Why I'm a Democrat

At some point it's healthy to have a crisis of faith. I couldn't have imagined that I would have had so many, but they keep up stronger, priming us for the intellectual oddities of life and the contradictions so prevalent in it.

Recently, I fought my way out of one. For a while, I've found it hard not to look at the Democratic Party as a motley mob of insipid show-horses, jockeying to put their best faces forward rather than themselves or the policy interests that the party represents. The intrinsic mediocrity and even outright revulsion characteristic of people like Rod "Blago" Blagojevich, Jim McDermott, and so, so, so many others wears on me. I can't stand that I share a platform with these people--these people that, despite even their accomplishments, have got it so terribly and awfully wrong.

A crisis of faith is a sort of latent but potent force--you only start to notice when the problems have become so obvious to you that you can no longer avoid the problems that your own rationality and better self is now posing to the baser elements of your instincts. I was very comfortable being a liberal (that was another crisis entirely), and I knew that theoretically, the positions should match up. But I still didn't buy it--even the highs of my political life weren't enough to assuage me: standing seventy feet away from Barack Obama when he spoke at the Democratic National Convention in 2004, shaking Ted Kennedy's hand surrounded by evidence of his many, many, many accomplishments everywhere, the come-from-behind, anti-establishment victory of the rightful now governor of Massachusetts.

Enter, Barbara Jordan. If you don't know much about her, she's an example worth knowing and loving. She was a Congresswoman from Texas who spoke at the Democratic National Convention in 1976. She truly was a lion of the Democratic Party, and her address in 1976 is generally remembered as one of the best speeches in American history. But for me, reading it and re-reading it, it's a manifesto for Democratic beliefs. Not policy, mind you--the more philosophical core beliefs that define how Democrats think and act.

Now what are these beliefs? First, we believe in equality for all and privileges for none. This is a belief -- This is a belief that each American, regardless of background, has equal standing in the public forum -- all of us. Because -- Because we believe this idea so firmly, we are an inclusive rather than an exclusive party. Let everybody come.

Here we have some justification of just why I have to share a party with Blago. It really is the "catch-all" party. We cannot have party discipline, because we encourage freedom of thought. We encourage the right to speak out even when the discouragement is dissuasive.

We are a party of innovation. We do not reject our traditions, but we are willing to adapt to changing circumstances, when change we must. We are willing to suffer the discomfort of change in order to achieve a better future. We have a positive vision of the future founded on the belief that the gap between the promise and reality of America can one day be finally closed. We believe that.

Here again we see that we can never, never be satisfied with the American Dream. It can always be better--we can always be better, as individuals and a citizenry.

And now -- now we must look to the future. Let us heed the voice of the people and recognize their common sense. If we do not, we not only blaspheme our political heritage, we ignore the common ties that bind all Americans. Many fear the future. Many are distrustful of their leaders, and believe that their voices are never heard. Many seek only to satisfy their private work -- wants; to satisfy their private interests. But this is the great danger America faces -- that we will cease to be one nation and become instead a collection of interest groups: city against suburb, region against region, individual against individual; each seeking to satisfy private wants. If that happens, who then will speak for America? Who then will speak for the common good?

I believe in America of higher ideals, one of continuous improvement. It's never perfect, but surely we can all agree that with effort and the agreed goal of making America the best society for its citizens, we're sure to be the envy of the world, and nation legendary in history.

Speech: http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/barbarajordan1976dnc.html

Macho, macho (wo)man?

We're pretty much all political feminists: we believe in the equal rights of women before the law. You won't find anyone worth a damn who thinks otherwise.

Having grown up to a mother who always asserted, and vigorously, that women were not at all intrinsically different from men, I think I overlooked the more moderate way of looking at things. There are inherent differences between men and women. These differences have nothing to do with the law and equality in society, and they don't mean that we can't all be friends.

However, are these differences so concrete that they impact leadership style? Is Hillary Clinton not true to women when she advocates a leadership and campaign style that is considered more obstinately... male?

So I don't know what to think of this talk I hear of Hillary Clinton wanting to be "one of the guys." I really don't know that I buy any of this, but I was curious on your thoughts about this column that Maureen Dowd wrote the other day.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/24/opinion/24dowd.html?em&ex=1204002000&en=4b989bb5febb28a6&ei=5087%0A

for all the obama kids baracking and rolling...

so here is the better quality, bigger version of "Yes We Can" by Will.I.Am

http://www.dipdive.com/

but the even cooler part: this link is the video made with thousands of images that people have uploaded who support obama

http://www.hopeactchange.com/

check it.

Darfur and the Olympics

Steven Spielberg is boycotting the Olympics.

http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/world/international-olympics-china-darfur.html

Will this influence others?
Should the U.S. boycott the Olympics or is there a better way to influence China about Darfur?

