I should preface this by saying I'm not as well-versed on her as I should be. I only know what the mainstream media tells me. She has been a governor for two years, which makes her the only one of the four with any executive experience, albeit brief. Before that, she was mayor of a small town in Alaska. All told, her experience in politics goes back to 1992. I think you'd agree that Republicans are in no position at this point to criticize Obama's "lack of experience".
If Republicans win the White House in November, Palin will almost certainly ascend to the presidency. McCain is not long for this earth, and I think it is telling that he chose a woman to be his running mate. My initial reaction was that McCain is trying to gather up the disaffected Hillary supporters to his cause. But in politics, it helps to be able to look beyond the obvious. Certainly, some will flock to vote for any woman in high office, regardless of qualifications, principles or policies. As a liberal, I had to laugh when conservatives crowed about the Palin decision as demonstrating the chauvinism of the Democratic Party. Parenthetically speaking, I have to wonder how many anti-Hillary Republicans will jump ship to Obama rather than vote for a woman.
I can see the strategic value in Republicans nominating in a woman, especially in light of Hillary not getting the Democratic nomination. I wonder though if it won't backfire. Republicans have made much of Obama's lack of experience, and there were many who scoffed at the idea of Hillary being President on general principle (i.e., her gender). Now McCain has forced them to either eat crow in the name of party loyalty or jump ship.
November will see a lot of people on both sides of the fence crossing over - women who supported Hillary for no other reason than her gender will throw their lot in with McCain. Misogynists in the Republican party who are loathe to see a woman in the Oval Office may well send a message on election day by either not voting at all or voting for the all-male ticket. But what's good about this election is that is going to be very telling about the motivations of voters. We'll see if the issues trump all, party loyalties call the shots, or we just wind up voting within our comfort levels and nothing else.
I do think Obama is going to win, though. Of course I do - I'm a Democrat. But I see the Palin question throwing the GOP into an ideological tailspin. Back in 1984, Walter Mondale took Geraldine Ferraro as his running mate, and it seemed to symbolize the left's willingness to include women in all its reindeer games at all levels. It cast the GOP as the Archie Bunkers of modern politics, and it also seemed like blowback for the defeat of the Equal Rights Amendment some years earlier. But I always secretly wondered if the Ferraro choice was made when Mondale realized that it wouldn't matter who he picked - Reagan fever was running high in America in 1984, especially in the wake of the Los Angeles Olympics. Reagan seemed to embody not just the GOP, but American pride in general. In light of what had to be an obviously hopeless cause, I suspect Mondale chose to attach himself to a running mate that would at least serve notice that the Democrats were going to be the first to crack the glass ceiling.
I have to wonder, in light of the general attitudes towards Bush in this country, if McCain isn't borrowing a page from the Mondale playbook. He knows he's going to lose, not because of anything about him per se, but because the country is going shift left after eight years of Republicans in the White House. And if he's going to go down in flames, he can at least serve notice that Republicans are every bit as progressive on gender issues as Democrats, even if it took them 30 years to catch up. So in the short term, Republicans lose the White House, but this decision to include a woman on the ticket begins to repair the reputation of the GOP as misogynists, a message which will blossom in time for the GOP to woo the feminists back into their camp for 2012.
Wednesday, September 3, 2008
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
Party Unity My Ass, or my plea to Hillary's supporters
So Hillary Clinton addressed the Democratic National Convention last night and stated her support for Barack Obama. She stated her belief that in order to prevail in the general election in November, we must unite as a party. It's a pretty simple message, and it's hard to deny her logic.
Ever since Hillary dropped out and Obama became the presumptive Democratic nominee, there have been rumblings. Those committed to Hillary's campaign found themselves in a tight spot. Most of the Democratic primary process was focused on choosing between the two. All others dropped away, leaving Democrats with those two.
For my own part, I was not in either one's camp in the beginning. I was not an Obama guy or a Hillary guy when this started. I liked Biden (and I'm delighted he's the VP candidate) in the beginning. But then he dropped out early, and I went for Richardson. I picked Richardson mostly for his experience with foreign relations. But then Richardson figured out he wasn't going to get the nomination, and he dropped out.
My point here is that with each candidate, there were supporters. Those supporters, for one reason or another, felt their candidate was the best pick. And when those candidates bowed out, they left their supporters looking for the second best pick. Many of us, whose first (and second, and third) choice didn't win have had to trade out loyalties several times. It's clear to me, as someone who has bounced from one candidate to another in the primary process, that the bottom line is to get a Democrat, ANY Democrat in the White House.
We Democrats have seen the damage inflicted on this country by George W. Bush. And if there was a candidate on the Republican side who was willing to admit that Bush had been bad for our country, if there was one single Republican candidate who had the courage to distance himself and commit to reversing Bush's course, I might have considered voting for him (or her). I'm not saying I would have, but it would have impressed the hell out of me to see someone willing to break ranks.
What Hillary's supporters need to keep in mind is this: easily 95% of the positions Hillary takes on the issue are mirrored by Obama. John McCain's voting records mirrors George W. Bush's 90% of the time. If a person supported Hillary Clinton because of her policies, it's not to late to see those policies win. And Hillary isn't going anywhere. She's still a Senator from New York, and she'll continue pushing her ideals through, whether Barack Obama wins in November or not. They also need to understand that without support from Hillary's people, Obama will lose - it's that simple. And if that happens, it means another four years of deficit spending, another four years of pointless war in Iraq, it means going to war with Iran in all likelihood, it means four more years of how things have been. I, for one, shudder.
We need to get a Democrat in the White House, for the good of the nation and the good of the world. We need to have someone who embraces the principles of the Democratic Party in a position to reverse the course that George W. Bush has set our nation on. We need to rebuild our infrastructure as well as our standing on the world's stage and we need a Democrat in the Oval Office to make that a reality.
If someone supported Hillary because she is a woman, and now won't support Barack Obama, then that person is, by definition, a sexist. There, I said it. And yes, women came be sexists just like men. When you decide to choose someone for a job based solely on their gender, that is sexist.
Hillary did not deserve to be in the running because she is a woman, or because of her last name. She deserved to be in the running because she was qualified and she would have made a good Democratic President. And like Obama or not, he is the nominee. And now the job is up to us Democrats to vote him into office. And we can still support Hillary Clinton. We can be proud that she got as far as she did. We can hope that if elected Obama may appoint her to a cabinet position. If all else fails, she is still the Senator from the great state of New York, and she will work with President Obama and no doubt advise him on many issues.
Maybe Hillary will run in 2012 if Obama loses. Maybe she'll succeed him in 2016. Maybe she will become the Senate Majority leader. No one is counting her out yet. But we are now in the phase of the political process where we vote for the President, and Hillary isn't an option. Please know that Hillary would not want John McCain in the White House, and if you call yourself a Democrat, I can't imagine why you wouldn't do everything in your power to keep him out as well.
