Death of a Campaign

At the risk of revealing my obsession with the presidential primary season in the U.S., I'd like to draw attention to the collapse of Hillary Clinton's campaign. This race has certainly been a difficult one to pin down - for all observers I think. But as of last night I am able to make a projection (cue the cheesy CNN sound clip): Barack Obama will win the democratic primary, I repeat, Barack Obama will win the democratic nomination.

I didn't come to this conclusion by looking at the delegate numbers, or speculative assertions about super delegates, and certainly not by examining the poll numbers. Rather, it was by half-jokingly applying Elizabeth Kubler-Ross's "Five Stages of Grief" to the Clinton campaign. Let me enumerate each stage with a brief example.

1. Denial: Up until four or five months ago, Barack Obama was not on the pundit radar. When I first heard him speak some year and a half ago, I knew he would go places in U.S. politics, but I did not expect it to be so soon, or even so far. To use that disparaging term, he was not even the 'dark horse' in the democratic party. But when that quickly changed and the delegate numbers started coming in, Clinton acted, with her characteristic sense of entitlement, as if Obama was merely a fly that would buzz itself out in a short time. As recently as Super Tuesday, she believed, or at least portrayed the belief that Obama was not a force to be reckoned with.

2. Anger: Quickly after her first defeat, the Clinton machine became angry - who is this usurper of my rightful ascent to power? The slurs began to fly, most recently with the pre-Texas round of negativity. One might even frame her shedding of a tear prior to New Hampshire as a sign of internal anger that this just wasn't fair. She had big plans, good policies, a vision that deserves to be implemented. How could this happen?

3. Bargaining: When Obama passed her in total expected delegate count, advisors began deserting her campaign, and time was running out, she began to bargain. Just as one bargains with time to spare them from death, with considerable hubris, Hillary and Bill began proposing fantastical possibilities of a joint-ticket - with Obama on the second line. Obama, and the party leadership, quickly sped her along the road to the next stage when they flatly rejected such a proposal.

4. Depression: Most recently, Hillary has begun apologizing for all of the mistakes she made along the way. One could interpret this as an acceptance of loss, though this has not come formally or publicly yet. Rather, I see it as a kind of self-pitying that things could have been better and different, but they're not. It is impossible to predict these kind of things, but I expect Hillary to campaign with significantly less vigour then before.

5. Acceptance: I believe this is still yet to come, perhaps after the Pennsylvania primary, but of course, if may come sooner - or later.

This is hardly a faithful interpretation of the model, and I do it thoroughly from a lay perspective. Alternative analyses are certainly possible, and welcome. However, putting aside this lack of scientific rigour for a moment, this outline demonstrates one thing: that Hillary responded to her slow defeat the way someone does to something that they actually 'have' - a partner, a job, their own mortality. In true dynastic form, Clinton 'grieves' over something that she shouldn't presume to have had, but feels is her divine right. I'm not one to buy into the popular, sweeping assertions about politics in any country, in this case, the 'Bush-Clinton dynasty' argument. Still, if in the mind of Hillary, she viewed herself as the rightful 'heir' to the presidency, American politics has been saved from a dangerous turn towards further elitism.

Promise, Precaution and Preparedness: Obama and the Democratic Primary

I like Barack Obama - he appeals to my elitist demand for a candidate that can speak eloquently, and convey relatively complex ideas in an inspiring and forceful manner. As a believer in the power of discourse, this is a central quality that we should be looking for in any leader. He also, I believe, is unique in the history of modern U.S. politics in that his campaign rhetoric is rooted in grassroots organization. Yes, his platform consists of variations on a common theme - easy fix solutions provided by a Washington political class. But his speeches clearly foreshadow an era of renewed community organization and activism that America so desperately needs. This is not surprising, given his occupational biography, but the fact that this message seems to resonate so well with voters is. In an era of political apathy, of short-termism, of the paternal state or corporation advocating some kind of mild social responsibility, the long-dormant core of American culture is returning with renewed vigor.

