"Change the Guard" - A Call to End Political Dynasty

A new blog by Lance Garret Steagall labeled, "Change the Guard," thunderously raises a point that has not been raised enough in the presidential race: The fact that two families have been on the top for the past 20 or so years. Bush, then Clinton, then Bush, and now Clinton again? So where is the change?

A brave citizen asked this question to Hillary, and she danced around the answer with usual political eloquence:

CLINTON: Well, as I have often said, I regret deeply that there is a Bush in the White House at this time. (Laughter.) But I think that what's great about our political system is that we are all judged on our own merits. You know, we come forward to the American public, and it's the most grueling political process one can imagine. We start from the same place. Nobody has an advantage, no matter who you are or where you came from. You have to raise the money. You have to make the case for yourself …

And, you know, it did take a Clinton to clean after the first Bush, and I think it might take another one to clean up after the second Bush. (Laughter, cheers, applause.)

It's shocking, no, disconcerting to hear little concern with this fact. Is she an agent of social change? Or is she a way to manage and continue the status quo? Is she truly just like the rest of us, the "same place," or is she privileged on the top?

Steagall writes, 

In saying "nobody has an advantage, no matter who you are or where you came from … you have to make the case for yourself," she denied the advantage of having a former president, still revered by much of the Democratic base, actively campaigning on her behalf. When Bill said choosing Obama is "rolling the dice," he proved that, in fact, you don't always have to make the case for yourself. When Hillary sent her husband out fund-raising, she proved that you don't "have to raise the money" yourself

It's very clear that she has every advantage over Obama - and this in itself is not a bad thing. Nobody ever said politics was fair. Though, I'm trying to make more of a case about privilege, which both Bush and Hillary have.

Steagall continues,

Every Bush and Kennedy in politics makes it clear; if you're a member of American political royalty, you've got a jump-start.

Her supporters can argue over the degree to which she has benefited, but they cannot argue over whether or not she has benefited. Hillary did not start from the same point as her competitors, she did not make her case by herself, and most important, she has no claim to change in this election.

Thirty years of the same two families in the White House is enough. It's time to change the guard.

Yes! Could not have said this better, and I'm glad someone out there is articulating it so well. I have never been too attached to principles and ideals, perhaps due to my own social hermitage, but there is something very wrong in allowing a virtual dynasty, blatantly obvious to an increasingly apathetic people, to continue. Hillary promises universal health care, while Obama does not. Is this really so? And how can we trust her? We know for certain she openly endorses and encourages her association with interest groups- and a majority of these interest groups are not interested in 'the people,' but their own financial benefits, and have been the source of resistance of universal health care in the U.S. for decades. Meanwhile, Obama is better at bring different social groups together and allowing compromise. His integrity is also steered at least a little more toward the people. As a sociologist, I find this sort of trait, or characteristic very important for a world leader. If our nation is truly "for the people," why are we continuously electing a small few to run the country, who are honestly looking after their own interests over ours?

I suppose this rant should make one final point: It's a shame it has come to this: Clinton vs. Obama. Kucinich was a worthy candidate who was slowly and cunningly pushed out from the spotlight by media, interest groups and political enemies (Not to mention Ron Paul was not mentioned once last night on Fox News). By endorsing Obama, am I just giving into the political game? Who knows, but I guess I'll leave it at that, and try to take some action, because it is usually better than none at all in the political world. As a side note, I would love to see how the Taoist concept of non-action can be integrated into modern politics. Hmm, more to come!

Peace, Being,

Shaman Sun

A Little to the Right

While browsing the blog-sphere, I came across this interesting blog by Dr. Martin Rundkvist: US Politics have no Left Wing. The key point I found here was the absurdity of American politics - to europeans, even our "liberals" are seen as conservative. We seek moderation, we do not promote change, not in the truest, most progressive sense. Only now are we seeing the possibility of a woman in office. Are we truly leading the world in the latest and greatest expression of democracy? And, are the democrats truly 'left,' or do they sway a little bit more to the right than we would like to think? This is what Dr. Martin has to say,

So, believe me, US politics don't have a Left. Looking at the presidential candidates, I am frankly appalled. None of them would be a viable politician in Sweden. They all support the death penalty, none advocates strict gun control and all make frequent mention of their religious beliefs in public. These are extremist stances. Not even the tiny Christian Democrat party mentions God publicly in Sweden, for fear of alienating the pragmatic rationalist majority.

