It’s Your Fault, Not Obama’s: A Voter’s Manifesto For Real Change
Image via Wikipedia
One year into the Obama era, and sadly and predictably even his supporters are disappointed with him. The latest evidence of our desire for instant political gratification (or belief in the White Knight narrative of politics) comes in a Washington Post feature on how even the masses who thrilled to his victory in Grant Park are running short on hope:
A year ago, Barack Obama’s true believers were euphoric. The huge and jubilant gathering in Chicago’s Grant Park on election night 2008 gave way to almost 2 million people on the Mall for the president’s inauguration.
He took office as the most popular incoming president in a generation. A movement had become a mandate of nearly 70 million votes. People hoped the new president would bring change to Washington, the hallmark claim of his historic candidacy.
Now, the mood through much of the nation seems restive, even sour. It is almost jarring to look at the photographs from Grant Park, to study those upturned beaming faces, many streaked with tears. Was that a movement? Or just a moment?
That’s a good question. But the answer is not up to Obama. It is up to his supporters. The President has tried very hard to deliver on the promises he made in the campaign: real political dialogue and bipartisanship as opposed to demagoguery, a willingness to actually try to solve problems instead of use them for political advantage, and a commitment to trying to move the United States into the 21st century on health care, education, energy, foreign policy and terror. But he has run smack into a wall of highly partisan parliamentary maneuvering in the Congress aimed at fostering exactly the sort of frustration and disillusion expressed by the tea partiers, and now even the President’s base. And his own party is too busy raking in PAC money aimed at the status quo to care or do much about it.
Okay, so maybe the bipartisan emphasis wasn’t such a good idea. But can anyone doubt that if the Senate were inhabited by 100 Obamas–even if they had the same basic diversity of ideological outlook that currently exists–an awful lot of good and important legislation would be getting passed? I thought so. Good will and a desire to actually solve problems is critical given the big challenges we face, and it is almost completely lacking. Throw in the wholesale corruption of the process by lobbyists and PACs and you have an almighty Congressional clusterf*ck that is guaranteed to drive Americans to epic levels of cynicism and derangement.
So what should Obama’s faithful do? Well, they should do what all Americans who care about the future should do. They should look to Congress and the sold-out, hyper-ideologues they (the voters) keep electing. Slate’s Jacob Weisberg recently did an excellent job of making the case that we have met the enemy and the enemy is us:
The more compelling explanation is that the American public lives in Candyland, where government can tackle the big problems and get out of the way at the same time. In this respect, the whole country is becoming more and more like California, where ignorance is bliss and the state’s bonds have dropped to an A- rating (the same level as Libya’s), thanks to a referendum system that allows the people to be even more irresponsible than their elected representatives. Middle-class Americans really don’t want to hear about sacrifices or trade-offs—except as flattering descriptions about how ready we, as a people, are, or used to be, to accept them. We like the idea of hard choices in theory. When was the last time we made one in reality?
So stop whining, America. We are who we vote for. And if you don’t want to turn Obama’s hope-fueled Grant Park ascendancy to the Presidency into a mere moment, you need to continue the movement: against Congress and the way it works. Here are my emerging principles when it comes to voting:
- I will vote for no candidate who takes PAC and lobbying money.
- I will vote for no candidate whose policy proposals are based on focus-groups instead of expert advice, and pretend there are no hard choices
- I will vote for no candidate who demagogues instead of debates
Even if I treat my vote as something that must be honestly earned, it won’t make much of a difference (though I will sleep better). But if millions of Americans did the same it would make a big difference.
I’m sure there are more good principles that should apply, and I’d be happy to hear suggestions (heck, I’ll start a Facebook group based on The Voter’s Manifesto and we’ll get it all rolling). In the meantime, I have had the privilege of voting for one candidate who met this standard: Barack Obama.
I may quibble with his tactics (please, oh please, put the hammer down on health care, and keep calling Congress out). But to the extent that I am a disaffected, cynical citizen, I know that the real problem is not in the White House. It is at the other end of Pennsylvania Ave.
Post Your Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment
T/S Members
Log in with your True/Slant account.