All of his merits, as far as I'm concerned, make Barack Obama deserving of the democratic nomination, and ultimately the presidency of the United States. Experience in the well-oiled machine of Washington politics is non-essential, and the kinds of political tactics that a true outsider - a community activist - could bring to the White House might actually blind Washington lobbyists and career politicians in a stupor that should match their mentalities.

But watching his speech tonight made my detested inclination towards strategy kick in. As older generations seize power based on their age and rely on the hackneyed rhetoric of their parents, the recent trend has been towards cyclical politics, culture and (hopefully) economics. If we can accurately relate current politics to those of the past, where does Obama fit in? Is history likely to repeat itself?

One name stands out in comparison with Barack Obama - Jimmy Carter. In 1976, Jimmy Carter ran on a record quite similar to Barack Obama. He appealed to a dissatisfied electorate reeling from the malaise of Nixon and Ford and promised that, as an outsider to Washington, he would reform the dirty politics of the day. This is nothing new now, but at the time it struck a cord with voters, and they delivered a humble Baptist, naval lieutenant and peanut farmer the Democratic nomination, and ultimately the presidency. Carter's presidency is now well known - rising oil prices, stagflation, and ultimately the Iranian hostage crisis. He left office with a 25% approval rating, paving the way for Reagan (with a similar message and background) to seize the presidency in 1980.

One only needs to watch a few of Obama's speech to note some interesting similarities: the call for honesty, the cleanup of Washington, the "first" status (Carter was the first "deep" South candidate to win his party's nomination in over a hundred years). These comparisons to me are a moot point however. What interests (and worries) me is, given that Obama is in front runner status in my eyes for the presidency, will his story turn out like that of Carter?

The crisis that global warming presents looms large - any leader will have to deal with either the vomitous reactions of industry to regulation, or increasing environmental crises: neither will be popular. The price of oil has risen above $100 USD again, and shows no sign of declining precipitously. This will present a problem for any president tasked with crafting an energy policy for the 21st century. Certain foreign policy issues are likely to erupt, irrespective of the belligerence of American intent: Russia, Cuba, Pakistan, and many others that I am too tired to think about. Any way you cut it, the next five years are in no way 'Golden Years' for any candidate.

So my conclusion is honestly more of a question, echoing that of the last post. If Obama wins the nomination and the presidency, will he fumble like Carter? Personally, I think Barack Obama is a much more formidable candidate and person than Carter ever was. History constantly provides cues as to how we might act, and if any politician is to act on them, it will be Obama. While Carter is passionate and 'rational', I would not call him shrewd. Obama, on the other hand, seems to have much more than meets the eye. This belief may be the result of over-exposure to Obama and not to Carter, but still - there is something of the Spirit of 68' about Obama.

My concern should not be a sign that I am skeptical of Obama as a candidate - I always think it is beneficial to push the discourse as far towards humanity as possible when time allows - but rather it should be a signal indicating the need for preparation for America and the world. We must be prepared to utilize Obama the vessel, in America and elsewhere, if he wins the presidency, to achieve ends that will benefit all.

A Frank (not Ronald) Discussion of the Republican Primary Debates

The best thing anyone can do is pay close attention to something they have a general disdain for, and consider it, not with an 'objective' eye, but with the exclusion of the aspects that are most frustrating for them. For me, the California Republican debate fit that bill quite well, mostly because of the radical disconnect between the consciously crafted rhetoric of the Republican candidates and the utterly destructive consequences of Republican policies on the American working poor, to say nothing of the millions worldwide that have suffered at their hands over the years. So (recalling that I have waived any claims of objectivity) with the debates as my focal point, let me offer an alternative analysis to what will certainly be a massive spectacle in the coming 24 hours.

Putting everything aside, in my opinion, the big winner in this debate was Huckabee - when he had the opportunity to speak, he delivered a clear, concise and even passionate response. Both he and Paul, perhaps from their vantage points as the "future Republican nominee drop outs", gave heated and concerned responses to questions asked of them, or seized their own space to present points from their platforms. McCain was obviously the big loser in these debates, and as I write this, I will concurr with Amy Holmes' pointed comment on CNN's aftershow that he appeared "surly". To take that further, I saw his performance resembling that of a cocky candidate, drunk on the fruits of his endorsements. Nevertheless, CNN, eager to back "power", no matter its stripe, was quick to remedy his less than stellar performance in the aftermath of the debate.

