The Many Sides of Barack Obama vs. John McCain's One

I received my Time magazine special Republican Convention edition yesterday. The contrast with last week's Democratic Convention edition was clear. The second and third page of the main article on Barack Obama was populated with odd pictures of pieces of Obama. The article also implied that there were five ways people read Obama if not all those ways together. By contrast, the article on John McCain had one big word up top "hon-or." And the image montage of McCain on the article's third page was that of an "all-American" military son in classic black and white photographs.

I am not blaming Time solely for this. Obviously, we as a public are responsible for our inability to peg Obama down (while assuming first and foremost that he is "a black man," or at least that is what Time's list of Obama facets told me I assume) while we tend to place McCain in a one-stream narrative of honor. The managing editor's note introducing this issue of Time made an important point: McCain and all presidential candidates are more complex than we think. And maybe in some ways it's a privilege of Obama's liberal multiracial self that he gets to be more publicly complex. But Time's own editorial suggested that it is politically expedient to fit a simple singular narrative that eradicates complexity. And I can't shake the nasty feeling that the public inability to navigate complexity, perhaps even a public distaste for complexity, is somehow bound up with that albatross of "race." If it wasn't, why would "black man" be the first descriptor of Obama listed in the article lead?


--
images are all of Time, September 1 and September 8, 2008 issues.

who took my obama bumper sticker

With the FISA bill and everything, I have not been the biggest fan of Barack Obama lately. Maybe it's appropriate that I should remove all labels supporting him from my surroundings. Yet, I was quite shocked last night when I came back to a parking lot and found that someone had torn off my Obama bumper stickers. I admit that for years when I saw those "W" bumper stickers, I was filled with the desire to ram my car into the other cars sporting them. But guess what, I am a human being, which means I can exercise some limited self-control. I may rant online, but I can avoid defacing other people's stuff.

My bigger question about the person who tore off my bumper sticker is this: what did you think ripping off my bumper stickers would accomplish? If you are just angry about Barack Obama fine, but you know I'm going to buy more bumper stickers, which means more money for the Obama campaign, which just encourages him. So other than remind me that I share this country with some uncivilized ogres, what did you accomplish? You actually made me more committed to voting for Barack Obama this fall during a month when my support for him has been flagging. Good work.

Okay, just a light ramble into cyberspace this afternoon.

Reflecting on Democracy

Tonight I was watching P.O.V., and it aired a fascinating documentary about the 2004 election called Election Day. More than once a Republican-inclined voter or poll worker described voting as a "privilege, not a right." I have been reminded before that we live in a representative republic, not a democracy, which somehow also means that we're not entitled to vote. I find this ironic as the people who argue this also supported bringing "democracy" to Iraq at the point of a gun. So which is it? Democracy? Republic?

But putting that aside, is voting a right? The constitution is actually difficult on this one. Amendment 14 makes it clear that any man votes in elections, unless he has been involved in "rebellion, or other crime." This is one level of a problem that still plagues us. What kind of "crime" keeps one from being able to vote? If one is no longer in prison, if society has determined that one has been rehabilitated from one's crime, is one still considered a rebellious or criminal participant? And of course Amendment 15 and 19 had to make it clear that voting was open to all citizens regardless of race or gender. And Amendment 24 removed the financial (and racial) barrier of a poll tax. So in theory all citizens never convicted of a crime have the right to vote. But maybe it seems like a privilege because it took until 1964 for some constitutional guarantee of what is still not universal suffrage? Maybe it seems like a privilege because the organization of our elections clearly does not enable every citizen to vote? Watching voting in poor urban neighborhoods of St. Louis sure hits home that voting is a lot easier if you live in a wealthy suburb.

So as I brace for the U.S.A.'s celebration of its republic, I can't help but maintain that voting is a "right not a privilege." It is a right as long as a country purports to champion global democracy. If a country champions mere oligarchy, then fine, said country should admit this; in an oligarchy, its fine to describe voting as a "privilege."

--
The above image is taken from Election Day's page on P.O.V.'s site.

Ronald Reagan was not a great president

So yes, I was listening to the news again today, and when discussing historians' views of President George W. Bush, historians were accused of leaning too far left. As an example, historians' negative view of Ronald Reagan twenty years ago was contrasted with a positive view of him today, and apparently now we see him as one of the greatest presidents of the 20th century.

