The Millennial Generation are those who are born between 1982 and 2003. There’s about a million more millennials than there are baby boomers, and twice as many than the generation that preceded it, Generation X.
JUDY WOODRUFF: How do you characterize their — their political views? I mean, you point out that they are voting more Democratic than Republican. But is there a way of labeling them?
MICHAEL HAIS: Well, we refer to them as a civic generation. And that means that they are a generation that is not intent on — as other types of generations are — not intent on implementing their own personal moral values, but rather in rebuilding civic institutions, in acting together as a group to resolve political problems, which we expect the millennials to do, problems such as health care that have really bedeviled the U.S. political process for the last 40 years or so.
MORLEY WINOGRAD: So, their parents raised them share. And they had them watch “Barney” and make sure that everybody was treated equally. And we came to win-win situations.
So, they come to the political process with a collective point of view, and therefore tend to be Democratic. And, in fact, this is the first generation in about five decades where a greater number label themselves as liberal, rather than conservative.
JUDY WOODRUFF: Why is it — what is it about Barack Obama that has turned so many of them out?
MORLEY WINOGRAD: Well, he has a unifying message, so it’s — that’s important, because these are not a generation interested in the confrontational culture wars of the boomers.
But he — and his background, which is very diverse in and of itself, so he sort of captures that nature of this generation. But I think maybe the most important thing is that he’s combined that message with the right medium. He’s really organized on social network — around social network platforms to build the kind of support he’s been able to demonstrate, at least in many of the states.
Apparently some conservative churches want to be politically active AND keep their tax exempt status. I hope this issue provokes a serious reconsideration of the rationale for special tax treatment.
I have never been much of a fan of the idea of tax exempt status. It seems to me that these organizations use the resources of the community as much as anyone else: Police, Fire, EMS, Street maintenance, Water, Sewage… And to the extent that they do not share in the tax burden the rest of us have to pay more than our fair share. I can accept that these spiritual operations may be providing some services that benefit the community such as feeding the poor that deserve some consideration. Perhaps they can pay slightly lower taxes in proportion to the services they provide or the government can pay them for the services provided.
This is true also for the tax exempt status of government entities. Here in Austin the land and buildings owned by the State and Federal government do not pay property taxes and their holdings are significant. In downtown Austin the State owns more than 13,000 parking spaces in the form of lots and structures. Again, to the extent that these entities do not pay property taxes the higher are those taxes for the rest of us.
I used to think that the GOP would be the party to lead the effort to revisit the long term habits of government that may no longer be reasonable or justified. The current effort of the White House to resist excessive farm subsidies is welcome but it is only a tiny bite of a very large problem. All of our taxes would be lower if the exemptions were as few as possible.
The Huffington Post’s Sam Stein reports that supporters of Democratic Senator Hillary Clinton who comment on the pro-Clinton blog Taylor Marsh got ahold of an email list and have been emailing demanding, even angry, emails to superdelegates — and there are signs that some superdelegates are now very unhappy campers:
As the Democratic primary nears its long-awaited conclusion, undecided superdelegates have been drowned under a sudden deluge of angry, sometimes vicious emails from Hillary Clinton supporters urging them to not fall in line behind Barack Obama.
The letter writing campaign picked up steam late Thursday evening when several superdelegates confirmed that a coordinated effort had been launched, apparently independent of Clinton’s campaign, to raise last-minute concerns about Obama’s candidacy and present the specter of voter defections should the Illinois Democrat become the nominee.
In more than dozen messages sent yesterday evening and shared with The Huffington Post, supporters of Clinton emailed a laundry list of political and exceedingly personal attacks on Obama’s candidacy, including criticisms of his prior associations and claims that he, not Clinton, had played the race card. The letters underscore the high emotional pitch of the late stage Democratic primary as well as the utter conviction among many supporters of both campaigns that their candidate is solely worthy of the nomination.
So have the letters made many superdelegates see the light and decide to announce that they’ll support Clinton — even though Clinton at this point isn’t ahead in the number of pledged delegates, the popular vote, campaign funding collections or even (by ABC’s recent claim) superdelegates?