Ever since Hillary dropped out and Obama became the presumptive Democratic nominee, there have been rumblings. Those committed to Hillary's campaign found themselves in a tight spot. Most of the Democratic primary process was focused on choosing between the two. All others dropped away, leaving Democrats with those two.
For my own part, I was not in either one's camp in the beginning. I was not an Obama guy or a Hillary guy when this started. I liked Biden (and I'm delighted he's the VP candidate) in the beginning. But then he dropped out early, and I went for Richardson. I picked Richardson mostly for his experience with foreign relations. But then Richardson figured out he wasn't going to get the nomination, and he dropped out.
My point here is that with each candidate, there were supporters. Those supporters, for one reason or another, felt their candidate was the best pick. And when those candidates bowed out, they left their supporters looking for the second best pick. Many of us, whose first (and second, and third) choice didn't win have had to trade out loyalties several times. It's clear to me, as someone who has bounced from one candidate to another in the primary process, that the bottom line is to get a Democrat, ANY Democrat in the White House.
We Democrats have seen the damage inflicted on this country by George W. Bush. And if there was a candidate on the Republican side who was willing to admit that Bush had been bad for our country, if there was one single Republican candidate who had the courage to distance himself and commit to reversing Bush's course, I might have considered voting for him (or her). I'm not saying I would have, but it would have impressed the hell out of me to see someone willing to break ranks.
What Hillary's supporters need to keep in mind is this: easily 95% of the positions Hillary takes on the issue are mirrored by Obama. John McCain's voting records mirrors George W. Bush's 90% of the time. If a person supported Hillary Clinton because of her policies, it's not to late to see those policies win. And Hillary isn't going anywhere. She's still a Senator from New York, and she'll continue pushing her ideals through, whether Barack Obama wins in November or not. They also need to understand that without support from Hillary's people, Obama will lose - it's that simple. And if that happens, it means another four years of deficit spending, another four years of pointless war in Iraq, it means going to war with Iran in all likelihood, it means four more years of how things have been. I, for one, shudder.
We need to get a Democrat in the White House, for the good of the nation and the good of the world. We need to have someone who embraces the principles of the Democratic Party in a position to reverse the course that George W. Bush has set our nation on. We need to rebuild our infrastructure as well as our standing on the world's stage and we need a Democrat in the Oval Office to make that a reality.
If someone supported Hillary because she is a woman, and now won't support Barack Obama, then that person is, by definition, a sexist. There, I said it. And yes, women came be sexists just like men. When you decide to choose someone for a job based solely on their gender, that is sexist.
Hillary did not deserve to be in the running because she is a woman, or because of her last name. She deserved to be in the running because she was qualified and she would have made a good Democratic President. And like Obama or not, he is the nominee. And now the job is up to us Democrats to vote him into office. And we can still support Hillary Clinton. We can be proud that she got as far as she did. We can hope that if elected Obama may appoint her to a cabinet position. If all else fails, she is still the Senator from the great state of New York, and she will work with President Obama and no doubt advise him on many issues.
Maybe Hillary will run in 2012 if Obama loses. Maybe she'll succeed him in 2016. Maybe she will become the Senate Majority leader. No one is counting her out yet. But we are now in the phase of the political process where we vote for the President, and Hillary isn't an option. Please know that Hillary would not want John McCain in the White House, and if you call yourself a Democrat, I can't imagine why you wouldn't do everything in your power to keep him out as well.
Thursday, August 21, 2008
English is the New White
The "english as our official language" crowd has been rattling their sabres lately. Let me boil this down:
The idea here seems to be that if you speak english, you are "better" than those who don't. You should not be made to wait in line behind someone who only speaks spanish. The inference here is that english is the "better" language, or that people who speak english are "better" people, more deserving for prompt service. Pressing "1" for english is offensive, they tell us. Imagine if they had to press "1" for spanish and "2" for english? Oh, the outrage! Who do those spanish-speakers think they are, acting so uppity?
They will use, as a rationale, the fact that more people in this country speak english. And since we are a democracy, and majority rules, those people who speak spanish are therefore "second-class", and should have no special treatment. Don't speak english? Too bad. Either they learn english like us "first class" people, or they shouldn't be allowed to vote, drive, get jobs, eat in restaurants, open bank accounts, rent property, own a home, send their kids to school, get medical care, etc.
The idea is offensive, they will say, to see any kind of print in spanish. Instructions on a voting ballot, for instance. Never mind that there's instructions in english. Never mind that the english instructions come first, and the spanish ones second. Never mind that no one has suggested removing the english language instructions, only that they make room for instructions in spanish as well. It's still offensive, we're told.
They seem to see spanish-speaking people as some kind of a threat, like they're a cult that's going to brainwash our kids when we're not looking. We get fed statistics of crime, shutting down emergency rooms, rape and murder, and we good white people are supposed to circle the wagons and protect ourselves from the invasion of these unwashed savages. We're told that spanish-speaking people are up to no good, and should not be trusted.
And of course, they raise the spectre of illegal immigration. They tell us that pandering to the spanish-speaking people (in other words, treating them like human beings) is going to encourage illegal immigration. Never mind that most if not all of these folks shop at Wal-Mart, one of the biggest offenders, hiring more illegal aliens than anyone else. They don't mind the spanish-speakers mowing our lawns and washing our cars like the good little peasants they are, but the minute they try to speak to us in spanish, look out. Now they've gone too far. Spanish speaking people want a living wage? Why, who do they think they are?
They tell us that we need to declare english as our national language, and thereby justify further mistreatment of those non-english speaking riffraff. They want other laws changed as well, to protect their "way of life", even though their way of life is not under attack by anybody. (Unless, by "way of life" you mean systematic and legal discrimination.) They want us to help them maintain their time-honored status of superiority by virtue of language. They want us to think of spanish speaking people as inferior. They create a crisis wher none exists, to scare us into passing laws to maintain their status quo.
But they're not racists - heavens no! This isn't a race issue, they assure us. It's a heritage issue. Just like slavery was a heritage issue. Just like "colored-only" swimming pools, lunch counters and water fountains were about "preserving our heritage". Of course they're not racists. Just because they automatically assume anyone who speaks spanish is an illegal alien doesn't make them racists, does it?
Surely not.
The idea here seems to be that if you speak english, you are "better" than those who don't. You should not be made to wait in line behind someone who only speaks spanish. The inference here is that english is the "better" language, or that people who speak english are "better" people, more deserving for prompt service. Pressing "1" for english is offensive, they tell us. Imagine if they had to press "1" for spanish and "2" for english? Oh, the outrage! Who do those spanish-speakers think they are, acting so uppity?
