The Buddy President

National Review is a “conservative commentary on American politics, news and culture,” and I make the journey to the right from my center soapbox about twice a week to read about what stereotypical conservatives have to say about what's going on in the good ole US of A.

Two days ago I happened upon an article by Rich Lowry on how Obama is tricking young voters entitled “Obama's Dupes.”

Expecting to hear about another Bachmann-esque conspiracy rant and rave, I skimmed through the first few sentences.

Skimming turned to reading and I finished up the one page article feeling inspired.

Inspired and pissed off.

Now, I have no problem with a conservative having a point - I would be just as inspired and pissed off if it was a leftist that brought this up again.
I have a problem with the fact that his point is even an issue.

In short, he makes the argument that young voters flocked to Obama in '08 because of his promise of hope and change. Fine - they were duped just like any other constituent who honestly believes anything a potential President (or in office one for that matter) has to say. 

But the unsettling argument continues on to point out that it'll just happen again - why? Well, because Obama has that "cool and cerebral style," because of the "slow jam" on the Fallon show, because he's like their buddy.

AAHHHHHHH!!!!!!!

Their buddy?!?!

I can remember the first time I heard about this - when Bush was first elected. In interviews, people said they voted for him because he seemed like a good guy, someone you'd want to grab a beer with. 

Why the fuck would you want the President to be someone you'd grab a beer with?

Wouldn't you rather he skip the beer and spend some time...oh I dunno...running the god damn country?!

While Lowry's post focused on young liberals, this phenomenon is not cloistered in the leftist lair. It's a widespread factor in deciding who to vote for. 

And this kind of thinking points to something that I have long wrestled with: the cultural politics of my generation. 

In other words, my generation (I'm 25) does a damn good job of avoiding politics. And when we do encounter it, we treat it like a Facebook event - something we can ignore or pay attention to based on who's gonna be there, how much fun we think we'll have and whether it happens at the same time as Glee or not. 

Well shit people, it's not a frat party. 

Politics happen whether you RSVP or not - the only thing is that if you don't show up, or possibly even worse, if you show up with a punch bowl blend of ignorance and arrogance, the downfall of our future economically, socially, politically, globally and yes, culturally, will catch up with you quicker than that 5th gin and tonic.

Politics can be culturally stimulating - but we as a culture, our generation, has to make it so. And that does not include having a beer with the President. The President should be chosen based on his ability to work for you, for the issues that effect you and will effect you. 

But since most people my age don't know what those are, we fall back on how likable a guy is. 

Groan....

Make politics part of your cultural existence - educate yourself on the things going on around you outside of fashion, fucking and Facebook. 

Create culture that mirrors politics and you'll see that through the creation of a culture that is tied to politics, the political trajectory can be moved. 

We can't change politics through a few non profits and a few rallies. We have to change it through the cultural lens we use to see it. 

Only then will we honestly appreciate the realities of our nation's issues. 

So, put down the Bud Light and get to know Obama as a President, not as a buddy. 

And get to know the system he's a part of. 

Pretty sure once you do, you won't want to have a beer with any candidate.

Apathy and Extremism

On my flight from one side of the world to the next (Sweden to Los Angeles), I had time to do some reading. Along with various newspapers, I read Eric Hoffer’s The True Believer. If you haven’t read any of his work, I can highly suggest it as a sterling representation of mass minded thinking and action in today’s world. The daily news complimented this read rather well, or badly, depending on how you look at it. For those of us who read the news, it’s no surprise to know that the world is in a state of disarray: wars, famine, poverty, broken diplomacy sprinkled with the push and pull of extremism vs. apathy.
In truth, there is no such thing as apathy. It is something I like to refer to as “no, no, leave me alone.” It’s what you get when you go down south and realize that some people still think blacks should walk on the street when a white man comes down the sidewalk. It is a resistance to change that can be as strong and intolerable as extremism, so in effect, it is. It can also be a complete disregard for what is going on in the world, either because you have a weak heart and don’t think your HMO will cover more anxiety pills or it is due to again, the unwillingness to see things change b/c so far, they’re looking pretty good for you. The disregard is not apathy, because apathy implies that the person knows what’s going on and doesn’t care. If people knew what was going on, they would care. To quote a bumper sticker (yes, I’m that classy), “If you’re not pissed off, you’re not paying attention.” In the US, with our large variation of cultures and people, we have the push and pull of both sides. I can recall being 16, too young to vote, sitting by a table trying to sign people up to vote. I got more “Nah, I don’t vote” answers than any other. Ummm....what?! That’s like telling a doctor you don’t need to know what’s wrong b/c you’re sure he’ll figure it out. However, then you somehow reserve the right to complain about it later. No, doesn’t work that way. If you get cancer and refuse to acknowledge it till the 11th hour, tough shit.
And then, on the extremist front, they seemingly care so much that they overshoot the goal and blow up the village to save the people. Take the Tea Party, for example, since they don’t get enough press. They care so much about the welfare of their beloved US of A, they’ll threaten the lives of constitutionally protected officials b/c they democratically disagree with them...right.
I’ve begun doing some research for an essay of sorts on the mindset of extremists, hence my interest in Eric Hoffer. I’m looking at the reasons why people become extremist, who they are and how we can avoid feeding more people to the brainwashing of extremist ideologies. Hoffer says that people become extremist either to produce a serious change in their surroundings or because one has already occurred and they are responding to it.
Interestingly enough, these two push and pull opposites share a common red thread: the belief that they alone possess very little power to suggest change. When one feels powerless, they usually do one of two things: find someone who has power to lead or shrink up in their shell and ignore whatever it is they feel powerless against. So, since we can’t beat cancer, we choose to ignore it, or we jump off a bridge in the hopes of killing the damn bastard. Either way, kind of a shitty deal. So, in short, we the people, have to accept, have to come to the realization that within us is an incredible amount of power, to faclitate change and to move our country closer to what it needs to be, thereby affecting all the countries we hold sway over (unfortunately, a lot). For the people, of the people, by the people. If the people don’t step up, then we’re a country of sheep, for sheep and by sheep...baaaahhhhd.