Not quite:
Such campaigns targeting superdelegates have mostly been avoided out of fear that the party officials would react negatively to outside pressure. And at least four superdelegates on the receiving end of yesterday’s emails suggested that they did more harm to Clinton’s cause than good.
In one exchange, Donna Brazile, Al Gore’s campaign manager and a stalwart of the Democratic Party, responded with frustration to a writer’s threats of defection. “Honestly, this is the 9th email today,” she wrote before 8:00 pm. “So I believe you’re ready to not only destroy Roe versus Wade, voting rights, civil liberties and civil rights. Perhaps adding trillions more to the deficits through non-stop tax cuts to the wealthy and 100 more years in Iraq. Yes, please join Rush and McCain asap. The train has left. Catch it.”
The Clinton campaign did not return a request for comment as to whether it was behind the email campaign.
That last sentence means the Clinton campaign (a) is trying to figure out how to defuse this without alienating its committed supporters (whom students of politics could consider need to be committed for sending less than respectful emails to superdelegates who are their last hope), (b) doesn’t want to give this more publicity, (c) tacitly supports the effort.
Stein gives readers a bit of feedback on how some superdelegates are reacting to this new form of abusive political spam:
At least two other party insiders wrote the Huffington Post expressing concern over the scope (”I’ve received emails like this for weeks but tonight it started in mass) and negativity of some of the Obama attacks, including one red-state Democrat:
“I spent my entire life in the two reddest states in the entire U.S. so please excuse me if I fail to discern the nuances of the arguments sent my way this evening in what appears to be an orchestrated campaign to intimidate the remaining unpledged delegates by threatening to leave the party and vote for a third Bush term if I and others like me don’t vote for Sen. Clinton,” wrote the exasperated superdelegate. “I have been uncommitted throughout this campaign because I wanted to see how the candidates performed in a variety of settings. I am proud of them both. But I am horrified by this effort to threaten votes for McCain if super delegates don’t vote for Sen. Clinton. I have received hundreds of emails from both sides - but I can say without exception that I have not received a single email from an Obama supporter that threatened a vote for McCain if I didn’t support Sen. Obama. You really ought to be ashamed.”
–Paul Begala raised eyebrows by saying “”Obama can’t win with just the eggheads and African-Americans…” (OOPS! There goes the Humpty Dumpty vote..)
–Clinton supporters are flooding superdelegates with threatening emails. They seem to forget that politics also involves trying to persuade, not just intimidate.
Bill Clinton often talked about wanting to build a “bridge to the 21st century.”
But, increasingly, the Clinton camp seems as if in terms of common sense political coalition building, it’s trying to burn its bridges in the 21st century.
We in America can talk about the virtues and vices of presidential candidates we support.
We in America can argue about which political party is going to destroy or uplift the country.
We in America can pontificate about race baiting, race hustling, race pitching, race riding, race stirring, race healing, race blah blah in this political season.
We in America can scream about who’s elitist, has testicular fortitude, is Maverick like, old, black, a woman, has four legs, flies to the moon, lives on the moon, tough on terrorism, is Messiah-like, prone to “Pastorgates”, has toxic spouses, etc this silly season.
We in America can just shut up.
Because the game changing $4.00/gallon gas is upon us. When the average reaches that mark, we in America are going to feel it and feel it good. Our very lifestyle is at serious risk. The very American “going out for a ride” will lose its luster. The family road trip will be shelved or shrunk in distance. The weekend getaway becomes a weekend DVD fest at home. The grocery store becomes ominous because of prices. I can go on and on.
Senators Clinton, Obama, and McCain aren’t ready to deal with the way this will change American life. Heck, Washington likes to play games with itself. But for millions of Americans who lives will be affected detrimentally by ever increasing fuel costs, the word bitter and the feeling of bitterness will just become part and parcel of American life. No matter how many despots we depose, that will play second fiddle to the new American way of life.
Are you ready to ride my fellow Americans? Are we as a country ready to deal with this issue head on without politics?
In The Conservative Revival David Brooks explores the lessons the GOP could learn from their conservative colleagues in the UK.
