Politicalness.

[beccatoria]

Please don't feel obligated to respond to this; I'm aware it's a touchy topic and one where passions run high. But I feel that for myself, I should take some space to record how I'm feeling about this right now. It concerns Hillary Clinton and the Democractic nomination.

Firstly, I should be honest, I prefer Clinton. I like her position on healthcare more (the most major issue to me outside of restoration of civil liberties), I like her history of supporting women's rights and gay rights more (Obama's history of voting "present" on pro-life issues especially worries me), I like that she has experience, and I have an aunt and uncle who love their senator and they're from New York not Illinois.

So there you have my contradictory mess of objective and personal reasons for my preference.

Something in my gut says that Obama's going to win. And if that happens, I will vote for him readily. I will support him. I will hope every other damn Democrat and Independent does the same.

I think that he has the potential to be an excellent president. But I worry that currently his campaign is choosing to build up a cult of personality that I find a little creepy. I honestly believe that he does have some very good thoughts about the presidency, but I don't know what they are right now. Because everybody's too busy telling me that he stands for Change I Can Believe In, and nobody's told me what that change is.

So there you have my feelings - as briefly as I could explain them - though I will try to answer any questions anyone may have about the decision and I'm happy to be presented with new information.

The issue that really sparked this post though, is something entirely aside from my preference for Clinton's candidacy over Obama's (I just thought I ought to be upfront about that, and I ought to give my reasons why).

The real reason for this post has to do with the increasingly, ludicrously, insultingly sexist attacks levelled at Clinton and the fact that very few people are willing to stand up and say, "Look. This here is sexism. It's wrong. It ought to stop."

This article pretty much explains what I'm talking about and is a wonderful denouncement of sexism in our political arenas.

It's an endorsement for Clinton - I feel I have to make that clear at the outset, and that's also the reason I thought I should "come clean" about my own preference. But I think that it raises really important issues even if she is not your choice of candidate (a decision I very much respect).

Because while it may be a parallel issue - or while it may be impossible to extricate the sexist attacks on Clinton from the ongoing political race - it's also a very different issue. The fact that no matter how many people claim we're "post-feminist", it ain't true. And even if you think that Clinton will be the worst president that ever prezzed, the way to express that is not through attacks on her gender.

Comments

Regarding what Obama actually stands for

[hmpf.livejournal.com]

I found this post here helpful:

http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2008/02/obama-actually.html

Doesn't sound too bad.

(Link found here: http://nielsenhayden.com/makinglight/archives/009905.html#009905)

- Yes, I'm not an American, but firstly, the whole world cares about American politics, and secondly, well, I am a student of American studies. So I try to keep up to date on your elections. *g*

Re: Regarding what Obama actually stands for

[beccatoria.livejournal.com]

Thanks for the link! I've skimmed it I will read it in detail later. I certainly agree there's a lot of really great stuff there. Some of it I was aware of, some I was not, all of it interesting.

But it doesn't change my basic worry. I was always pretty certain that he had a lot of strong positions of issues. In fact, I even knew a few of them because I looked into them while trying to make a decision about who I preferred and who I thought was better on healthcare, etc., (see post).

I don't like that even though he has all these great, strong ideas, his campaign seems to focus, instead, on his cult of personality. It's not that I think that's all there is to him. I know that's not all there is to him. I'm worried about what it says about us as a nation - and to a degree what it says about his campaign strategy - that we'd rather scream his name like he's in a boyband, than hear about this stuff.

- Yes, I'm not an American, but firstly, the whole world cares about American politics, and secondly, well, I am a student of American studies. So I try to keep up to date on your elections. *g*

Hey, it's not like I'm living there right now or that this'll affect me technically except in the way it'll affect us all. I understand your interest and am grateful for yet another person to discuss this with.

Thanks again for the link. :)

This may sound a bid weird, but...

[hmpf.livejournal.com]

I think politics can't do entirely without the personality cult thing, occasionally. At least not in this non-ideal world we have. Basically, you have to find a way to motivate people who don't usually 'think politically', who aren't very informed on actual policies and who in some cases may not even be *able* to grasp complex situations etc., to care, at least for a little while, if you want to move something. This is still easiest to do if you can make them care about a person, who can serve as an embodiment of goals/ideas/values, because those alone are usually too abstract for a lot of people to get really enthusiastic about them.