Which brings me to a major point of contention with these debates. Both Huckabee and Paul at some point in the night mentioned that they would like to speak about the issues, rather than - in the words of Huckabee - be an "umpire at a ballgame". Unfortunately, neither of them ever got a chance to really "swing a few" themselves, with no thanks to the questioners. But an even bigger issue was the entire questioning format. With no rules, CNN was at the helm to dictate what kind of debate this would be. Their decision: bring out the talkshow. CNN consistently would ask questions of either McCain or Romney, and after hearing their response, instead of letting the other give their own response to the question, would ask them to respond to their competitors point. This is a practice that blatantly obscures the issues. Instead, it encouraged (even forced) the candidates into the kind of absurd futility of character attacks that the media thrives upon. I can say, from the perspective of someone who fights tooth and nail against the policies that Republican candidates generally advance, that I honestly felt bad for all of them tonight.

But beyond the format questions, the main point that stuck out to me was really the disjuncture about what the Republican party is really all about. Listening to the diverse narratives of all the candidates and the back and forth name-calling of being out of synch with the party, I was left wondering: what does the Republican party really stand for? I heard Huckabee talk about the fundamental equality of all life, no matter what or where it was, alongside Romney criticize any claim of potential legitimacy for non-"Americans" to a right to live a life they choose. I heard McCain talk about a military class that needs to be upheld above all else, alongside Ron Paul talk about an ideal of freedom, rooted in the "everyman", that is the core of the country's pride and success. These different - and often contradictory - political and moral values leave one wondering what the cohesive glue of the party really is now. Why, for one, continue to link the party to Ronald Reagan? Should he really be the main referent for the party?

This, more than anything, signalled to me the demise of Republican leadership in the next election - and I have consistently predicted a McCain victory in both the primary and the presidential contest since 2006. If the Republican party hopes to have any shot at winning a general election, they need to have a consistent strategy that either solidifies their base, or transcends it. As times change and the Reagan personality fades into black, and he is remembered for the policies that he really stood for, the party will need to rethink just who they stand for. My hopes are that they fail to do this, so that Americans will at least get a good decade of marginal economic benefits (living wage anyone?), and an entrenchment of a much more egalitarian political culture.

But I defer to you - how did you view the California debate? What about this Reagan legacy? Is the party as fractured as people claim?

Just Egg or the Whole Pie? American Media and the Colombian Hostage Situation

In an incident rarely so conspicuous, the mainstream American media was caught with egg on its face with regards to Venezuela.

The background: Chavez has been involved in hostage negotiation with Colombia's FARC for some time now. The belligerent government of Uribe has clearly demonstrated it has no interest in opening a dialogue with the FARC over the years, and would rather engage in spectacular telenovela style politics and military intervention in order to maintain its tenuous hold over the Colombian electorate, even while it shoves both hands into the public cookie jar. Since the Venezuelan government is obviously to the left of Uribe, and closer in ideological leanings to the FARC than the Colombian government, they offered to act as a more sympathetic intermediary that might be able to relate to the FARC, something that the traditional Colombian political parties had refused to do since La Violencia.

After long talks, a handover of some of the FARC hostages was scheduled over the New Year, but failed to materialize. The FARC cited Colombian military activity in the region where the handover was supposed to take place, and refused to meet. The major American media outlets, and consequently unthinking conservative and liberal bloggers, trumpeted this delay - one CNN article put it - as demonstrating the "limits" of the Chavez government. They recognized everything that I have here, and yet still chose to frame this incident in the most curious way that they did. To me, this either shows their complete ineptitude in understanding the South American dynamic, their blatant ideological leanings, or most likely, both.

