Primaries and Presidents

Yesterday's Human Rights Campaign Presidential Forum was a bit anti-climactic. I'd been hoping to see some sparks fly between some of the more conservative and progressive candidates, but it was not to be. The forum was highly structured, with only one candidate appearing on stage at a time so that there was no dialogue between the candidates. Each candidate gave an opening statement, answered two questions (and whatever additional related questions moderator Sam Donaldson decided to put to them), and gave a closing statement. To control things further, the candidates knew the questions in advance so they had prepared answers to make them look as good as possible. You can see the archived webcast of the forum here, but the bottom line was that what the candidates had to say was fairly empty—for the most part they just rehashed statements you can find on their websites. What was important about yesterday's forum is that it happened at all. The fact that the HRC could get seven presidential candidates (all except Edwards and Graham) to speak at their event—even in such tightly controlled conditions—shows that gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender issues have come out of the closet, so to speak, and are finally legitimate topics for national public debate.

But now that the first-quarter money race is over, the top candidates are really starting to look toward the primaries. According to Politics1, Presidential politics will start getting at least a little hot on January 13 when the District of Columbia holds its "Presidential Preference Primary." That's followed on Jan. 19 by the Iowa Caucuses, followed on the 27th by the New Hampshire Primary. (I've heard rumors that some people in New Hampshire are angry at DC for trying to steal the title of "nation's first primary," so some New Hampshire-ites have vowed to vote against anyone who campaigns in DC. I hope that's just a rumor, 'cause that's just nuts.)

But since I'm actually living in a suburb of DC, I'm supposed to be interested in the Maryland Presidential Primary on March 2, which appears to be "super Tuesday." The Maryland process for getting a candidate on the ballot looks a little sketchy. According to the Maryland Secretary of State, the ballot is up to him or her, in conjunction with the state and national media:

The Office of the Secretary of State is responsible for designating the people whose names appear on the ballot for each primary election. This is done when the Secretary has determined that the candidate's candidacy is generally advocated or recognized in the news media throughout the United States or in Maryland and in accordance with party rules.

Wow, sounds democratic, doesn't it? Not.

Meanwhile, factions of the Democratic party are going on about some huge battle between the left and right wings of the party, which to me only highlights how successful the Repubs have been in shifting the terms of debate to their end of the spectrum. The only candidate to mention this "division in the party" at yesterday's candidate forum was Lieberman, which isn't really surprising since he would definitely be one of those in the right wing. But this little battle could be troublesome for someone like Dean, who is rising in the polls primarily because he's doing a better job than anyone else of straddling this little divide. Although Dean's image as too liberal is fading, he'll still have to work hard to sell his definition of "center" to the nation as a whole. Steve Snyder, in a letter to Salon, does a beautiful (if highly cynical) job encapsulating the challenge facing the "democratic wing of the democratic party" in politics today. Snyder writes:

What we Democrats fail to realize is that at some fundamental level the triumph of popular conservatism in our politics represents the interaction of basic human nature with the changed reality of life in our advanced society. Ultimately, the Republicans win -- and continue to win -- because the rhetoric of "serve yourself" beats "let's work together" in all but truly dire times. Let's face it: Community is hassle. You have to deal with disagreeable neighbors and you can't always do what you want. And the Republicans understand this. Their rhetoric is always based on the idea that you shouldn't have to be bothered by anything unpleasant: Taxes are annoying, so get rid of them. Zoning ordinances, environmental laws, nagging labor unions, affirmative action to rectify past injustices -- all are a drag.

This rhetoric proves even more appealing when the circumstances that necessitate living in a community recede into the past. Most of the people who bother to vote today grew up in middle-class suburbs and segued fairly smoothly into their careers, homes and money. In fact, most of those likely to vote have never known really hard times. Americans once lived their entire lives with the knowledge that they were only a drought away from starvation. For them, accommodating the demands of annoying neighbors wasn't just a lofty idea; it was a survival strategy.

But today -- as the Republicans recognize -- those most likely to vote have reached a level of affluence that evokes the illusion they can buy their way out of the inconvenience of community altogether. That leaves the Democrats to make the rather joyless argument that "we're all in it together," which, unfortunately, will necessitate paying some taxes and doing the hard work of learning to live with one another.

In the end, the Republicans will keep winning because they champion what we secretly desire: a world where we can have all the goodies with none of the larger responsibilities. Their policies are an adolescent's wet dream, and, sadly, we are a politically immature nation.

I think Snyder's got the issue right—it's a self-centered worldview that sees society as the enemy vs. a bigger picture worldview that sees society as the whole point of existence. The "we're all in it together" ethos underlies the most biting critiques of recent U.S. foreign policy, but it also lines up behind critiques of "globalization" and "free trade" schemes that sacrifice human needs for balanced budgets and corporate profits. And yeah, that's a hard sell to people who see so many short-term benefits from the "server yourself" way of doing things. But that doesn't make those benefits last any longer.

Posted 04:13 PM | election 2004

New Kids on the Block

Hello to FalconRed (a pre-blawger just getting down to that nasty LSAT studying bi'ness), and Household Opera, an academic blogger who's a little less than satisfied with the old academy. Welcome to this blogging thing! And props to both of you for your great reading habits. ;-)

Posted 03:36 PM | Comments (3) |

Car Rental Gotcha

While clearing my desk I ran across the receipt for the car I rented during my recent travels West. The total bill was $423.16 to rent for one week a recent model Chevy Cavalier, 4-dr., automatic, w/air conditioning and cd-player, and unlimited miles. It was a good car, it did the job nicely, and the rental company was fine. The problem is that I reserved the car and made all my travel plans based on the fact that it was supposed to cost $127 for the week. That's right: I was quoted a price of $127, but I ended up paying $423.

SO, this receipt reminds me that I wanted to rant about what a rip-off car rentals are and how there appears to be no such thing as "truth in advertising" when it comes to this crap and why aren't innocent and naive consumers (like myself) protected from this kind of scam!?

But why bother? In a few years I'll be a lawyer, and then, well, let's just say the car rental business better watch out. Paybacks are a bitch.*

*Yeah, I know having a J.D. won't probably enable me to sue the pants off of car rental companies for lying to their customers, but I'm told an active fantasy life is healthy, ok?

Posted 11:57 AM | Comments (2) | life generally

Welcome to Reality

Scroll down to the bottom of this White House transcript of Yubbledew's remarks yesterday about Iraq and you'll find Yubbledew said:

The larger point is, and the fundamental question is, did Saddam Hussein have a weapons program? And the answer is, absolutely. And we gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in. And, therefore, after a reasonable request, we decided to remove him from power, along with other nations, so as to make sure he was not a threat to the United States and our friends and allies in the region. I firmly believe the decisions we made will make America more secure and the world more peaceful.

Now read it again. It says Saddam Hussein wouldn't let weapons inspectors into Iraq, and that's why we went to war.

As Joe Conason reminds us, that's an outright fabrication. So either Yubbledew lies so much he simply can't keep all the lies straight, or he lives in a fantasy world, or both. Either way, the question is this: Yesterday on the afternoon and evening news I heard repeated sound bites from the remarks Yubbledew made yesterday and all of them included the first two sentences quoted above; none of them included the rest of the statement. Why not? Why is the press giving Yubbledew a pass here? Why why why?

Grrr...

Posted 05:45 AM | Comments (3) | general politics