Markos and others have made clear that the intent of this site is to elected Democrats. In that regard, there is a willingness to allow a wide range of opinions on issues, because being elected as a Democrat in Nebraska or Alaska is very different than being elected a Democrat in New York City or San Francisco. Thus applying universal litmus tests on issues works in a fashion almost guaranteed to be contrary to the intent of the site.
And yet, for each of us there are issues that matter strongly. In some cases a position on one issue might reluctantly require us not to overtly support a candidate. In my case I use a different standard when it is candidate for whom I cannot legally vote: given my limited resources I feel justified in being somewhat more selective in applying my dollars and whatever persuasive ability I might have as a writer on behalf of a candidate with whom I have a disagreement on a fundamental issue.
I have been with this year's students for a week now, which has led to my reflecting heavily on what matters, not only in my activities in the classroom, but in those for which I still have time outside, as my teaching responsibilities are paramount. This diary is a product of that reflection, and I invite you to continue reading.
When I say the diary is a product of that reflection, what you are reading has not been previously sketched out, or outlined, nor has it been through multiple drafts. It will not be a cohesive political manifesto. For one thing, I do not have the time for such an endeavor. But I do reflect fairly constantly. I ponder what I am teaching, and why, what difference it will make for my students. I think about why at age 61 I am still working 12 hour days during the Fall, precisely at the time when our own critical General Assembly elections here in Virginia are heating up. I look at the calculations I make on the candidates to whom I will give time, and why. And of course I continue to reflect on the presidential process, examining issues that are addressed and how, as well as those that for whatever reasons seem to go unmentioned and perhaps unnoticed.
I start by acknowledging that there is a certain wisdom to those who opine that elections are won less by stands on issues than by connections between the voters and the candidates: after all, in 1984 far more people agreed with Mondale on the issues than with Reagan, but they connected with Reagan, which accounts in part for his overwhelming reelection (problems with the Mondale campaign were also influential). There is the problem of "gatekeepers" in the regular media, whose interpretation of what a candidate does clearly has influence on the process. The willingness to cover or not cover a candidate can be important. So is the overwhelming focus they give to "gaffes," "he said, she said," whether the candidate is "tough enough," and so on.
And yet ... we have clearly seen at least through state-wide races that it is possible to run a different kind of campaign and connect with the voters: both Paul Wellstone and Russ Feingold demonstrated that when they first won their Senate seats. And at a national level candidates have occasionally been able to win by offering the American people something that spoke to their condition - think of Jimmy Carter only 2 years after the forcing out of Nixon saying to the American people "I will never lie to you."
So what does matter to me? Some readers may have continued this far wanting see some evidence of that, and are wondering if I will ever get to that point. I think the foregoing is a necessary setting of the context - it has been part of the background upon which my reflections have been painted. But let me now approach what some might call issues, this time without addressing those of schools and teaching.
I want an administration that trusts the American people, and that is willing to be honest about what it is doing. If our government derives as Jefferson wrote its just powers from the consent of the governed that consent must be informed, insofar as is possible. If an administration believes it is imperative for the future of the nation to send men and women to die and kill overseas, it should be honest as to the reasons. If that reason is control of petroleum because of the dependency of our economy upon a stable supply, the American people deserve to know how their personal habits contribute to the deaths and maiming (physically by IEDs and bullets, psychologically by the actions they do)of our young people, and the price we pay in the eyes of the rest of the world. Perhaps then it becomes possible to challenge the American people to think beyond the sexiness of the SUV GM encourages them to buy, or the cheap rhetoric about limited the freedom of Americans by rules rasing CAFE standards. It is true that Americans do not fully understand how connected issues like these - and global warming - are, but when confronted honestly and given a choice, who knows? Being unwilling to speak the truth demonstrates a mindset that is anti-democratic, and implies a government I find alien to the principles I am supposed to be teaching my government students. I would hope for something more.
I want candidates willing to strive for office without feeling obligated to destroy their opponents, whether in the primary contest or in the general election. We humans are complicated creatures. It is rare to find even close friends who agree on almost everything, and if we limit our social and political circles only to those like us not only in race and religion but also political outlook, we also limit our own potential as humans, and assuredly limit the potential of our society and our nation to flourish and develop. A political mindset that takes an Hobbesian or Machiavellian approach to the business of politics - that it is an unlimited war of all against all, and thus achieving that end justifies any means of getting there - should remember that in Chapter 13 of Leviathan Hobbes warned us that in such a war of all against all how impoverished existence could become:
and which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.
Those with whom we contend today to win nomination or office are our fellow citizens of the Republic, and we must find a way to live together, to work for a common good, to find common ground, or we will create an environment which undercuts any hope of our moving forward towards the goals to which we aspire - unless the goals be limited merely to acquiring and applying the power of the office for however long we might by fear be able to hold it. I recognize that our opponents may not be willing to abide by a principle of disagreeing on issues without being disagreeable and resorting to ad hominem attacks. And I accept that it is appropriate to demonstrate the hypocrisy of such attacks when made - I have no problem with hoisting someone with the very petard s/he introduces into the dialog. But I see how my students get turned off to the political process by such an approach. Some people use such rhetoric because they know they cannot hope to win if the electorate increases - their positions and policies are so unpopular. The approach they take is an admission that they cannot win in an open democratic process. One reason I am a capital D Democrat is that at least in theory we believe in increasing the franchise, in increasing the participation of all Americans. If so, we cannot in our political practice engage in activities contrary to those principles.