Of course, charismatic leaders *are* problematic. They may lead in the wrong direction; they may be all charisma and no substance; and most important of all, they make it easier for people to switch off their own brains and well, just 'follow their leader' (though from what I've read, with Obama's record of aiming for more transparency, he seems to have at least the *intention* of actually making it easier for people to make their own minds up about political decisions and processes). Anyway, the thing is... I'm not sure we're 'evolved'/enlightened enough yet to do without them. It seems to me that most successful political/social movements had their charismatic figures. Not that I see a real 'movement' of that type in America at the moment - but I think that this need for the occasional charismatic figure may extend to politics as a whole.

Re: This may sound a bid weird, but...

[beccatoria.livejournal.com]

And American politics has always been a lot more about personal charisma than British politics (I have no idea about Germany).

I'm aware that we need people who inspire. Actually, when I first heard Obama's speeches, they sent shivers down my spine. I think it's incredibly important to be able to connect and motivate a too-often disaffected electorate.

But there's a difference between massive charisma and electric delivery - as I saw early in Obama's campaign - and the way his campaign now seems to mimic the behaviour of superstar rockshows or, more worryingly for me given Obama's attempts to appeal to "people of faith" (a term I hate because I find it implicitly insulting to me), megachurch fundraisers?

To put it another way, it's not that he has this cult of personality that is implicitly worrying to me; it's the fact that he seems more interested in growing that following than explaining his points? (I say "him", I mean "campaign decision").

I mean, seriously. People keep talking about "the feeling they get in his presence," and stuff. Campaigners who focus on the experience of meeting him when trying to convert people rather than talking about his policies.

I think the thing that really TERRIFIES me is if he loses, in some ways. Because there are so many people who are so invested in him, they're threatening that they won't bother to vote if Clinton wins. This is not how democracy is supposed to work - a hissy fit, like, if I can't have the guy I want, I'm going to sulk. When Michelle Obama responds to questions like, "If Clinton won the nomination, would you vote for her," with "I'd have to think about that," before launching into the need for party unity. (Note: I have no trouble with Obama's wife considering whether or not she'd support Clinton, but not when she's trying to suggest that party unity is paramount, and it's worth noting that her husband's campaign claims not to be one of attack politics, but he says things like, "All of Clinton's supporters will vote for me, but not all of my supporters will vote for her," in some unilateral, sweeping statement. Heck, it may be true, but I don't want the fact that I'm politically minded, not cult-minded, to be construed as some sort of flaw.)

In some ways, I think perhaps it was an inevitable result of someone so charismatic, handsome, intelligent and groundbreaking appearing on the political scene. But the fact remains that for all Obama's claims at unity, if he loses he'll prove massively divisive. Even if Obama is very good at criticising his opponent gracefully (and I think that he's genuinely committed to that), his supporters are desperate to slander Clinton as a lying cheater at every turn; the reverse seems to be less true.

It's not Obama and what he stands for that worries me, or that he's trying to appeal to people personally. I have issues with some of his actions and policies, but nothing that would stop me from voting for him or believing he's capable. It's the turn some aspects of his supporters have taken that leaves me...worried.

It's just...more of a cult of personality than I'm entirely comfortable with?

Re: This may sound a bid weird, but...

[hmpf.livejournal.com]

>it's the fact that he seems more interested in growing that following than explaining his points?

Fair enough. I can't say I'm following the elections closely enough to have noticed this - I mainly just read a couple of blogs and news websites, and they haven't tended to focus on this aspect yet.

>Because there are so many people who are so invested in him, they're threatening that they won't bother to vote if Clinton wins.

Are there really that many? If so, those people are profoundly stupid, and I'm a bit baffled... I was - again, just from my few blogs etc. - under the impression that a great number of people are basically happy (or, in some cases, distressed) because they 'like' *both* of the main candidates! And frankly, I can't imagine any sane Democrat wanting to enable the Republicans to win this election!