Today, two hostages were freed with the help of Chavez. The most recent CNN article on the topic says nothing of Chavez's past "failures", though it does include a quote by one freed hostage, Clara Rojas, who thanked Chavez for "returning [her]... to life". How embarrassing it must be to conclude irrationally and prematurely that Chavez had failed, that somehow his integrity as the president of Venezuela had been challenged by his failure to succeed in work that he was effectively doing pro bono, only to find that he did succeed. There is nothing more satisfying when editorials by the elite masquerading as 'objective' news stories are exposed for what they really are. This happens continually with regards to Venezuela, for despite all of his faults, Chavez is an institutional socialist that has certainly learned from the mistakes of his predecessors. Rarely, however, does it happen so neatly.

The Real Coherency of Ron Paul?

It appears Ron Paul's "war of all against all" is much less 'libertarian', and much more organized around racial lines than I had originally thought. Back in the early 90s, Paul was engaged in endorsing (at least tacitly) hate literature that targeted blacks, gays, and jews. Of course, Paul now says he knew nothing of the reports that bear his name, and claims he is not racist as any good presidential candidate must do. In fact, Ron Paul went so far to claim that "Libertarians are incapable of being a racist, because racism is a collectivist idea". Someone should mention to Ron Paul that humans are incapable of being libertarians because they live in societies. Hayek's lunacy still reigns in the minds of the ignorant.

A light was cast on libertarian rhetoric today, one that ultimately illuminated the real Ron Paul that I speculated was bubbling under the surface in the last post. That so many who believe in freedom, human dignity and autonomy are swayed by the populism of this vicious old man is truly sad. I ask those who feel the desire to be standard bearers in Ron Paul's "revolution" to really think about what it is they want. What kind of society do you want, what kind of individual do you want to be? What values drive your worldview? If you connect the dots to form the kind of world that Ron Paul would like to see, at least according to his policy positions, you arrive at a picture that looks much more like George W. Bush than a soaring eagle.

On a lighter note, I wonder: if Ron Paul is so libertarian that he could never trust government to manage his money, how could he entrust his reputation to people he apparently vehemently opposes? Coherency or contradiction? You be the judge.

Warfare and Policy Coherency: McCain vs. Paul

The debate between the policy positions of Ron Paul and John McCain is emblematic of the Republican divide in the U.S. around warfare. It also epitomizes the selfish myopia of many Republicans voters too ignorant or vindictive to connect the dots. McCain asserts that non-intervention, which he likens to isolationism, is what led to Hitler's rise to power, while Ron Paul advocates a position for the U.S. that rejects global militarism in favor of 'trade, travel and talk'. As these two candidates argued this point last night during the 'CNN/Youtube Debates' (a farcical spectacle if I've ever seen one), both were met by simultaneous cheering and booing.

Now, McCain is a number of derogatory nouns that I could spend hours listing, but he is at least coherent. In McCain's America, the US military would be (likely more effectively than under Bush) deployed throughout the world, reasserting neocolonial domination by imposing ideologically driven value systems on the conquered nations. At home, the federal government would act as the vanguard for the securitization of America in favor of the white christian male minority, and a thinner state would enact economic policy that favors corporate elites. For McCain, war is the endless, belligerent state that the American government should engage in - military and ideological warfare abroad, class and social warfare at home. Coherent, methodical and exacting in its hatred for everyone that does not reflect his power background.

Ron Paul on the other hand is a confusing character. On the one hand he vociferously advocates individual freedom for all as a libertarian, yet on the other he favors subjecting individual freedom to the iron grip of an intense national state that will seek to crush freedoms like immigration and abortion. Furthermore, he advocates the inconsistent and Utopian vision of a capitalist society without government regulation. But, back to the subject at hand, Paul rejects military warfare, arguing that American should only engage in warfare for "defensive" purposes (though, this is precisely how Bush sold Iraq pre-emption at first), all the while advocating combinations of policies that actively propagate class and social warfare on behalf of elites. Those who share the individualist and static conception of human nature that Ron Paul clearly has are undoubtedly familiar with Hobbes's classic phrase "war of all against all". Most of his supporters have failed to reconcile the contradictions implicit in a capitalist-libertarian conception of human nature that would prove Hobbes right. What is scary is that the few ideologues who have come to terms with this eagerly relish the Battle Royale that is to come if they end up in power.

