Self-Aware Meta Post

Yeah, I totally squandered inauguration day posting opportunity on something rather light and filler-y. But hey, today was awesome, and I don't have much to add to the moment. But, if you want to read something smart and meaningful without ever dropping the ball, I recommend this post. It isn't a long read, and it says vital things. If you can take a break from frolicking, it is well worth your time.

Oh, and, umm, I'm not the kind of person who cries with joy, but I read his speech (I only saw 6 minutes of the actual inauguration), and I think the emotional impact it had on me was similar. Rhetoric has its limits, but wow. I've always been proud to be American, but it is so nice to have the sentiments behind that echoed, and for my understanding of what being American means to count. There is so much good left to be done, and it is so nice to have a president who asks us to do it.

Living the Dialog

Editors Note: I wrote this piece as a pulpit editorial for delivery today at First Unitarian Church of Albuquerque, where it was delivered for both first and second service. I'm posting it up here because I think it's worthy writing, but keep in mind that it is even more targeted at Unitarians than is usual.

Hello Congregation. I'm Kelsey Atherton, and earlier this fall I was the political advisor to Christine on her inspired if ill-fated presidential campaign.

I meant to write this pulpit editorial about my roommate and me- randomly assigned to live together in college housing, we disagree fundamentally on every political issue that has ever come up. And it was my intent to examine how before the election our interactions were all arguments, and how after the election it's become an oppressive silence. This pulpit editorial, as I envisioned it, was to be a parable of the dangers of partisan living, and a reminder of the strength of the divisions that persist in this nation.

The problem with that idea is that it doesn't really offer anything positive or useful, and I know that I for one don't come to church to feel powerless in the face of bad things. The other problem with that anecdote is that it is more or less the exact opposite of living the dialog - my roommate and I engaged in conversation when the stakes were high, and now that the election has concluded we sit around silently being contemptuous of each other. It's kind of a terrible example of how to live ones values.

There is, however, an essence of living the dialog in that. It's important to know where the dialog can be helpful, and where the dialog will amount to a lot of effort and frustration without any meaningful change. This isn't about "cutting ones losses" or "picking ones' battles" - this is about moving beyond war metaphors because this isn't, you know, war. And I think that's really what I learned from my experiences with my roommate - we treated this as a war, and now that the election is over, we're entrenched in a forced no-man's land, waiting for the next outbreak of hostilities.

That is no way to live. And while the situation with my roommate is looking irreparable, it's motivated me to find better ways to live the dialog with other people in my life. My conversations with friends about political issues are no longer winner-take-all debates, where personal attacks fly furiously, or where I discredit an issue because I doubt a given politicians' intelligence. Much as I'd like to say "your guy is an idiot, and you're an idiot for liking him", that's out of the picture. Talking like that is the exact opposite of productive. Every conversation, I strive to remove the petty from my politics. And yeah, I'm still met with the occasional "secret Muslim" comment. But it becomes rare, and it gets to be irrelevant.

More importantly than the lack of ad hominem attacks is the new found common ground - while I still argue tooth and nail for the right to choose, my pro-life friends and I come close to agreeing on "safe, legal, and rare." While I am sorely disappointed by the passage of proposition 8 in California, I can sympathize with the desire to settle the issue of marriage equality through voting and not judicial fiat. That is to say, in a way that respects "the right of conscience and the use of the democratic process within...our society at large". And while I am dismayed at insensitive and intolerant remarks expressed by some religious leaders, I can share with them the common ground of good works and a desire to lead a purpose-driven life.

Christine, in her post election sermon about Living in Purple America, quoted this from my blog: "But that doesn’t entitle us to inflict any of the same scorn and contempt on the losers that we’ve had to suffer through. Because if we do that, then it was all for nothing.". I wrote it hours after an electoral success I'd waited 8 years for, and I wrote it not so much because I needed to know it then, but because I knew I'd need to be reminded of it now. In the coming weeks, as the Christmas spirit wanes and the inauguration looms closer and closer, it's important that we continue the work of living the dialog of Purple America. Without it, we exist as bitterly divided armed camps. With the dialog, and the conscious effort to engage people in serious and rational discussion, we can begin to do away with battles against each other. Because there isn't an enemy here - just fellow Americans. We have to appreciate and understand where they're coming from in order to join them in fellowship.

The piece ends there, but I'd be remiss if I didn't include the following image:
The image comes from the excellent from52to48withlove, which is the site that best informed this pulpit editorial, and my post-election sentiments. The above image I found particularly moving, and while I tried I was unable to include it in my speech before the church. Here it is for you, faithful readers.

Rick Warren, Obama, and the Center in American Politics

For more or less every person vaguely in the US political blogosphere, and especially for those people who care about social issues, the big looming discontent this week has focused on Barack Obama's selection of Rick Warren as the minister to give the inaugural invocation. And this is good - in our participatory democracy where personal views matter as much as stated policy aims, we as the public, as the pale apparition of new journalism, and even alongside the white elephant of old journalism (a term of endearment, that) have a right and a duty to examine in as much detail the little signifiers which could become the big signifiers.

There's some real grounds for fear here. In the wake of prop 8, and with the side note that the Obama campaign had both "Obama/Yes on 8" and "Obama/No on 8" voters, it seems like the president is not so beholden to the LGBT community as many had hoped. This perceived abandonment is cemented in the minds of many by Rick Warren. After all, he has likened gay marriage to incest and pedophilia. That's more or less an unforgivable offense, right?

Well, yes and no. Which I guess really means no. For many, any nuanced qualifiers (which, if you know me, you know are coming) are not enough. The far left, the progessive left, the left-left, the bleeding-hear-left, social libertarians, and a good many in the moderate left all view this as completely unacceptable. There are almost certainly political scientists right now formulating Obama's political obituary, examining the breakup of the new new deal coalition. First it was the social issues, they'll say. And indeed, I cannot begrudge those who feel betrayed right now, who feel that Obama himself has crossed a line of no return. This is not the first thing to exhaust serious political capital among the left, but it is one of the biggest. And for many, the mere act of the appointment overrides two very important things Obama is doing.

Firstly, Obama himself has a statement of very, very importantly phrased qualifiers. Secondly, Obama is appointing people with far more accepting views to actual meaningful positions.

Here's what I think are Obama's two key points:

• The President-elect disagrees with Pastor Warren on issues that affect the LGBT community. They disagree on other issues as well. But what's important is that they agree on many issues vital to the pursuit of social justice, including poverty relief and moving toward a sustainable planet; and they share a commitment to renewing America's promise by expanding opportunity at home and restoring our moral leadership abroad.

• As he's said again and again, the President-elect is committed to bringing together all sides of the faith discussion in search of common ground. That's the only way we'll be able to unite this country with the resolve and common purpose necessary to solve the challenges we face.

(emphasis mine). Barack Obama's selection of Rev. Rick Warren is not a blanket endorsement of Warren's views and attitudes. It is not even an endorsement of a majority of Rick Warren's views. It is, instead, an endorsement of a few very specific areas of Rick Warren's ministry - Obama says of Rick Warren that "He's devoted his life to performing good works for the poor and leads the evangelical movement in addressing the global HIV/AIDS crisis" (emphasis, again, mine). This is that evangelical movement which, to an outsider like myself, appears to have repeatedly placed itself in opposition to all the issues of social justice I've cared about. No doubt many are attributing the differences in the success of McCain and Bush's presidential campaigns to the evangelical fervor that swung behind Bush, and was more lacking in support of McCain. This is a group I'd more or less written off as "the opposition". Fortunately for me, the political Left, and the United States on the whole, Obama does not see evangelicals that way.

Rick Warren's presence at the inauguration is not the selling out to the religious right that many fear it is. It is instead an acknowledgment of the religious center, which has been missing from our political discourse. Yes, Rick Warren has views which are antithetical to many progressives. But Rick Warren is not alone in that, and while he did speak in favor of proposition 8, and we can disagree with him on that, he does care about global poverty, and he cares about the fight against AIDS. Obama agrees with Rick Warren on those latter terms, and disagrees on the former. This is not a matter of selling out - this is a matter of acknowledging the diversity of our nation. A messy, sometimes frustrating diversity of opinion, but this is a rather vital one. Obama's inauguration will have another minister, a "giant of the civil rights movement" give the benediction. And Obama has made other, more meaningful actions to show support of LGBT people. That list of meaningful actions includes some hesitancy, and it includes some cautious opinions on his part. It also lacks the neat, doctrinaire uniformity that progressives want from their messiah, and we are foolish for wanting this.

This is a nation of diversity, and any leader who adheres so strongly to just one faction is a leader that betrays the core principles of democracy. It does not meant that our voices aren't valid - they are, now, more than ever. But it does mean that the nation isn't monolithic, that the president has to acknowledge that, and that sometimes a nation has to change underneath it's leader to move him in the right direction.

Obama's inclusion of Rick Warren in his inauguration is a sign that being on the left, or holding even center-left views (like an obligation to fight poverty) does not mean one can't express religion. It's a shame and unfortunate that religion in US politics is presently tied to the Religious Right; Rick Warren himself, while an evangelical, can be found much more awkwardly in the center, where his views do not easily align himself to one party - it's an awkward nation where religiously justified condemnation of poverty and religiously explained condemnation of sexual orientation do not share the same ticket, but it's the nation we have been living in. Obama, by including Rick Warren, seeks to bring religion into the discussion on social justice; it's been isolated in issues of social norms for so long that it's hard to remember the more broader applications of Jesus's teachings, the ones that apply out of the bedroom. By including Rick Warren, Obama does not endorse Warren's views on homosexuality - what Obama does do is endorse evangelicals taking an active role in social justice. This is not a move that could be made in a US where a whole side of the spectrum can hold "unforgivable" views. We, as the left, were excited to see on election day that cries of "socialism" and "spread the wealth around", topics for decades off-limits to US politicians, were not run into the ground. Not to say that we should be accepting of Warren's intolerances, but we should open up a dialog where our sound reason can win the day - excluding one side from every discussion because we don't like where they stand on one of them is tragic, and hurts our nation as a collective whole.

If you've made is this far, you've noticed my tip-toeing around the other big issue that upsets the left with Rick Warren's selection. Rick Warren not only actively campaigned against gay marriage, but he is fairly active against a Women's Right to Choose. I've buried this issue, not because I don't think it's relevant, but because it is harder and harder to see the right-to-life (or, if you prefer, anti-choice) side being an overwhelming national movement. The pro-choice fight is more and more of a quiet one -I'm willing to bet that the silent majority is pretty much entrenched on the side of choice in this one. Perhaps they want more qualifiers, refinement in the right, but this is a right that seems to be guaranteed. Not that we shouldn't fight - we kind of have to. But the fight can be won, and noticeable in this election the pro-choice fight had three significant victories - unsurprising in California, welcome in Colorado, and perhaps most profound in South Dakota. Christine over at iMinister made an important note of this in her post-election sermon. Rick Warren is not on the side of history for this one, and while I'm unwilling to say that progress here is irreversible, it is instead in the enviable position of being well defended when even the movement defending it seems to, at times, be on the margin. It's one of the few times I like how effective the silent majority is, and when the silent majority is winnign the battles in the ballot booth, it means the issue is close to safe. Rick Warren's anti-choice actions and opinions do not undermine this progress

There is one last point I have to make here, on this issue. The picture below these words is one of the most heartening signs that progressives will not be lost in this election. That, right there, is New Mexico's congressional delegation for 2009. On the far right (ha ha) is Senior Senator Jeff Bingaman, who has been protecting the interests of progressives nationally and in New Mexico for twenty five years. The remaining men in the picture (L to R, Ben Ray Lujan, Martin Heinrich, Tom Udall, and Harry Teague) are New Mexico's three congressional representatives, with the exception of Tom Udall, New Mexico's new Junior Senator. For all the symbolic angst that may arise about Rick Warren's stands on social issues, these are five reliable votes against those initiatives. For all the doubts about Obama's sincerity to his supporters on the left, these are five votes that will pull him further to where he should be. And for every move made to combat AIDS, and for every move aimed at fighting poverty, these are five votes that will reliably side with progress.