They will use, as a rationale, the fact that more people in this country speak english. And since we are a democracy, and majority rules, those people who speak spanish are therefore "second-class", and should have no special treatment. Don't speak english? Too bad. Either they learn english like us "first class" people, or they shouldn't be allowed to vote, drive, get jobs, eat in restaurants, open bank accounts, rent property, own a home, send their kids to school, get medical care, etc.
The idea is offensive, they will say, to see any kind of print in spanish. Instructions on a voting ballot, for instance. Never mind that there's instructions in english. Never mind that the english instructions come first, and the spanish ones second. Never mind that no one has suggested removing the english language instructions, only that they make room for instructions in spanish as well. It's still offensive, we're told.
They seem to see spanish-speaking people as some kind of a threat, like they're a cult that's going to brainwash our kids when we're not looking. We get fed statistics of crime, shutting down emergency rooms, rape and murder, and we good white people are supposed to circle the wagons and protect ourselves from the invasion of these unwashed savages. We're told that spanish-speaking people are up to no good, and should not be trusted.
And of course, they raise the spectre of illegal immigration. They tell us that pandering to the spanish-speaking people (in other words, treating them like human beings) is going to encourage illegal immigration. Never mind that most if not all of these folks shop at Wal-Mart, one of the biggest offenders, hiring more illegal aliens than anyone else. They don't mind the spanish-speakers mowing our lawns and washing our cars like the good little peasants they are, but the minute they try to speak to us in spanish, look out. Now they've gone too far. Spanish speaking people want a living wage? Why, who do they think they are?
They tell us that we need to declare english as our national language, and thereby justify further mistreatment of those non-english speaking riffraff. They want other laws changed as well, to protect their "way of life", even though their way of life is not under attack by anybody. (Unless, by "way of life" you mean systematic and legal discrimination.) They want us to help them maintain their time-honored status of superiority by virtue of language. They want us to think of spanish speaking people as inferior. They create a crisis wher none exists, to scare us into passing laws to maintain their status quo.
But they're not racists - heavens no! This isn't a race issue, they assure us. It's a heritage issue. Just like slavery was a heritage issue. Just like "colored-only" swimming pools, lunch counters and water fountains were about "preserving our heritage". Of course they're not racists. Just because they automatically assume anyone who speaks spanish is an illegal alien doesn't make them racists, does it?
Surely not.
Friday, August 8, 2008
THE SOLUTION FOR SO-CALLED "SANCTUARY CITIES"
Right now Los Angeles, San Francisco, New York, and other major U.S. cities have two things in common: booming economies and high numbers of illegal immigrants. The problem is, many people living in these cities and doing business in these cites have a problem with the "sanctuary city" policies. They continue to do their part to contribute to the economies, despite their objections to their cities' policies.
In the meantime, the federal and local governments can butt heads and tie up the courts trying to prove each other's side wrong. It's all election year posturing and campaign rhetoric, and nothing actually gets accomplished. They use the issue to get people angry enough to vote against one side, and after the election peoples' tempers cool and the issue is largely forgotten until the next election.
I've confessed in a previous post to being a Craig's List addict, and in the past few days the topic of "sanctuary cities" has become THE hot topic. In my browsing the conservative talk radio rants, it seems the hosts on these programs all but froth at the mouth over it. They attack the mayors, the city councils, even the police for not hunting down every last illegal immigrant and deporting them. As I listen to the radio hosts and read the Craig's List posts, I wonder - do these people actually LIVE in a "sanctuary city"? It seems most of them do. Which begs the question: why do they stay? I mean if they're really that fed up, and if there are other cities that don't have these policies, what's stopping these people from going there?
You might think it heartless of me to suggest they pack up and go, but I would remind you, Gentle Reader, of the Conservatives' own slogan: "America - love it or leave it". We've been told on countless occasions that if we latte-swilling liberals hate our country so much, then we should just leave. Go to France, we're told, go to Canada, go somewhere else if you can't appreciate your country. I'm not suggesting anyone expatriate. I am suggesting that while living within the borders of America, a person has the choice of thousands of towns and cities, all with a variety of policies towards immigrants. You can find a town or city whose policies more clearly match your own convictions, and head there.
So with all that in mind, I say it's time for an experiment. Moreover, it's time for people to put some action behind their words and live out their convictions. But most of all, it's time to settle the question: are we, as a society, suffering or benefiting from the presence of illegal immigrants, and from policies that systematically tolerate their presence? It has been show time and time again that one of the most effective ways of getting policies changed is to cut off all financial support from the offending parties until they amend their practices. In other words, a boycott.
So here's how this works - everyone who is opposed to sanctuary cities leaves those cities. They move out, they relocate their families, their businesses, their lives to places with no sanctuary city policies. Then they stay gone for five years. Those of you that have no problem with living in a so-called sanctuary city can stay put.Those that leave, don't do business with anyone who works or lives in a sanctuary city, or anyone who does. Boycott all products and services based in sanctuary cities. Don't send your kids to college in any sanctuary cities. They live their lives, they get their goods and services elsewhere, they do their best to isolate these cities and let them fend for themselves economically, and in all other ways.
After five years, we'll compare the economic state of the sanctuary city residents' economic situation to those living elsewhere. We'll compare average incomes, crime rates, tax rates, education, health, pollution, suicide rates, infant mortality rates, unemployment rates, welfare statistics, and general quality of life. We'll do a side-by-side comparison between sanctuary cities and non-sanctuary cities, in every way that quality of life can be measured. If the quality of life measures out to be overall better in the sanctuary cities, then we will resolve no laws be made to interfere with those policies, as they would clearly be shown to be in the city's best interests. If the quality of life in sanctuary cities is worse, that can use that as a basis for outlawing sanctuary city policies and ridding it of all illegals by any means necessary.
The bottom line is this: if you want to do away with sanctuary city policies, you must first establish that it's in the public's best interest. You must prove beyond a doubt that people's lives would be better without the existence of sanctuary city policies. Because as long as there are people who believe that we as a society benefit from these policies, they will never go away. If you want to PROVE beyond any shadow of doubt that sanctuary cities are a bad idea, in my opinion this is the best way to do it.
You'll notice that I'm not taking a side here. I'm only interested in what's best. And until we can conclusively prove one side right and other side wrong, all we have is a difference of opinion - different conclusions drawn from the same set of facts. Whether you support sanctuary city policies or not, you want to see your point of view validated, proven true, and used as the basis for legislation. I respectfully submit that there is no other way I can think of to prove the point.
Of course, I am a confessed liberal, and I think that the anti-illegal mentality largely fomented by our friends on the right wing speak to their need to vilify a group and focus their hatred into xenophobia. I think they hate Mexicans, and they want it to be not only legal to stick it to all Spanish-speaking people, but they want it deemed patriotic. Hence, all the chest-thumping over these sanctuary cities.