On Hillary-bashing

At the last college dems meeting, despite my complete lack of technical skillz (sorry again everyone), we managed to discuss issues of media bias in this, as well as past, campaigns. The meeting ended on a discussion of Hillary Clinton's treatment by the news media. Some of us, myself included, argued that Clinton has faced a lot of challenges and discrimination, perhaps surprisingly to some, because she is a woman. Issues brought up were the whole 'cleavage' debacle, talk about her wrinkles, wardrobe, questions about if she's had plastic surgery, criticisms of her voice, demeanor, etc. that I believe frankly wouldn't be issues of discussion if she were a man. Some people at the meeting opposed these assertions.

However, it seems that two Hillary-supporting NYTimes columnists have raised the same concerns about the venom being directed at Hillary Clinton. Stanley Fish and Paul Krugman both wrote columns/blog posts decrying the treatment of their favored candidate. I agree wholeheartedly with both columnists that over-the-top Hillary-hating is ridiculous and absurd.

An important distinction must be made, however, that Fish and Krugman, for their devotion to Hillary, I suppose, fail to make. Both Fish and Krugman seem to imply that there can be no legitimate criticism of Senator Clinton and that supporters of Senator Obama are just suckers for fancy language, and ignorant of the 'dangers of inexperience.' Here I depart from their assessment and take offense.

While it may be easier for Krugman and Fish to paint all those that oppose Hillary with a broad brush, it is also intellectually dishonest and ethically questionable for columnists of their reach and power. It may astonish Krugman and Fish, but it is possible to hold legitimate reasons for disliking Hillary Clinton. Personally, her foreign policy plan and support of healthcare mandates does it for me (not to mention her comment that 'there are certain things presidential candidates cannot say when they are running for office'). See? I accomplished that without any hate or venom! Furthermore, there are many of us that don't just blindly support Senator Obama, but have chosen to support him because we believe his policies and qualifications will serve the country better. I join Krugman and Fish in asking Americans to join in this rational, hate-free discourse, but in making this call, the columnists would do better to avoid the blatant generalizations they so decry in their opposition.

Also, because this post was so serious, I feel the need to lighten it up. Enjoy these blasts from the past:

McCain 08: Like Hope, But Different

Romney Out? Excuse me while I go cry in the closet

I wouldn't have decided to rant on the blog about this, but Romney's given reason for "suspending his campaign," that "In this time of war, I simply cannot let my campaign be a part of aiding a surrender to terror" pissed me off. I get it, all Democrats want terrorists to attack America. That's why Bill Clinton prevented countless terrorist attacks and tried to set up meetings with President Bush about the threat of Al Qaeda. That's why congressional democrats actually wanted to follow the recommendations of the 9/11 commission, which the Republicans were loath to do. And that's why we want to end a war that's creating terrorists far faster than it's eliminating them. How about giving us the real reason you bowed out, Mitt? Could it have anything to do with the fact that you were a horrible Governor, and that you're suddenly pro-life and anti-national health care now that you want conservatives to like you? Or what about that every time you open your mouth, people think about what a phony, scripted politician you are. Face it, Mitt, that's what everyone is thinking.

Yes We Can!

Yes We Can...the music video:


Note: Northwestern University College Democrats do not endorse, advocate or promote any political candidate.

Illinois and 21 other states vote on Tuesday. If you're registered to vote, go and vote (especially those of you in Evanston Ward 1 Precinct 6 (Parkes Hall), where the nice people at the county clerk's office informed me this morning that I'll be hanging out all day). If you're not registered, do something to support a candidate or tell people to vote.

Reduce, Reuse, Recycle (you know you know the song)

I'd like to see something like this happen in the US. It's amazing what simple steps we can take to reduce our impact on the environment. Basically, the story I've linked to describes how plastic grocery bags are now taxed 33 cents per bag in Ireland, and that people have stopped using them, not because of the expensiveness of the tax, but because they realized it was a bad habbit. New York has forced grocery stores that use plastic bags to take them back for recycling.

Thus, in the spirit of SEED's Green Cup (which isn't a bad idea for even those of us that don't live in a dorm to embrace), buy some cloth bags to take with you when you go shopping. I have several from Whole Foods (they are only 50 cents to a dollar each), and if you shop at Whole Foods, they give you 10 cents back for every bag you reuse, even if it is a plastic one from their store. Yeah, I know that's like 1/8 a banana, but still, it's nice. Also, if you can help it, bring those nalgenes to class and lose the bottled water, it comes straight from the source...an industrial plant in Indiana or Texas.

Alright, environmental lecture done for the day. Don't forget to vote this Tuesday!!