“The British conservative renovation begins with this insight: The central political debate of the 20th century was over the role of government. The right stood for individual freedom while the left stood for extending the role of the state. But the central debate of the 21st century is over quality of life. In this new debate, it is necessary but insufficient to talk about individual freedom. Political leaders have to also talk about, as one Tory politician put it, “the whole way we live our lives.”
That means, first, moving beyond the Thatcherite tendency to put economics first. As Oliver Letwin, one of the leading Tory strategists put it: “Politics, once econo-centric, must now become socio-centric.” David Cameron, the Conservative Party leader, makes it clear that his primary focus is sociological. Last year he declared: “The great challenge of the 1970s and 1980s was economic revival. The great challenge in this decade and the next is social revival.” In another speech, he argued: “We used to stand for the individual. We still do. But individual freedoms count for little if society is disintegrating. Now we stand for the family, for the neighborhood — in a word, for society.”
This could be as significant as the replacement of communism with capitalism and their realization that “If you can’t beat ‘em join ‘em”. What this means to me is that one model of the conservative movement may be evolving from “survival of the fittest” to accepting the aims of liberalism and focusing on the wellbeing of the unfortunate. Party distinctions may become more about tactics: big government solutions or small government solutions rather than about the class war of haves and have nots.
This would be stunningly important political progress to add to abolition of slavery, suffrage, the GI bill, Marshall Plan, Social Security, Medicare…
This is another Guest Book Review by fiction writer Jessica Schneider who also writes for Cosmoetica, is Book Editor for Monsters and Critics and is the only contributor to her own blog.
Book Review: The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time by Mark Haddon
by Jessica Schneider
It is always frustrating to begin a book that has some potential but ultimately just doesn’t deliver. Such is the case with Mark Haddon’s debut novel The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time. It is not so much that this is a bad book, just one that could have been so much better than what it was.
If you are one of the myriad fans of the Lord of the Rings movie trilogy, you will be heartened to learn that events are moving forward toward the creation of a two movie series based on the original book, “The Hobbit.” This week we learned that Sir Ian McKellen has signed on to reprise his role as Gandalf and that Peter Jackson will definitely be involved.
As was expected, Ian McKellen has agreed to be a part of the two-film Hobbit project, according to Empire magazine.
McKellen had said last year that he would not be involved in The Hobbit if Lord of the Rings director Peter Jackson were excluded, which was possible because of since-resolved royalties disputes with New Line Cinema. Jackson will produce the two films being adapted from and adding to J.R.R. Tolkien’s original novel, The Hobbit, Or There and Back Again (1937), slated for 2010 and 2011.
We also learned that Guillermo del Toro (of Hellboy fame) will direct. As the technology of special effects continues to advance, The Hobbit promises some real treats. While there were monsters aplenty in Lord of the Rings, I can’t wait to see what they do with the giant, fire-breathing dragon, Smaug, in this movie rendition. There is also a battle of five armies near the end of the tale which should make for some epic battle sequences.
One concern has been the age of the actors involved as more and more years roll by between films. This is further complicated by the fact that The Hobbit takes place many years before the beginning of Lord of the Rings. For many roles, this won’t be an issue as most of the key characters were new in LoTR. Gandalf is in both, but he was already rumored to be more than 1,000 years old in both films, so that’s not as much of an issue. Gollum is likewise not a problem, since he is actually “played” by an unseen actor in a greenscreen suit who is then digitally edited out and replaced by the CGI monster. The big question will be Bilbo, who features prominently in both series, but is supposed to be far younger in the first film. I’m betting they get a new actor to play the younger version of the hobbit.
Stay tuned for more updates. We have a couple of years to wait still, but this should be another box office giant.
It turns out that one of the doctors in yesterday’s piece on families coping with gender identity issues, Kenneth J. Zucker, Ph.D., is on the Sexual and Gender Identity Disorders Work Group for the American Psychological Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders.
Needless to say, gender-variant LGBT and straight youth, as well as transsexual adults, will likely have to deal with another decade plus of being considered seriously disordered — with its conversion therapy implication for children. Reform models for, or different takes on Gender Identity Disorder in DSM-V aren’t likely to be seriously considered with forceful advocates Zucker and Blanchard on the Sexual and Gender Identity Disorders Work Group, advocating to continue listing gender-variant youth and adult transsexuals as disordered.
