning the hope he constantly invokes into practice. I'm sure that's a major reason why he's raising so much money from small donors. Unfortunately, however, reflection on the recent history of American politics suggests that someone who can raise money as effectively as Obama has may not be able to transform himself from a receiver into a giver. If he is elected and that turns out to be the case, the analogy to Nicolas Sarkozy will seem more apt than it does now, when Obama supporters are flush with the prospect of proving the Establishment wrong. Tags: media, news, politics
Current Location: 85704
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm sure that's a major reason why he's raising so much money from small donors. Unfortunately, however, reflection on the recent history of American politics suggests that someone who can raise money as effectively as Obama has may not be able to transform himself from a receiver into a giver.
Elements of my father's ideology will seep into this, but I've got to say it: america is in no position to give because america is broke and entering a state of recession, which is Bush's fault. Then again, I don't trust the private sector to disseminate money to those who need it (because they won't), so it seems as if there's no other option but to incur more debt funding social welfare programs INITIALLY; in the long term, however, these programs will translate into economic recovery.
libertarians are wrong on SOCIAL economics: the clintons (democrats in general) know how to manage the economy of a GOVERNMENT; their track-record proves it.
Fuck it; I switched from the obama camp to the hillary camp based on the odd parallels between the economic state of the country when bill clinton was elected (compared with how it was when he left office) and the economic state of the country NOW, with hillary trying to get elected.
and, yeah, the economy is my main issue given that I'm feeling (at least I think) the repercussions of it's current state in relation to university departmental funding/POLICY.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The partisan argument in support of his candidacy is very compelling, but I was attributing it to an ability to reconcile and reach bipartisan compromise, which may not be the case. He attracts moderates, but what does "moderate" really mean in this country; the more I think about that, the more convinved I become of something I thought a while ago: "moderate" is a term that softer-core republicans (some of whom are still nominally democrats) use to dissociate themselves from the party in the wake of the Bush administration's ignominious tenure.
Again, it's all about the economy for me because--the arguments of raymond williams notwithstanding--I think of society in marxist terms; the superstructure is a reflection of the base. Social policy is determined by economic policy; widespread prosperity usually leads to positive social change when it comes to a close (e.g. the prosperity of the 50s, when combined with an inciting incident like vietnam, gave rise to the reforms of the 60s)....
Speaking of generations, I've always wondered--given certain parallels between vietnam and iraq, and even the fact that my generation is often referred to as the "echo" baby-boom--why 2008 is nowhere near identical to 1968 and I think the answer boils down to one thing: the draft. Without fear of death, nobody pushes hard enough for social change. Vietnam TAUGHT the government this; like some bacterium, it became immune to civil unrest elicited by imperial conquest....it's a goddamn organism--a malignant one (so maybe "virus" is a better word than bacterium)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PREVIOUS
