Yes I am uncommitted. I live in Virginia. We vote on February 12. As of yet I have no reason to choose among the three remaining candidates. My choices may be narrowed either by the results of the contests before then, or by things one or more of the candidates says or does, or actions taken or not taken by their campaigns.
But in the meantime there are things about which I do not give a damn. And there are things about which I care deeply.
The blathering in this diary is personal It is solely my perspective. And I acknowledge the arrogance in putting it forth. But I suspect I am not alone in many of my perceptions, and perhaps by sharing them some of you who are strong advocates for or against a particular candidate will understand why your diaries have a tendency to piss off many of us here.
I invite you to continue reading, but only if you are willing to do so with a willingness to listen.
Peace.
I don't give a hoot about supposed electability. First, any of the Democrats starts with a huge generic edge against any of the Republicans, and that comes from rejection of the current administration and a strong sense that the country is on the wrong track. Further, polls about electability in the general election are at this point completely meaningless. Might I remind people that in 1992, during the period of time when it became clear that Clinton was going to be the Democratic nominee but well before the convention, Ross Perot jumped into the race on Larry King and quickly became the favorite, with Clinton a distant third. In fact, some talking heads even discussed the possibility that the race could mean the destruction of the Democrats as one of the two major parties. Last time I checked, Bill Clinton got elected president with 370 electoral votes to George H. W. Bush's 168. What was that about electability? That one candidate is supposedly more less electable now is a chimera, a snapshot in time that for me carries no meaning whatsoever.
Don't tell me that any of the candidates is a sexist or a racist. Giving the history of each, such propositions are absurd. Such pejorative statements cannot be sustained. Criticize particular statements or actions, but do not so label the candidate. While I will acknowledge that the advocates of a particular candidate want to play "gotcha" with the opponents, a candidate is NOT responsible for every statement made by her or his partisans, not even the spouses. And in the heat of a campaign anyone, especially the candidate, can misspeak. Focusing on one statement does a disservice to the process and to the people who are putting themselves forth in the cauldron of the primary process. I will not be voting for the spouse or the campaign manager. What s/he says may be one detail in the larger landscape, but since it won't be determinative in my mind, please don't waste your electrons writing about it.
It really doesn't matter to me who has raised the most money, or whether or not someone has taken matching funds. All three of the Democratic leaders have raised more than enough, and have demonstrated the ability to match the Republicans in money (except for what Mitt spends from his own pockets, which are not unlimited). Don't waste my time talking about that.
When observing candidates and their surrogates, I am not interested in who can get off the most clever line. It is amusing, when the candidate does it in a debate it might be of some marginal effect, the press will certainly offer some reactions (about which more in a moment), but it is rare that any individual quip gives me any real insight into what kind of president the candidate will be. So I do not myself place much weight upon it, even as I will, as an inveterate political junkie, observe the context in which it occurs.
Finally, the talking heads and gatekeepers of the political shows and op ed pages are interesting to watch to see what the herd mentality is, but they neither validate nor disqualify any candidate for me: I observe, I may even comment because I am interested in the process, but they rarely offer me anything of substance that influences my own decision making.
So what do I care about? For what am I looking?
I want a candidate in whom I can see a core set of beliefs that are not totally alien to my own. I am willing to accept some inconsistency because of the realities of the political world, but I would have trouble with someone who does not seem to think how a position on a particular issue might interfere with a position on another issue. Yes, there will inevitably be conflicts in one's own positions, as there are in mine, but I hope and pray for someone who is at least willing to acknowledge that humans are of nature inconsistent so that our policy in addressing their needs may required us to accept some inconsistency in our actions. I'm sorry if this bothers ideological purists.
I am looking for someone who acknowledges that for the health of the nation and the world we have to reestablish the balance of powers among the branches of government. It is tempting to want as much executive power as possible to quickly undo the damage done to this nation by the Bush administration, but misuse, expansion, and aggrandizement of executive power is no less destructive of our polity when it is done for causes and issues with which we agree than when it is applied on behalf of goals we find reprehensible.
This nation needs honesty and accountability, but cannot afford retribution. I am looking for a sense that the covering up of embarrassment, of possible wrongdoing, will not only cease, but that we will be able to learn and understand what has gone wrong and why. But I do not believe we can achieve that if we insist upon retribution upon those whose actions we abhor. If people truly want a moral society, then shame should be a powerful disincentive to any who would follow in their footsteps, and the cost of achieving punishment might divert from more important tasks before this nation. We need to heal the nation, and insistence upon pounds or tons of flesh - as much as it might be warranted - is a price we may not be able to afford. And not every mistake or wrong action was necessarily venal: bad judgment should not be criminalized, lest we lose the opportunity to heal not only the nation, but also the political discourse that is necessary if we are to survive as a democratic republic.
Bobby Kennedy was fond of a line from George Bernard Shaw:
Some men see things as they are and say why - I dream things that never were and say why not.
I want to know the dreams of the candidate. I look for something beyond a laundry list of programs. I want someone who can inspire us as a nation to come together for goals beyond ourselves. I want a person who is competent to lead us in moving towards the goals of those dreams, no matter how seemingly distant and unreachable. In this my model is the famous three part statement from Hillel:
If I am not for myself, then who will be for me? And if I am only for myself, then what am I? And if not now, when?
I expect that a candidate will appeal to our individual interests and desires, for If I am not for myself, then who will be for me? But the candidate who aspires to lead us must challenge to go further, to think beyond ourselves: And if I am only for myself, then what am I? For if we do not think beyond ourselves and those with whom we feel most akin by blood or philosophy, by religion or economics, we risk undermining the best guarantee of our own success and security, our liberal democracy. And we cannot wait. In a world in which the very natural environment necessary for existence is in severe danger, and in which too many people both here and in other nations feel abandoned or abused, we do not have much time to change course. Time is of the essence: And if not now, when?
Candidates and your surrogates, don't just give me a laundry list of programs that are supposed to persuade me to support you. Give me a vision for where you want this country and this world to go. Point out steps that take us in that direction. Tell us not what you will do, but what we will do. Part of what was inspiring about the inaugural of Jack Kennedy is that at least verbally he offered us a challenge:
Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country.
We do not know what the future will hold if we do act, but we cannot afford to wait until we do. And a candidate who wants my support must demonstrate that s/he understands something that in our worst economic times our President as he was inaugurated told us
Let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself—nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance. In every dark hour of our national life a leadership of frankness and vigor has met with that understanding and support of the people themselves which is essential to victory. I am convinced that you will again give that support to leadership in these critical days.
I believe the American people will respond to leadership that challenges us, that offers us hope, that asks us to go beyond ourselves. If I candidate wants my support s/he will offer us that kind of leadership. I don't want to be told what we cannot do, I want to be asked and challenged for what we can do, together, as a people, a nation, all of humanity.
I dream big dreams. I teach because I believe there is a future, and I want those who pass through my care to have hope, to look for something beyond their own immediate comfort and needs. I want a president who and inspire them.
People grow. During the course of a campaign, either when staring into the possible abyss of campaign disaster or when realizing that one might in fact actually achieve success, the awfulness of the role to which one aspires may finally explode the consciousness of the candidates. Each might realize that this is something far more than s/he had imagined, no matter how close to power one has previously been. I look for some evidence of that understanding, and how the candidates respond.
My vote is not until February 12. It is possible that my choice may be events be further limited. It is also possible that I may find myself voting for someone whom I "know" cannot win the nomination, but whose candidacy best represents what I want and hope for this nation.
I am listening, I am watching. And I am desperately hoping that as a nation we will have a candidate who can address the concerns I have expressed.
And again, Peace.