For my part, I live in a sanctuary city and it doesn't bother me one bit. I know most of the people in this city are from somewhere else. Heck, I'm from somewhere else - it just happens that my "somewhere else" is here in the United States. But I came here to this city for the economy and a chance at a better life, at least financially, and I got my wish. So I can't bring myself to begrudge those people who have done the same, even if their "somewhere else" wasn't in this country.
And in my dealings with government, and after witnessing the colossally inept bureaucracy with which they address their affairs, I have to wonder: how many of these so-called "illegal immigrants" are only illegal because our government accepts mediocre work from its own employees? If the policies handed down from Congress addressed the issue of immigration with the same enthusiasm the immigrants demonstrate in their high-risk border crossings, how many "illegals" would we have? If the people responsible for processing the paperwork from these would-be citizens worked as hard as the Mexicans busing tables and washing cars in this city, I have to wonder: would we have fewer illegals?
In the meantime, the federal and local governments can butt heads and tie up the courts trying to prove each other's side wrong. It's all election year posturing and campaign rhetoric, and nothing actually gets accomplished. They use the issue to get people angry enough to vote against one side, and after the election peoples' tempers cool and the issue is largely forgotten until the next election.
I've confessed in a previous post to being a Craig's List addict, and in the past few days the topic of "sanctuary cities" has become THE hot topic. In my browsing the conservative talk radio rants, it seems the hosts on these programs all but froth at the mouth over it. They attack the mayors, the city councils, even the police for not hunting down every last illegal immigrant and deporting them. As I listen to the radio hosts and read the Craig's List posts, I wonder - do these people actually LIVE in a "sanctuary city"? It seems most of them do. Which begs the question: why do they stay? I mean if they're really that fed up, and if there are other cities that don't have these policies, what's stopping these people from going there?
You might think it heartless of me to suggest they pack up and go, but I would remind you, Gentle Reader, of the Conservatives' own slogan: "America - love it or leave it". We've been told on countless occasions that if we latte-swilling liberals hate our country so much, then we should just leave. Go to France, we're told, go to Canada, go somewhere else if you can't appreciate your country. I'm not suggesting anyone expatriate. I am suggesting that while living within the borders of America, a person has the choice of thousands of towns and cities, all with a variety of policies towards immigrants. You can find a town or city whose policies more clearly match your own convictions, and head there.
So with all that in mind, I say it's time for an experiment. Moreover, it's time for people to put some action behind their words and live out their convictions. But most of all, it's time to settle the question: are we, as a society, suffering or benefiting from the presence of illegal immigrants, and from policies that systematically tolerate their presence? It has been show time and time again that one of the most effective ways of getting policies changed is to cut off all financial support from the offending parties until they amend their practices. In other words, a boycott.
So here's how this works - everyone who is opposed to sanctuary cities leaves those cities. They move out, they relocate their families, their businesses, their lives to places with no sanctuary city policies. Then they stay gone for five years. Those of you that have no problem with living in a so-called sanctuary city can stay put.Those that leave, don't do business with anyone who works or lives in a sanctuary city, or anyone who does. Boycott all products and services based in sanctuary cities. Don't send your kids to college in any sanctuary cities. They live their lives, they get their goods and services elsewhere, they do their best to isolate these cities and let them fend for themselves economically, and in all other ways.
After five years, we'll compare the economic state of the sanctuary city residents' economic situation to those living elsewhere. We'll compare average incomes, crime rates, tax rates, education, health, pollution, suicide rates, infant mortality rates, unemployment rates, welfare statistics, and general quality of life. We'll do a side-by-side comparison between sanctuary cities and non-sanctuary cities, in every way that quality of life can be measured. If the quality of life measures out to be overall better in the sanctuary cities, then we will resolve no laws be made to interfere with those policies, as they would clearly be shown to be in the city's best interests. If the quality of life in sanctuary cities is worse, that can use that as a basis for outlawing sanctuary city policies and ridding it of all illegals by any means necessary.
The bottom line is this: if you want to do away with sanctuary city policies, you must first establish that it's in the public's best interest. You must prove beyond a doubt that people's lives would be better without the existence of sanctuary city policies. Because as long as there are people who believe that we as a society benefit from these policies, they will never go away. If you want to PROVE beyond any shadow of doubt that sanctuary cities are a bad idea, in my opinion this is the best way to do it.
You'll notice that I'm not taking a side here. I'm only interested in what's best. And until we can conclusively prove one side right and other side wrong, all we have is a difference of opinion - different conclusions drawn from the same set of facts. Whether you support sanctuary city policies or not, you want to see your point of view validated, proven true, and used as the basis for legislation. I respectfully submit that there is no other way I can think of to prove the point.
Of course, I am a confessed liberal, and I think that the anti-illegal mentality largely fomented by our friends on the right wing speak to their need to vilify a group and focus their hatred into xenophobia. I think they hate Mexicans, and they want it to be not only legal to stick it to all Spanish-speaking people, but they want it deemed patriotic. Hence, all the chest-thumping over these sanctuary cities.
For my part, I live in a sanctuary city and it doesn't bother me one bit. I know most of the people in this city are from somewhere else. Heck, I'm from somewhere else - it just happens that my "somewhere else" is here in the United States. But I came here to this city for the economy and a chance at a better life, at least financially, and I got my wish. So I can't bring myself to begrudge those people who have done the same, even if their "somewhere else" wasn't in this country.
And in my dealings with government, and after witnessing the colossally inept bureaucracy with which they address their affairs, I have to wonder: how many of these so-called "illegal immigrants" are only illegal because our government accepts mediocre work from its own employees? If the policies handed down from Congress addressed the issue of immigration with the same enthusiasm the immigrants demonstrate in their high-risk border crossings, how many "illegals" would we have? If the people responsible for processing the paperwork from these would-be citizens worked as hard as the Mexicans busing tables and washing cars in this city, I have to wonder: would we have fewer illegals?
Thursday, July 17, 2008
Why We Will Always Have Illegal Immigrants
RENO, Nev. — Two executives and the corporate owner of 11 northern Nevada McDonald's restaurants pleaded guilty to felony immigration charges and agreed to pay $1 million in fines.
And so it goes... red-staters crowed this morning over this report on Fox News - where else? This is, no doubt, evidence that we're taking meaningful steps to address the problem of illegal immigration in our country.
I submit to you that it's not.
