Obligatory Election Entry

As usual after election day, I am struck by many different and contrasting emotions, but it is pleasant for a change to have the most powerful one NOT be disgust.

I recall quite unfondly the experience of 2004, in which my two party presidential options were John Kerry and G.W. Bush, and I got to see the re-election of a man who had already been a bad president over a man who hadn't done anything worth commending since 1973. Also on tap was my state of Michigan deciding it needed to change its guiding document of governmental principles to let everyone know that we hate gay people, and don't want them to enter into committed relationships without punishment. My reactions to that year should be fairly predictable for any regular readers.

In contrast, I'm quite proud that my state had the basic sense to vote Yes and Yes on the two important state proposals. First, the idea that we should punish seriously ill people because their choice of medicine for relief of chronic pain or nausea also happens to make non-sick people feel good and listen to shitty music is so ridiculous that you'd have to go to a really bad church every week for several decades before you could make it make sense. Following that idea up with one that we shouldn't be allowed to find cures for these same sick people because some twisted sense of your own personal morality finds it icky is so foul that I have a hard time not screaming while thinking about it.

I try to be a rationalist, and most of politics I don't take personally. I've recognized over time that this is a minority behavior that most other people take it *very* personally. But Michigan's proposal 2008-2 is something I take very personally. Keeping science from finding cures for diseases because of a belief in "life" is so monumentally stupid that I'm having a hard time keeping my sentences under 500 words explaining it. Hell, I think this will even require bullet points.

Everything about the anti-stem cell position is Anti-life.
--It is against attempting to cure horrible diseases
--It is against in-vitro fertilization for couples and thus against more babies being born and allowing families to have children even if there are biological issues
--It is against further research in biology that could offer great improvements in quality of life besides disease cures
--It is against allowing research which will allow the Michigan economy to keep its bioscience jobs

As someone with several friends and family who were afflicted by some of the many conditions that research could ease, as well as friends who had no choice but to conceive through IVF (and some who are both, actually) the opposition really pisses me off. And then being forced to watch intentionally deceitful campaigns against it arguing about taxes as though their objection was about anything other than their narrow death-obsessed theology... I hope they all get Parkinson's. Today.

OK, sorry, that's what I mean when I say I take it personally. And going into election day after my experience in 2004, I had very little faith in my fellow Michigander's to vote the right way on either of these proposals. So I am incredibly happy and proud that we got it right. I suppose this is further encouraged by my own disappointment in myself for not doing enough to get the word out. I could make some excuses for myself I suppose, but I wish I would have done more to help people understand how important Prop 2 was. My cousin actually wrote "Vote Yes on 2" on a white T-shirt and then brought up the subject in discussion with anyone who cared to discuss at the bar where he works. I'm incredibly proud of him. That's civic duty in action and I failed at the task. Of course, there is a danger that I would spit on anyone who claimed that it's against God's law, and that wouldn't have won many votes.

I'm very happy and gratified that our country has its first non-white President. I hope it is a signpost on our country's path to a truly post-racial environment, though I suspect that is a journey that will take a long time to complete. I also think that being "not-white" is a particularly bad reason to vote for someone.

The last time I voted for one of the two parties was 1996, in my first Presidential election. In retrospect, I find Clinton to be a decently moderate politician, with a record that is generally pro-freedom and far more fiscally conservative than any Republican has been in 30 years, though I'm not sure I would vote for him today had I the opportunity for a "do-over". As I've explained before, until the major parties make some attempt to represent the actual people instead of their corporate benefactors, I feel very wrong about participating in the process, even if I do find one candidate to be less evil than the other.

Barack Obama came close to making me believe. But ultimately he revealed himself to be just another (albeit incredibly inspirational and well-spoken) politician. Evidence? Two things: Public Financing and Joe Biden. A man who really meant the things he said would not have made those two decisions. Those decisions come from a man who thinks that getting elected is more important than what you do when you get there. I'm happy to see so many people swept up in the spirit of this time. I hope it encourages them to keep up their spirit of community and change, I hope it helps them to "be the change they want to see in the world". But I know well-enough, Obama is *not* your new bicycle. He's just a man, a politician, and holding him up as a magical totem is dangerous for everyone.

I've read two articles recently that, counterpoised, sum up a bit of my feelings. The first is by Carlos Fierro an anarchist in Fresno, writing on counterpunch. While I'm not nearly as radical as Mr. Fierro, I agree with him up until the last few paragraphs. The second comes from Will Wilkinson, whom I also have regular disagreements with but also sums it up nicely. I'd really encourage you to read them both, but since you probably won't, I'll sum up the point here quickly.

The President is not *that* important. Lincoln didn't free the slaves, Hoover didn't cause the Depression, FDR didn't fix the Depression, Kennedy and LBJ didn't give Blacks civil rights and G.W. Bush didn't take them away from all. All of these things were accomplished by the collective action or inaction of the people (as in "We The People") through slow social movements with years of agitating. These Presidents that we idolize (or demonize) all were merely responding to the actions and will of the people. It is to their credit or detriment that they behaved the ways they did, or that they took action when they did. But LBJ didn't create civil rights. Martin Luther King, Jr, and the thousands who marched with him, and the millions who looked on with empathy and compassion did.

I hope that an Obama administration can do something to reflect the change for which people clamor. But you can't forget, he is not the change. He is just a man who in mid-January will sit behind a desk in an oblong office reacting to the will of the people.

Got on a bit of a rhetorical roll there and probably should've stopped, but I've got a few more things to say. In my final ballot I voted for 4 different parties, and skipped one race altogether because I didn't know anything about the candidates which seems like the only proper response to such a situation unless you subscribe to the distributed randomness model of candidate selection.

This marks 3 elections in a row that I've voted for Ralph Nader, and I don't really care what you think about that. As far as I'm concerned, Nader is an American Hero, who has actually accomplished more as a citizen than any of the last 5 President's combined. He means what he says and as near as I can tell is as close to incorruptible as any human I've seen. He was willing to run for President in 2000 despite what it might do to his "legacy", because he knew that as President and as a presidential-candidate he could accomplish more to advance the issues he felt were most important. That is what actual political courage looks like, and as should be expected, the craven hacks in the Democratic party demonized him for it. As far as I'm concerned, Al Gore should have dropped out of the race to let Nader run. OK, I apparently take this topic kind of personally as well, as I'm currently having very evil thoughts about Eric Alterman. Moving on.

I'm also with Will as a "cognitive Madisonian" who supports divided government. I'd much prefer it be divided by two very different parties, with the independents being truly independent and not just former party members who became too moderate to be allowed to wear the varsity jacket anymore, and it would be nice if at least *one* of the parties thought it was a bad idea to sell our country's future to China and continue spending 125% of our income, while spending more on interest payments for debt than anything but defense and social programs. (Where did people learn to take interest only mortgages? "I learned it by watching you, alright!"

So I'm pleased to see the Democrats in a slight majority, and overall, I think the election turned out about as well as can really be expected (unless you're a gay couple in a committed relationship in California). But there are still enormous problems to confront and I sorely hope that President-Elect Obama is up to the task. Even more, I hope the American people are.

Notes:

Rambling and veering off-topic regularly and only sparsely well-written, but hell, no one's paying me for this so it'll have to do. And I managed to find a rhetorical flourish to finish on anyway. Yay, me.

In other news, the Electoral college is still stupid.

Popular Vote
McCain: 46%
Obama: 53%

Electoral Count
McCain: 35%
Obama: 65% (and counting)