Sticks and Stones

The other day I noticed that the Right was all up in another one of their panic fits because a new Libyan leader stated that Sharia law would be the basis for law in the new Libyan republic. Uh-oh, that means it's a future terrorist state, they are saying.

Juan Cole points out that the constitutions of Afghanistan and Iraq, both drafted under the guidance of the Bush Administration, each explicitly provide that all laws must conform to Islamic law:

But there is no hand-wringing about those two “liberated” countries and Islamic law or sharia. I guess if secular, communist Afghanistan was made fundamentalist by Reagan and Bush, or if the relatively secular Baath Party of Iraq was overthrown by W. in favor of the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq and the Islamic Call Party and the Bloc of Ayatollah Sadr II, that is unobjectionable and not even reported on. But if there’s a Democratic president in the White House, all of a sudden it is a scandal if Muslims practice Muslim law.

Let it go, let it drop

I really should be able to let this issue go by now, but it remains a frustrating thorn for me.

Yesterday, Sully's Ask Me Anything video clip was answering the question, "How Would President Hillary Be Different." Andrew gave what was a pretty meh answer - not so much, blah blah blah. Whatever. It's not the answer that bugged me so much, as the premise.

What's the motivation for that question, anyway? It remains the odd case that a lot of Hillary Clinton campaign supporters still hold on to the idea that Hillary Clinton should have been president. I should resist stereotyping that group as feminists, but...yeah, it's a lot of strong feminists, smart ones even, whom I often respect tremendously - but then there's this issue. Deep down they still seem to hold views almost as irritating as the Republican base view that Barack Obama is an illegitimate president. Remember that Hillary's campaign was the first to stoke the flames of birtherism and Obama-is-Muslim-ism. Those embers have not entirely burned out. Clinton supporters don't still argue that Obama isn't American, but they often remain attached to their view that Hillary/they were entitled, and that all of the Administration's so-called failures are the result of Hillary's destiny having been robbed of her. Obama is weak. Obama's style isn't to their liking. They believe Barack Obama stole Hillary's (and their) victory.

It's all this stuff wrapped around the politics of identity and hope, and the sense that it was Hillary's time and time for a great leap forward for women, and whatever else. And that's all fine, and somewhat understandable, given American history where The Women of the U.S. Government is more likely a Playboy pictorial rather than a statement about elected officials (though it bears mention that there are a record number of women serving in the 112th Congress). Still, to make that more important than everything represented by Barack Obama, well, come on folks. But this isn't about that. This is about the argument that Hillary Clinton was entitled to the Presidency, and that Barack Obama got in her way.

Frankly, I'm calling bullshit.

In simple terms, here's reality. Hillary would not be President today if she had won the nomination.

That's not a comment on Hillary's qualifications, her ability, or what kind of success she could have had as President (though I think much less than President Obama, for a number of reasons). I always supported the Obama campaign, but I never disliked Hillary - well, not until she campaigned the way she did, but her service as Secretary of State has restored my respect.

But let's first discuss electoral reality. I know that reality doesn't much matter in alternative histories, or histrionics, but it matters to me. And the reality is that Hillary Clinton could not have won any states in the South, save perhaps (but not necessarily) Florida - but most of Florida isn't really the South, anyway. A Democrat winning North Carolina or Virginia is simply inconceivable if Barack Obama had not been the nominee. I'm really not even willing to entertain the argument, because it would be disingenuous and silly.

For purposes of argument I would even discount the fact that Hillary's campaign was directed by the ridiculously incompetent Mark Penn, and consider, for this paragraph alone, the possibility of a narrow Clinton victory in a general election, all other things being equal (which, of course, they were not - but more on that in a moment). Even with this hypothetical narrow electoral Hillary Clinton victory, Hillary would have had very different coattails. Hillary Clinton would not have enjoyed the brief and incredibly successful period of a supermajority senate that led (despite - I would actually argue made possible by - the Kennedy-to-Brown switch) to the misnamed "Obamacare" and the slew of other legislative successes of Obama's first two years. Would Hillary Clinton, again all things being equal, have done much the same as Barack Obama? Possibly. But then again, all things would not have been equal.

But that brings us back to whether there was any possibility of Hillary Clinton being sworn in as President. And there are two words that pretty much change the whole picture: Sarah Palin.