I say, if we REALLY wanted to do something about illegal immigration, we wouldn't waste our time congratulating ourselves that 30 people got deported here. Do you honeslty think McDonald's cares about a million dollar fine? It's MCDONALD'S, dumbass. They'll make that million back before midnight tonight. It's chump change to them. We see that number and we ooh and ahh as if the mighty hand of justice actually DID something meaningful. Wrong. It's a token gesture, and that money means nothing to McDonald's. Hell, fine them TWO million. See if they care. Fine them TEN million. It won't matter. When you're dealing with a company the size of McDonald's, a million dollars is NOTHING.
If we really wanted to end illegal immigration, we'd be going after the EMPLOYERS, the ones who make illegal immigration happen - we'd be boycotting McDonald's, we'd be boycotting Wal-Mart and Sam's Club, and any business busted for having illegals on the payroll.
But we won't. I know we won't. How do I know? Because - only white trash people bitch about illegals, and no way a white trash person would last a week without McDonald's and Wal-Mart. They don't have the stomach for it. They bitch about the illegals between your mouthfuls of Big Macs and french fries, while making their weekly trips to Wal-Mart. They complain, but they aren't willing to back up their ideas with meaningful action. They won't boycott. They won't picket. They won't circulate petitions or organize letter-writing campaigns. They'll sit on their asses and bitch on Craig's List, as if their opinion meant ANYTHING, all the while patronize the very buinesses that hire most of the illegal immigrant labor in this country, and all the while complaining that their government isn't doing enough about the problem.
And that's why we will always have illegal immigrants in this country. Because an opinion without meaningful action to back it up is just that - an opinion. And as long as we continue to support those businesses, nobody cares what our opinion is. Nobody ever changed the world with just an opinion.
Personally, I have no plans to boycott either. I'm not the least bit interested in ending illegal immigration. I think it serves two valid and important needs. One, it gives people the opportunity to come to this country and help it grow. In other words, to live out the American Dream. Secondly (and here's where the selfish bastard in me comes out), I love a bargain - what can I say? I'm not paid to blog, so I'll take my bargains wherever I can get them. And if companies like McDonald's can afford to give me my double cheeseburgers for a buck because they're paying their employees slave wages, that's between them and their workers. Someday, the glorious revolution will comes, comrades, and the rich fat robber barons that oppress the proletariat will be crushed under the heels of the working man. Fairness and equality will be the order of the day, and on that day I imagine I'll have to pay more for my greaseball burgers. And I will, gladly. Because nothing satisifies more than two all-beef patties, unless it's seeing these corporate fat cats get what's coming to them.
Bon appetit.
And so it goes... red-staters crowed this morning over this report on Fox News - where else? This is, no doubt, evidence that we're taking meaningful steps to address the problem of illegal immigration in our country.
I submit to you that it's not.
I say, if we REALLY wanted to do something about illegal immigration, we wouldn't waste our time congratulating ourselves that 30 people got deported here. Do you honeslty think McDonald's cares about a million dollar fine? It's MCDONALD'S, dumbass. They'll make that million back before midnight tonight. It's chump change to them. We see that number and we ooh and ahh as if the mighty hand of justice actually DID something meaningful. Wrong. It's a token gesture, and that money means nothing to McDonald's. Hell, fine them TWO million. See if they care. Fine them TEN million. It won't matter. When you're dealing with a company the size of McDonald's, a million dollars is NOTHING.
If we really wanted to end illegal immigration, we'd be going after the EMPLOYERS, the ones who make illegal immigration happen - we'd be boycotting McDonald's, we'd be boycotting Wal-Mart and Sam's Club, and any business busted for having illegals on the payroll.
But we won't. I know we won't. How do I know? Because - only white trash people bitch about illegals, and no way a white trash person would last a week without McDonald's and Wal-Mart. They don't have the stomach for it. They bitch about the illegals between your mouthfuls of Big Macs and french fries, while making their weekly trips to Wal-Mart. They complain, but they aren't willing to back up their ideas with meaningful action. They won't boycott. They won't picket. They won't circulate petitions or organize letter-writing campaigns. They'll sit on their asses and bitch on Craig's List, as if their opinion meant ANYTHING, all the while patronize the very buinesses that hire most of the illegal immigrant labor in this country, and all the while complaining that their government isn't doing enough about the problem.
And that's why we will always have illegal immigrants in this country. Because an opinion without meaningful action to back it up is just that - an opinion. And as long as we continue to support those businesses, nobody cares what our opinion is. Nobody ever changed the world with just an opinion.
Personally, I have no plans to boycott either. I'm not the least bit interested in ending illegal immigration. I think it serves two valid and important needs. One, it gives people the opportunity to come to this country and help it grow. In other words, to live out the American Dream. Secondly (and here's where the selfish bastard in me comes out), I love a bargain - what can I say? I'm not paid to blog, so I'll take my bargains wherever I can get them. And if companies like McDonald's can afford to give me my double cheeseburgers for a buck because they're paying their employees slave wages, that's between them and their workers. Someday, the glorious revolution will comes, comrades, and the rich fat robber barons that oppress the proletariat will be crushed under the heels of the working man. Fairness and equality will be the order of the day, and on that day I imagine I'll have to pay more for my greaseball burgers. And I will, gladly. Because nothing satisifies more than two all-beef patties, unless it's seeing these corporate fat cats get what's coming to them.
Bon appetit.
Saturday, July 12, 2008
When Did Hate Become Patriotic?
I have a confession to make: I'm a Craig's List junkie.
I spend at least an hour a day reading the politics board on the Los Angeles Craig's List site, and occasionally posting my two cents. Before that, it was the Rants and Raves section. I confess I ran out of use for Rants and Raves quickly, as it's nothing more than bunch of mindless hate from the “Who’s Who in Racist Idiots” most elite. All rants, no raves. No joyous ebullience at the small fortunes of life. No crowing over good fortune, accomplishment, or blessings. All that negativity began to cloud my own view, and so I went to the politics board, hoping to find less hate and more intellectual discourse.
I was not wowed.
What passes for political debate on Craig's List would not be tolerated in any government studies class in any school. No civics teacher would stand for the racist droolings on that site. True, the occasional voice in the wilderness cries forth suggesting tolerance and the need for change, but its rarity only goes to draw attention to itself as being just that - a rarity.
And yet, these are the people in my neighborhood, in my neighborhood, in my neighorho-od. These are the Angelinos I live with. I share the freeways with them. I work alongside of them. I shop in the same grocery stores, I breathe the same air, I drink the same water. For all I know, I live next to them. And yet I have to remind myself that it is not my place to consider myself above them. Still, I cannot bring myself to think of myself as one of them either. It would be safe to say I have no tolerance for their intolerance.
I'll given you a moment to digest the irony.
Ready? Okay, let's move on.
