Just about every three election cycles, hope nudges cynicism aside. Though I joined the chant, "Insane Anglo Warlord" along Ronald Wilson Reagan's parade route through Salt Lake City, four years later I found Candidate Reagan much more inspiring than his Democratic rival, the bland Walter Mondale. I wanted to believe Reagan's grandfatherly promises. His old-Hollywood charm, though not convincing, was seductive.
In 1984, after one term of Granddad Ronnie, I cast my first vote for Mondale, the obvious loser. I had deliberated in the ballot booth over my decision, tempted to vote for Angela Davis. At the time, I was assured by older friends that I'd done the right thing in voting for the blander of evils, rather than wasting my vote on a complete impossibility.
Four years later, though Dukakis' campaign included Geraldine Ferraro as his historical lady VP, the democrats lost again and Bushco came to power. I will never forget the incomprehensible cowardice Dukakis displayed when, accused of being a "card-carrying liberal", he did not defend the accusation with pride, and helped the term "liberal" diminish in rhetorical status, exactly the project of the right's attack.
When Candidate Clinton came along, a new-style dem with his powerhouse wife and notorious ladykiller charm, presidential rhetoric shifted again. In 1992, Clinton defeated Bush Sr. by adopting more and more of the right's agenda while carefully packaging himself as the president for change, just as Reagan had packaged himself as a return to family values (and thus, a change from Carter's liberal presidency) three election cycles earlier.
While unconvinced that Candidate Clinton would deliver on his campaign promises, I once again wanted to believe them. He promised he would transform healthcare and that a national conversation about gay rights might finally emerge--he promised to open the military to gays. Of course, I voted for "Slick Willy," a nickname he capably inhabited over his two presidential terms. He introduced the ridiculous "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy in response to his promises about gays in the military and quickly set in motion the disastrous ideas that initiated the healthcare crisis with which we continue to struggle today. And Clinton continued to help multinational corporations transform global economic structures, eradicating the rights and subsistence of peoples around the globe.
At the end of Clinton's disappointing reign, and on the heels of a radically evolving global progressive movement, the 2000 election cycle loomed as a pivotal race. A new, independent media was emerging in coalition with the global progressive movement. Internationally, resistance to the policies of organizations like the World Bank and the World Trade Organization was rising with a force that alarmed those profiting from these policies.
We were seeing increasingly brutal attempts to shut down resistance while the new media subverted corporate control of access to information, independently publishing news of progressive resistance across the world.
Four years before the 2000 cycle, the billionaire candidate Ross Perot challenged the two-party system with surprising success. Ralph Nader, also a candidate in 1996, had a solid reputation as a citizen activist and clear thinker, established over decades. When the Greens announced the Nader/LaDuke ticket, the time seemed ripe for truly progressive independent candidates, especially candidates as well-versed in Citizenship as Nader and Winona LaDuke.
The Ralph Nader/Winona LaDuke ticket reinvigorated hope once again. I no longer bought the lesser of evils argument for casting a vote for the democrat. By then I knew my Utah vote had minimal impact, and Nader/LaDuke had a shot, at best, to pull in 5% of the popular vote. I was just tired of evils. This old white guy's in bed with everything bad for the people, but that old white guy's paying for it, so choose the first guy and we'll just hope the savior runs next time.
Nader/LaDuke offered a genuine alternative by openly addressing the real crises in the U.S. at the century's end. Like the 1996 campaigns, the Nader/LaDuke ticket exposed the two-party myth of choice. They called on citizens to take up active citizenship. In a campaign dwarfed by the major parties' monies, Nader/LaDuke took a minute, but significant percentage of the popular vote.
Of course, Nader has been the scapegoat of the democrats ever since, blamed for Al Gore's loss of the presidency to George W. Bush. I take the perspective that the Bushites bought that election fair and square, as the Supreme Court ruled. And then John Kerry helped them steal the 2004 election.
