vote in November is not going to matter to anyone but myself. Second off, I am okay with that. Which means even though I believe strongly in the need to participate in democracy, I find my cynicism hard to overcome. My education in the liberal arts and its focus on critical thinking has ruined me for the political discourse in this country. When I listen to politicians and their made-for-TV campaigns, I can think of nothing but the altruism "Every complex problem has a simple, easy to understand, wrong answer." So when the candidates universally propose simple or vague solutions to the problems we face as a country, I am left with nothing to do but check out.Despite being what I think is a centrist, I have always voted for a republican for president, because generally I believe what they say they believe on many issues: Abortion makes me uneasy, high taxes make me uneasy, I do not feel that more government is the answer to our problems, etc. But since the mid-nineties, the republicans have not lived up to what they say they are for--and when I look at disastrous new programs like NoChildLeftBehind or the Knee-jerk waste of Money that is the Department of Homeland Security (sounds like something straight out of Germany 1936), I can't say if there is much difference in the two parties.
Most of the time I feel like I just don't fit in, because I cannot accept the partisan rhetoric of either side. When I taught my students in Texas, or when I talked politics with colleagues in the Army National Guard, I felt like the most liberal man on the planet, but in some of the University departments I have been a part of, my views seem somewhere to the right of John Birch in comparison. Mostly I feel that the only person that agrees with me is me because I am unwilling to sell my soul whole-heartedly to either camp and I don't believe our problems can be solved with the trite phrases that are all that are reported in the media, nor do I believe that we can accomplish anything as long as the ideas of the other party are rejected out of hand simply because of the sourc
e.In fact, I am not sure how much power the president really holds, and this should be the lesson of the last 20 years. As the "only remaining superpower" America has spent the last 20 years (or more) doing whatever America wants, acting in our own perceived and inevitably myopic self-interest. As long as there was a balancing threat in the Soviet Union, the protection we offered meant that our allies in Europe and in Asia mostly had to go along. But with that threat mostly removed, protection begins to look a lot more like colonialism and empire-building, and resentment grows. This is of course a gross overstatement, but I think a lot of countries look for ways to display their independence from our overpowering financial and cultural influence. I have met many people from other countries who admire us and resent us at the same time. As a whole, these countries are reluctant to simply go along with every policy that comes out of Washington. So even though we are the most powerful nation individually, it is impossible to act unilaterally either as a peacekeeper or as the world's police. This I think was Bush's greatest mistake--Not that he wanted to bring democracy to the middle east, but that he assumed everyone there wanted our brand of democracy, and that he had so alienated our allies even before 9-11, that they were just
looking for reasons not to follow along.Economically the president doesn't have that much control either. Financial cycles have their own interior motors and seem to happen almost independent of policy. At best, the Federal Reserve Board and steer things in a very general way, and what little oversight they receive comes from congress and not the president. Secondly, it is the house of representatives that has to pass the national budget each year. The president can only propose ideas and veto bills he sees as bad. So for me, I find it as difficult to give either Reagan or Clinton credit for the economic upturns during their presidencies as to blame Bush for the ups and downs that have been the economy since 2001. There is enough blame and credit to go around for a lot of people, including the public and personal spending habits.
So what then, is the role of the president? I am not sure, really. But I think politics in the end is a lot about symbolism. Parties and people tend to mean for us what we think they mean. Our lives, our histories, our cultures will determine what we see and what we hear when politicians speak, and the partisanship has become deeply ingrained, not just here, but abroad. In the German newspapers I read, Hilary Clinton had been anointed as the savior of trans-Atlantic relations because many in Europe had a perception, based on little information, of who they think she is and who they think her Husband was. What I hope for in the next president is someone who can help beat back some of the partisanship domestically, and the unilateralism internationally.
My opinion on who will do that best changes from day to day. On practical matters, I think McCain is probably the most qualified, but I am afraid he will have to give in too much to the extreme right of his party to maintain their support. Obama strikes me as simplistic and naive. He seldom speaks about policies with any sort of specifics, but when he does, most of his ideas seem wrong-headed to me. Although I would like to get our forces out of Iraq, doing so too quic
kly will cause, in my opinion, more harm than good. Hopefully some of the rumblings that he is not as dogmatic on this point as he sounds are accurate. McCain's ideas, even though they were unpopular when he proposed them, seem to be at least partly responsible for the improved situation there. In the end, I suspect there will be little practical difference in McCain's and Obama's policies.However, as a figurehead, as a symbol, I think Obama is a far superior choice. Electing him would demonstrate to the world and to ourselves that we are working to overcome our racist tendencies, that we really are an egalitarian society in a way that is so absent in so many other countries. I think his relative youth, his optimism, and his overall image of innovation present an opportunity for a fresh start and a change from business as usual--IF-- and it's a big if--if he can avoid pandering too much to the extreme left of his party in his own effort to gain support. His choice of Joe Biden as VP does not give me much hope in this respect (although Biden is better than the indescribably divisive choice Hillary Clinton would have been).
So I have not yet decided if I will vote for a symbol or experience this time around. My only comfort is I think both choices this year are miles ahead of any of the candidates from the last 16 years. I wanted McCain in 2000, and I think things would have been much better now if we had had him instead of Bush. But Obama represents something that no Bush or Clinton or Kerry or Gore, (or Dole for that matter) has offered.
In the end I am optimistic. Our system is far from perfect, but compared to most countries, it is pretty good, and America has the potential to do great things. I suspect that Obama will win with or without my vote. (In Utah a vote for Obama is not likely to make it through the electoral college--but like I said in the beginning, that doesn't matter to me) and even when he makes mistakes, the beauty of our system is that he cannot make them forever. Mugabe and Putin would not be able to cling to power here. So our weakness is our strength: Term limits and elections mean politicians are incapable of caring about consequences beyond the next election cycle. But term limits also guarantee that Obama, good or bad, will not be around forever.