It was the step that recognized that individuals whose sexual interests are directed primarily toward people of the same sex weren’t afflicted with a psychiatric disorder.
I make that leap, too. And will share this personal story only to inform the reader of how my experience shapes my beliefs… Read the rest of this entry »
They must have run out of duct tape at Home Depot — or Hillary Clinton’s advisers must believe that an angry Bill Clinton arguing with a female voter who interrupted him in West Virginia is going to win over people who don’t already support Hillary Clinton. For a veteran politician, he can’t turn a lemon (being interrupted) into lemonade (handling it with skill to win over doubters).
Because here he goes again. Watch the clip below. Here he is arguing with a voter who disputed an assertion he made about Hillary Clinton’s claim that she improved health care under his administration. This IS red meat for those who already love Hillary and want her to fight and denounce Barack Obama all the way to the convention.
But to many independent voters, Republicans, Democrats — and probably superdelegates — when they watch this clip they will think: Do we REALLY want to allow this man to take virtual center stage for four — or EIGHT — more years? Oh, please, Mommy, make him go away…
Some Presidents become more endearing and their political skills actually blossom once when they leave office. They grow on people.
Bill Clinton is growing on many people like a fungus.
Make sure you watch the voter’s comment at the end. Presumably, the Clintons want to win over more than their current supporters, but you’d never know that from Bill Clinton’s defensive and angry response.
UPDATE: In fact, Hillary Clinton DOES deserve some credit for improving health care under Bill Clinton. READ THIS. But rather than rattle-off specifics, Clinton became angry and turned it on the voter, turning himself into a kind of radio talk show host. (At least you can TURN OFF the radio and not listen to talk show hosts.)
We’ll try to update this post on a daily or more regular basis, just in case you don’t see or have a chance to check the information elsewhere.
ABC reports that Obama is ahead. RCP still has Clinton ahead by eight, as of 8:35 am Central Time today.
Clearly, this is not an exact science. Justin Gardner explains. For my part, I’m sticking with RCP, as I’ve found them quite reliable and relatively conservative on how they maintain their counts. Better to be surprised than disappointed. At least, that’s my motto.
The Washington Post has further information on an unfolding story regarding several “land swap” deals endorsed by presidential hopeful Senator John McCain, at least one of which seems to be producing a financial windfall for one of the Arizona Senator’s largest fundraisers.
PRESCOTT, Ariz. — Sen. John McCain championed legislation that will let an Arizona rancher trade remote grassland and ponderosa pine forest here for acres of valuable federally owned property that is ready for development, a land swap that now stands to directly benefit one of his top presidential campaign fundraisers.
Initially reluctant to support the swap, the Arizona Republican became a key figure in pushing the deal through Congress after the rancher and his partners hired lobbyists that included McCain’s 1992 Senate campaign manager, two of his former Senate staff members (one of whom has returned as his chief of staff), and an Arizona insider who was a major McCain donor and is now bundling campaign checks.
This certainly seems worthy of investigation, but as I will point out, there are two sides to every story. The “land swap” involved a deal where individuals would be able to exchange rugged, undeveloped land primarily owned by Fred Ruskin and the Yavapai Ranch Limited Partnership. This property included some rare, desert woodland ecosystems including habitat for the pronghorn antelope. The land would be folded into the existing Prescott National Forest. In exchange, the owners would receive land which was more accessible and ready for development.
The controversy comes from the fact that Ruskin’s group wound up getting land valued at $120,000 per acre in exchange for land previously worth $2,000 per acre. They then turned around and handed a deal to develop 12,000 homes in this area to SunCor Development, run by Steven A. Betts who has raised a great deal of money for Senator McCain. In his defense, the McCain campaign has released answers to a series of questions on these land deals stating that there were no prior agreements between the Senator and the other parties involved.
There does not yet seem to be conclusive evidence of any sort of quid pro quo here, but since it at least provides the possible appearance of impropriety, a full investigation should begin with the results provided to us. However, as I said earlier, there are two sides to a story like this.
