Party Unity

Yesterday the Democratic Party decided to "settle" the issue of what to do about the Florida and Michigan primaries. Their decision was obviously intended to appease Hillary Clinton to some degree, while still assuring that Barack Obama clinches the Party's nomination. I support Obama over Clinton, but I am not pleased with this decision. Here is why.

First, by cutting the number of delegates in half, the Party has essentially said that a Floridian's vote is worth half as much as say a Californian's. Second, the Party decided to give 40% of the votes of Michigan to Obama. This was a practical matter, because Obama was not on the ballot in Michigan. If he would have been, he would have probably done much better than that, but it is still wrong for the Party to decide how people voted, instead of letting people actually vote.

The other thing that I object to is all of this business about party unity. I hate that term, because I hate party unity. Party unity is the key to the two-party system that forces us all into picking the lesser of two evils. Let's take a look at the current Democratic contest. Obama does not do well with union workers, and what is wrong with that? Why does he have to do well with union workers? Oh, because if he doesn't get the support of union workers, minorities, women, etc. then he can't beat the Republicans' coalition of religious groups, nationalists, upper middle class, etc.

Personally I would love to see the Democratic Party break apart. I would also love to see the Republican Party break apart. I think it would be great to see coalitions formed on more of an issue-by-issue basis. Is there any doubt that we would already be out of Iraq if that was the case? I think most Republicans know it is a mistake to be there, but party unity subverts democracy. If we didn't have party unity, we could probably agree on some kind of pollution credit system to protect the environment.

Party unity is the key to the success of divisive politics. You can use such issues only when you are assured it will not cause you to lose votes from your own party -- i.e. only when you have party unity. Do you think Republicans would bring up things like abortion, immigration, and stem cell research if they thought that they might lose some of the upper middle class voters they count on? No way. But when you know that your own constintuency will still vote for you even when you bring up issues they disagree with you on, then you are free to be evil.

Yes to Bitterness

A lot of folks think that Barack Obama has really shot himself with his comments about "bitter" Americans:

"It's not surprising, then, they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

That's the quote that everybody cites. It incited Obamafan Dave Winer to take umbrage at Obama's quote and state that "To equate geography with intellect is as wrong as to equate it with race, ethnicity, gender or age." That quote is taken from a blog post by Winer titled Is my candidate too elite?

Before I state my opinion on the matter, let's get a few things out of the way. A lot of people would say that I am the worst kind of elitist: a libertarian. I think Republicans are stupid for wanting to tell people what is right and wrong and how to live their lives. I think Democrats are stupid for thinking they are smart enough to fix everyone's lives and treating people like children. In other words, I think everyone is an idiot. I am a supporter of Obama, but only after Ron Paul fell out of things and Obama became my best bet to ending the ongoing atrocity that is the War and Occupation of Iraq.

That being said, I also consider myself to have a very scientific mind. Thus Obama's quote must be examined in context. Taking quotes out of context is the worst kind of yellow journalism (and perhaps the most common as well.) Obama was explaining why he was having a hard time winning over white working class. He used the bitterness bit as a counter to the notion that it is just because he is black.

You might be wondering what my point is. This is the kind of argument that always annoys my wife. The semantics of the statement are what is important. Obama was not talking about how certain people (white working class in the midwest) are, but why they are skeptical of him as a leader. Look at the recent history of presidential campaigns. The Republican Party has done an exemplary job of using divisive issues to win elections. What are some of those issues? Things like religion and moral values (abortion), immigration, and gun control. These are the exact things brought up by Obama.

So was Obama saying that midwest white working class people are gun toting, racist, religious zealots? I don't think so. I think he was simply stating the fact that certain issues have been effective in deciding the votes of those people. That is not a stereotype or generalization, that is a statistical fact. In the past those people have been swayed by divisive issues by the Republican Party. Now we are seeing them swayed by divisive issues by Hillary Clinton. Obama is just relating these as the facts that answer the question posed to him.

Finally, my propensity for scientific thought forces me to denounce the hypocrisy of the outrage. It is publicly acceptable to call the people on the East and West coast elitists. Everyone else says that the "liberals" think everyone else are dumb. In other words stereotypes of people in "blue states" is ok, but stereotypes of people in "red states" are not. Why is this? Because there are more red states than blue. Might makes right. This is the reason why divisive issues have worked for the GOP. They can play all of the stereotypical, prejudiced cards they want because the people who will be offended are outnumbered. Well outnumbered from an Electoral College perspective at least...

Blogging for Obama

Barack Obama certainly had an impressive victory yesterday in South Carolina. I am definitely rooting for him over Hillary Clinton. Now I voted for Bill Clinton twice. I turned 18 and in 1992 and so it was the first time I could vote. However, I cannot support Hillary because she voted for the war. Obama correctly says that many Democrats supported the war initially because they were afraid to look weak. Is that really a quality you want in a president? Of course the alternative is that she really agreed with the President or that she was stupid enough to be fooled. Whatever, so soup for Hillary. I don't care who your husband is.

And speaking of her husband, what the heck is going on with their campaign against Obama? Bills saying that Obama winning South Carolina was not a big deal because Jesse Jackson won South Carolina 20 yeas ago is an obviously racist statement. It's saying "any black candidate can win South Carolina." It makes me ashamed that I once voted for Bill Clinton.

Thanks Nancy

I've been a registered Democrat since I turned 18. I voted for Bill Clinton twice, Al Gore, and John Kerry. Still, I generally disagree with the Democratic at least as often as I agree with them. That didn't stop me from being encouraged when the Democrats won control of Congress in November.

When I heard about the First 100 Hours Agenda, I wasn't overly impressed. I am definitely not a fan of raising the minimum wage or lowering student loan interest rates, for example. However, with President Bush preparing to announce his plan to increase troop levels in Iraq, I am relieved to finally see the Democrats stand up on Iraq. It's been one of the most disappointing things as a Democrat. They've been so afraid of being labeled unpatriotic or soft on terrorism that they've never gone out and demanded a withdrawal from Iraq. Granted a few Democrats have done this on their own, but the whole party. Pelosi is (supposedly) going do just that. No more "let's adopt the whatever-commissions recommendations" blah blah blah... Instead the Dems are goings to finally deliver the message their constituents have been shouting at them: "Get out of Iraq."