I have a few rants about this. A man is not a great president just because he's a likable fun guy. If that was the case, then my brother should run for president and be considered "great." So my first point of critique of the "great" Reagan, and I admit I was a kid in the 1980s so maybe I don't remember it that clearly, but when did people decide that an evil empire rhetorical, Iran-Contra, trickle-down economic failing president became great just because the Cold War happened to dissipate during this president's second term? So many of our domestic problems in education and yes, health care, owe themselves to the Reagan-era and Reagan-mismanaged economics. And I am tired of people giving Ronald Reagan all the credit for the end of the Cold War. As if the presidents that preceded him since Truman did nothing and as if the Berlin wall came down just because he said it should. The Reagan administration had its role, but try not to over-exaggerate his role.

Second, if he comes out as one of the better presidents of the 20th century, maybe that's because we're not grading on much of a curve. Even so, I would think that any historian could conclude that the following presidents, in chronological order, were all better presidents, leaders, policy geeks, etc., than Ronald Wilson Reagan: Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Harry S. Truman, Dwight D. Eisenhower, John F. Kennedy, and William J. Clinton. I would even contend that Jimmy Carter, Richard Nixon, and Lyndon Johnson were probably better presidents when one looks at the higher points of their records and leadership choices. Yes, I realize that I'm naming all the democratic presidents of the 20th century as better than Reagan. Too bad it's true. Reagan comes in just ahead of George H.W. Bush, Gerald Ford, and Calvin Coolidge. What this means is, that even grading on the curve of 20th century presidents, he still doesn't come out as one of the "greatest" unless by "greatest" you mean he was elected president twice, wasn't assassinated, and didn't resign.

Hillary-McCain supporters suck

On Saturday, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton gave a really classy endorsement and concession speech. I thought this was promising for the Democrats heading toward the fall. But apparently her powerful words were not enough. Okay, you know what is really getting under my skin right now. The 1/4 of Hillary Clinton supporters who say they are going to vote for John McCain. Hillary Clinton gave a ringing endorsement of Barack Obama, has pledged herself to support them. But these people who supported her so fervently now contend that they would be better served by voting for John McCain. It would be like me arguing, were the tables turned, that Hillary Clinton is just too polarizing a figure for me. I just want someone that can appeal to both Democrats and Republicans, so I'm going to vote against everything that made me a Democrat, everything that made me support Barack Obama, and vote for John McCain. I wonder what Hillary Clinton supporters would think of such childish behavior were their candidate the nominee. The other Democrats didn't give me the one I want so I'm going to punish the planet by voting against them.

I want to be clear that I am proud of the behavior of Hillary Clinton supporters, like those in my own family, who have immediately turned around as Obama supporters, or at least McCain opponents. The problem is that there are far too many Democrats who supported Hillary Clinton, and who strike me as being racist. So I am listening to this idiotic attorney in Atlanta this morning on NPR. That's right, I am talking to you Barbara LeBey. She claims that she is going to vote for John McCain in the fall. Her first reason for jumping ship on her lifetime voting history as a Democrat: her opposition to Obama's tax increase plan. Yeah, you know, the plan that is identical to Hillary Clinton's plan. But when she is confronted on that issue, she then claims that Obama is too inexperienced, and that quite frankly she's afraid of him. You're afraid of him, Barbara LeBay. I think this is the most revealing thing you said. Is that because he's a black man named Barack Obama? I think it is. It's fine that you claim it's because he's a "blank slate," and an "upstart" who is too willing to talk with terrorists, but I don't think that any of that really matters. So what would you think if I had reacted to a Hillary Clinton nomination by saying I was just too concerned she would cry at crucial moments? You would say I was a sexist, and you would be right about such a comment.

LeBay claims to have marched for the Equal Rights Amendment and for Civil Rights. It seems a bit odd to be willing to support an opponent of abortion rights and Martin Luther King, Jr. day then. I understand that racism is something we all suffer from in some direction or other in this country. But if we claim to be self-critical, self-conscious, intelligent people, then we owe it to ourselves to at least try to think rationally about why we are making the choices we make.

I know this has been a rant and that calling these people who voted for Hillary Clinton and refuse to vote for Barack Obama stupid racists won't do any good. But this is just so upsetting to me because this is the future of the world we're talking about, and some of you want to put that in the hands of a man who thinks we can spend 10,000 years in Iraq, a man who can't differentiate between Sunni and Shiites. I leave you with the words that were said on the same NPR show yesterday. Comedy duo guest, "Frangela" spoke with Madeleine Brand on "Day to Day" yesterday. Angela Shelton, part of the duo, was a strong Hillary Clinton supporter, and she said, that "this is about making sure John McCain is not our president." Fracis Callier, her colleague, spoke of these new McCain supporters and said the following about them, "It makes me feel as though you didn't support Hillary. You were supporting something else. Because if you are for her ideas and platform, and the things that Hillary Clinton was about, you couldn't be supporting John McCain."

