I’m probably the last to get it, but I’ve finally grokked the whole white-woman and black-man thing that the Palin choice was meant to activate. Here’s a woman who can shoot a gun, whom one expects might successfully resist incursion by a dark-skinned intruder. It’s by no means Eldridge Cleaver’s supermasculine male and superfeminine female; but primal tensions remain active in the psyches of the audience for McCain commercials. (If you want an archetypal American life, check out Cleaver’s story: Black Panther, convicted rapist, wannabe technical writer, convert to Mormonism and conservative Republican politics, crack addict after supporting Reagan in 1980 and 1984, and — worst of all — radio talk-show host.)
Still, I continue to predict, as I have since May 2007, that Obama will win. Despite my best instincts I toy with the idea of voting for him. He’s dumped me every chance he had, and I know he’ll continue to do so. He’ll enable the worst parts of our society over the best, not from ill will or corruption, but because they’re richer and more powerful and thus louder. He needs — I mean, needs — the largest available consensus, ipso facto privileging the establishment, AKA the War Machine.
I think. I hope I’m wrong. I can almost imagine voting for that hope. I’ll regret it the next morning, but I’m tempted.
In any case, I continue to brand the Palin nomination a rear-guard action, intended to reduce the pain of retreat, and lay claim to a defensible redoubt. Nader has been wondering how the Democrats could possibly lose the upcoming election for many years now, and they keep inventing ways to do so. But it would require a legendary screw-up to lose the election of 2008, beyond perhaps even the facility of the Democratic party. Not only will the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan continue to claim (mostly non-combatant) lives, but the economic downturn caused by the end of the dot-com and housing bubbles will by no means have bottomed out. Foreclosure, I expect, would tend to concentrate the mind. Unemployment certainly does; ask J.J. Cale.
As November approaches we are presented ever more clearly with the distinction between a Christian soldier and a twenty-first century world citizen. Many will choose the former; and many on that side prefer to cheat rather than accept defeat. But it’s a losing bet. In the end, people the polls aren’t counting as likely voters will actually vote, because even voters who can’t tell AIG from Countrywide know the economy’s been derailed by GOP ideology. The Republicans need to puncture that balloon ASAP, because if people start to believe the government might be able to help them rather than steal from them, things will change.
So they get a gun-toting Republican woman to defend truth, justice, and the American way. Big Oil and the Fundies versus the Rest of Us, with the War Machine gloating on the sidelines.
Chuck, you have a luxury that many of us don't. You live in a pretty safe blue state. Many of us don't. So not voting for Obama might seem sensible to you. Allowing the folks who were mostly responsible for messing up our economy in such quick fashion to be taking the helm to clean up their own mess and then creating a new scheme to "protect us" is nuts. Taking a chance on allowing that to happen is sheer insanity.
That would be like the farmer paying the fox's privatized company to build a "fox proof" henhouse since the old one didn't protect him from the fox raids previously.
The popular vote counts in this election. If Obama wins, get with the Progressive Democrats of America, or the other reform party offshoot of your choice, the Ron Paul groups, etc. and try to change the system from the inside out.
I'm with you though. This will not be a normal election. Attempts to take voters off the rolls by Republican governors need to be publicized by the MSM and if possible, prosecuted when we win. We cannot allow what we hold up to the world as a true democracy to be subverted in such a fraudulent and illegal manner.
We sure need FDR back. Hopefully the Russians don't team up with the Chinese to take us on militarily. They are already doing it by the capitalism we introduced to them and we are falling way behind very quickly. We'd be in big trouble if in a few years they built up a big military and a war happened. I tend to think they want peace. I'm not inclined to think that about us at all. If we keep it up, we will eventually be seen as the current day world Nazi's and will eventually be taken on. And we will lose.
Posted by: Buck on September 18, 2008 5:17 AMVoting for Barack Obama doesn't mean you endorse every position he holds. Heck, neither would voting for Nader. One of those votes would meaningfully support change, one would not.
It may not be about affecting the outcome of the election as much as it is about affecting your own consciousness.
Posted by: Mahakal on September 18, 2008 1:55 PMVoting for Obama means never having to wake up to a Palin Presidency.
Posted by: Bendra on September 18, 2008 2:24 PMI agree with everything Mahakal says, but I suspect we'd disagree about which vote it is that supports meaningful change.
Posted by: Chuck Dupree on September 18, 2008 6:48 PM