Such “checkerboard” land distribution arrangements are not uncommon, and I’ve observed quite a few of them over the years here in Upstate New York. (They are also commonly referred to as patchwork land deals, and have happened with the Adirondack Park here in the Empire State.) When sections of private land become “trapped” inside of sections of public parkland, problems come up on both sides. Simply put, the most efficient way to manage, patrol and protect the wilderness areas is to keep them contiguous. Anything else leads to zoning problems and dangerous situations for certain animals who may be crossing from public to private property and back again. For the owners, there are even more issues. Development of roads, utility lines and other required infrastructure can prove to be impossible when crossing park lands. Often the only reasonable solution is to fold some of the contiguous land into the park in exchange for accessible land suitable for development being given to the owners.
Further, the idea of trading land worth $2,000 for property valued at $120,000 may sound suspicious, but the true “worth” of the parklands should be measured in more than terms of hard cash. These parks belong to all of us, providing not only habitat for endangered flora and fauna, but wonderful opportunities for hikers, campers, scientists and students. Surely that has some value beyond what can be measured in hard dollars and cents for development deals.
This is an interesting story to be sure, and worthy of further investigation. But we may not want to be too quick to rush to judge Senator McCain’s involvement until we have all the details.
New York, NY, May 8, 2008—Thanks to its historical, 94 years of operation as a non-political entity and relief organization, JDC staff has been granted entry visas to carry out humanitarian aid efforts for victims of cyclone Nargis which hit Myanmar last week. A senior JDC professional is on the ground in Myanmar, where he will assess the situation and carry out plans to aid the estimated several hundred thousand cyclone victims without shelter and safe drinking water. JDC is partnering with MASHAV, Magen David Adom (MDA), and F.I.R.S.T (Fast Israeli Rescue & Search Team) to provide emergency relief, including medical supplies and personnel and rescue workers.
JDC has opened a mailbox and is now accepting donations to provide immediate assistance and relief:
Donate to Myanmar Cyclone Relief:
Online: https://www.jdc.org/donation/jdc_form.cfm
By Phone: 212.687.6200
By Mail: Check payable to: JDC-Myanmar Cyclone Relief, P.O. Box 530, 132 East 43rd St., New York, NY, 10017
A federal judge has ruled that the Georgia Institute of Technology had materials in its office to support gay students that amounted to unconstitutional support for some religious groups over others. […]
The ruling came in a case involving a range of issues over speech codes and support for religious groups at Georgia Tech — issues that mirror those being raised at other public colleges and many of which were resolved in earlier rulings or agreements between the parties in the case. The new part of the ruling, however, focused on a set of materials used in the “Safe Space” program at Georgia Tech, a part of the institute’s diversity office designed to support gay and lesbian students.
The case was filed on behalf of two Georgia Tech students, assisted by the Alliance Defense Fund, a legal group that has sued many public colleges accusing them of violating the rights of religious students. The portion of the suit about Safe Space argued that materials at the public university were effectively religious in that they endorsed some faiths over others — and that these materials were as a result unconstitutional. Judge J. Owen Forrester agreed.
The materials in question dealt with issues that may be faced by religious gay students, or by gay students challenged about the sexuality by people from different faiths. One passage cited in the ruling says that “historically, Biblical passages taken out of context have been used to justify such things as slavery, the inferior status of women, and the persecution of religious minorities.” Such attitudes have led some religious groups to declare “that homosexuality is immoral,” the group’s materials state, while others “have begun to look at sexual relationships in terms of the love, mutual support, commitments and the responsibility of the partners rather than the sex of the individuals involved.”
U.S. military officials are now saying that yesterday’s reports of the capture of Abu Ayyub al-Masri, the head of al Qaeda in Iraq, were somewhat premature.
U.S. military officials were surprised about the report of Abu Ayyub al-Masri’s capture — first reported by Iraqi media and picked up by The Associated Press. And intelligence officials said they were skeptical, even though Iraqi officials said al-Masri was already in U.S. military custody.
Al-Masri (”the Egyptian”), also known as Abu Hamza al-Muhajer, took the reins of the Iraqi al Qaeda offshoot in June 2006 after a U.S. missile strike killed his predecessor, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.