We have a strong mythos of a rugged individualism that is in fact largely ahistorical. We have those who have gained great success, especially financially, who want to imply if not assert that they did it all on their own. Think merely of the interchange in the vice-presidential debate of 2000 where Lieberman was trying to joke about how Cheney had gotten rich in private enterprise and Cheney's response was that the government had had nothing to do with it. Of course Cheney's response was intellectually dishonest, starting with the large number of government related contracts Halliburton had received, many precisely because of his connections through the good ol' boys network of former government officials, a process that has clearly continued with no-bid contracts during the current administration. Corporations and individuals are able to flourish because of laws that provide them with an environment in which they can raise capital, defer taxes, have workers basically trained for them either directly at government expense (schools and military) or indirectly (subsidized post-secondary education, tax deductions for corporate training). We have a nation that until recent decades had an advanced infrastructure compared to much of the rest of the world, an infrastructure which facilitated the building of wealth. All of this leads me to my next point - I want leadership that speaks openly of the needs for our commonality. I want no further privatizing of the commons, be it of public schools, public roads (like the selling of the Indiana Toll Road), public waterworks, public parks. There are parts of our existence that are the responsibility of all of us. My wife and I have no children of our own, yet even before I became a school teacher gladly paid the relatively high taxes in Arlington to provide quality public education because it is a responsibility of all of us. Americans usually will rise to a crisis to help others - it is not just when a Katrina hits in the US, it is equally so with a Tsunami in Indonesia. There is a generousness to the American spirit. That is part of the reason for the original success of both the New Deal and the Great Society programs. I want a leadership that aspires to seeing our interconnectedness, even when we ourselves may be relatively well-off and perhaps not in need of such programs. A society in which all can aspire, in which none are condemned to despair, poverty, no future for their own offspring, is one in which we will all do better, in which we will feel far more secure.
And what applies at home applies internationally as well. What Hobbes said about the life of man in the state of nature is perhaps even more applicable to the relations among nations. If we do not find ways of getting along we will destroy one another. It does not take nuclear weapons to achieve world-wide destruction. The lack of international cooperation and the asserting of the right to act recklessly and wantonly on behalf of some supposed unique national interest without regard to the impact on other nations and peoples is rapidly destroying the habitability of our planet, at least for humans and for far too many other species as well. We are polluting our water resources and our air. We are destroying the oceans as a source of food as we are wanton in our destructing of marine life. We contribute to the destruction of our landscape by unacceptable methods of mining (mountaintop removal being only one example) and by destruction of forests, sometimes in the same endeavor. The loss of forests leads to runoff and erosion and floods, as well as a decrease in the ability of the world to reprocess the carbon dioxide we produce back into oxygen we can breathe. And we are moving far too rapidly to a situation where nations will feel impelled towards wars over resources other than oil - arable land to feed their people and potable water to sustain them.
I accept that those who seek political office must be willing and able to address the immediate needs of the constituents whose votes they need to achieve that office. But I want those at least willing to talk about larger issues, to begin the process of true leadership, which is to challenge our society - including themselves - to think beyond what we perceive to be our interests to an understanding of the broader context in which we all must live.
I do not expect that a candidate and I will be in complete agreement on every issue. In the very first conversation I had with Nick Lampson several years ago, before he formally announced for TX-22, after we had chatted for about ten minutes, Nick was very candid. He told me we would not agree on every issue (logical, given that he is a Blue Dog from Texas and I am an extreme liberal from the People's Republic of Northern Virginia as I once heard Michael Barone describe Arlington and its neighboring communities). But Nick hoped that we would have enough in common that I could see my way towards supporting him. I have, and I continue to do so. The political campaign in which I have been most heavily invested in the past few decades was that of Jim Webb. Jim acknowledged that he had a fundamental disagreement with most of his early supporters - he still thinks Vietnam was a war worth fighting, while most of us view it as a totally unnecessary effort. In both cases, Lampson and Webb, one reason for my support is the fundamental integrity and honesty of each man. They did not hide their views on issues on which we might disagree in hopes of gaining support. They sought to find common ground on which we could both stand, to point at common goals for which we could strive. That is the kind of politics I hope for, for which the students I teach look.
Specifics of issues? That can be the subject of many other diaries. This diary is I hope illustrative of the kind of broader perspective to which I aspire.
I will be interested in your responses, which I promise to read, time allowing. I do have papers to correct, a book to review, household tasks to address, and my civic responsibilities in my community (Arlington) and my state (Virginia). But if I seek this kind of approach, I also have an obligation to make time to help encourage others to also reflect.
Peace.