Thoughts from the Democratic National Convention

1) Clinton was good, wasn't he? There are still plenty of things to be unsettled about with William Jefferson Clinton, but the man can speak, and it's easy to forget how moderate he was. And all things considered, he lied to the nation in an investigation of his sexual activities that should never have happened. This is quite a step away from lying to the nation in justifying an act of aggression risking the lives of American military forces.

I'm not sure that I want him back, but he sure looks good next to the two choices I've got coming this November.

2) In today's postmodern political world, the labels are far more important than the policies. *Being* a Republican or *being* a Democrat is what matters, not your actual views. Clinton is a good case in point for this, being one of the most conservative Democrats out of the last 30 years, yet still hated with incredible vitriol by "Republicans" for being such an incredible Liberal. Bush II is really not particularly conservative being
--against a balanced budget
--pro spending increases
--pro large government programs
--pro interventionist foreign policy
--against state's rights in most cases
--pro-industy protectionism
and yet he is derided by most "Democrats" for being such an incredible Conservative. Consider that under the "environmentally-friendly" President Clinton, CAFE standards were frozen for light trucks, and under the "environmental travesty" of President Bush, the freeze was lifted and CAFE standards were increased. As I've said before, Bush hasn't been an environmental dream, but he has done some very good things to benefit the environment. Yet, because the environment is a "Democrat" issue, you won't hear about any of those things.

So it seems to me that people have a deep personal attachment to being "red" or "blue", in a way that is totally unrelated to the politics those things are supposed to stand for. It's a social and group-identity thing first, like choosing Ford, Chevy, or Dodge trucks.

3) It was fascinating to watch first hand the way the media marginalize and isolate minorities. I listened on the radio to Al Sharpton's speech at the convention, and I thought it was fantastic. I, like many, had an image of Sharpton as a modestly-insane, intentionally divisive, muckraking radical. But his speech was none of that. It was honest and reasonable, but also forceful and challenging to those in power and without, to make the country as good as its promises. Far and away, I still consider it the best speech of the convention.

Truly, it made me proud to be a black man. Given that I am not, in fact, a black man that feeling passed, but still I felt an incredible pride and happiness that someone was out there representing.

Less than two minutes later I got to hear the commentators talking about Rev. Al saying that the Emancipation Proclamation had accomplished nothing and that we spend too much money on terrorism. I had just listened to the entire speech, and he never said any such thing! While responding to President Bush's request for the black vote, Sharpton had said that while the Republicans were the party of Lincoln and he had signed the Emancipation Proclamation, the Republicans hadn't subsequently delivered on their promises to secure that freedom. And while speaking about education, he said "The promise of America says we will guarantee quality education for all children and not spend more money on metal detectors than computers in our schools."

It's very easy for me to understand how African-Americans feel disenfranchised by the political process. In addition to being deliberately purged from the voting rolls in places like Florida, they get to experience the cognitive dissonance of hearing a speech one minute and then hearing people unashamedly lie about that same speech.

By the way, this ocurred on the supposedly "liberal-slanted" NPR coverage. I saw what the coverage in the "straight-media" did to it the next day, not to mention FoxNews and Company.

There are still plenty of things about Sharpton that make me nervous, and I still don't think he'd make a good President. But to intentionally defame the man's words only a few short minutes after speaking, that's amazing to me. I suspect that if I really was a black man, I wouldn't find it so amazing, but rather just one more thing. At the least, I'm going to avoid making judgements based on what the news tells me.

4) Barack Obama was pretty good, but he wasn't nearly as transcendent as everyone is rushing to give him credit for. I do think he'll continue to be a great speaker and has excellent potential. But I still haven't seen any of his policies or actions in office, and the only thing I know from the speech is that he wants to stand for Unity. But still, you have to make political choices sooner or later, and I'm curious to see what they'll be.

Already there seems to be a lot of talk about a presidential run for Obama. It seems highly premature, given the fact that most don't really even know what his policies are. Still and all, I hope he could unite the country enough to get elected. That would be an important step that could accomplish far more than any affirmative-action law toward genuine healing.

Notes:
Text of Sharpton's Speech (judge for yourself)

Here's a profile of Obama's positions in 1998 (he refused to fill out the survey in 2004). Banning all semi-automatic weapons? That'll make it tough to unite the country for damn sure.

[This article has been backposted to the date it was originally written because of technical failures.]