The biggest problem with changing Washington is something of a more recent nature…the information age. When someone can change the national dialogue by lying about “Death Panels” on a face book page, well, that’s a problem. People in this country believe the things they want to believe as long as they are absolved. Its gotta be someone else’s fault. When you have the Beck’s, Hannity’s, and Rushbo’s of the world spouting off hatred and lies which benefit their ratings at our country’s expense, well, thats a problem too. The problem with our system is that you have to have money to win, and whereas I think your qualifications sound wonderful, I dont think you will have anyone to vote for that meets them
scottnatlanta: you nailed an important problem, which is the nature of news and media in our current age. I was tempted to add: “I will never watch cable news” to my list, and think it would be a good one. Not only would people stop getting hyped up by the most extreme and politicized take on all news, but if fewer people watched Fox News and MSNBC they might have to adjust their business model. Obama actually started getting at this in recent comments where he decried the atmosphere whipped up by partisan cable news shows.
I am tempted by not voting for incumbents past a certain period, but only as an alternative to getting independent, national-interest driven legislators in the first place. If voters changed their voting criteria there would be less need to kick the bums out every twelve years. But let’s add it until we start stacking Congress with the sorts of representatives required by the first set of rules.
Finally, melberger, you make a great point. Is demagoguery like pornography: you know it when you see it? Or is one man’s demagoguery another man’s reason? Right now we have the latter. But maybe we could get toward the former if more politicians (and voters, and the news media) held one another accountable by measuring each others’ proposals against expert analysis. What I loved about Obama’s appearance before the House Republicans is that he listened to all their proposals and deconstructed them based on facts and expert opinion (then saying he’d love to sign a health reform bill that covered everyone and cost nothing). And he challenged Republicans to vet their ideas against independent analysis. We don’t get enough of that–particularly from the media, especially cable news–where policy argument is more often than not political argument.
I have to admit that I don’t have that much hope that voters will suddenly see the light and adopt new criteria for how they cast their votes. But that doesn’t mean we can’t take a stand, and try to promote a set of core principles that really might make a difference. It feels better, anyhow, than simply playing by the old rules of a failing system.
Great comments, everyone. Thanks for taking the time and please keep them coming.
In response to another comment. See in context »I agree with you wholeheartedly. Thanks for saying it.
I’ve got a rule for you Tim: I will vote for no incumbent who’s been in office 12 years or more.
Uh, what reason have we for supposing that most voters can distinguish debate from demagoguery? Wasn’t that the amazing (read: scary) thing about the after-chatter of the Bush/Gore debate? How many people were rejoicing in Bush’s victory? (Why do you hate freedom?) Isn’t that what passes for news and commentary on the most-viewed network in the nation?
Ditto subject matter expertise. Like, if I can see the subject from my house, does that count? And, really, in a democracy, isn’t every citizen–in virtue of that status–an “expert? (Maybe not quite the brain trust that is the House and Senate, but, well . . .)
I love the idea, mind you. I’m not panning that. But, I just suspect that it fails to appreciate just how bad things are. Don’t these principles presuppose the very competencies that make focus groups the less desirable mechanism, the very short-sightedness you are lamenting? I mean, the folks who’d be saying, “Yeah, but I don’t like it,” in the focus group (in response to a deductive, valid argument), are the people who’d have to understand and employ these principles, no?
Or are you assuming (hoping?–go ahead, I don’t mind) that these principles will make sufficient impact even if only those able to see the dangers of voting from some sort of emotional preference instead of what there is good reason to believe will secure the end we seek (or, minimally, will not secure the end we most need to avoid)? I confess, my hope doesn’t run that deep. Many of my fellow citizens utterly confound me . . . on health care, financial reform, war, diplomacy, human rights . . . gosh the list seems endless. And there’s a why-do-you-hate-freedom for each.
It seems obvious–though I’ll happily be corrected if this is wrong–that very many of the loudest among us don’t even have even a loose grasp of the terms we bandy about, like “socialism,” “rule of law,” “justice,” and so forth. (Why is gay marriage to-be-avoided? Because it’ll threaten the institution of marriage? Why would gay marriage imperil straight marriage? Because it’s icky.)
And I don’t think most of them have the foggiest notion of the dangers to democracy posed by PAC/lobbying dollars.