I already know the answer to my initial question: it became patriotic to hate on September 11, 2001. I remember watching the news in the days that followed. I was living on the east coast then, and there was a story about local New Yorkers' reaction to the idea that Middle Eastern terrorists had carried out the attacks. Okay let me just state the obvious: the terrorists, or whoever was flying those planes, died that day. Hating them will not undo what they did, and hating people with the same ancestry is just plain stupid. But I digress. There was a shot of a local New Yorker in this report, leaning out of his window as he drove past, yelling at the camera "round 'em ALL up! Deport all those Middle East bastards!" Fist pumping in the air to give this sentiment additional gravity, he rumbled off into the sea of New Yorkers, presumably feeling right at home with his new-found xenophobia.
Okay - so the idea of not liking people from the Middle East wasn't exactly thought up on 9/11. I get that. I remember the Iran Hostage Crisis - 444 days' worth of bad news about angry Muslims who hated us and wanted us dead. The images have, suffice it to say, stuck.
We've seen countless images in TV and films of the crazy-eyed Middle Eastern dude, hell bent on destroying us godless infidels in a sea of holy fire, usually surrounded by like-minded loonies. They fire their machine guns in the air and ululate in a frenzy that falls somewhere between psychosis and religious fervor. The American viewing public has been systemically groomed to accept that at some point these yahoos were going to leap off the screens and into our lives. 9/11 seemed to contradict our worst fears, that lots and lots of Middle Eastern guys were pissed at us and were willing to die to bring harm to us.
But the paranoia borne of that day should have dissipated. The anger should have cooled. If there was one thing I thought we could count on, it was the forgetfulness of the American people. But in the weeks and months following 9/11, you couldn’t turn on the television for more than a minute without seeing images of the Twin Towers under attacks. The American public was eager for revenge, seething with an impotent rage because those 9/11 baddies were already dead, and we had yet to get our hands on anyone remotely responsible. I remember watching a concert of all-star rock stars and movie stars, with proceeds benefitting the victims of the attacks. Richard Gere came out and talked for a few moments about the need for peace and understanding. He was the wrong guy in the wrong place at the wrong time. That crowd was more willing to take up torches and pitchforks and storm the village looking for Muslims than join hands and sing Kumbaya with this well-meaning Buddhist. He was promptly booed off the stage, and the Who were brought on to sing a well-received "Won't Get Fooled Again". You get the idea.
At that point I realized that this was to be one of those periods in American history where the common citizenry just lost its fucking mind for a while. In World War One, we actually passed a law making it legal to lock people up for speaking out against our participation in the war. In World War Two, we rounded up Americans of Japanese ancestry and threw them into camps. In the 50's and 60's, we turn high-pressure water hoses on black Americans uppity enough to try registering to vote. These things happen. I remember reading about these events and thanking the gods that I was born in a more modern and civil period of American history, where we had evolved beyond the need for mob mentality legislation and institutionalized prejudice.
Then somewhere along the way, someone started equating illegal immigration with national security. One of the shills on Fox News, no doubt. They had been complaining about all the damn Mexicans forever, and this new issue of National Security (which no one dared question) seemed the perfect way to create stronger legislation aimed at picking on immigrants. The theory goes something like this: if Mexicans can sneak across the border undetected and find their way into large cities like Los Angeles, what's to stop a terrorist cell like al Qaeda from doing the same? See how that works? Soon, we're imagining "sleeper cells" planting in our very communities. Every Middle Eastern cab driver has bombs strapped to their chest. Every woman in a headscarf is a jihadist, most likely bent on killing the Great Satan.
I’m going to state the obvious here, because I’ve spent too much time already trying to see things from the other side’s perspective: it is NOT patriotic to hate. It does not demonstrate your love for your country by bashing people from other countries. Picking on Mexicans does not make you a better American. Muslims in American, people of Mexican heritage in America, all immigrants, whether here legally or not, are entitled to be treated civilly. They are entitled to the protection of the law. They are not our enemies.
Someday, this war will end. Someday we will have to kiss and make up with the world. I remember my father having disdain for Japanese people decades after the Second World War ended. I knew then that it was stupid and pointless to harbor grudges against people for such a flimsy reason, for so long. I remember thinking then, as I think now, “Please don’t let us become that”. But, my fellow Americans, I see this generation heading down the same path, and I wish I knew how to stop it.
I spend at least an hour a day reading the politics board on the Los Angeles Craig's List site, and occasionally posting my two cents. Before that, it was the Rants and Raves section. I confess I ran out of use for Rants and Raves quickly, as it's nothing more than bunch of mindless hate from the “Who’s Who in Racist Idiots” most elite. All rants, no raves. No joyous ebullience at the small fortunes of life. No crowing over good fortune, accomplishment, or blessings. All that negativity began to cloud my own view, and so I went to the politics board, hoping to find less hate and more intellectual discourse.
I was not wowed.
What passes for political debate on Craig's List would not be tolerated in any government studies class in any school. No civics teacher would stand for the racist droolings on that site. True, the occasional voice in the wilderness cries forth suggesting tolerance and the need for change, but its rarity only goes to draw attention to itself as being just that - a rarity.
And yet, these are the people in my neighborhood, in my neighborhood, in my neighorho-od. These are the Angelinos I live with. I share the freeways with them. I work alongside of them. I shop in the same grocery stores, I breathe the same air, I drink the same water. For all I know, I live next to them. And yet I have to remind myself that it is not my place to consider myself above them. Still, I cannot bring myself to think of myself as one of them either. It would be safe to say I have no tolerance for their intolerance.
I'll given you a moment to digest the irony.
Ready? Okay, let's move on.
I already know the answer to my initial question: it became patriotic to hate on September 11, 2001. I remember watching the news in the days that followed. I was living on the east coast then, and there was a story about local New Yorkers' reaction to the idea that Middle Eastern terrorists had carried out the attacks. Okay let me just state the obvious: the terrorists, or whoever was flying those planes, died that day. Hating them will not undo what they did, and hating people with the same ancestry is just plain stupid. But I digress. There was a shot of a local New Yorker in this report, leaning out of his window as he drove past, yelling at the camera "round 'em ALL up! Deport all those Middle East bastards!" Fist pumping in the air to give this sentiment additional gravity, he rumbled off into the sea of New Yorkers, presumably feeling right at home with his new-found xenophobia.
Okay - so the idea of not liking people from the Middle East wasn't exactly thought up on 9/11. I get that. I remember the Iran Hostage Crisis - 444 days' worth of bad news about angry Muslims who hated us and wanted us dead. The images have, suffice it to say, stuck.
We've seen countless images in TV and films of the crazy-eyed Middle Eastern dude, hell bent on destroying us godless infidels in a sea of holy fire, usually surrounded by like-minded loonies. They fire their machine guns in the air and ululate in a frenzy that falls somewhere between psychosis and religious fervor. The American viewing public has been systemically groomed to accept that at some point these yahoos were going to leap off the screens and into our lives. 9/11 seemed to contradict our worst fears, that lots and lots of Middle Eastern guys were pissed at us and were willing to die to bring harm to us.