Putting things in this context creates a drastic gap between our ideals about what it is to be democratic. In a sense, this forced me to think about the relativity of our politics. More and more, it seems we are standing more on the ground of loose myths about our country, instead of steady facts.

From a European perspective, US politics are an ongoing battle between the extreme Right and the middle Right. The Republican presidential candidates are really, really scary people in my view. So all of us in the world at large who live under the shadow of US political hegemony are holding our breaths, hoping that Clinton or Obama will make it into office. They're pretty bad, but the alternative would be unspeakably dreadful.

It is sad that it has come to this, but of the two, I'd say Ron Paul or Obama will have my vote. For one sound reason: integrity. The both of them have been pretty consistent, and do not play dirty politics like Clinton tends to. Not to mention the strange fact that two families have been running the country for the past 20 years: The Bushes and Clintons. This is rather more like a dynasty than a democracy. Just for the principle of it, I do not trust a small group on the top to simply pass around the presidency to the "privileged few." How come nobody is mentioning this?

Except for Mos Def on RealTime with Bill Maher. I think these questions shouldn't be considered absurd. If anything, let's explore the possibilities first, no? I do appreciate Bill Maher's work, but the one thing that gets to me is at times it seems he is too easily dismissive. At any rate, have a laugh and learn a lil':

The Presidential Debates - A Review

Hey everyone. Just finished watching the Republican and Democratic Debates in New Hampshire. The actual numbers aside, I'd like to just take a few minutes to review and summarize the general mentality of each party, what was said, what was not said, and who was left out. 

The Democratic Debate

To bring this up because it needs mentioning: Dennis Kucinich was excluded from this debate by ABC, raising a great deal of controversy and an official file of complaint by Kucinich. He argues that such an act is unfair, and not in the best interest of the people. I'm going to have to agree with him here - It's not surprise that ABC, like any other major news corporation acts with a bias and utilizes its power to hold sway on how an election, or for the moment this race, will turn out. It's a shame that Kucinich was excluded, as he missed valuable airtime and the chance to discuss his values with the American public. He has proven to be more than a worthy candidate in the previous debates. I guess we'll see how this ends up - but for now here is a video by Kucinich's news site concerning the ABC exclusion.

Moving along, and taking a look at the actual debate.... There were quite alot of accusations. Obama accused Hillary, Hillary accused Obama. Edwards made a call for a crusade against interest groups. They were kept in the spotlight for the majority of the debate. Issues centered around healthcare, terrorism and more worldcentric policies. This, generally speaking, is good. Unfortunately it seems alot of the debate was kept on trivial differences - each candidate attempting to one-up the other in, "I'm more progressive than you are." This is a major turn off to me, and perhaps my sharpest criticism. We want individuals who will can lay specific plans on the table without constant bickering with other candidates - an individual who can make his or her own stand without needing to attack others in desperation. Unfortunately, it seems one of the few who were able to do this - Kucinich, was excluded. There's more to my rant on Kucinich's exclusion, but I think that one deserves another blog. My apologies to the readers if they've heard enough. Please, feel free to skip that future blog.

Republican Debate

There is a stark contrast between this debate and the Democratic one. First off, I don't see the appeal in any of the candidates - except Ron Paul. A majority of the candidates agreed on some central issues: That Bush had the right idea, but didn't execute it completely correctly. They believe that the primary issues are security, border control and nostalgic principles of honor, duty, military background and loyalty. Candidates like Huckabee also seemed to support a strongly religious undertone.  One of the most shocking statements in this debates was Giuliani's, "We have the best health care system in the world." I nearly choked up a mouthful of chinese food at this point. It seems the majority of the candidates support sentimentality and ideals over realities and facts. If they merely looked at some of the facts, such as this one on digg.com : 10 Myths About Iraq - They might have something more valuable to say. I hope that the American people can see through these general myth-based beliefs and sentimentalities, and realize it takes true courage to embrace the issues of the modern age- and the responsibility to take on new perspectives. 

Republican Debate Part 1

Democratic Debate Part 1