Change: Past Present and Future. And also a review of the election.

(For whatever reason, this is a very meandering post.  I always return to the topic at hand but.......... tangents abound.  You've been warned)

In 2008, America elected a fellow named Barack Hussein Obama by a pretty large margin in the electoral college (365 VS 173).  According to the popular vote, the vote was 52% against 45%.  (This is because the electoral college lumps the votes of delegates from states together.  That is, if 4 million vote for one candidate and 3 million vote for another, all the electoral votes go for the candidate with 4 million votes.  If the winning candidate gets 6 million votes, s/he still gets all the electoral votes.  It's a reasonable argument to say the system has some quirks, especially because the electoral college always overrules the popular vote.  There have been 3 presidents elected while losing the popular vote: President Rutherford Hayes in 1876, President Benjamin Harris in 1888, and President George W. Bush in 2000.  Interestingly, all these Presidents have been part of the Republican Party).  Anyway, Obama was elected largely because of his promise of hope and change to 'business as usual' in Washington.  People were sick of perceived and real cronyism and corruption and believed their voice was not being heard.  Obama was elected to fix all of that.  Lo and behold!  He did!

Ok, not really.  Instead he was met with a firestorm of criticism and incredible opposition to pretty much any policy he set down.  While initiating the health care reform debate, grassroots organizations popped up and people began to voice their disappointment in politically powerful ways.  In 2010, the Democrats lost control of the House and their majority in the senate also slid substantially.  A few days after that election, the following was published.

"[That] debate was an introduction to a phenomenon I witnessed throughout my presidency: highly personal criticism.  Partisan opponents and commentators questioned my legitimacy, my intelligence, and my sincerity.  They mocked my appearance, my accent, and my religious beliefs.  I was labeled a Nazi, a war criminal, and Satan himself... One lawmaker called me both a loser and a liar."

Yet the death spiral of decency during my time in office, exacerbated by the advent of twenty-four-hour cable news and hyper-partisan political blogs, was deeply disappointing.  The toxic atmosphere in American politics discourages good people from running for office.

Over time, the petty insults and name-calling hardened into conventional wisdom.  Some have said I should have pushed back harder against the caricatures.  But I felt it would debase the presidency to stoop to the critics' level.  I had run on a promise to change the tone in Washington.  I took that vow seriously and tried to do my part, but I rarely succeeded."

One can imagine these words being written and spoken by President Obama.  And yet, they were written in fact by a man many people believe to be the antithesis of Obama, President George W. Bush.  The quote is from Bush's book, Decision Points.  The debate he was referring to was stem cell research.



Bush did in fact run on a campaign of change, though not as loudly or symbolically as Obama.  His opposition was Al Gore, who was President Clinton's VP.  It wasn't a big step to take - electing Gore would probably lead to similar policies of Clinton's last two terms.  So if a voter didn't like those policies, Bush was the alternative.  The image on the right is actually a commemorative plate from Bush's first inauguration.

Obama's campaign of change is more obvious.  As indicated by the election results, Bush had divided the country more than Clinton.  Or perhaps, the change would be more obvious.  Not a whole lot happened in the 90s worth throwing a fit about.  The Soviet Union finally fell in 1991, there were some bombings in the Balkans by American planes in 1999, and the biggest question on everyone's mind was how to prevent nuclear missiles in the old Soviet Union from being captured by terrorists (a term that Americans didn't really care about at the time, because most terrorism against America was in the form of embassy bombings, which was too far away to affect the population as a whole.  Timothy McVeigh wasn't really seen as a terrorist but as a criminal, and the 1993 WTC bombing was pretty much a failure.  Waco was a local Texas tragedy.)  The big issue on everyone's mind was stem cell research, a scientific advance with a lot of promise and a lot of uncertainty.  2000 was a pretty calm time for America.  2008 was different.