And that dichotomy mentioned above, where people work together on some but not all issues? That's more or less exactly what the Obama administration is about. It isn't an exclusion of hated opponents, a condemnation of outsiders by those in power, or even a takeover of government by the left. It is one of the ironies of this campaign that the Senate's greatest moderate in recent memory campaigned against a candidate identified with a fringe, only to have the roles reversed on the campaign trail. Obama won the election by a majority of voters not because this nation has become the ideological equivalent of San Fransisco, but because Obama's appeals, which endeared him to the left, are fundamentally centrist.

Leftist doctrine has, for the past century and a half, focused on competing interests within a society. Marxism, Labour, and the general confusion of class and nationality have played out over the past century to constitute a left that, while it has some popular appeal, cannot decide what to do when in power. In France in the 1930s, the Left achieved an electoral victory at the exact smae time all of Europe was afraid of both fascism and Stalin, and the left was too divided to let itself act as a party of rule. These divisions, inherent in notions of "class warfare" and echoed in such modern times by John Edwards' "Two Americas" speech, give the left its fighting words, but they also drive it away from being acceptable as a party of rule. Obama, from his very first appearance in the media spotlight, has focused on "One America". His notion of hope comes across as leftist because it involves reconciliation - such strange events have driven our nation to see diplomacy, talking to people we disagree with, and earnest attempts at working together for the benefit of all as leftist fantasies, left over from the 1960s. This misrepresents the left of the sixties and it misrepresents the left of now - both have widely differing views on what government should or shouldn't do, and I'm pleased to say that, 38 years after that decade ended, the left in the United States is able to position itself as a party of rule.

It's taken a long time for this, and it's required that most fundamental of compromises - ideals as a driving impulse, instead of being the straightforward rule of government. This is realism, this is pragmatism, and this is inching towards the Center. The center-left became popularized under Clinton and Tony Blair, but they are not so much leftists as real-mild-rightists. They made being identified with the left acceptable, but for all their strengths they lived scared of being seen as weak, as compromising, and as unfit to rule. Clinton, especially, faced the controversy of moral weakness, and his actions almost certainly added a decade to the lifespan of the religious right in US politics. But he did prove that a democrat, a person on the left, could both have that party and govern from the center.

Obama, as outlined wonderfully by fivethirtyeight, has a progressive agenda, with many items that are near and dear to the left and the far left. "But Kelsey," you thousands of readers clamor, "haven't you been saying Obama is a centrist?" Well, yes, yes I have, and you are all astute observers. So here's the big qualifier - the United States, as is, doesn't have a center. We have two points (or parties), both off center, around which voters tend to congregate. The battle for undecideds is so fierce because there is no party permanently camped out in the center - candidates aiming towards the middle have to moderate their views or open the appeal of their candidate beyond sticking on a certain pole. The battle for the loyal, on the other hand, is about convincing polarized voters that their guy this time is really much closer to the far side of the spectrum than they are to the center. This works, to some extent, for the winner-take-all system that is US politics. In other countries with parliaments and governments of coalitions, however, we see something very different. We see a center party, or center-left and center-right parties, or a center-christian party, and these will almost always be part of the ruling coalitions. Not entirely ideologically pure, but they get the job done, and they have, at their very core, a willingness to incorporate some ideas of others with their broad schemes. McCain, as a Senator, represented a clear example of the "across the aisle" spirit that pervades parties of or around the center.

Obama, alternatively, has made his rhetoric his centrist appeal. And he's done more than that - by inviting Rick Warren to the inauguration, he not only clearly sets himself apart from the left (or at least, those parts of the left that find this unforgivable), he also shows the United States where the center is. It's vague right now, and while it disagrees hugely on some issues (again LGBT and Choice), Obama is trying very clearly to connect the center in US politics to social justice. It's a bold move, and one that Obama has certainly taken flak for, but it has done something almost unthinkable - the evangelicals, the ones that elected W twice, the ones that gave Palin her moment and momentum, have found something to agree on with the President. It's allowed the intersection of religion and politics to not be dominated by the Religious Right, and its made the way possible for more openness in dialog. There are consequences for being in the center - every side gets to take pot-shots, and gets to pick more ideologically pure successors. But the center holds because it is where the voters are, and if Obama can use this almost-unprecedented opportunity for reconciliation (unlike that squandered, post-Civil War attempt), he can create a reliable center in US politics, longer-lived than the New Deal coalition, and he can place that center firmly on the left. It will take skill and careful manuevering. And it will take the inclusion of religious moderates and religious liberals. And it will come dangerously close to betraying that ideological purity we're all so fond of. But its doable, and it is a necessity for this nation.

Godspeed.

Who the President Serves

Ever since I toured college campuses and sat in on political science courses, I've wondered about the advantages and disadvantages of a multiple party system. Voting for a party instead of voting for an individual seemed, to me, to be a much stronger way to get a variety of perspectives into office, and for people to vote ideology instead of personality. This is a compromised benefit when a party that one votes for is left out of a ruling coalition, however; coalition politics themselves are nothing but political machinations removed from the control of voters, and that's almost disenfranchisement. The contrast is strongest in how legislative bodies function: you vote for your party, and if your party (or it's coalition) wins, then they pass everything they want. The losers sit in government, and do very little except growl angrily and wait for the leading coalition to collapse.

This is not the best of things, and while many countries make it work, in the United States we expect our individual congressfolk to serve us. The congress as a whole has a terrible approval rating, but individual congressfolk are well-liked by their constituents. Indeed, working across party lines is often a successful slogan for congress people, as it shows a willingness to deal with the vile forces that ruin everything on behalf of the people the congressmember serves. John McCain made a career of this willingness, and had his campaign been run on that promise, he may well have stood a better chance.

But that didn't happen. And this post isn't really about legislative bodies.

This post is about the presidency. The president has one of the oddest constituencies ever (electors), but really that's just an odd calculation and a stand-in for the American People. Congressfolk all have a very set group they are supposed to serve, and on top of that, they are expected to act in the best interest of the nation. The president has the whole of the nation as his (aware of gender pronoun) constituency, and the president has a base who gets him elected that he is expected to serve especially well.

The fun part about the two-party system is that, contrary to many detractors, it gives the president the largest possible constituency. How so, you ask, my reader? Well, let's have a chart(!):

1 candiate: guaranteed election
2 candidates: requires 50+ percent of the vote
3 candidates: requries 34+ percent of the vote
4 candidates: 26+ percent of the vote
...
100 candidates: requires 1+ percent of the vote

By having a two party system, the president is forced to seek the votes of over half of Americans. This is majority rule, and while that has dangers, it means that a candidate seeking the presidency (or re-election) still has to appeal to more than half of all voters. That's the presidents constituency.

The president serves on behalf of the entire nation, however. Presidents who serve only in the interest of the followings that got them elected tend to alienate and divide the nation (cough *W* cough). So while Obama may be our candidate, and though he is aware of the debt he owes to the new left (are we calling ourselves that yet?), he has to serve the entire nation. And he's damn well aware of that; indeed, a lot of his appeal in this election is that he will serve everybody. And to the left, I just want to say amidst all the exuberance, that we knew this when we picked him. In fact, this is largely why we picked him.

Because if he's to be the president we want him to be, he'll have to act as the nation needs, and not as we want. At the moment, those two points are more aligned than they've been in a goodly while. And that's a relief. And that's to our nation's benefit. I'd say more, but you know the rest. Instead, I will leave you with this:

HolyfuckingshitObamajustwontheUSpresidencythisislikethebestthingever!

What Victory Means

It's a blessing this morning to wake up with Barack Obama as the President-Elect, and with all five senate and house seats in New Mexico in the hands of Democrats. I was worried about Heinrich for a while, but coattails buoyed him quite nicely. I certainly can't complain about that - almost everything has gone my way so far (Prop 8 and a few others being the outstanding examples).

What is strange is realizing that I don't know what to do about victory.

My first instinct, of course, is to tell the many people who I've seen long suffering in the face of American politics going against them that the good days are here. For my late grandfather Roy (and for Terry Arnold), part of my special appreciation of tonight is for you - we're going to have a sane Foreign Policy again, where we treat other nations like humans and not like playthings. At Roy's funeral I swore, in my idealistic 13 year old way, that I'd do everything within my power to fix the system, take the expanded Presidential powers under Bush and do everything to undo the harm he'd caused. It was a naive, idealistic statement, but it was also aimed at something in 2024. I had no idea that we'd have step one to repairing the damage of the last eight years elected immediately after Bush. I underestimated the nation, and it's reassuring to know that I was wrong.

While I wanted to share the joy of last night with almost everyone I know, the person I singled out to call was my dad. He's never before had an election where he voted for someone a) that he genuinely liked as a candidate, and b) had them win. Or at least, he hadn't before. And this is someone who grew up as a quasi-international citizen, with a wealth of experience in the universality of humans. To consistently have that understanding undermined and thwarted in the name of American interests must have hurt, and election season (starting in 2000) became very much a process of finding silver linings and proof that humans are basically good if misguided. So it's especially nice that my idealism was able to converge with my father's on my first election. There is a real potential for things to get better, and this isn't just the luxury of youth (where time for things to get better is more or less infinite) speaking. This is every failed promise to the baby boomers, and this is a passing of the torch. Things can get better, and they very likely will.

A special nod towards Nora's excellent post about coming of age politically in the Bush Years. She touches on a very important point, and one I want to elaborate on here. She says:

So knowing all that– understanding the only America I’ve known– you know the gravity that comes with the following statement:

I am proud to be an American tonight.

And it's a profound statement. It's not a statement I can really dispute, and it's not a personal experience I want to challenge.

But I'm not sure I feel identically. I've always identified very strongly as American. Well, not so much American as an Albuquerqueno and as a New Mexican. But also as an American - I can't go back a few generations and have relatives who came over by boat. Athertons and Coopers seem to have been rather perpetually American, if New Englanders. And despite being a bit of an anglophile (in the loving england way, not the other one), I really can't imagine any state of being that isn't as an American.

So the last eight years have been interesting. I politically came of age with Bush as President, with the War of Terror on, and with my diplomat grandfather's death, but I also came of age politically in the New Mexico under Richardson, and in a Unitarian Church, and with the changing of the guard in the democratic party. Not that the last eight years were fertile ground for unquestioing patriotism, but they were a challenge we grew into. The brilliance of Barack Obama is not that he's a democrat who won, and not that he's someone on the left who won. The brilliance of Barack Obama is that, for good or bad, he reimagined the left as a concept with mass appeal, and he reimagined the democratic party not as the Clinton's did (where it was the center + the left), but as an ideologically strong unifiying force. Democrats may have been the party of Obama, and they were certainly the people on the ground for him, but his message isn't exclusively for them, and it's never been.

Back to patriotism and the Bush Years. While I never felt like I wasn't a patriot, for those eight years I perpetually felt that my patriotism, which was real, didn't count. As though it was the wrong kind of patriotism, as though caring about the nation enough to see some of what it did was wrong was something like a sin. The Bush Years were, to understate things, devisive. And throughout those years, I felt that active democrats were the scrappy few, pursuing a vision of the nation that was different from the current course of action. And every time we failed, or ran into any obstacle, it felt as though we were through, as though our nation had been co-opted. And it felt as thoguh caring about the nation was a losign battle, one that would have us all drained, spent, and finished, without any real progress.

Waking up today with Barack Obama as the President-elect means that our struggle wasn't in vain, that our vision of America is a valid one, and that our kind of patriotism counts as well. It's a tremendous burden that has been lessened (if not lifted entirely), and that's something we can all be happy about.

I woke up this morning amid the feeling of resignation from those who had backed McCain. And McCain, despite the flaws of his campaign, was incredibly gracious in defeat. We can never forget that, and it is folly to imagine that he did anything but care about his country as best he knew how. His dedication to this country is remarkable, and it is unfortunate that he was the one to carry the republican banner to defeat this year. More importantly than the man himself, however, is the fact that in this nation, in this blue tide (as it were), 55+ million people voted for him. That's one in six americans, and that's 46% of people who voted.

One more detour before concluding. On twitter, some young parent friends of mine:

Last night, in bed, Eck turns to me and says, "Goodnight, my love. Just think - this is our last night as downtrodden liberals." :)

And part of that means that we're vindicated. Part of this is everything we've been waiting for, since, well, ever. And part of that is realizing that there are real people who are now, for the first time in eight years (and, depending on how you see it, for the first time since 1994) on the outs. And partially, this is because their vision isn't the one that fits the present America. But that doesn't entitle us to inflict any of the same bullshit on the losers that we've had to suffer through. Because if we do that, then it's all for not. We crawled through shit, through years of having our loyalty questioned, our values ridiculed, and our sense of patriotism deemed un-American so that no one has to put up with that.

Let's be gracious in victory. And with that, let's be one people again - a people who disagree, but a people. Two armed camps is a terrible stage of existence.

Epilogue: Two Readings

Take courage friends.
The way is often hard, the path is never clear,
and the stakes are very high.
Take courage.
For deep down, there is another truth:
you are not alone
-Wayne B Arnason

If we agree in love, there is no disagreement that can do us an injury, but if we do not, no other agreement can do us any good.

Let us endeavor to keep the unity of the spirit in the bonds of peace.
-Hosea Ballou

Darren White and the Local Press

Note: This is nothing more than a copy-paste job of two comments I left in this comment thread on the Duke City Fix. The comments are long enough to count as their own posts, so I am putting them up here for safekeeping.

Darren White:

Darren White himself has shown that he's a take charge guy in executive situations. I don't agree with his decisions in many of them, but I can't deny that he made decisions and acted quickly. That's a great trait for an executive. However, he's running for a legislative seat. The duties and roles of that office are very different, and while his hands-on experience is certainly something rather novel in that body, it may be because it's largely irrelevant.

Being on a legislature requires compromising one's singular vision to work with others, even within one's own party, and having to make that compromise is a bare minimum. McCain is an unusual candidate in this election precisely because he's made a record of compromises that aren't strict party, that aren't the ideal version of what he wants, but are in the best interest of the nation, and are better than no solution. That's part of the wealth of experience that legislative experience adds to an individual, and it's helped McCain dodge a good chunk of the harm against the Republican brand. Martin Heinrich, though young, has a wealth of relevant legislative experience. Albuquerque as a city contains more people than many house districts, and governing that populace as part of a legislative body means Heinrich has experience in creating workable solutions, as opposed to pursuing his solitary vision. The streetcar proposal, arguably Heinrich's biggest mistake, was scrapped and abandoned when it was clear that it wasn't in the interest of the electorate, or the city itself, and that's something that had to hurt - as a tech-aware environmentalist from Nob Hill, street cars are all kinds of appealing. But as much as he personally may have wanted it, he knew when to quit, and when to work in the best interest of the entire city. Likewise, the minimum wage increase was first shot down as an overly-ambitious bill, but was re-introduced in such a way as to remove volatile ingredients and replace them with a form that both serves our city and doesn't alienate voters. This is the reputation of a man with ideals, but who understands that ideals have to be tempered with reality and practicality. That's more or less exactly the kind of legislative experience we need in CD3.

But this post isn't about Heinrich; it's about White. White, when working for the governor of New Mexico as head of the department of Public Safety, felt compelled to quit over an ideological opposition to Governor Johnson's support for medical marijuana. Rather than using his position to influence the implementation of any law Johnson signed, White quit over an ideological disagreement. Had he remained in that position (and had the Governor's support turned into a passable bill), White could easily have been in the best position to ensure that the drug is strictly controlled as a medical product, and could have maintained the sharp distinction between medicinal use and illegal personal indulgence. But he didn't, and instead left an office where he could have done much good because he didn't want to be seen as compromising his ideals over an initiative that never came to pass, and was ultimately not a crime issue but a health issue. Much as White touts that experience, it's terrible background for someone we want to reach across the isle, and represent all of us instead of just part of us.

(for more on Darren White, see my Fix post here)

The Local Press

I understand some frustration at the Journal's editorial board for it's endorsement. Always frustrating when those influential disagree with us. Still, this is no need to call for the paper's demise. The Journal, as an organ of the free press, is free to say what it wants until it can't afford to print, and then it can say things it wants online at an absolute minimum of cost. Living away at college and without a regular newspaper, there are some things I miss out on. Yes, I get news, and yes, the blogosphere does a fair bit with news. But what the blogosphere lacks (and the Journal has) is the economic necessity of objective reporting.

Blogs run at the absolute minimum of cost and don't have to appeal to anyone. Newspapers, at the least, have to sell to a large percentage of the city. Now editorial decisions can influence some of that appeal, but that's more background than reality - it's the printed blog entry in print every morning, and it's like eights inches at most. If that is offensive enough to not buy a newspaper, than don't buy the newspaper. It is, however, balanced out by the actual content of the paper, which cannot show bias and which has to care about Albuquerque. Those are both good things, both needed things, and both constraints that new media doesn't have to abide by. For me, that balances out disagreeable editorials (and the god awful content vomit that is the Tuesday editorial page).

Liberal Media Bias?

Thanks to a recent Pew study, the blogosphere and Fox News will soon both ring with more allegations of "Liberal Media Bias". Now, the petty thing to do here is quote Stephen Colbert with a comment from his White House correspondents dinner. Since I'm feeling slightly petty, and because it's a good quote, here you go:

Now, I know there are some polls out there saying this man has a 32 percent approval rating. But guys like us, we don't pay attention to the polls. We know that polls are just a collection of statistics that reflect what people are thinking in 'reality'. And reality has a well-known liberal bias. ... Sir, pay no attention to the people who say the glass is half empty, because 32% means it's two-thirds empty. There's still some liquid in that glass, is my point. But I wouldn't drink it. The last third is usually backwash.

The more relevant quote come from the blog Politico:

As it happens, McCain’s campaign is going quite poorly and Obama’s is going well. Imposing artificial balance on this reality would be a bias of its own.

Here's a better article, one with journalistic integrity. Better, because it is talking about bias, at most it can only be meta-biased.

Speaking in Dystopias

Science Fiction blog io9 has an interesting post up about the two competing narratives of dystopia in this year's presidential election campaign. The post is a good start, but as we near the very end of a two-year-long campaign about the future of this nation, it's a good idea to take a closer look at our competing worst fears.

The dystopia that is easier for me to imagine is the dystopia of the McCain/Palin administration. Greatly to the disservice of McCain's record in the senate, people fear his government not on his own merits or policies, but on those they see him as a surrogate for. The fears about McCain being the next bush are what inspire the trite labeling of him as "McSame", and again, that's a fear that has everything to do with Bush and nothing to do with McCain. It's a repeat of the dystopia of the first 6 years of this millenium, where a Republican president and a Republican congress waged war, inspired fear, let competitive industries consolidate, undermined freedoms, and challenged the social norms of what was approaching an open and progressive society. The fear with McCain, as is the fear with all conservatives (which is is a stand-in for), is the fear of a regression back into a previous and oppressive state of existence. Reckless wars, failing education systems, and the transition of social norms to the rigidly-clamped down society that spawned first the beat poets and then the hippies are all valid fears, but the big one is not so much a fear of actively going backward as it is a fear of stagnation. Palin especially, with here "drill baby drill", epitomizes the failings of the status quo - not that we can't drill, but we can't do it for much longer, and to continue to rely on solutions which we know will stop working soon seems to be folly. It's another four/eight/sixteen years of watching the United States not so much collapse as go down with the ship. Dystopia here is letting ourselves be blinded by unfailing devotion to a system that worked once when it is obvious that times have changed, reality has changed, and that we need intelligence, innovation, and sacrifice to make the whole thing work. And it's a fear that we'll be blinded by infighting and hobbled by tradition in such a way that we fall behind as a nation, and are unable to maintain our position as the world leader in anything excpet debt.

Contrasted with this is the dystopia envisioned by the Nobama crowd. Obama's promise of government working for people again is views quite skeptically; government by its vary nature is harmful to individuals, and any expansion of government power or responsibility will mean, more or less, the end times. It's wars ended in ignominous retreat and a national debt accumlated by spending tax dollars on the lazy, the illegal, and the undeserviving. It's the loss of freedom to universal programs, and it's being expected to say "thank you" for the infringement on your rights. It's being told that your values are not only not unviersal values, but they are criminal values. It's the fear inherent in every American since we first got self-determination, and it's a fear that focuses on very specific definitions of the self, and of determination. It's knowign that tax dollars will be spent on an act you view as murder. It's a real, genuine, fear for our economic security which sees taxes as the final straw that will break the back of American industry. And it's a genuine fear for America's safety, that we'll be left vulnerable and that our president will not have the strength of resolve to punish those who've attacked us. It's a combination of both the oppressive nanny state at home and embarassing appeasement abroad.

Of course, both fears of dystopia are overblown - if they weren't, they wouldn't be fears about dystopia. The way to get around these statements? Read what the candidates say, about themselves, in positive terms - listen to what they say they are going to do, and ignore all the "gotcha!" moments, as well as the divise and petty partisan jokes. Because no matter what happens on Nov. 4th, change is more or less a given, and it's incredibly hard to imagine that change as anything less than positive.

(To be fair, degree of positive matters a lot. Also, this is assuming Obama, McCain, or even Biden administrations. A Palin administration is closer to the dystopic fears about McCain, and tobe fair she inspires many of them. Even under that worst-case of worst-case scenarios, thoguh, the progress will be measured at zero, and not in negative numbers.)

Voting in the Age of the Internet

From both BoingBoing and Nora comes this great post: How to Get the Nerd Vote.

My favorite part?

2. Universal Healthcare. Everyone I know that freelances or works a day job and wishes they could quit and follow their dreams of launching a company complains about the lack of healthcare. Whenever I used to talk about freelancing at tech conferences, the first question was always about healthcare coverage. I've heard that in places like Berlin where you don't have to worry about where your healthcare is coming from or how much it costs, up to 35% of working age adults are freelancers. It may sound crazy and anti-capitalist to consider healthcare for all, but if we flipped a switch tomorrow and everyone had health coverage I swear a million small businesses would launch overnight. I know lots of people that keep a job just to get healthcare that are wasting their creative talents because they had a cancer scare or were born with a defect or otherwise are deemed uninsurable on their own.

It's nice to see an argument for universal healthcare that isn't "moral obligation" but is instead "economic boon".

Vote for Martin Heinrich

Edit: This post feels like a hatchet job. I'm aware of that, and a tad disgusted, but I think it raises relevant points. Therefore, I'm leaving it up, warts and all.

I've posted about Martin Heinrich once before, but the post is no longer online. It was for April 1st, 2008, and I had just finished my analysis of presidential candidates during the primary. So, as my April Fools day joke, I analyzed Heinrich as though he were a presidential candidate. My analysis was basically "great positions, but it needs to be more fleshed out for presidency". And that's still true. But Heinrich isn't running for the presidency.

He's running as representative for New Mexico, in a district that is Albuquerque-centered but contains parts of 5 counties. And if you're a New Mexican who can vote for him this election, you more or less need to. Over at the Duke City Fix, Johnny_Mango has a great piece up about the campaigning Heinrich is doing. And in the past, Mango has written quite favorably about the guy.

And this is fair. Martin Heinrich is in my top three of favorite political figures; the first is dead, and the second is Barack Obama. He was an exceedingly competent city councilman, and his campaign is one which emphasizes both optimism and an actual commitment to action. He's good people, and that should be enough to vote for him.

But he's inexperienced, you say. And he's too good looking, you say. Well then, we have another option.

Darren White is both experienced and does not have an abundance of handsome. Instead, he ran President Bush's campaign in Bernalillo County in 2004, which is a partisan attack but one that seems rather valid.

Second, Darren White is an incompetent fear-monger. Now, I'm not one to say these things lightly, and I don't mean to be libelous. But Darren White is a fear-monger. In 2004, there was a fire in the bosque, and our fire department responded to it. There was also a device there for converting vegetable oil into biodiesel. Darren White ordered a lockdown of the scene because of the biodiesel converter, and two things happened: one, a media circus, documented here. Two, the arrest and vilification of two sensible people who just happen to really like alternative energy. And while this is old news, it's relevant news. When faced with an unclear situation, White chose bravado and a get-tough attitude that not only made a situation far more complicated than it needed to be, it led to unnecessary fear. Fear that riles people up and gets the better of their reason. And fear that is directed at a perceived internal enemy. A willingness to jump the gun is not something I want in my representative, and it is especially bad when that representative is part of the body that declares war. And this aggressive grandstanding isn't a solitary phenomenon.

Also back in 2004 Darren White reacted viscerally to a story about a con-man. To be fair, what the con-man did was wrong (if it were right, he wouldn't be a con-man). But we have laws and procedures to deal with con-men. And we, as the United States, grant criminals some basic rights. Not the full rights of citizens, but rights as human beings, and I believe these rights are a key part of our society. How we treat our criminals does not reflect on how repulsed we are by their actions - it instead reflects our degree of civilization, and our willingness to pursue justice under law instead of the justice of the mob. It's one of those things that marks us as civilized.

Darren White holds a different perspective on the issue. As quoted in the Alibi story, Darren White, in his capacity as Bernalillo County Sheriff, said "I'd like to kick his ass. Seriously, let me have five minutes alone with him." Understandably, he was reacting to the appalling actions of a criminal. But this was no rapist, nor murderer. This was a con-man, who simply swindled taxpayer money, and who was under federal investigation. A five-minute off-the -record beating is not an appropriate sentence. I shouldn't even have to type that, but there it is. While I respect the right of Darren White to free speech in his personal life, in his capacity as sheriff he should know better. On top of it all, this remark came at a time when

...our new Metropolitan Detention Center has already earned a reputation for illegal brutality, and that guards were caught on surveillance camera pummeling three handcuffed inmates for 17 minutes earlier this year. The episode is very likely going to cost the public large sums of money once a fat settlement is reached. Do you think the lawyers for the inmates might have clipped and saved White's remarks?

So here's two incidents from early in Darren White's role as sheriff that undermine his judgment. Fear mongering in the first, and weakening our record on human rights in the second. Plus, both mistakes (no matter what perspective you have on the morality involved) were costly, and undermined public faith in the Albuquerque Police Department. This isn't the record of a man who is tough on crime, and it isn't the record of a man who supports inexpensive government. This is the record of grandstanding, bravado, and recklessness. And if elected to the house of representatives, this man will get a vote about whether or not our nation goes to war.

So, there's still time left. Vote for Martin Heinrich, and if you can't just do it because he's good people (yay raising the minimum wage), vote because the man he's running against is dangerous, irrational, and has lost the support of the Republican party.

Participatory Democracy Time!

Thanks to FBIHOP, I've now submitted a question to two separate New Mexico political debates.

To submit a question for the Martin Heinrich / Darren White debate, follow this link.

To submit a question for the Tom Udall / Steve Pearce debate, go here.

Also - I'm curious what you people are asking. Feel free to toss question ideas around in the comments. The community surrounding the omni-blog that is Plastic Manzikert will almost certainly have valuable input.

Edit: My questions, to get this started:

For Heinrich and White: "According to the Pew Center on the States, more than one percent of the US adult population is in jail or prison. As a member of congress, what course of action will you take to reduce this number?"

For Udall and Pearce: "In your capacity as representative for the state of New Mexico, have you ever made a decision against the interests of your district that you thought was in the best interest of the nation, and can you tell us why?"

Denoument

Today, Colin Powell endorsed Barack Obama. Here's the video, which in 7 minutes is the most reassuring, refreshing assessment of Barack Obama I've heard.



It comes from outside the Democratic party. It comes from a former general and a former secretary of state. It comes from a Republican, but a genuine moderate who believes in not deviating far to either side of the center. And amazingly, it's seven minutes of uninterrupted explanation provided by a modern news show.

This is what the national discourse should look like. And, if it is anything like successful, this is what national discourse will become.

Someone Else's Words

I've a lot I've been meaning to say about Sarah Palin, an awful lot really, but as you can probably guess from my last post, I'm more content to point towards others who are saying what I have to say, but better-phrased.

Here, however, I'm not content to just point you in the right direction. Below is the entire text of a post by Tim Wise. His blog deserves the traffic for this, but what he has to say is important enough to be plastered more or less everywhere. (Added bonus: it tackles both White Privilege and Sarah Palin!)

For those who still can't grasp the concept of white privilege, or who are constantly looking for some easy-to-understand examples of it, perhaps this list will help.

• White privilege is when you can get pregnant at seventeen like Bristol Palin and everyone is quick to insist that your life and that of your family is a personal matter, and that no one has a right to judge you or your parents, because "every family has challenges," even as black and Latino families with similar "challenges" are regularly typified as irresponsible, pathological and arbiters of social decay.
• White privilege is when you can call yourself a "fuckin' redneck," like Bristol Palin's boyfriend does, and talk about how if anyone messes with you, you'll "kick their fuckin' ass," and talk about how you like to "shoot shit" for fun, and still be viewed as a responsible, all-American boy (and a great son-in-law to be) rather than a thug.
• White privilege is when you can attend four different colleges in six years like Sarah Palin did (one of which you basically failed out of, then returned to after making up some coursework at a community college), and no one questions your intelligence or commitment to achievement, whereas a person of color who did this would be viewed as unfit for college, and probably someone who only got in in the first place because of affirmative action.
• White privilege is when you can claim that being mayor of a town smaller than most medium-sized colleges, and then Governor of a state with about the same number of people as the lower fifth of the island of Manhattan, makes you ready to potentially be president, and people don't all piss on themselves with laughter, while being a black U.S. Senator, two-term state Senator, and constitutional law scholar, means you're "untested."
• White privilege is being able to say that you support the words "under God" in the pledge of allegiance because "if it was good enough for the founding fathers, it's good enough for me," and not be immediately disqualified from holding office--since, after all, the pledge was written in the late 1800s and the "under God" part wasn't added until the 1950s--while believing that reading accused criminals and terrorists their rights (because, ya know, the Constitution, which you used to teach at a prestigious law school requires it), is a dangerous and silly idea only supported by mushy liberals.
• White privilege is being able to be a gun enthusiast and not make people immediately scared of you. White privilege is being able to have a husband who was a member of an extremist political party that wants your state to secede from the Union, and whose motto was "Alaska first," and no one questions your patriotism or that of your family, while if you're black and your spouse merely fails to come to a 9/11 memorial so she can be home with her kids on the first day of school, people immediately think she's being disrespectful.
• White privilege is being able to make fun of community organizers and the work they do--like, among other things, fight for the right of women to vote, or for civil rights, or the 8-hour workday, or an end to child labor--and people think you're being pithy and tough, but if you merely question the experience of a small town mayor and 18-month governor with no foreign policy expertise beyond a class she took in college--you're somehow being mean, or even sexist.
• White privilege is being able to convince white women who don't even agree with you on any substantive issue to vote for you and your running mate anyway, because all of a sudden your presence on the ticket has inspired confidence in these same white women, and made them give your party a "second look."
• White privilege is being able to fire people who didn't support your political campaigns and not be accused of abusing your power or being a typical politician who engages in favoritism, while being black and merely knowing some folks from the old-line political machines in Chicago means you must be corrupt.
• White privilege is being able to attend churches over the years whose pastors say that people who voted for John Kerry or merely criticize George W. Bush are going to hell, and that the U.S. is an explicitly Christian nation and the job of Christians is to bring Christian theological principles into government, and who bring in speakers who say the conflict in the Middle East is God's punishment on Jews for rejecting Jesus, and everyone can still think you're just a good church-going Christian, but if you're black and friends with a black pastor who has noted (as have Colin Powell and the U.S. Department of Defense) that terrorist attacks are often the result of U.S. foreign policy and who talks about the history of racism and its effect on black people, you're an extremist who probably hates America.
• White privilege is not knowing what the Bush Doctrine is when asked by a reporter, and then people get angry at the reporter for asking you such a "trick question," while being black and merely refusing to give one-word answers to the queries of Bill O'Reilly means you're dodging the question, or trying to seem overly intellectual and nuanced.
• White privilege is being able to claim your experience as a POW has anything at all to do with your fitness for president, while being black and experiencing racism is, as Sarah Palin has referred to it a "light" burden.
• And finally, white privilege is the only thing that could possibly allow someone to become president when he has voted with George W. Bush 90 percent of the time, even as unemployment is skyrocketing, people are losing their homes, inflation is rising, and the U.S. is increasingly isolated from world opinion, just because white voters aren't sure about that whole "change" thing. Ya know, it's just too vague and ill-defined, unlike, say, four more years of the same, which is very concrete and certain.

White privilege is, in short, the problem.

Also, here's another short bit, in video format, that I can't help but recommend.

Petty Politics

Today, in the midst of homework for my War on Terror class, I found four distractions, all related to Sarah Palin.

Here's something light.

And here's something heavy.

Edit: and here's something mid-range.

Edit: and here's something that is genuinely important.

Enjoy!

Hillary's Democratic Convention Speech

I was never a strong Hillary supporter, and to be perfectly honest I was relieved that the Democratic Primary ended with victory for Obama. Obama struck me as the brilliant, pragmatic, and modern outside; my impression of Hillary was always one of the stuff establishment candidate, who played the game of 1990s pro-business democrat so well that she was indistinguishable from the party staples of a decade prior.

It's not the best sign of progress, but it's telling that Hillary Clinton played the political game so well as to become that which outsiders would rail against. Hillary Clinton, who in this nation of White Christian Male presidents challenged one of those criterion with at times a nonchalance that made it possible to forget how unprecedented she was.

My disagreements with Hillary Clinton stem not from her race, gender, or faith, but like all good political disagreements they originate from policy disagreements. Hillary's plan was not the soundest execution of democratic principles, in my opinion, and when she had real substantive differences with Obama I always favored Obama.

That all said, the two candidates (and almost all the other democrats running, with perhaps Gravel excepted) are operating in a way to address real problems within the United States today. Hillary's speech yesterday at the democratic convention is an incredibly well-written call to action.

The best part, in my opinion, excerpted below:

I want you to ask yourselves: Were you in this campaign just for me? Or were you in it for that young Marine and others like him? Were you in it for that mom struggling with cancer while raising her kids? Were you in it for that boy and his mom surviving on the minimum wage? Were you in it for all the people in this country who feel invisible?

We need leaders once again who can tap into that special blend of American confidence and optimism that has enabled generations before us to meet our toughest challenges. Leaders who can help us show ourselves and the world that with our ingenuity, creativity, and innovative spirit, there are no limits to what is possible in America.

This won't be easy. Progress never is. But it will be impossible if we don't fight to put a Democrat in the White House.

Hillary is still a force in politics today. It is a blessing to have her supportive of Barack Obama.

UU Presidential Campaign

While I'm a strong advocate for the separation of church and state, that doesn't mean I feel morality and governance should be exclusive. And like most people, the morality system I am most comfortable with is the one adhered to by my religious denomination (qualifier: these are the principles of UU congregations, not of UUs themselves, though Unitarians tend to agree with them).

That out of the way, here would be the focus of a presidential campaign I would run, with policies sorted by the principle they fall under.

• The inherent worth and dignity of every person;

There would be no barriers for marriage between two consenting adults. Sexual orientation and gender identity would be added to the federal roster of hate crimes.

The drinking age would be lowered to 18 - legal adult status should confer all the benefits of being an adult. I would appoint only justices who would rule laws such as cell phone bans that target only teenagers and curfews as unconsitutional. I would endeavor to end the criminalization of youth.

I would veto any proposed resurrection of the PATRIOT ACT, and I would do my best to end the one already in place. Civil Liberties would be guaranteed and fought for.

• Justice, equity and compassion in human relations;

Justice domestically would be re-thought. 1% of the US adult population is in prison. There is no way to justify this - even dangerous deviancy can't be all that deviant if it affects 1-in-a-100. That makes it almost normal. The big focus in rethinking the US criminal Justice system would be an emphasis away from jail time for victimless crimes (to either fines for committing the act or decriminalization of the act), a lack of disparity between state and federal sentencing laws (an emphasis away from federal drug laws here), and moves towards a system that rehabilitates.

Welfare needs to be moved away from a system of shame, and I think that looking at it as a vital task of the government, of society, to provide for the people most screwed by capitalism. Not that we should do away with capitalism; it's a great system, provided government steps in to pick up where it leaves people destroyed. The changes I'm thinking of are "free health care to everyone on welfare (and eventually universal health care. Hey, if post-WWII Britain can do it, why not the richest country in the world?), government-subsidized child care, etc. And all this could be funded by, get this, a windfall tax on oil revenues". (qaulifier: I'm following the advice of a current Foliage Commandant here)

There would be more tax forgiveness for charitable donations.

Affirmative action would be changed so that race or life below a certain economic threshold allowed eligibility.

While it wouldn't be possible in the space of even a couple of presidencies, a shift of the justice system away from one that punishes for the benefit of the state to one that facilitates recompense so that parties in conflict end in right relation would be pursued.

• Acceptance of one another and encouragement to spiritual growth in our congregations;

This one, good though it is, is denomination-specific. It would just affirm Supreme Court Justice appointments to those who respect a diversity of religious opinion.

• A free and responsible search for truth and meaning;

No Child Left Behind: Local 'burque blogger and perennial favorite of Duke City cynics, Scot Key has a good run-down of why the law has failed everyone. Under the UU-informed administration, this law would be done away with.

A free and responsible search for truth and meaning is impossible without qualified teachers. I think a national initiative to make public school teaching positions both high-paying and prestigious would create greater demand for teachers, and supply would adjust accordingly. Debt forgiveness programs for commitments to teach for 2-5 years in inner-city schools would be extended. The "responsible" search would be accommodated by a change to longitudinal testing, where each grade would be tested against their performance from the previous year; the tests would be a valuable metric to see what teachers were successful, what students were independently failing and in need of different practices, and this metric would be used to create a more reliable way for performance based hirings and firings. It's a hint of the free market, but that brings freedom and the potential for systems to self-perfect.

• The right of conscience and the use of the democratic process within our congregations and in society at large;

I'm an ardent supporter of Lessig and his Change Congress initiative. I realize that elected officials can take the pledge and act accordingly, but that this reform focuses on citizens being able to take public information, call politicians on it, and hold them accountable. As such, measures to ensure and create greater, moire useful transparency would be proposed, as would laws protecting citizen activists who hold politicians accountable.

Internet freedoms fall as easily under here as they do anywhere else, so I here is where I say support Net Neutrality, where I believe that individual freedom and privacy are fundamentals that most be adhered to at all costs online, and that warrants are needed for the government to access information online. While telecom immunity was recently passed, I believe that there shall be no protection for companies who act against their great moral and constitutional obligations to protect citizens privacy; acting under orders is not a sound defense, especially when the orders come from government but contradict founding tenets of government.

• The goal of world community with peace, liberty, and justice for all;

We need a new foreign policy. One that respects the rule of law, one that respects international standards, and one that treats terrorists as enemy nationals and not as stateless actors; the risk and the damage caused to innocents outweighs all the benefit done by the detention of terrorists, and has long since eroded any ideas of the United States as a moral bastion and an exemplar of conduct.

The US would negotiate a withdraw from Iraq at the UN, with elected Iraqi leaders taking part and with an eye towards stability in the region as paramount. Under UN authorization the US would be allowed to continue its efforts to stabilize Afghanistan.

Th US, under a UU-informed administration, would support multinationalism, and would abide by international restrictions when it comes to the unilateral use of force. But the US would also use soft power to advocate for freedoms abroad, freedoms that it would no longer be denying to citizens, or to foreign nationals detained within the US. The US would go back to being a signatory and supporter for the International Criminal Court, and would allow for the trials of US leaders accused of war crimes.

• Respect for the interdependent web of all existence of which we are a part.

The federal government is the trustee of public lands, and no land that is currently held in common would be privatized. That said, I believe it would be worthwhile to explore the possibility of minimum-impact domestic drilling, but that would be only supplemental to the development of green energy sources, and the smart development of modern nuclear reactors 9which would borrow technology and inspiration from France, who is 30 years ahead of us at this). We have a right and a duty to protect the environment, but it is politically impossible to at every turn chose the environment over people. This is about interdependence, and the best way to be a good steward is to see to it that meeting the needs of humans is met in a way that best protects the environment. Treating people and nature as oppositional hurts people, weakens the causes of the environmentalists, and makes green-friendly politicians vulnerable in elections to those who would despoil the earth.

~

I know, this is a lot. And yeah, it's mostly moot because I'm unelectable anyway. Still, I think this is a good idea of what a president informed by my take on UU values would espouse. If you have any other ideas of UU presidential aspirations, or re-thinking of how I see the principles applied to governance, feel free to leave a comment.

General Wesley Clark

I was going to get the video from the MSNBC site, but it was convoluted, and the video I did find was frustrating, disparaging meta-commentary. So I'm going to embed a youtube video, because it isn't a soundbite, and because this is something that cannot be condensed into a soundbite:



To clear my biases, I support General Wesley Clark. In 2004, when I was four years too young to vote, I convinced both of my parents to support Clark's bid for the presidency in the democratic primary. Clark is, as best I've found, an exemplar of sensible military policy, and of sensible military policy on the left. That's my bias.

That said, this whole debacle over what he said is more or less the exact flaw of soundbites, and no person should be eviscerated for something they said taken so out of context. Watch the video. It's only a few minutes, and you'll be smarter than most people on the issue, so it's worth it.

Wesley Clark said that McCain wasn't in an executive position in wartime. He said that McCain's military service and time as a POW are admirable aspects of his character, but they don't relate to his ability to make national security decisions. They aren't proof of how he would act when he is in charge of the world's best military, and how he would deal with being responsible for the lives of millions of innocents. That is what General Wesley Clark said.

It was brought up that Obama doesn't have this experience either, but that's kind of the point: McCain's military experience, while an important part of his character, doesn't count as foreign policy experience. This places him on square one with Obama, and when you take away experience as McCain's credential, Obama can stand on his own for his policy intentions. And from where General Clark is sitting, Obama's planned policies make way more sense.

Late on the bandwagon

I am odd, for those who make their lives about politics, in my relative lack of interest and attention given to the day to day of news. So I am late to discover this. So, so, incredibly worth it.

This is Barack Obama, in the best speech I've heard. Not heard this year. Heard. Period.

"And occasionally it finds voice in the church on Sunday morning, in the pulpit and in the pews. The fact that so many people are surprised to hear that anger in some of Reverend Wright’s sermons simply reminds us of the old truism that the most segregated hour in American life occurs on Sunday morning. That anger is not always productive; indeed, all too often it distracts attention from solving real problems; it keeps us from squarely facing our own complicity in our condition, and prevents the African-American community from forging the alliances it needs to bring about real change. But the anger is real; it is powerful; and to simply wish it away, to condemn it without understanding its roots, only serves to widen the chasm of misunderstanding that exists between the races.

In fact, a similar anger exists within segments of the white community. Most working- and middle-class white Americans don’t feel that they have been particularly privileged by their race. Their experience is the immigrant experience – as far as they’re concerned, no one’s handed them anything, they’ve built it from scratch. They’ve worked hard all their lives, many times only to see their jobs shipped overseas or their pension dumped after a lifetime of labor. They are anxious about their futures, and feel their dreams slipping away; in an era of stagnant wages and global competition, opportunity comes to be seen as a zero sum game, in which your dreams come at my expense. So when they are told to bus their children to a school across town; when they hear that an African American is getting an advantage in landing a good job or a spot in a good college because of an injustice that they themselves never committed; when they’re told that their fears about crime in urban neighborhoods are somehow prejudiced, resentment builds over time.

Like the anger within the black community, these resentments aren’t always expressed in polite company. But they have helped shape the political landscape for at least a generation. Anger over welfare and affirmative action helped forge the Reagan Coalition. Politicians routinely exploited fears of crime for their own electoral ends. Talk show hosts and conservative commentators built entire careers unmasking bogus claims of racism while dismissing legitimate discussions of racial injustice and inequality as mere political correctness or reverse racism."

and

"In the white community, the path to a more perfect union means acknowledging that what ails the African-American community does not just exist in the minds of black people; that the legacy of discrimination - and current incidents of discrimination, while less overt than in the past - are real and must be addressed. Not just with words, but with deeds – by investing in our schools and our communities; by enforcing our civil rights laws and ensuring fairness in our criminal justice system; by providing this generation with ladders of opportunity that were unavailable for previous generations. It requires all Americans to realize that your dreams do not have to come at the expense of my dreams; that investing in the health, welfare, and education of black and brown and white children will ultimately help all of America prosper. "

and

I would not be running for President if I didn’t believe with all my heart that this is what the vast majority of Americans want for this country. This union may never be perfect, but generation after generation has shown that it can always be perfected. And today, whenever I find myself feeling doubtful or cynical about this possibility, what gives me the most hope is the next generation – the young people whose attitudes and beliefs and openness to change have already made history in this election.

and finally

It is not enough to give health care to the sick, or jobs to the jobless, or education to our children.

But it is where we start. It is where our union grows stronger. And as so many generations have come to realize over the course of the two-hundred and twenty one years since a band of patriots signed that document in Philadelphia, that is where the perfection begins.

I'm not one for short excerpts and soundbites, and I think even the excerpts here are too incomplete to really showcase the speech. Watch it, read it, or settle for this excerpts. It is worth the forty minutes, and you'll feel happy and idealistic afterwards. Which, really, is kind of awesome.

The 2008 Democrat Endorsement

When I decided in earnest that I was going to blog about as many democratic presidential candidates as I could, I had intended to refrain from endorsing anyone. After all, this was December, and there were still nine democrats in the race. With so many people running, I felt arrogant saying that one candidate's programs are comprehensive enough that in every arena they are superior enough to grab all the votes that can be swayed by me. Instead, I intended to have a rundown of how voting for a given candidate would influence the final candidate's positions. Primary votes for Mike Gravel would have meant that legalization of marijuana might be something for the final candidate to consider, if they thought the risk was worth it. Primary votes for Kucinich would signal to the democrats that a move to to the left would be good, and with enough of them, the party might generally inch in that direction for good. Primary votes for Richardson (which I had intended to do) would mean that foreign policy, and his foreign policy, would be adopted in part by the final candidate. Having been hesitant in reviewing Dodd, Biden, and Edwards, I cannot say what votes for them would have meant. At this point, however, it is mostly irrelevant. The democrats are in a two candidate race, and I've made my endorsement.

If you didn't catch it, which is perfectly fair given as how it is on the end of the longest post I have ever blogged, I have endorsed Barack Obama.

~
Why Not Hillary Clinton?

The endorsement comes, as it must, as a preference for him over Hillary Clinton, so I will start by saying that Hillary Clinton is not all bad. She is a tremendously experience politician, and one who
has been working within the system and achieving change for a surprisingly long time. She is also the most serious chance a woman has ever had for the presidency so far. I do not mean to discredit either the idea of a woman president or the positive good Hillary Rodham Clinton has produced. I do, however, believe that Hillary's relative complacency, silence, and ineffectiveness against the policies of the past seven years by the current administration hurt her, and are a disservice to those who believe her to be an independent mind. She has not resisted enough, or made enough of a name decrying the practices of the worst presidential administration since at least Reagan, if not ever. She has been in power and in prominence and remained relatively quiet, refusing to stall or halt or make dissent known in the face of issues as important and vital as the civil rights and constitutional protections voided by the USA PATRIOT ACT. She did not oppose the War in Iraq, a war that has served to alienate vital allies and the spirit of both international cooperation and the rights of sovereignty, and has instead produced a mess of which there is no good way out. Her past inaction or silent consent offends me, and it makes her in my mind that status quo candidate; given the status quo, this is not something I will support.

When I set out to do this, I intended to focus on the candidates plans for positive good, and attack flaws in their plans and not petty assessments. With that said, a few words on gender before I look at her plan versus Obama's. Hillary Clinton is a woman who could win the presidency, and stands a decent chance at it. This is the first chance a woman has really had, and it it tempting, very tempting, to vote for her as an affirmative action towards the centuries where a majority of people in this nation have not had a descriptive candidate in the White House. I think that voting this way ignores many of the important tasks of a concerned and informed electorate, and I think that it is based on a fear of this being a one-shot option and then lost forever. Hillary is the first women to have a real shot at the presidency, but she will in no way be the last, and I can only imagine that by the time I can legally run (2024), we will have seen many more serious female contenders for the office, and an election seems almost inevitable by the time my generation is predominant in national government (2030-2050 or so). This is, to be perfectly honest, a really long way off, but Hillary has shown that a woman can be a serious contender, and others will come, even if she isn't elected.

The reasons one such as myself wouldn't want her elected, of course, have nothing to do with gender, or her religion, or her husband. My reasons, instead, have to do with stated policy aims, and how I tend to disagree with her about most of them. The sum of her domestic policy, "pro-business policy, with no serious changes in education and no real plan addressing immigration", doesn't speak to me, and doesn't really seem like it is addressed at fixing any problems that exist today. Her foreign policy is limp, and I am bothered that she doesn't care enough to make it more meaningful; her "Foreign Affairs" article is more a justification of simple aims than an elaboration of critical thought and policy directives. Her emphasis on a social welfare (universal health care, immigration reform, veterans policy) for those who are ready to be employed and keep the American economy functioning is nothing bad, but it makes welfare her game to play - a person gets the benefits provided they play along, and not from any notions of inherent worth and dignity. Her selling points do not move me.

Hillary Clinton believes in a stronger and more controlling federal government, and while she is slightly on the left in terms of how to use that pattern, the real spectrum that defines her is "Governmental Power <---> Individual Freedom", and she is willing to go towards nanny state policies to a greater degree than I would like.

She does, however, have strong points in a specific piece of education reform and with her proposal for the United States Public Service Academy. These are good things, but these are thing should can accomplish in the Senate, and things she should accomplish in the Senate, in the many years I see her remaining there.

~
Why Barack Obama

It troubles me that this issue can be debated in terms of white woman/black man, and everything I said about future serious women candidates holds true for African Americans as well (excepting the majority of the population part). The debate over experience versus inexperience/idealism is a marginally better debate, but it simplifies things, and it assumes that sufficient knowledge required for the presidency comes from multiple terms in the legislature. I can point out Abraham Lincoln (one term, representative) or Dwight Eisenhower (no terms; general) as examples of success, but the real problem has to do with the framing of the race in this way by national media, which is irresponsible and over-simplifies.

Justifications for inexperience must still be made, and this shows itself in the language Barack Obama uses on his website, which is full of technocratic jargon and legal notions that I can only just comprehend. He talks as though he is eminently qualified, and I will trust that he is. I have read nothing to disprove me of this notion.

Moving on to policy, I must say that there are serious flaws in some of what Barack Obama proposes. His foreign policy contrasts overly-firm statements to Hillary's inaction. I do not want militancy, but it is preferable to have an opinion, to make a stab at strength, than to pay lip service to a vast segment of presidential policy. I don't like his mentions of the PATRIOT ACT, especially when they concern making it more legal, rather than doing away with it as unconstitutional. Neither candidate speaks out strongly against torture, and that is also frustrating.

Obama's economic reforms are of a different veins than Clintons'. He aims at tax rebates and low income consumers as well as small business; Hillary Clinton aims at tax cuts and targets business and the middle class. Rebates are to me more sensible, and Obama's plans seem to fit in more with protecting consumers and competition than with strengthening American business abroad. His faith in a gently guided free market is reassuring, and his universal healthcare proposal seems to me to be better for both business and consumers, as it offers more than a consolidation of plans, a menu, and a buy-in to a national system.

Likewise, in education Obama hits upon the better points of Clinton's plan and offers more meaningful solution.

A complete blow-by-blow will be terribly redundant, so that last issue worth commenting upon is technology. Hillary Clinton "talks about the internet on her website like she's explaining it to an octogenarian on the campaign trail". Barack Obama incorporates the internet into many of his other plans, has a tremendous and well-written section on technology, and "he gets technology, and he gets the internet, and he would make sane and sensible polices regarding the internet and technology while protecting freedom of speech and the consumer". He incorporates brilliant uses on the internet into his ethics reform, fixes problems others have had (searchable date versus pdfs), and just feels like an appropriate candidate for the year 2008. This section, more than anything else, cements my trust in Barack Obama.

He is not an ideal candidate, and he is not an ideal candidate in my foremost area of concern, but he is a genuinely good candidate, and it is exciting to have the possibility to support and maybe even elect a candidate, backed by a major party, who I want more for his own strengths than for fear of the other guy. It is incredible to have a candidate like this, and to have one who understands the internet, and who trusts the American voter with making government more responsible, provided the information they need is made accessible. He will put up bills on the white house website for 5 days before signing them, giving time for feedback and reaction (and in this internet age, that is an entirely reasonable amount of time). I would trust a government with Barack Obama at its head.

If my opinion means anything to you in determining how you vote, I urge you to support Barack Obama as well.

Barack Obama

Part seven in my 2008 Presidential Election commentary series, I present to you my take on Barack Obama's positions, as stated on the issues page of his website.

Barack Obama through the lens of Kelsey Atherton

~

Civil Rights - Obama's site reads differently than those of other candidates I've profiled so far. He opens with a quote, has a bullet point list about his priorities with regards to civil rights (each point redirecting further down the list to the section containing a one-two sentence statement), a synthesis of the problem, the previously mentioned short exposition list, and at the end there is a paragraph statement concerning his record, followed by a link to a .pdf of his plan. It's an interesting approach, and a very accessible one. It also means that the bulk of the plan, as stored in an inconvenient file type, is harder for the casual observer to critique; this is not a unique criticism, but it still holds merit.
Pay inequity, hate crimes, vote suppression, and drug policy are all labeled as civil rights concerns, and he is on solid ground with all of them. I am especially impressed by the inclusion of the disparity in crack vs powder cocaine laws as an issue of civil rights - powder cocaine is associated broadly with wealth, and more generally with the white, wealthy, suburban upper middle and upper class, while crack cocaine is a drug of poverty, associated with poor urban areas and minority, especially black communities. Federal law holds the penalties for crack cocaine as 100 times greater than the penalties for powder cocaine usage, and only two states of addressed this disparity as racist. Ohio increased the penalty for powder cocaine to the same as that of crack, and California recently considered (and I believe passed, though I may be wrong) lowering the penalty for crack down to the federal standard for powder cocaine.

This discussion of drug policy isn't a digression - it just shows some of the prior knowledge required for simple yet intelligent statements about how to reform the criminal justice system.
In his policy goals that follow, it makes sense that half of his plans focus on protecting both the suspected and the convicted from civil rights abuses and from unfair policy which is implicitly if not explicitly racist. Understanding the complexity of the issue, and the nature of institutionalized racism in our criminal system, and how fair treatment for criminals is a civil rights issue, is all very impressive and means he'd be an incredible attorney general, at the least. In his treatment of the one matter that seems less a legal issue and more of a standard "can we solve this with money well spent" issue, that is to say, in his treatment of ex-offenders needing support to avoid recidivism, it looks like a keen mind is at work here, and am ind that grasps the full reality of the issue. The only weakness of all this is that every statement is short, and that fuller explanations are going to be found in an elaborate pdf, the kind of material no fun to root through.

Economy - This section is large, and broken into eleven parts. The first part is "Tax Fairness for the Middle Class", and it focuses on a collection of relatively small refunds, aimed at the people least able to pay taxes. Most benefits are geared towards those making $50,000 a year or less, and are aimed a $500 to $3,000 refund or credit, combined with easier forms. It sounds knowledgable, which is a mixed blessing. I would like to think he knows what he's talking about, but I don't have the requisite knowledge to call him on it. Still, the premise I can support, and while I am generally opposed to tax cuts, this is after-tax returns mostly, and its to the people who cumulatively contribute the least of any income bracket, and tend to need government services and their few dollars the most. This is, as far as I can tell, good, but it is very little for the middle class.
Strengthen America's Workforce - this is an overlap with his education plan, so I will detail it there.
Strengthen and Enforce International Trade Agreements - The most interesting part of this plan is getting China to start playing fair in the global economy, which would mean a general cost increase to American consumers (who benefit the most from this) but a boon to American business (who are hurt by this). I'm intrigued, to say the least. His defense of US copyright is less fun, but it is against obvious counterfitters, and so doesn't have fair use implications, which is what I would worry about. Money for retraining is also good.
Support Small Businesses -His health care plan factors in here a bit, but the rest of this section is small measures, aimed at reducing (not eliminating) taxes to small business and making it easier to get loans (but not outright giving them capital). On the whole, this plan aims at lessening the cost of being a small business owner at a minimal cost to government. Sound if unexciting.
Investment in American Innovation - This section offers tax credits for research, words without plans about the need for more money to American scientists, and expansion of broadband, and addresses the digital divide. It's almost as though we have a presidential candidate (besides Ron Paul) who understands the internet - better, we have one who sees the internet as a potential common good.
Address the Subprime Mortgage Issue - This section is filled with a technocrats jargon, and it is simultaneously impressive and rather inaccessible. There's a lot, aimed at hitting many aspects of credit, and it sounds good, but again I don't have the knowledge to evaluate how good it is. It's reasoned out, and logically it makes sense, but gah. So much to look through, so much to go over, and when the summaries are hard to read I can only imagine the actual legislation will be rough.
I'll surmise the rest of this section, without excessive detail. If you feel the need to read a specific section, go for it, but I recommend no more than one section per sitting. It's rather dense.
A crackdown on tax havens is good, as a way to get money that should be paid to the government into the treasury is a good idea, and I have a hard time seeing how that money is better utilized in the hands of its rightful owners. Promotion of a competitive marketplace is good. New ways to protect intellectual property is good, so long as it supports the creative commons, and doesn't criminalize such activity as file sharing. His "help low income workers enter the job market" plan is decent, and includes the knowledge of multiple factors contributing to both un- and em- ployability. A living wage is good.

Disabilities - this section is bare bones, but the sentence it contains is nice, and it is good to include everyone. Community living I hope sounds like a good idea, but I am a bit skeptical.

Education - He likes the goal of No Child Left Behind (NCLB), but is upset at the implementation. He finds the dropout rate appalling. There are other qualms, but I like to focus on the many kids who don't make it out of high school, rather than those who have to take remedial classes in college. Not that both aren't problems; one just seems more grave to me.
His head-start plans extend to infancy, making him the second democrat fundraiser to tackle education that young. It includes providing child care for working class families, which is always good. He'll fund NCLB, and make it so that schools that need improvement are granted more funding, rather than punished. It's novel, really. He also has about eight plans aimed at getting kids motivated, the help they need, the idea that they can go to college, and instruction appropriate to the language they know, all geared at reducing the dropout rate. Yay. He proposing a military-academy like teaching system, with paid tuition in return for years in the profession, which is also really good. " He will also provide incentives to give teachers paid common planning time so they can collaborate to share best practices." Yay again. College tax credits (at around $4,000) for just the first year for most eligible Americans is a nice move, but with too many qualifiers to really stick. Simplified financial aid forms for college also sound good, and I am rather excited about the whole of this plan in general. It has the ring to it of someone who understands how public education works, and has an eye towards fixing flaws instead of abolishing the whole system.

Energy and Environment - He refers to oil consumption as an addictive behavior, and he doesn't question global warming, preferring to list observed changes that are negative. I'll ask John to verify the list, but here they are: "glaciers are melting faster; the polar ice caps are shrinking; trees are blooming earlier; more people are dying in heat waves; species are migrating, and eventually many will become extinct." I know at the least that heat wave death is offset by fewer deaths due to cold, but that doesn't mean more people aren't dying in heat waves. That's critique of his framing, however, and not critique of his knowledge or plan.
The carbon cap market appears again, as is appropriate. There's a good many plans here to fund clean energy programs, train clean energy workers, and help businesses become green, or start out that way. Seems like the sensible thing to do. Less reasonable, as the economy experiences all sorts of problems with food shortages, is the many plans to improve biofuels production. It is nice to know that Obama's plan is aimed at rural investment, though. An increase in fuel economy standards is another blow for sanity and intelligence, and the rest of the post (energy efficiency, US leadership in climate change) is good, good stuff. Excepting biofuels (and thats a large exception to make), this is a good plan. Not great, but certainly decent.

Ethics - The section opens with jabs at the Bush Administartion, and the segues into good statements, like this one: "Obama will create a centralized Internet database of lobbying reports, ethics records, and campaign finance filings in a searchable, sortable and downloadable format." Searchable is key here, and that is all kinds of exciting. This is something Creative Commons founder and now anti-corruption worker Lawrence Lessig has called for, in such brilliant speeches as this one. This reform takes precedence for me, though independent watchdogs and campaign finance reform are fine too. The searchability of databases is mentioned in several other places in this section, and that's great. He understands the power of the internet to check on the government, and then he drops this little slice of awesome "Sunlight Before Signing: Too often bills are rushed through Congress and to the president before the public has the opportunity to review them. As president, Obama will not sign any non-emergency bill without giving the American public an opportunity to review and comment on the White House website for five days." Wow. There's lots of gems here, and the whole thing reads as though someone watched every problem with lobbyists for the past seven years, maybe twenty, and then sat down and wrote out how to prevent every single one. Not that the methods will be terribly effective at first, but my god, they will be there. This is fantastic, and on this alone, he'd make a great attorney general. This is an incredible chunk of solutions. Simply incredible.

Faith - I'll start by saying the idea of this section scares me. The section is small, contains a video of a speech, and allays my fears with this quote "Senator Obama also laid down principles for how to discuss faith in a pluralistic society, including the need for religious people to translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values during public debate". I like the discussion of the role of faith with moral imperialism, so this is good.

Family - This overlaps with a lot of sections, notably economy, education, civil rights (where absent fathers are concerned), and healthcare. I'll start with unique mentions, like universal seven sick days a year, for every employed person. A new automatic workplace pension program is proposed, which seems like it should be different than Social Security, but functions on the same government mechanism of pay removed from wages (only this time, moved to accounts that are different in a way I don't understand), and is coupled with more tax credits. The overall family plan is good, and it is good that the effect these many programs have on the family is recognized, but the section feels largely redundant.

Fiscal - The problem is simply stated here, as tax cuts and increasing debt both leaving an awful lot of money out of the national treasury. Combined, they make a nice $8 trillion. Unsurprisingly, the Bush tax cuts are gone. More surprisingly, the public accountability and watchdog proposed in ethics are both expected to reduce pork barrel spending to 2001 levels. Competitively bid on contracts are mentioned, and so efficiency must be the money saver here. Wasteful Medicare spending, wasteful oil and natural gas subsidies, and wasteful subsidies to the private student loan industry are all marked for elimination. Wasteful is a good word to put in front of a program to justify cutting it. Ending tax havens is addressed again. It's too bare a program for those who really want to see a stab at fiscal conservatism, though the flaw has no plans. I'd expect this section to change the most by the time the election cycle is over, to accommodate moderate voters motivated by fiscal responsibility.

Foreign Policy - This page has a militancy to it, and a moral purpose behind it, which is great for those who idealize political theorists that are not Machiavelli. His "Ending the war in Iraq" plan shares one caveat with Hillary Clinton's, and that is the shift from ending the war as a senator to ending the war as a president. It leaves a year to campaign, where valid action should be taken towards this end, and where it hasn't been and won't be, because the president will fix this, and not the senate. Otherwise, his record on Iraq in fantastic, and I'm all for having a candidate that didn't support the war. His withdrawal plan takes 16 months, leaving it slower than Kucinich, Gravel, and especially Richardson, but unlike Hillary, his plan has a determined end. Sort of. Some troops kept to protect the embassy and US personnel, and some troops so that "if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda." That quote sounds a bit absurd, as al Qaeda is only barely paramilitary, and its actions lend itself to hideouts and not headquarters. Leaving troops just doesn't strike me as good, and expecting those troops to find a nice enemy barracks strikes me as silly. Moving on, he calls for an Iraqi constitutional convention, under the guidance of the United Nations. Bragging about the aggressiveness of his plan for involving Syria and Iran in Iraq's border security strikes me as silly again, but having such a plan is good. Money for reconstruction is good, and $2 billion sure is a lot of money, and the aim of humanitarian aid to Iraqis in bordering countries is good, but I am wary of money sent into chaotic political environments.
Iran - While he condemns Iran for denying the Holocaust and having sought out nuclear weapons (both of which are easy to condemn, and one of which affects political realities in dealing with Iran), he says "but Obama believes that we have not exhausted our non-military options in confronting this threat; in many ways, we have yet to try them", which is a good point. He favors tough diplomacy, which is a rather blunt instrument and an unsavory approach. It's offering a child the choice between a toy and a beating, and while it means the choice is obvious, it doesn't really allow the country much dignity in making the choice. Hopefully, Iran would begrudgingly play along.
He favors actual diplomacy and engagement with world leaders instead of refusing to talk to belligerent states, which is a "well, duh" sort of a thing for me, and so good to see in place. Several multinational groups and programs are mentioned and supported (the section is long, so you'll have to go there for more details). An important note is working with East Asian nations to check China.
Nuclear Weapons - Keeping nukes away from terrorists is a good start. A global ban on the production of nuclear materials is interesting, but may feed the black market more than controlled production would. Hopefully, nukes are such a good that can be permanently secured away, but people are really good at getting around restraints. Good objective, though. Sanctions against North Korea and Iran for break the non-proliferation treaty seem a bit late and a bit useless. Working with Russia to reduce stockpiles, halt production, and move away from cold war readiness is a decent move, and made politically viable by his refusal to eliminate a US stockpile so long as nuclear weapons exist.
Building a 21st Century Military - More guys in boots for the Army and the Marines is good. Expanding the National Guard to serve overseas is something I'm opposed to. Adapting the military to new capabilities only makes sense, and restoring trust to soldiers who were sent into battle ill-equipped and untrained (perhaps by equipping and training them?) is sensible.
He makes more good points, the most interesting of which is a Director of National Intelligence insulated from political pressure by having a fixed term. Technocratic but smart.
Oh, and in his last bit about standing by Israel, he mentions missile defense. Gah!

Healthcare - The first part of his program can be boiled down to a "National minimum Healthcare Standard", similar to a minimum wage. This standard will be part of a plan all Americans are welcome to partake of (a plan provided by the government, and will be enforced by a government agency that monitors all health insurance plans and makes sure they hold up to the minimum standard. Employers will have to make meaningful contributions to private insurance plans that exceed the national minimum standard, or they will have to pay into the national plan. Portability (from job to job or to unemployment) will be facilitated by the new agency. Two other important points from the first part of this section: all children have to be covered, by this plan or another, as a matter of law; states are allowed to experiment with healthcare programs, provided the guarantee the federal minimum standard in their coverage.

The second section is focused on modernizing healthcare. Lots of emphasis is placed on the cost-cutting use of information technology, coupled with more complete coverage that can result with everyone operating from the safe information about a patient. There's a piece about reimbursement of insurance companies to help them deal with the costs of a catastrophic illness, provided that the reimbursement is used to make insurance still affordable. The section ends with two statements, one about wanting to break up insurance trusts to foster free-market competition, and one about generic drug accessibility to US consumers, including safe drugs from other countries. The statements about transparency help place trust in the power of consumer choice, and the rest of this section aims to let the free market function so as to greater benefit the consumer while still making the business a viable one. It's a very center-left approach, using government to keep capitalism viable, and making sure that government power, even in guaranteeing such a right as healthcare, serves primarily to regulate and promote competition; that the government provides a standard of healthcare functions more to raise the bare minimum than to substitute government provided goods for privately provided goods.

The last section of his healthcare page is devoted to a series of diverse issues. He covers lots of ground, supporting biomedical research as well as fighting AIDS worldwide, and protecting children from lead and mercury poisoning. What is remarkable about this bit here, though, is the way he addresses disabilities and autism. He mentions his background as a civil rights lawyer, and he connects that to advocacy work for these people, understanding how different things need to be so that these people can "have equal rights and opportunities", and in doing all of this, he treats these people with human dignity.

Homeland Security - While the section could be terrifying, it was instead rather mundane, arguing for protecting chemical plants against terrorist attack, tracking spent nuclear fuel, protecting drinking water, and protecting against radioactive seepage. Run of the mill "yes, lets protect ourselves sensibly" stuff. It also calls for evacuation plans for special needs evacuees (elderly, low-income, disabled, homeless), and for centralized databases to be formed after an emergency so that separated families can reconnect. Simple, sensible, a tad dull.

Immigration - His plan summary is too brief for my tastes. His mention of "additional infrastructure" could be read as fence (which is what I think is intended) but is too vague to know for certain. His notions of making legal immigration easier, faster, and allowing for large families seems sensible. Crackdowns on those who employ illegals will further drive the practice underground, but doesn't seem to me to be a sufficient way to remove the appeal of immigrating illegally. Provisions for "undocumented immigrants who are in good standing" to legally become US citizens are good; the fine, mandatory learning English, and movement to the back of the line for legal immigration are okay, but nothing spectacular, and is probably a move towards moderates and centrists. Promoting economic development in Mexico is a good move, though it ignores the large percentage of illegal immigrants from the rest of Latin America (unless it aims to employ them in Mexico). It's an okay plan, and I'm sure the .pdf fleshes it out more, but on the whole it is more towards the center than I would like. It fits in with a legalistic mindset, although it fails to address those in the nation illegally and in good standing for the duration of becoming a citizen, and it fails to address those in the nation illegally who are not in good standing.

Iraq - What is said here overlaps with the first section I've discussed under "Foreign Policy", so my analysis of his Iraq plan can be found there.

Poverty - This section overlaps (as one would expect) with Economy, Civil Rights, Education, and Energy and the Environment, leading a sensible observer to believe that Obama understands that seemingly simple problems are complex and have complex solutions. Since there is a lot of ground to cover, I'll hit upon the notable points and aim at avoiding redundancy. Federal oversight in urban planning and dollars towards public transportation for low income areas is good. A "Green Jobs Corp" aimed at disadvantaged youth that employs them in energy efficiency fields and features job training is very cool, provided it actually happens. "Promise Neighborhoods", modeled after a program from Harlem, and aimed at providing community support networks for youth in high-crime/high-violence/low academic performance neighborhoods is interesting; like all small model programs proposed by candidates, I am skeptical of its effectiveness and of its genuine benefit to that nation, but the proposal seems solid. No new drawbacks are presented in this section; programs I fin fault with her I have found fault with in sections prior to this one.

Rural - This is another surprising place to find programs for yeoman farmers (Richardson's site being the first), but Obama has a plan to help make being a small farmer more economically viable and competitive. The gist of that is requiring nation of origin labeling on food, allowing for organic certification, promotion of local food networks, and breaking up of farmer-meat packer trusts, which discriminate against independent farmers. Seemingly hypocritically, he is also willing to make it easier for farmers to own meat packing operations. There are also lots of environmental protections included, incentives to make the rural life better (internet, doctors, teachers), and support for biofuels, that latter of which I discuss above in his "green energy" section.

Service - This involves a lot of jobs for youth (and some for retirees). More than tripling the size of AmeriCorps, doubling the PeaceCorp, and creating new service organizations are a large part of his plan here. Also important are 50 mandatory hours of community service/year for middle and high school students, as well as 100 mandatory hours for college students accepting a $4,000 scholarship (mentioned in "Education), and a requirement that at least 25% of college workstudy jobs become service-study. Being someone who chose workstudy tutoring as a job because it was meaningful, and someone annoyed at the lack of civic duty generally found in the population, this stuff is great. Also, it hearkens back to "ask what you can do for your country", and the notion of willing sacrifice to promote change, and these are good things. The approach may be a bit heavy-handed, but given that there seems to be lots of freedom of choice as to what community service is done, it doesn't seem an excessive imposition to me. People won't like it, and its moral imperialism to assume that they should suck it up and do it, but I have to admit, I like the idea.

Seniors and Social Security - He doesn't want to privatize Social Security or raise the retirement age, and he instead wants to increase the maximum amount of income that can be taxed into social security, raising it up from the current, just under 100,000 limit. I'd say abolish the maximum entirely, but certainly raising the limit is a step in the right direction. Reforming corporate bankruptcy law contains gems like "telling companies that they cannot issue executive bonuses while cutting worker pensions", and seems a fairly comprehensive way to place the burden of a companies failure (cost foremost among that burden) on the executives and not the workers. Automatic workplace pensions (that employees can opt-out of) are another good move, and all tax credits offered seem reasonable. Affordable healthcare is key to this segment of the population, so lots of his healthcare reform aims are stated here. Improving the Senior Corps also sounds neat.

Technology - His defense of the internet as free and open and as a democratizing entity is incredible; needless to say, he support net neutrality. He also support net neutrality without saying "net neutrality", and instead explains the debate and why he doesn't support internet providers being allowed to charge sites for faster load times. He genuinely understands the internet, and he likes it, and he wants it to remain as it is. Yay is an understatement.
Encouraging diversity in broadcast media is another good point, though he doesn't say he will break up media conglomerates. Sure would be nice if he did.
Public broadcasting online? Realizing that kids may be on the internet and that it can be beneficial to them? This is fantastic. Optional safety controls, and ratings instead of automatic censorship, put the parenting back in the hands of parents (and not the government), and give parents the tools needed to effectively parent is very good. His whole emphasis on safety without violating the first amendment is all kinds of sensible, and attacking the people who "abuse the internet to exploit children" through increased law enforcement resources is again the sensible way to go.
His protection of privacy is good; his support of "updating surveillance laws and ensuring that law enforcement investigations and intelligence-gathering relating to U.S. citizens are done only under the rule of law" leads me to believe he favors legalizing more forms of surveillance, which is a bit scary.
There's a lot of redundancy with his ethics reform here, as the internet is key in that, but it's more fleshed out, and it's almost tasty.
A person (and, presumably, the appropriate number of underlings) responsible for technology is very good. This office will also allow for both the communication network recommended by the 9/11 commission report and the capacities necessary to avoid many of the Katrina aftermath problems.
Expanded broadband and wireless is good.
The section is gigantic, and lots of it is elaborations of uses of technology touched upon in other sections. The overwhelming point is that he gets technology, and he gets the internet, and he would make sane and sensible polices regarding the internet and technology while protecting freedom of speech and the consumer against abuses by business.

Veterans - Veterans deserve healthcare, and everything our government can offer them to honor them for their service. Special attention paid to mental health and to integration back into civilian life are good. The section is a bit thin on detail, but that's where the .pdf can come in handy.

~

Conclusion

Barack Obama is a knowledgable individual, whose technocratic vocabulary seems geared to overriding fears about his inexperience. This is a double-edged thing, as it means that he sounds like he knows more than I do (and, to be fair, he almost certainly does), but it also means that I can't adequately analyze a lot, especially in the earlier sections. My impression is that he knows his stuff, and that he is fully capable of drafting and initiating legislation that will be effective; this is the role of a Senator, not a President, but it is valuable knowledge to have, especially when a lot of what a president promises has to be handed to someone else to introduce as a law.

There are some tough sells for me hear, notably on Iraq and Iran, and on security (as mentioned in background statements) and Immigration. I think these polices are too militant, too hard-line and dismissive of the humanity of the people being dealt with. I am, however, won over by the overwhelmingly brilliant ethics reform, and the generally agreeable policies everywhere else. The transparency offered by ethics reform provides for a new check and balance, of voter awareness on corporate campaign donation, and also generally allows for a better government, more responsible to voters. Not everything is as comprehensive as I would like, which probably means that it is doable and even in its present form would have a possible if hard fight through Congress.

Barack Obama is a gifted senator, and in that office would do our nation a great good for as many years as he served. He'd make a keen Attorney General, as his legal mind is sharp. Other offices suit him less, with the exception (as is most relevant here) of the Presidency, where he'd be a principled person with noble ideas and the sense to not expand his own power. Indeed, a lot of what he proposes limits the benefits to elected officials, and it is reassuring to see that politicians exist who are still willing to do that.

For Democratic candidate to the Presidency of the United States of America in 2008, I endorse Barack Obama.