You may recall that announcements have been made over the last year or so that al-Masri had been captured three times, killed twice, and horribly injured once. It is somewhat reminiscent of the revolving door position of the “number three man in al Qaeda” who seems to be routinely killed and/or captured in Afghanistan or Pakistan every six months or so.
The position al-Masri holds clearly makes him one of the more dangerous, high value targets in our fight to get al Qaeda under control. The man is apparently part feline in nature and is using up his nine lives quickly. For the time being, though, it seems the hunt goes on.
On the 492nd day of Hillary Clinton’s quest to become the first woman president, one inevitability was rudely replaced by another.
That was the number of days that elapsed from January 20, 2007 when Clinton (photo) announced that “I’m in. And I’m in it to win,” something that few observers could seriously doubt, and Tuesday past when voters in North Carolina and Indiana delivered another message: Her defeat at the hands of Barack Obama in the political cage match of the young millennium was no longer a probability but an inevitability.
Sure signs of this seismic shift are the uproar from the hardest of Clinton’s hardcore supporters and flurry of kamikazee analogies from pundits shaking their heads over her stubborn refusal to bow to that inevitability.
These supporters declare that Obama is unelectable although more Americans may vote for him in November than any presidential candidate in history. And that Clinton should be gifted the Democratic nomination although she trails Obama in popular votes, pledged delegate votes, opinion-poll positives, contributions and endorsements, and any second in superdelegates, as well.
The hardcore ranges from big-time bloggers like Taylor Marsh, who will now have to return that lovely dress she bought months ago to wear to the inaugural balls (but at least is making noises about possibly embracing Obama) to some really pissed-off feminists (who are demonizing Marsh for seeing the light).
I’m going to focus on the Hell Hath No Fury Like a Feminist Scorned crowd, which is shaping up to be a bunch of especially poor losers.
May 9th, 2008 by DR. CLARISSA PINKOLA ESTÉS, TMV Columnist
According to my contact in Yangon, what pitiful supplies are on the ground, have no distribution whatsoever to any of the thousands of villages and tributaries in Burma hit into utter devastation by the tsunami/ cyclone. The Burmese, most poorer than poor before the tsunami, are going on their 6th sunrise without clean water, food, or shelter or medicines.
Meanwhile, it is certain, while the military government gets down their fiddles, the infants and newborns and toddlers grow dehydrated. Without adequate water and food, their mothers’ breasts will have run out of milk, and the children will die from dehydration, an entire generation of young will be gone within a week.
Than Schwe: You cannot keep others from knowing about the mayhem of your country. Burma is on satellite. The floods and the people and the animals can be seen dead and floating and bloated. The living can be seen by satellite also, picking through ruins, entire villages wiped out with no survivors.
Than Schwe, delaying allowing aid workers in, makes you only look more and more unleaderly.
Than Schwe, animals survive by adapting. Animals who can learn new behavior, survive the unforeseen.
Than Schwe, animals who do as they have always done, die.
Than Schwe, open your heart, if not your mind. Be known as a ruler who took care of his people in every way possible, rather than going down in history as the leader who stood by paralyzed and allowed holy people and helpless people, his own kith and kin, to die in misery.
CODA
I hear from my contact in Yangon, that the people on the ground in Burma are begging that international aeroplanes please fly over and drop supplies.
Than Schwe, if they fly, let them fly unmolested. Add no more horror to horror. It’s within your power. Choose honorific over horrific.
Than Schwe, the new respect you would receive then, would be remarkable.
This is our deepest prayer for you Than Schwe, and for the people of Burma… the Central Buddhist Precept:
Look at these faces. While the rest of the world wrings its hands and waits helplessly on the sidelines, Burma’s government says it will accept aid, but that it doesn’t want the help of foreigners in getting it to the people. (BBC News) The UN is pretty sure the government’s own unaided efforts won’t be enough.
The UN says that up to 1.5 million people may have been affected by Cyclone Nargis, which devastated the Irrawaddy Delta region on Saturday. Burmese state media say 22,980 people were killed, but there are fears the figure could rise to 100,000.
Hundreds of thousands of people have no food, water or shelter. Officials say people could die because no help is getting to them.