2008 was a year when America was engaged in two wars, one which many people believed had been launched illegally, and both which many people thought we were losing.  Between 2000 and 2008, two Supreme Court Justices retired, an unusual number, and the Court appeared to take a big swing to the Right.  The Court was designed so this kind of thing wouldn't happen.  But that design was hijacked by these circumstances.  And even though this was a coincidence, people couldn't be blamed for wanting some balance.  Some change.

Meanwhile, America had been attacked in 2001 by terrorists (a term that suddenly had meaning, albeit an occasionally racist one because it at times became synonymous with Muslims), and some people believed the Bush administration had orchestrated the whole thing as an excuse to invade Iraq and profit from its oil.  To say the country was divided is almost too simple.  Oh, and in 2008 the country suddenly entered a financial meltdown.

In 2010, change rose again.  The Tea Party had appeared on the scene, and while most of their signs were like this, it was clear they were, again, advocating change.  They were just advocating.... different change.

The whole point of the Tea Party is to change........ the change.

I can think of only one campaign that actively promoted non-change.  John McCain's campaign in 2008.  I recall McCain's supporters, at his rallies, chanting "4 more years."  Liberals also used the phrase to vilify McCain, but I distinctly recall McCain embracing the idea at some point....  But I might be wrong.  Maybe all politicians want change.

If that's the case, we need to stop voting for change.  Change doesn't mean anything, except "not what we have now."  That's a pretty general definition.  That Bush and Obama and Rand Paul got elected on that word should show how diverse it is.  I'd say it's not even a talking point or a buzz word, but just.... just a word everyone likes because they can pretend it means what they want.

In fact, I'll go a step further.  America's political goal has nearly always been to change.  It's our national heritage, and I'd say it is what the American Dream is if I didn't hate that term so much.  Whether we want a house or to live in freedom or the opportunity to better ourselves through hard work, America is a country that is never at rest, and always striving for something new.  All politicians are doing when they claim they want change is tapping into that national consciousness.  Which is fine.  We just have to stop fooling ourselves by thinking the change is the property of one candidate or party.  They all want change.  What we really need to do is to look at which policies they want to change, and which they don't.  We need to focus on the issues.  Which is what elections ought to be about anyway......



On a brighter note, all the ridiculous candidates I named in my speech at the Anchorage Rally to Restore Sanity lost their bid for election, and also those I was following but couldn't fit in my speech.  Here's the text of that speech:  http://takeitdownanotch4ak.blogspot.com/2010/10/alex-maslows-speech.html.

Let's check those election numbers!


Art Robinson.  The racist, homophobic congressional candidate for Oregon's 4th district.  He only got 45% of the vote.  On the other hand, 45% of the population of Oregon's 4th district would like someone with his views to represent them.  He's also running again in 2012 (according to his website).  I hope he gets less votes then.

Tom Emmer, the gubernatorial candidate in Minnesota.  He only got 43% of the vote.  However, this means 43% of all Minnesotians (is that the right term?) wouldn't have a problem that their governor would financially connected to "You Can Run But You Cannot Hide," a Christian hard rock ministry that performs at public schools around the state.  Fine, I guess.  Except their head said on their radio show if America won't enforce the laws of the Bible, God will raise an enemy who will.  He seemed to be implying radical Islam was such an enemy.  This is, literally, the same thing Fred Phelps' Westboro Baptist Church says.  When questioned, Emmer defended his connection by saying "They are nice people."  Not fucking true.

Interestingly, Emmer lost the vote by less than 10,000 voters.  There were 4 other candidates, but they got 1% of the vote between them all.

Mark Dayton

919228

44%

Tom Emmer

910479

43%

Tom Horner

251489

12%

Christine O'Donnel lost her senate bid in Delaware, taking only 40% of the vote.  Simple enough, not interested in belaboring the issue.

Carl Paladino won only 34.4% of the vote in his bid to be the governor of New York City.  I'm surprised so many people there voted for such a vocal homophobe.  I figured the "The rent is too damn high" guy would have connected with more voters.  When is the rent not too damn high?