But the paranoia borne of that day should have dissipated. The anger should have cooled. If there was one thing I thought we could count on, it was the forgetfulness of the American people. But in the weeks and months following 9/11, you couldn’t turn on the television for more than a minute without seeing images of the Twin Towers under attacks. The American public was eager for revenge, seething with an impotent rage because those 9/11 baddies were already dead, and we had yet to get our hands on anyone remotely responsible. I remember watching a concert of all-star rock stars and movie stars, with proceeds benefitting the victims of the attacks. Richard Gere came out and talked for a few moments about the need for peace and understanding. He was the wrong guy in the wrong place at the wrong time. That crowd was more willing to take up torches and pitchforks and storm the village looking for Muslims than join hands and sing Kumbaya with this well-meaning Buddhist. He was promptly booed off the stage, and the Who were brought on to sing a well-received "Won't Get Fooled Again". You get the idea.
At that point I realized that this was to be one of those periods in American history where the common citizenry just lost its fucking mind for a while. In World War One, we actually passed a law making it legal to lock people up for speaking out against our participation in the war. In World War Two, we rounded up Americans of Japanese ancestry and threw them into camps. In the 50's and 60's, we turn high-pressure water hoses on black Americans uppity enough to try registering to vote. These things happen. I remember reading about these events and thanking the gods that I was born in a more modern and civil period of American history, where we had evolved beyond the need for mob mentality legislation and institutionalized prejudice.
Then somewhere along the way, someone started equating illegal immigration with national security. One of the shills on Fox News, no doubt. They had been complaining about all the damn Mexicans forever, and this new issue of National Security (which no one dared question) seemed the perfect way to create stronger legislation aimed at picking on immigrants. The theory goes something like this: if Mexicans can sneak across the border undetected and find their way into large cities like Los Angeles, what's to stop a terrorist cell like al Qaeda from doing the same? See how that works? Soon, we're imagining "sleeper cells" planting in our very communities. Every Middle Eastern cab driver has bombs strapped to their chest. Every woman in a headscarf is a jihadist, most likely bent on killing the Great Satan.
I’m going to state the obvious here, because I’ve spent too much time already trying to see things from the other side’s perspective: it is NOT patriotic to hate. It does not demonstrate your love for your country by bashing people from other countries. Picking on Mexicans does not make you a better American. Muslims in American, people of Mexican heritage in America, all immigrants, whether here legally or not, are entitled to be treated civilly. They are entitled to the protection of the law. They are not our enemies.
Someday, this war will end. Someday we will have to kiss and make up with the world. I remember my father having disdain for Japanese people decades after the Second World War ended. I knew then that it was stupid and pointless to harbor grudges against people for such a flimsy reason, for so long. I remember thinking then, as I think now, “Please don’t let us become that”. But, my fellow Americans, I see this generation heading down the same path, and I wish I knew how to stop it.
Monday, July 7, 2008
THEY'RE *ALL* FLIP-FLOPPERS!!
Sorry for the absence, gang. All the summer hoopla has commandeered the majority of my free time. Plus, with the two major parties all but decided on their sacrificial lambs, I mean nominees, there seemed to be precious little to blog about. We know who the players are, we know what the stakes are, and from this point on it's just a matter of comparing campaign rhetoric to voting records, and choosing which candidate is less likely to provoke the Apocalypse.
For my part in this little passion play we call democracy, my loyalties are with Obama. I do like the Bobby Kennedy-esque aura, even if I doubt that even Bobby Kennedy could have lived up to the hype. These are cynical times, my friends, and voting seems less and less about picking the best man for the job than it does about choosing the lesser of two evils.
But in my research, my endless channel surfing of all the news programs (including the erstwhile Fox News), I'm starting to hear more and more the long-expired term "flip-flop". You veterans of the red state/blue state wars will remember this term as the nugget that very well may have cost Kerry the presidency in 2004. Karl Rove, Nazi douche bag extraordinaire orchestrated the notion that Kerry was far more malleable on the issues than Bush. This, to the Red State Kool-Aid crowd, signified that he could not be trusted to keep his word. He would promise one thing and then later glibly abandon his convictions to acquiesce to the prevailing winds of our fickle political landscape. Evidence, no doubt was to be found in Kerry's willingness to go to war in Vietnam, only to come home and speak out against it later on.
The Democrats accuse McCain of flip-flopping, the Republicans accuse Obama. Not since the recent Wimbledon have we seen such endless back and forth. They point to incident after incident where each candidate has changed their position. In the end, what does it all mean? If both major party candidates are both guilty of changing positions, NEITHER party can hold it out there to try and make the other guy look bad.
The sad truth is, they're politicians. They're liars and cheats. I'm reminded of the scene in the Hunt for Red October where the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs privately confides to Jack Ryan: "I'm a politician - which means when I'm not kissing babies, I'm stealing their lollipops. But it also means I keep my options open." These guys want to be elected, it's no secret. And that means they're BOTH going to try to appeal to as many people as possible. Abraham Lincoln famously said "you can fool some of the people all of the time, all of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time." Wise words, considering he was a Republican. And yet every election we see candidates try to prove Honest Abe wrong. Perhaps it's enough to fool 51% of the people, at least until November 3rd.
When it comes to this question of "flip-flopping", I think we need to research it before judging it. Elected officials change their minds all the time on issues - it's not just the domain of the Democrats, nor is it the domain of republicans. Why do candidates change their views on issues? Is it just to get elected? Possibly, but I suspect this is a pretty simplistic viewpoint. When a candidate says something in a speech, odds are it's been filtered through a number of campaign workers, from the speechwriter to the handlers, so that by the time the candidate says it into a microphone, it's been scanned for any potential blowback. Even if a candidate forgets how he may have voted on some bill years back, his staff is paid to remember for him, and to not let him contradict a previous voting record. That is, unless the situation has changed...
One could argue that in 2000, Bush never had intentions of sending troops into Afghanistan. But then 9/11 happened, and the rules changed. Did Bush flip flop? No. The situation changed, necessitating a change in view. Circumstances can radically alter a candidate's view. Now far be it from me to defend Bush; I think he's a war criminal, and I've made no secret of it. But it bears mentioning, if only to remind our neocon friends that flip-flopping can, and often does, have totally legitimate reasoning behind it.
Remember, Reagan (the poster child for all things conservative) used to be a Democrat. Does that make Reagan the king of all flip-floppers? Watch the howls of righteous indignation come pouring in from the right wing when you ever *suggest* such a thing. Things changed, candidates change along with them.
