I always think that it’s a shame when obviously intelligent people succumb to the vagaries of slinging insults and personal attacks to get their points across, rather than debating real issues and shining through on their command of both the situation, the conversation, and their own impulses.
The election primaries in the United States started off as a fascinating demonstration of the democratic process – with the (now) highly divisive figure of George W. Bush unable to stand for another term and no particularly prominent figures vying to take his place, it seemed as if we may be able to have an American GE that isn’t so laboured with partisan voting and personality cults. The issues are troubling to say the least – an economy in recession and dangerously on the verge of crash, several wars overseas as well as peacekeeping operations, the expansion and enhancement of international government (particularly with regards to climate change) and the growing multicultural nature of US society in the 21st century are all concerns that need capable leadership and intelligent, cohesive discussion between all parties to solve effectively.
It seemed at first as if we were going to get that – the campaigning started (and I’m speaking with particular reference to the Democrats for this piece) as engaging, and thought-provoking discussion on exactly what had happened to American society. How had it become so fractured, what were the root causes and more importantly, what was going to be done about it? However, Obama’s victory in Iowa however had far more consequences than any could have foreseen, as it has suddenly sparked the birth of emotive and dirty campaigning. Clinton’s victory in New Hampshire was widely regarded as being due to the female vote and her disastrously cliched weeping at how much she cares about public services – hardly the kind of election platform that you want to launch societal reform from.
Since then, it’s pretty much descended into the usual mudslinging so often associated with the political process. Bill Clinton accuses Obama, Obama rebukes him and lays into Hillary Clinton about her background with a particularly pointed piece of dialogue that accused her of sitting comfortably on the board of Wal-Mart while he was getting his hands dirty helping the homeless and disadvantaged in Chicago. Clinton retorted with the fact that one of his main contributors (Rezko) is currently under investigation for fraud and running slum households in the inner cities. The Obama campaign is now donating all funds from the Rezko source to charity after this came to light.
Both are fair points, but using the poor and the economically deprived as a weapon is hardly a rallying call for change. Obama is popular among the young vote for his ability to spin rhetoric at a thousand paces about mending the schisms in their social fabric. His policies are something that I’m fairly sympathetic to, but they just don’t seem to carry the weight and obvious thought borne from experience that Clinton’s do. She also has the benefit of career experience, having served as a New York senator, and had first-hand experience of the White House (it’s no small shock that many people believe she was the true power behind her husband’s administration), as opposed to the 47 year-old first-time Arkansas senator.
However, both are tainting their campaigns with this excessive amount of highly personal and increasingly bitter attacks against each other. John Edwards, who most people have already ruled out as a serious contender, has even remarked on such (ironically, he’s come out of this storm looking like the best candidate, but people don’t vote for the nice guy who doesn’t want to offend in politics).
Meanwhile, the Republicans are rubbing their hands with glee not only at such a controversial Democrat ticket as a female contender or a black man, but also at the deep divides that this is causing among the mule’s voters. Their best candidate, Rudy Guiliani, is performing appallingly at the polls, but if the Democrats continue to bicker and fight among each other like this rather than come up with a defined and detailed, different political strategy, they risk losing their natural advantage due to the backlash over eight years of Republican government, numerous conflicts and the images of US boys and girls coming back home in flag-draped coffins.
If I were able to vote in these primaries I’d probably still go with Hillary Clinton, but this election needs a turn for the positive in order to keep the interest in politics that is surfacing in America piqued, lest the populace once more sink into apathy and disaffection.
Currently reading: Mil Millington – Things My Girlfriend And I Have Argued About
Currently watching: Chuck Season One
Want to watch: There Will Be Blood
It’s a strange one, isn’t it? I think essentially the Democrats have realised that there’s no challenge from the Republicans, so they’ll have to fight one-another instead if they want public spectacle.
It’s a great shame. For years (particularly since 9/11) Americans have had the blinkers on with regards to the severe problems within their own society, and the Bush administration has attempted to keep it that way by starting wars all over the place and pointing overseas. Anyone who dared to say “Um, wouldn’t it be good if we could look at our own problems and, maybe, think of a way of fixing them?” was accused of being un-Patriotic and shouted down.
There are no problems here. Anyone who says they are hates America.
With that kind of internal stonewalling it’s no surprise that the USA’s been sliding into recession for five years. They just refuse to admit it, so they can’t halt the slide because nobody’s allowed to analyse it and fix it before it goes too far.
Alas the real problem is that the UK’s government remained blinkered, too, so we’re sailing around the US’s sinkhole, waiting to get sucked in.
Indeed, I think it’s very strange for such a populous and educated society as America’s to be so incredibly repressed with regards to the deep, deep socio-ethno-economic problems that are littering almost every level of their society. I’d argue that their recent willingness to get involved in armed conflict has hearkened back to the days of the post-WW2 and Cold War eras – the idea that war is good for business, where in a modern world that simply isn’t the case. What it has done instead is dump thousands of angry veterans and utterly disenfranchised ethnic minorities onto the polls and the streets – who neither have the capability nor the inclination to jumpstart the economy by injecting turnaround into it. You can’t make problems go away simply by ignoring them, which it seems that successive administrations have done for a long time in the States.
The problem with this economic disaster that’s literally waiting to go off, in my view, lies with more fundamental issues with state capitalism and free markets, but that’s a different article altogether.
Funnily enough that was my thought too. Henry VIII used to keep going to war with France to keep his Lords occupied and stop them de-throning him, and it’s a technique Bush seems to be using quite well. Added to the WWII and Cold War economic growth the US experienced by going to war and thus funding massive arms growth it just seemed likely they were repeating this tactic without updating it for the modern world.