I chipped some money in to Barack Obama's campaign the other day. (I'm not, NOT soliciting you to do the same- it would be illegal for me as a federal employee to ask people to do that.) I mentioned it to my girlfriend, who told me that if I had money to donate I shouldn't give it to some rich guy, I should give it to a local soup kitchen or shelter or an NGO or something, because those would really make a difference.
This led to a moderately interesting discussion and points out something that I think is a problem with politics today. People don't see the connection between them and the leaders, between what they do and the change that those political candidates will create.
I can't blame them, in a way; let's face it, Barack Obama and I are about as close as, say, me and the ninth child born today in Bangalore, India. The more remote our leaders are and the more people they have to represent, the less likely it is that we're going to feel as though we have a personal connection to them.
The second part of this is that we also feel that the bigger the government, the less likely it is that someone's going to be able to change things.
There's not a lot we can do about convincing people otherwise about the first part. That is, in large part, why Obama's campaign up to now has been successful; he's got a ton of charisma and that makes a higher percentage of people feel connected to him. (Of course, him being a black guy DOES make things harder in this department; there's a natural human reaction to bond more closely with people who look like us, who are "from our tribe" so to speak. Thing is that I think Obama can overcome this.)
But the second part is relatively easy. When she said she didn't think it was a good idea because it's too remote and wouldn't change anything anyway, I asked her if she thought things would be different in America today if Al Gore had been the President the past several years instead of George W Bush. The war, the federal budget, the spending priorities, the economy, the worth of the dollar against foreign currencies... didn't she think things would definitely be different?
Of course, that got her. She said "you know, you're right".
(She still wasn't sure that me giving moolah to Obama was a good idea, but at least she isn't rejecting the idea out of hand now. This matters since we're living together; while we obviously still have a lot of autonomy, cohabitating means some joint decision-making when it comes to money.)
I do think that giving some money can make a difference. In an email the other day, the Obama campaign pointed out:
In February alone, more than 94% of our donors gave in amounts of $200 or less. Meanwhile, campaign finance reports show that donations of $200 or less make up just 13% of Senator McCain's total campaign funds, and only 26% of Senator Clinton's.
This is what's different about Obama. He's getting regular people- the "little" people, in other words- collectively excited and feeling connected about his campaign in a way that Clinton and McCain would/could NEVER do. And let's face it- thanks to democracy, the votes of individual people DO matter.
Think back to 2000. If Ralph Nader doesn't run, odds are Al Gore wins. Things are entirely different over the next several years (for example, since we don't get distracted by the needless diversion into Iraq, we probably catch Osama bin Ladin- and that's just a start.) That difference could have been brought about by just a few thousand people in Florida- out of 300 million Americans.
We CAN make a difference, and that's why it's important (IMO) for us to not just watch the news but to actively and actually pay attention to what the candidates themselves say. It's why I actively (but as politely as I can) challenge independents and conservatives to ignore Fox News (a struggle, I admit) and actually WATCH Obama's speech on race, or read it in its entirety.
This campaign is going to set the course for America over the next several years, just as Bush has set it on a bad, bad course. It'll take a LOT of work to get things righted. The Bushies are setting things up such that the next President would have a harder time getting us out of Iraq, for example. I expect Scalia to resign prior to January 2009 so Bush can appoint one more young, uber-conservative to the bench, for another example. (Pray for the good health of 87-year-old John Paul Stevens.)
Another example is the "news" that broke yesterday about the panic that the Bush Administration is trying to induce over Social Security and Medicare. The spending on the Iraq war alone would have ensured SS's health for at least the next 50 years.
These things DO matter, and our individual voices DO matter. Even my hundred bucks, sent to Obama yesterday, matter; that'll pay for a few more newspaper ads or radio ads or help pay for a TV ad in Pennsylvania. He'll probably lose Pennsylvania to Clinton, but if he doesn't lose it by much then he's only got to win in North Carolina and there's effectively no way that Clinton can win the nomination.
So if my money can help convince just a couple more young people at some college in Pennsylvania to vote for Obama, it's money well spent, because it might lead to him becoming President.
I got to shake John Edwards's hand when he was here on a campaign visit. I believe that the money I sent to Edwards (more than Obama thus far!) was money well spent. His campaign served as a reminder to Democrats that paying attention to actions to try and help the desperately poor in America is needed. Obama and Clinton (and the rest of the nation, for that matter) were moved a bit more towards Edwards's side.
Yeah, my guy lost. Never caught fire with the voters. And I think he's hurting the party by not advocating for Obama; he could possibly help in union-heavy Pennsylvania. But it was a good fight and it did mean something.
What are you going to do today that has meaning?