In the 1980's our government was cozying up to people like Saddam Hussein, because we wanted Iraq to go to war with Iran. We gave them money, weapons, we even sent experts to train their soldiers. There is a famous picture from the late 80's showing Donald Rumsfeld happily shaking hands with Saddam Hussein. It seemed like a good idea at the time, I guess. Did we flip-flop since then? By Karl Rove's standards, we absolutely flip-flopped. Same Saddam, same Rumsfeld, total reversal in policy. That's how you define a flip-flop, yet no one points it out. At least no one on the Republican side...
Also in the 1980's, when the Soviets invaded Afghanistan, we supported the "freedom fighters" who eventually repelled the Soviets. Among those freedom fighters was a guy named Osama bin Laden. That's right gang, our government gave weapons, money and training to Osama bin Laden in the 1980's because it served our needs at the time. Did we flip-flop since then? The same Republicans that were in charge then are in charge now, and both Saddam and bin Laden quickly got moved over from the "Friends" list to the "Enemies" list. Things changed.
Another one: John Kerry went to war in Vietnam when his powerful daddy could have prevented it with one phone call. Lots of powerful Washington people kept their kids out of harm's way in war time by using their influence. John Kerry went - we felt it was his patriotic duty to fight. Then after seeing what went on firsthand, he came back and publicly spoke out against the war in Vietnam. Was he flip-flopping? Republicans would have us believe he was. But the simple truth is, his viewpoint changed based on his experience.
And so it goes. As the facts change, as situations evolve, we all come to view things differently over time. Something that once seemed like a good idea can quickly look like a bad one. This isn't just true for politicians, it's true for the rest of us as well. In any case, both candidates have changed their stance of more than one issue over time, so this term "flip-flop" has become a meaningless term. If they're all guilty of it, then no one gets to accuse anyone else of it.
For my part in this little passion play we call democracy, my loyalties are with Obama. I do like the Bobby Kennedy-esque aura, even if I doubt that even Bobby Kennedy could have lived up to the hype. These are cynical times, my friends, and voting seems less and less about picking the best man for the job than it does about choosing the lesser of two evils.
But in my research, my endless channel surfing of all the news programs (including the erstwhile Fox News), I'm starting to hear more and more the long-expired term "flip-flop". You veterans of the red state/blue state wars will remember this term as the nugget that very well may have cost Kerry the presidency in 2004. Karl Rove, Nazi douche bag extraordinaire orchestrated the notion that Kerry was far more malleable on the issues than Bush. This, to the Red State Kool-Aid crowd, signified that he could not be trusted to keep his word. He would promise one thing and then later glibly abandon his convictions to acquiesce to the prevailing winds of our fickle political landscape. Evidence, no doubt was to be found in Kerry's willingness to go to war in Vietnam, only to come home and speak out against it later on.
The Democrats accuse McCain of flip-flopping, the Republicans accuse Obama. Not since the recent Wimbledon have we seen such endless back and forth. They point to incident after incident where each candidate has changed their position. In the end, what does it all mean? If both major party candidates are both guilty of changing positions, NEITHER party can hold it out there to try and make the other guy look bad.
The sad truth is, they're politicians. They're liars and cheats. I'm reminded of the scene in the Hunt for Red October where the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs privately confides to Jack Ryan: "I'm a politician - which means when I'm not kissing babies, I'm stealing their lollipops. But it also means I keep my options open." These guys want to be elected, it's no secret. And that means they're BOTH going to try to appeal to as many people as possible. Abraham Lincoln famously said "you can fool some of the people all of the time, all of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time." Wise words, considering he was a Republican. And yet every election we see candidates try to prove Honest Abe wrong. Perhaps it's enough to fool 51% of the people, at least until November 3rd.
When it comes to this question of "flip-flopping", I think we need to research it before judging it. Elected officials change their minds all the time on issues - it's not just the domain of the Democrats, nor is it the domain of republicans. Why do candidates change their views on issues? Is it just to get elected? Possibly, but I suspect this is a pretty simplistic viewpoint. When a candidate says something in a speech, odds are it's been filtered through a number of campaign workers, from the speechwriter to the handlers, so that by the time the candidate says it into a microphone, it's been scanned for any potential blowback. Even if a candidate forgets how he may have voted on some bill years back, his staff is paid to remember for him, and to not let him contradict a previous voting record. That is, unless the situation has changed...
One could argue that in 2000, Bush never had intentions of sending troops into Afghanistan. But then 9/11 happened, and the rules changed. Did Bush flip flop? No. The situation changed, necessitating a change in view. Circumstances can radically alter a candidate's view. Now far be it from me to defend Bush; I think he's a war criminal, and I've made no secret of it. But it bears mentioning, if only to remind our neocon friends that flip-flopping can, and often does, have totally legitimate reasoning behind it.
Remember, Reagan (the poster child for all things conservative) used to be a Democrat. Does that make Reagan the king of all flip-floppers? Watch the howls of righteous indignation come pouring in from the right wing when you ever *suggest* such a thing. Things changed, candidates change along with them.
In the 1980's our government was cozying up to people like Saddam Hussein, because we wanted Iraq to go to war with Iran. We gave them money, weapons, we even sent experts to train their soldiers. There is a famous picture from the late 80's showing Donald Rumsfeld happily shaking hands with Saddam Hussein. It seemed like a good idea at the time, I guess. Did we flip-flop since then? By Karl Rove's standards, we absolutely flip-flopped. Same Saddam, same Rumsfeld, total reversal in policy. That's how you define a flip-flop, yet no one points it out. At least no one on the Republican side...
Also in the 1980's, when the Soviets invaded Afghanistan, we supported the "freedom fighters" who eventually repelled the Soviets. Among those freedom fighters was a guy named Osama bin Laden. That's right gang, our government gave weapons, money and training to Osama bin Laden in the 1980's because it served our needs at the time. Did we flip-flop since then? The same Republicans that were in charge then are in charge now, and both Saddam and bin Laden quickly got moved over from the "Friends" list to the "Enemies" list. Things changed.
Another one: John Kerry went to war in Vietnam when his powerful daddy could have prevented it with one phone call. Lots of powerful Washington people kept their kids out of harm's way in war time by using their influence. John Kerry went - we felt it was his patriotic duty to fight. Then after seeing what went on firsthand, he came back and publicly spoke out against the war in Vietnam. Was he flip-flopping? Republicans would have us believe he was. But the simple truth is, his viewpoint changed based on his experience.
And so it goes. As the facts change, as situations evolve, we all come to view things differently over time. Something that once seemed like a good idea can quickly look like a bad one. This isn't just true for politicians, it's true for the rest of us as well. In any case, both candidates have changed their stance of more than one issue over time, so this term "flip-flop" has become a meaningless term. If they're all guilty of it, then no one gets to accuse anyone else of it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