In a statement, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon urged the junta to prioritise the aid effort over tomorrow’s nation-wide referendum on a widely-criticised new constitution.
It would be "prudent to focus instead on mobilising all available resources and capacity for the emergency response efforts", he said. (BBC News)
As the Bush era draws to a close, Europeans are anxious to know what about American policy will change when he’s gone - particularly if a Democratic victory occurs as planned.
“In view of the ongoing presidential campaign, the American exception seems as strong as ever. Where else but in America would a primary race go on for more than a year? Where else would candidates obtain tens of millions of dollars a month from their supporters? Where else would party foot soldiers have the chance to select the candidate for the highest post? … All three candidates take lyrical flight in discussing the American dream. Above all, none will hesitate to resort to force.”
“Clearly, a Democratic victory in November would undoubtedly open the door to a more left-wing America. But it would be a kind of American left, certainly not modeled on Europe. Both candidates have rejected a “single payer” system for health insurance, like the Canadian and European models. The change ahead will not mean the end of the American exception, but the end of American triumphalism.”
LEADING ARTICLE
Translated By Kate Davis
May 8, 2008
France - Challenges - Original Article (French)
All countries are exceptional. But the United States gladly considers itself exceptionally exceptional, different from all other developed countries in its social organization and its fundamental values. The State is less extensive and the distribution of wealth more unequal. The United States is also more strongly committed to what Margaret Thatcher called the “Victorian values:” individualism, voluntarism, patriotism.
Thus the Bush government, which supports conservative values domestically and demonstrates an unlimited self confidence externally, is the most “exceptional” known in recent years. But at the end of Bush’s mandate, isn’t the United States entering a new cycle, characterized by the rejection of conservatism and a convergence with Europe’s standards?
In reality, three quarters of Americans believe the country is headed in the wrong direction and for example, vigorously support a system of universal health care. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama both have promised to address that. They also want to improve their image in the world. The next government will certainly initiate significant reforms, such as closing Guantanamo or adopting a more rigorous environmental policy in order to address some of the country’s more aberrant characteristics.
Yet in view of the ongoing presidential campaign, the American exception seems as strong as ever. Where else but in America would a primary race go on for more than a year? Where else would candidates obtain tens of millions of dollars a month from their supporters? Where else would party foot soldiers have the chance to select the candidate for the highest post? John McCain won the nomination of his party despite strong internal opposition. Barack Obama is the leader of an uprising against the Democratic old guard.
All three preach a patriotism specific to the United States. John McCain boasts of his service in Vietnam. Barack Obama claims that there is no red or blue, but only one America united by common values. The three candidates take lyrical flight in discussing the American dream. Above all, none will hesitate to resort to force. John McCain sings, “Bomb, bomb [bomb, bomb bomb] Iran.”
READ ON AT WORLDMEETS.US, along with continuing translated foreign press coverage of the U.S. elections.
Whatever happened to the Melting Pot? Now we learn that “Barack Obama is faring better than might be expected among Jewish voters, beating John McCain in Gallup Poll Daily general-election matchups and trailing Hillary Clinton only slightly in Jewish Democrats’ preferences for the Democratic nomination.”
This crucial piece of information tells us what? That Jews don’t blame Obama for the anti-Semitic outbursts decades ago by Louis Farrakhan, who is admired by his former pastor, Jeremiah Wright? Is this something we need to know? A wise old editor I worked with used to say about such useless information, “Uninteresting, if true.”
As pollsters and political “experts” turn this election year into a demographic nightmare, pinning labels on voters by race, gender, religious affiliation, age, income, education, everything but height and weight, the dominant theme of the campaign coverage has become parsing everything that divides Americans and deciding which politician profits from which.
Obama keeps talking about reaching across those divisions, but the media story line keeps magnifying them. All of this perpetuates the beliefs of Karl Rove and his ilk that the way to win elections is to divide and conquer.
Voters, who have seen how well that worked out for them in the past eight years, may be ready to defy the labels and surprise the experts. Now that would be interesting, if true.
On the 492nd day of Hillary Clinton’s quest to become the first woman president, one inevitability was rudely replaced by another.