Nader is scapegoated for Bush's reign because he insisted on talking about (and continues to talk about) the corporate underpinnings of today's two-party government. Since 2000, the Bushites have effectively cemented the control of that system by establishing unfettered federal and executive powers. Consider the "change" we've seen since the 2006 election that shifted power to the democrats. What is Nancy Pelosi's first move? Taking impeachment off the table!
But simultaneously, Nader is scapegoated because we'd rather have a fallguy and long for a savior than take responsibility for our own country. Which brings us to 2008.
I voted for Kucinich in the primaries because he is one of the few democrats who doesn't pose as a progressive, he behaves progressively, as his voting record demonstrates. (I know he is too short and too honest to be the president of the United States, but I hope he stays in the senate.) Kucinich used the bulk of his time in the DNC spotlight to exhort us, the citizens of the United States of America, to wake up and understand that our failing economy, our rising prices, dilapidated infrastructure, and disappearing liberties--are the result of the corrupt corporate system we continue to support.
Kucinich's speech ended with an endorsement (if somewhat oblique) of Candidate Obama. I have not entertained voting for Ralph Nader this year, a choice that doesn't reflect any disdain for his campaign. I have considered voting for the Green candidate, Cynthia McKinney. But I've decided that my 2008 vote goes to Barack Obama.
As I've mentioned in the past, I don't think Obama is a savior. But that's exactly why I'm voting for him. His campaign offers the hope, at least rhetorically, that we might stop waiting for the next savior and start taking back our country.
I'm voting for Obama because (unlike "The Decider"), his rhetoric suggests that he sees the presidency as a trust from the American people. Rather than wishing for a dictatorship, Obama is willing to, and capable of taking on the complicated task of leadership. While I'm not sure what Obama's leadership will look like, I know McCain is happy to monger war all over the globe. Today we learn that his leadership might end up in the hands of a self-pronounced "hockey mom" who wants to drill in ANWR.
At the least, Obama's presidency will sound better than a McCain presidency. As a speaker, Obama sounds musical compared to Bush and to most other public figures today. His carefully choreographed campaign presents a highly rational thinker, another quality that suggests at least an intellectual shift from the last eight years. While his courage is yet to be fully tested, so far Obama smears democratic predecessors like Michael Dukakis, and "heroes" like his opponent. He responds to the slams and slurs directly. He calmly refuses to let his family be insulted, or his integrity challenged.
The most persuasive aspect of his campaign is the diverse following of dedicated, educated, and progressive supporters. As Amy Goodman suggests, the hope of Obama's campaign is not that he will save us from corporate politics--clearly he won't--but that the strength of conviction his campaign has inspired in the populace will lead America to demand that, as president, Obama listens and acts in the interest of the people. As citizens, we are responsible for making that happen.
Perhaps I'm choosing the lesser evil, once again, but this time, something else has shifted. The greater evil's threat is so obvious it's almost absurd. While I hear Obama's rhetoric about Afghanistan--need we say Zbignew?--his stance against the war in Iraq is emphatic while McCain has assured us that he's happy with 100 more years of the occupation.
McCain's bad reputation even among his friends, not to mention his ridiculous gaffes and snafoos, confirm my suspicion that the republicans intend to lose (especially given the weird VP choice) and that Bushco won't wander far from the power they've established, regardless of who lives in the White House.
I also was sadly disappointed to hear Obama's DNC acceptance speech "promises" about "alternative" energy sources, which confirms Ralph Nader's indictment of the two-party system as inherently corrupted by corporate interests. I agree with Dennis Kucinich that we need to WAKE UP to that control. But Kucinich's endorsement further challenges me to see Obama's campaign through a hopeful lens.
I can believe that Obama represents the possibility of a different national rhetoric, an opportunity for a new national conversation. I can hope that the supporters he inspired will hold him to his promises throughout his presidency and take responsibility as citizens to be the change they want to see. I can foresee that without doubt, McCain, the ludicrous but sole alternative to Obama, will grind us into dust.