Perhaps, deep down, Ron Paul is as coherent as John McCain. Perhaps he does understand that the policies he is proposing will quite obviously entrench social inequalities and widen the income gap - infringing on a great American constitutional freedom: that of general welfare. Maybe he is merely positioning himself at the top of the pack in the "war of all against all" that he sees occurring. But if so, this is not evident in his policies, nor in the vehemency of his misguided supporters. Coming from a point of principle, the state is a dangerous entity in the sense that it usurps decision-making power from each of us, no matter how "democratic" the process through which this takes place. However, efforts to reduce its influence, and more importantly, what social order will take its place, need to be reflective, purposeful and progressive. Abolishing the state without systematically addressing structural inequalities reproduced within the economy and society will certainly lead to the vindication of Hobbesian thought. John McCain understands this very well, and in response is interested in using the state to further entrench these inequalities. Ron Paul and his followers, at least on the surface, are woefully deluded.

Sixty Years On, the Cycle Continues

Steve Paikin and The Agenda have reminded me of an extremely important anniversary coming up this Thursday, Nov. 29th : 60 years ago, the United Nations decided to arbitrarily seize the land of the Palestinians and offer it as compensation to Jewish people reeling from the horrors of the holocaust. Immediately after the first wave of settlement, the Israeli state began its program of land 'expansion', evident below. Now, this is undoubtedly a complex issue with no complete solution that is immediately implementable. However, I was struck by the comments of Yossi Klein Halevi, the Jewish 'video guest' brought on to spark discussion. He argued a point that was seemingly innocuous, positive even, but - if you really want to be reflexive and historically grounded, as Halevi argues - was actually quite oppressive.

Halevi focused his monologue on the cultural and ethnic narratives we all have, and the historic unwillingness of both Israelis and Palestinians to acknowledge the legitimacy of 'the Other'. He argued that while the Jewish people have come to terms with their belligerent past, now accepting of a two-state solution, the Palestinians are still bent on the destruction of the Israeli state, incapable of acknowledging 'the Other'. To frame the situation like this makes sense if, and only if, both parties are on equal terms, politically and economically. But, as this is not the case, this argument will inevitably entrench historic oppression, forcing the victims to bear an equal share of a burden that was unequally dealt.

The years of constant denigration faced by Arab Palestinians, both within 'Israeli' and Palestinian territory and worldwide from the international community, are not something we can ask them to shrug off as if they did not matter. It is easy for Jewish Israelis to 'acknowledge the other' (though of course, never in government policy) after sixty years of 'reparations' in the form of foreign aid and economic opportunities - not to mention political autonomy. Defenders of this privilege try to offset the gap by emphasizing the barrage of violence Israelis have had to graple with (though never with any mention of disproportionality). But the real disconnect is between the limits of Israeli civil society's acknowledgement of the other's narrative (always in simple, though important, political terms) and the lived economic and cultural realities of the Palestinians.

Ahistoricity is a powerful concept for dominant groups wishing to legitimize their dominancy, but it is obviously the death knell for any hope of redressing inequities. Yet ironically, the only history that (some) Jewish people like to consider is the one that legitimizes their presence in the Middle East. Some of the most vociferous advocates of this history live in the United States, and yet none are willing to acknowledge the much more recent right to that territory by a variety of indigenous groups. If we trace back our history far enough, none of us have the right to be anywhere on this earth, as only some few million years ago, we didn't exist as a species. Instead of jockeying for some kind of fabricated "right" that could fantastically legitimize the various occupations of humanity over the course of its storied history, we should be focusing on seriously working towards addressing inequalities that result from those occupations.

History is not something we can ignore altogether, nor something we can circumvent by reaching back indefinitely. It is something that we have to acknowledge, understand, and deal with, if we wish to achieve real progressive solutions. That necessarily means the giving up of privilege for some. Any 'solution' that leaves this, and consequently history, off the table is no solution at all, but merely more fuel for the cycle of oppression to continue.