John McCain would have never selected Sarah Palin as his running mate if Hillary had been the nominee. Palin was, among other things, a cheap, shallow attempt to attract female voters who were angry (see above) about Hillary losing the nomination. The cynical ploy was aggressive on numerous fronts, as the McCain campaign ran ads, including the infamous "Passed Over" ad, to explicitly woo Clinton voters and simultaneously point out that the Democrat didn't have a woman on his ticket (but John McCain did). And then there was the incredibly dishonest PUMA movement, their anger and insistence that Hillary was treated unfairly (by the media or by Obama? I never could figure it out), and the claim by a quarter of Clinton supporters following Hillary's concession speech that they would vote for McCain. McCain would have a female running mate. The brilliant McCain campaign believed that Sarah Palin would seal-the-deal. The idea that McCain could win the presidency by peeling off Clinton voters might have been terribly poor strategy (or not - it may have simply been a complete failure of execution, their tactics rather than their strategy), but it was in fact one of their most important strategies in the election.

The McCain campaign also thought they could overcome Palin's obvious inexperience by using it to highlight the argument of the Base that Barack Obama had no experience. They thought it was fine to have the issue of experience front-and-center because they truly believed it would hurt Barack Obama more, because a campaign focused on experience would benefit the guy who had been there forever. In that sense, Palin's inexperience as (lack of) qualification was ridiculously perceived as an electoral advantage. Maybe I'm giving John McCain more credit than he is due, although if you go back and read my blog entries from the campaign, including long before Sarah Palin was even firing off starbursts in the eyes and shorts of middle-aged conservatives, you'd see that it was unlikely that I would have ever given that huckster more credit than is his due. Still, it is simply inconceivable to believe that the McCain campaign, as it were, could have tried the Palin trick if Hillary - who also campaigned against Obama on the basis of her experience - was at the top of the ticket. The premise for Palin's ascendancy would have simply not existed.

Now, some may say that is another reason why Hillary should have been the nominee, because the nomination of Hillary Clinton would have prevented the foisting of Palin on greater America. But that would miss the point, too, because the selection of Palin was a dramatically important revelation, about John McCain and about the state of conservatism. It wasn't really that the sorry state was news, but the media felt free to ignore it. A Clinton nomination would have simply allowed a continuation of the old narratives. John McCain was a media darling. John McCain ran against George W. Bush eight years earlier. He was often supposedly at odds with is party. The myth of McCain the Maverick enabled so-called fair-minded people to ignore the intellectual and moral rot of institutional conservatism.

Instead, more than anything else, the selection of Palin, which would have never occurred following a nomination of Hillary Clinton, revealed the real John McCain, his colossally poor judgment and cravenness, which he has only continued to show (plus, bitterness!) in the three years since his defeat. Instead of so-called experience, the campaign turned on temperament and judgement, two issues that the McCain's Palin selection (and Obama's character) put in a different contrast. That's the environment in which Obama was able to present his case to America. That playing field would have been much different for Hillary Clinton. Hillary wouldn't have been campaigning against the creepy get-off-my-grass curmudgeon.

Hillary Clinton would have faced the John McCain that people pretended was a great guy, the war hero they imagined him to be, the buddy of journalists and John Stewart. Hillary Clinton would have faced the John McCain that my friend who was on the leadership of the Florida Democratic Party told me he would vote for in a general election between McCain and Clinton. It's something he told me as he headed to a $500-minimum Clinton fundraising event.

So let's not reinvent history. Let it go.

People Say They've Got The Game Rigged

Supposedly Wall Street hates President Obama. Slate told me so the other day. There are all these quotes from some angry bank executives to prove it. And I'm not saying Slate is necessarily wrong about "Wall Street's" likes and dislikes.

So if that's the case, 'splain this to me, if you would. Why has President Obama received more contributions from financial sector employees than all of the Republican contenders (and not so contenders) combined?

(I know, I know, this just proves to the Progressives that the President is owned by those financial corporations. Because every employee of a corporation is a monolithic reflection of that corporation's mindset - whatever mindset a corporation can have. And support of someone within a "corporation" means you hate the "people." Sigh.)

I Hope Someday They'll Say Hooray For Me

President Obama receives more negative coverage than his slew of Republican challengers. This is not a surprise. His genuine moderation makes him a target from the right and the left. So-called Progressives may claim that this moderation is a sign of weakness, or that he really isn't on their side. They don't understand. It's what enables the President to get anything done - and he has achieved far more for the Progressive agenda than any President in my lifetime - and to hold the line on existing progressive policies.

Get a Job

The Occupy Wall Street movement seems to be gaining some real traction, and reflecting some real anger. But what do you do with that anger? Anger's not sufficient, and misdirecting that at the the current resident of the White House, who isn't perfect but actually gets their point and is too often stuck with the choice of do-less-harm or leave-the-asylum-to-the-inmates (which doesn't, I'll point out, make him weak), is counterproductive. I'm sympathetic to the frustration, but most of the damage is already done and largely irreversible. There is no Robin Hood. How do you move the rudder in a way that changes our course but does it in a way that carries a nation in its current?