Also, the party's website is pretty ridiculous.  Turn your speakers up.  There's definitely a rap about how high the rent is.  How high?  Too damn high.  http://www.rentistoodamnhigh.org/

Richard Iott lost his bid to represent Ohio's 9th district.  I actually have to express some regret in this case.  I know nothing of his policies, but of course am aware of the media storm that blew up when pictures surfaced showing him dressed up as a member of the Waffen-SS.  And as outrageous as his ignorance was, it probably didn't in the least reflect his policies.  There is no reason to believe Iott would have any policies that are remotely resemble anything the Nazis had.  The only thing we can say for sure is he either has an astonishingly terrible grasp on history or is horribly insensitive to historical catastrophes.

So if he wasn't voted in because the people in his district disagreed with his policy ideas, awesome.  And if some people didn't vote for him because of his (however incredible) public relations faux pax, that's fine.  That's how democracy works.  A focus on issues with some character judgement.  But if he wasn't voted in because people thought he was a Nazi...... then that's something we should be worried about.

Obama is not a Nazi or a Communist.  You can disagree with his policies, but anyone saying he is a Nazi or a Communist is either spread misinformation.  The same applies for any other candidate.  In an interesting twist, I can end this half of the post in the same way I ended the first half.  Instead of focusing on labels applied by political opponents, we need to focus on the issues.  Which is what elections ought to be about anyway......

Damn that was a long post.......

An Apology to Richard Iott

I haven't written any more of my promised columns about the 2010 candidates because something bothered me greatly about the one I wrote about Iott.  While on the one hand, what he did and what he said in his defense shows either an incredible ignorance or an abhorrent insensitivity about the Holocaust, he certainly is not in any way a Nazi.  You can judge his judgement, but you can't judge his politics.  This is different than the following individuals:

• Art Robinson, who is running to represent the 4th district of Oregon.  He believes AIDS is not a disease, but merely what God uses to kill gay people.  He also believes blacks are inferior to whites, a belief which he teaches to his homeschooled children.
• Sharon Angle, Harry Reid's main opponent in Nevada, told members of the Hispanic Student Union “Some of you look a little more Asian to me.”  I’m not sure if that’s racist or just stupid, but it's something worth noting.
• Tom Emmer, who is running for of governor of Minnesota, gave money to a group called “You Can Run but You Cannot Hide,” whose leader said on the radio, “If America won’t enforce the laws [of the Bible], God will raise up a foreign enemy to do just that!”  When asked about his ties to the group, Emmer said, “They come across as really nice guys."  No.  They are saying a frighteningly similar thing to the Westboro Baptist Church, the radical Christian group lead by Fred Phelps who carry their "God hates Fags/America" signs to Army funerals, saying the deceased was killed by God for fighting for America.
• Joe Miller, senate candidate for Alaska, had his security team arrest a reporter who was asking questions.  Miller also praised Soviet-Era East Germany for their success at securing their border, and said this should be the model for protecting America's borders.  The Soviets were not trying to keep outsiders from getting in, but were trying to keep their own citizens from getting out.  This is an appalling amount of ignorance.

These are the kinds of people we need to watch.  These are the folks who we need to worry about being elected.  Because their POLITICAL VIEWS are ridiculous.

So, Richard Iott, I am sorry I might have implied you are a Nazi.  I know nothing of your views, but am confident it in no way resembles the Nazis.  That said, you're still kind of an idiot or an ignorant ass for dressing up as SS-Waffen and calling it war re-enactment.  I am allowed to judge you for that bad call, but to imply anything about your views would be overreaching.

Christine O'Donnell also needs mention.  There are a ton of reasons to rally against O'Donnell.  That she dabbled in witchcraft in the 80s is not a valid reason.  That she did not realize the 1st amendment specifically forbids congress from establishing a state religion, however, is a good reason.

I think for 2012, I'm going to focus on, well, focusing on the important stuff and ignoring all the extra (however interesting) political dirt.

Art Robinson believes AIDS is what God uses to kill gays.  And people are still going to vote for him.