My cynical view of the week, ending May 3, 2008

Girl A is friends with Guys C, D, and E. Girl B befriends Girl A. Girl B has past relationships with Guys D and E and claims confusion over Guy E but also claims to have no interest other than compassionate friendship for Guy E. Girl A, in a fit of gossipy self-loathing, relates confidential information about Guys D and E, information which Girl B then uses to garner one more night with Guy E. Moral: We are all guided by our particular psychoses and rationalize every other choice we make in service to our guiding psychoses.

1950s Redux at Harvard

This Sunday I was treated to 1950s sexual politics masquerading itself as an article in The New York Times written by someone who has the liberal credentials of actually having written for Mother Jones. The article, "Students of Virginity" by Randall Patterson, decided that, fifteen years or more after this movement really took off, it was time to talk about celibacy on college campuses because Harvard University finally happens to have a chapter, dubbed "True Love Revolution." Problem one, then, this didn't matter when other, less famous and less wealthy schools had chapters?

Myriad are the questions and concerns this article brought up for me. Instead of reading a journalistic examination of this complex issue, I felt like I was reading a propaganda piece for the virtues of Victorian era femininity but recast as a feminist stance. First you have your main figure, a girl from a town in Colorado where supposedly no one had sex, who finds herself in the midst of "godless Harvard," where apparently hook-up style sex is rampant. She is then contrasted with her colleague, the male co-chair of Harvard's True Love Revolution. While, and I ask you to consider the images above as I write this, she is rendered as sexy, strong, and smart, her male colleague is rendered as creepy. That's right, chastity is sexy in women, but in men, it's just creepy. Why can't a normal, sexy man make a respectable choice for abstinence?

But of course the 1950s propaganda doesn't stop there, our white-middle-class heroine is then pitted against a "harlot"/"vixen" in complete uniform, a mini skirt, a lack of self restraint in her love of food, and a seeming idiocy about her own opinions in the one paragraph she gets to express them. Oh, and one other thing, our vixen happens to be Asian American. That's right, now I feel like it's a classical virgin vs. harlot with the added colonial overtones that all non-white-middle-class women are completely sexually available and so lustful they cannot control all their hormonal habits. Coincidence?

Putting aside these questions about the overt ways race and gender interplay in an article that seems to support the position of the virgin, I am left with several other questions. Why are chaste women always pitted against a rival whose sexual preferences resemble those of pornography? Why wasn't her opponent in debate a woman who takes a more moderated position towards sexuality? We may feel overloaded in this society by images of Paris Hilton and Girls Gone Wild, and I might be with the Colorado virgin in seeing the danger to feminist strength in those women as well (always being sexually available porn style is being just as much controlled by men and being just as much an object with no subjectivity as the virgin, if not more so; I must agree with that). The choice is not virgin vs. harlot. In fact, both the virgin and the harlot, as archetypes in this dichotomy, are women who package themselves for patriarchal society's desires, not their own. A woman's sexual choices are much more complicated than that, and the one thing this article can remind is how much these choices, for both men and women, should be about self-respect and meaning, not just hormones, lust, and the images peddled to us by the media and other communities. And every man or woman should be self-conscious about why she chooses what she chooses about sexuality.

And how snide a name is "True Love Revolution," assuming that gays for one (whom the group only accepts if they are celibate), and other people who do not marry somehow do not experience "true love," but people who married experience true love, people who often did so throughout history as part of economic contracts not love? Also, haven't we learned the dangers of valorizing marriage as a kind of perfect utopian home life? Isn't that a lesson we can take from the 1960s even if we didn't live through them? And what was with the publishing of letters to Harvard's Crimson that implied the "vixen" was just not the wifely material that the "virgin" was? Not only does that yet again replicate 1950s mentality but it assumes our "vixen" wants a traditional monogamous marital relationship, which she may very well not.

I can still imagine that some (I know not all, and that the virgin and harlot imagery exists because some people have made choices that look just like that) women and men can and have over the centuries chosen to be neither virgins nor harlots; celibate freaks nor virile dogs. That there is a much more complicated path in between that does justice to the full personhood of all the women and men involved in a sexual exchange. What is significant about now, and better about now than the 1950s, is the the freedom to choose for oneself without society setting up the old stereotypes. But this article felt like a step backwards instead of the step forwards it was presenting itself as.

---
Images of True Love Revolution leaders Leo Keliher and Jamie Fredell, taken by Katherine Wolkoff for The New York Times