One of my closest friends who is an absolute mensch, an incredible parent, a good soul, a progressive thinker, a Democratic voter, thinks that manipulating loopholes to structure annuities for relatively wealthy old people so that they can qualify for government handouts is doing justice. The beneficiaries of these annuities are entitled to restructure their economic reality because the law permits it, and by helping them do it, he's doing right by his family and he's doing right by America. Who gives a darn about where it comes from, who has to pay, or who gets less as a result? That's not the lucky citizen's problem. You take the law as you find it. It's all about getting the most for yourself, whether you're getting paid to make it happen, or getting the fruits of it.

Some people are just entitled. The right-wing argues against "entitlements" designed to lift up those in need, but they have their claws deep in their sense of entitlement to every advantage they can muster. If you get a tax break, or a bailout, or a school voucher, if anything allows you to get a leg up, then you're entitled to it. If a program or a social service helps someone else, it's (speaking in Italics) an entitlement. The privileged don't have to match up both sides of the ledger.

A different friend of mine - one who is reliably, consistently, and (to his credit) a principled conservative, despite the fact that we disagree on just about every issue - argued today that a 20-something begging for debt relief is foolish. He's right, of course. There's effectively no chance this will happen, despite the hole in which current college graduates are finding themselves, as individual student college loan debts have increased five-fold over the past dozen years while job prospects have plummeted in the current recession. But when you see old white teapartiers decrying medicare cuts while opposing universal heathcare, and the hundreds of other ways that the oh-so-aggrieved haves expect their own privilege and resent the way those others expect a have, or even a half-a-have, of their own - because it's their country, it's their apple pie, not yours - well, it's hard not to sympathize with the Occupy Wall Street protester's sentiment. When you see that banks and multinational corporations are entitled to bailouts for stupid decisions but individuals have to look forward to a future of suffering a mountain of unforgivable debt for doing what those institutions told them was the right thing to do - invest in your education, invest in your home - it's hard not to sympathize with their anger, even if the ones expressing that anger haven't earned that sympathy through anything they did themselves.

In a fair world, it shouldn't be that hard to generate some understanding for the counterargument that - kids, just shut up. You may have some college debt, but even if you're living at your parent's home, you mostly have a place to live that's not a cardboard box under a highway. You're mostly not fighting the Nazis in a foxhole (outside of the PS3 in your mom's basement). So sip your latte and get over it, you entitled little brats. Them's the breaks, and there are no guarantees in this world. Life is hard work. Go bake your own triple mochaccino pie. Responsibility means taking care of yourself.

The government used to expect a lot from its people - minor things like saving the free world and whatnot - but the government seemed to have their backs, too. What they got, they got because it was their right, because it was the nation's responsibility to them, even if it was often really their dads and uncles in those foxholes, and (ok, Southeast Asia, anyone?) they were ducking-and-covering while the welfare state irresponsibly wasted our tax dollars pretending to land someone on the moon.

Today, however, the government asks for very little from us, young, old, in-between. Service to your fellow Americans is optional. Yet we all want, and all we want is, more, more, more. More gigabytes. More prescriptions. More healthcare. More regulations. More immigrants. More iPods.

And more. More - and better - jobs. We want more of a role in a system where legislators have abdicated governance to unseen bosses, both theirs and ours. We want more of our elected representatives having-our-backs and not just the backs of those corporations-are-people-too-and-executives-are-the-corporation, who insist that we deregulate the tax code and the work environment and the planet and reward risky corporate recklessness so the bankers and traders and senior executives can get bonuses and the icecaps can melt away and the mountaintops wash out to the ocean, white with foam, all to unburden the economy and unleash the raw power of capitalism and liberty and manifest destiny and reLOVEution. Or something. We all want more of that pie-in-the-sky, and that light from above. We want more responsibility, both from us and for us.

It's a distraction, though. Government isn't the problem. The particular state of our government and governance is a disaster, but the cause is selfishness and empty promises and greed and ask not what you can do for your country or what your country can do for anyone else, but what your country can do for you. Or me. Government can help solve problems, or government can be blamed for problems, or government can create problems, or who the heck knows, governing isn't my problem. I just want what's coming to me, what I'm owed, what's my there's-only-one-true-God-given right as, you know, a real American. The first and last responsibility is to that reflection in the mirror.

But none of this is an answer. At best, and that's maybe giving too much credit, it's a conversation. I don't know that it helps, particularly if nobody - particularly those doing the reporting, and even those doing the talking - is even listening. Expressing anger is important, even without a clear message. It just not enough, and it's definitely not Michael Moore or Ralph Effing Nader.

When I first read those words in the sign above, they seemed like nonsense, a shallow frat-boy crock of whining. But perhaps they're more profound than I perceived, because the more you think about it, the more you realize that Shit is truly, totally, completely fucked up and bullshit.


- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad