It’s Only January
I read a very astute comment recently in an online discussion at Airbag (a site which bears a recent champion refit by its talented designer–owner Greg, by the way) about the current American political fracas known as the Democratic primaries:
The majority of Americans don’t even know who the hell is running against George Bush, let alone give a damn about the Democratic Caucuses.
Quite so. If you’re a political junkie like me, you’ve already read endless pages of opinion and conjecture, and you’ve already listened to unceasing blather and baffleglab about the race to choose a Democrat challenger for George W. Bush. And it’s only January!
Chances are, most of what you’ve read or heard or watched has been about Howard Dean, since his candidacy is the most obviously unconventional, and therefore most interesting to the political press. Republicans have saved their harshest words for Dean, since his popularity is something they fear.
All that hot air, and Dean barely wheezed across the finish line in the Iowa caucuses, finishing third. As Paul Wells wrote yesterday, “There is an irreducible quantum of good clean fun to every vote, and all the best efforts of pollsters and speechwriters and world-weary columnists cannot steal that fun from the voters to whom it properly belongs.”
Perhaps I would add that is easy both to overestimate and to underestimate the average voter, since there is no such thing as an average voter anyway, especially not in a country as large and multi-hued as the United States.
For the record, so far, Howard Dean seems like the best choice to run against Bush to me. But I’m not an average voter, I’m not from Iowa or New Hampshire, and I’m not even allowed to vote in the United States. I don’t even have enough American friends to make any difference at all, really. I can only stand back, agog at the spectacle.
And, again, it’s only January; the Democratic National Convention isn’t until the summer. All this just to get to that, and then there’s still another six months until the actual election. Then, after hundreds of cups of coffee, one or two dental checkups, work, vacations, marriages, divorce, birth, death, war and peace, then the world will actually find out if Americans will return to the normal fashion of electing leaders — you know, where the victor is the one who receives the most votes.
Isn’t it easier here in Canada where we always know who’s going to win? Really, the mystery in Canadian politics is not what’s going to happen, but when it’s going to happen. I don’t know how Americans stand this super extended club remix version of politics, where the whole political system dances on one spot for a year or more. (Although some might argue the Canadian political system has been on pause for about ten years now.) All that to say that my first quote is valuable. It’s easy to sink into the swamp of political muck right now, and a single mouthful of it is more than most people can stomach. So most people don’t pay attention, and they’ll keep on not paying attention until the election has actually passed without their votes.
What I’m trying to say is that if you care about the next American election, then you’ll need to rise above the muck about now. If you read every about every candidate’s statement, and every other candidate’s rebuttle, and listen to each carefully formed opinion by The Experts on whatever liberal/conservative-biased network, you’ll drown. Time to investigate for yourself, to make your own conclusions.
Previously: Do the Russians Love Their Children Too?
Subsequently: Skewer and Grill to a Crisp
Comments
Check this out.
As it turns out, my top choice according to the website is Kucinich (100% score). Second I have Sharpton, then Kerry, then Dean, then Clark . Bush is actually the only (obviously) Republican on my list, but of course he is down at #8.
Anyway, I don’t quite agree that our (Canadian) system is that much different from the States. It’s just that up here we tend to know a little more about the parties out there. In the States, Democratic or Republican, it varies based on the individual, and then only slightly. I think that Canada has a more ‘personal party’ political system, whereas the U.S. is more ‘personal person.’
I think it was Michael Moore who wrote, in “Stupid White Men,” that he’d rather know the truth about who’s fucking him than have someone who puts up an act but ends up fucking him anyway (as an analogy to the U.S. bipartisan system, in its current incarnation).
— Bosko | Jan. 21, 2004 — 6 PM
So I took the test and I also scored 100% with Kucinich, although Sharpton and Kerry were close behind.
The problem with a test like that is that it tells you who you, in a perfect world, would want to be president. Idealism needs to be balanced with realism: I would never choose Kucinich to lead the Democrats because they’d get creamed by an American public that doesn’t wholly agree with my pretty lefty perspective.
Also, just to be clarify, it gave Kucinich 100%, but when I actually examined his positions, I don’t agree with everything. I am not “strongly opposed” to U.S. involvement in NAFTA.
I am also do not “strongly favor” the immediate removal of American troops from Iraq.
Anyway. About the difference between the U.S. and Canadian systems: you’re right in some ways; American congressional representatives and senators are elected much more on the basis of their personal platform rather than the party. That’s the bi-partisan system at work.
Personally, I prefer such a system, where elected representatives are encouraged to have personal positions, rather than tow the party line. Canadians may know about the different political parties and their beliefs, but in the four or five years between elections, it’s meaningless knowledge since only the majority party has any power at all, and then it’s power reserved for the executive (the Cabinet), not for the legislature (ordinary MPs).
— Luke | Jan. 22, 2004 — 4 PM
Hmm…I come up with Kucinich (100% score). Second I have Sharpton, then Kerry, then Clark, then Dean. However, the problem is that the questions all seem to be weighted fairly equally.
For example, Kerry voted for the war in Congress. That is an immediate disqualifier for me.
Or, Sharpton. The whole Tawana Bradley thing nullifies him for me.
But it really doesn’t matter for me in the primaries for two reasons: One, California is at the end of the line of primaries (June, I think) and Two I am a Green and can’t vote outside of my party in a primary.
At this point, if Dean, Kucinich, or Clark faced off against Bush, they would have my vote, they would have my vote.
— beerzie boy | Jan. 22, 2004 — 5 PM