Authoritarian Arizona?

The Republican governor of Arizona, Jan Brewer signed a bill on Friday that requires Arizona police to question people who they feel may be in the states illegally. The law thereby demands that immigrants carry their alien registration documents with them at all times.
The bill also targets those who hire illegal immigrant day laborers or knowingly transport them.
The Republican governor also issued an executive order that requires additional training for local officers on how to implement the law without engaging in racial profiling or discrimination.

So that's the basic gist of the law. Critics have been calling the bill highly discriminatory and a step towards authoritarian government. Supported say that it's the first comprehensive step towards doing something about the illegal immigration problem, which I think we can all agree is being handled terribly.
I can see both sides. However if I was asked which side I stand on, I'm in favor of the bill. Oh my god! I agree with a Republican?! My liberal heart bleeds and weeps! No, really. Again, forward not left or right. I'm sure that governor Brewer and I would butt heads on many issues but taking the intiative to bear down on illegal immigration is necessary. I have nothing agaisnt immigrants-hell my mother is an immigrant! What I have a problem with is people who enter into
the country and break the law, either in a violent act or simply by feeding off of a system while not putting anything back into
it. And this is not just about hispanics. It's about anyone who enters into this country illegally. This country is built off of immigration but my grandparents came through Ellis island, legally. Does the fact that they had to sign papers and often times change their name speak of a 1984 authoritarian society? They had to learn the language-is that considered nazistic?
I have to keep my id on me while driving, along with license and registration bearing all sorts of private information. I'm fine with that. My mom had to keep her resident alien card with her, and she did. We all walk around with personal information tied to our persons.

If anyone has a better idea, I'd love to hear it. In this age of over-exaggerated politcal correctness, we seem to be more interested in looking cultural and accepting than acting it. We're either
for open borders and peace and love or we want everyone who can't draw their family tree back
to the Mayflower to get the hell out. How about some middle ground: ur welcome if u can a) learn the language, b) immigrate legally and c) contribute to the society positively. Is that authoritatively unreasonable?

Tea or Coffee?

Sorry, can't come up with anything more clever than that for the moment. I'll work on it...

As I'm sure you have all heard, the Coffee Party is gaining momentum as the "answer" to the extremist conservative Tea Party Movement. The Coffee Party had their official kickoff yesterday, which was apparently a great success, with between 350-400 meetups held across the country, aptly held at coffee houses.

Now, I have to say that I was rather skeptical of this group at the beginning, being that they started purely as a response to an extremist movement. I was waiting for a polar opposite, an exact pull in the opposite direction.
However, according to their description, they are not aligned with any party and the founder refers to the two party system as out of date.
The meetings were awash with people from all age groups and races, conservative and liberals alike.
Annabel Park, the groups founder, said "Just like in the American Revolution, we are looking for real representation right now. We don't feel represented by our government right now, and we don't really feel represented well by the media either...it's a simple call to action for people to wake up and take control over their future and demand representation. And it requires people standing up and speaking up."
That sounds a lot like the Tea Party and I'm not gonna lie, sounds a lot like me too. However, I don't cite the Revolution or Constitution as much as these two groups do.

I feel that the return to certain ideals on which this country was founded on is very important, but we still need to move forward. This is not the 1700s. Our past brought us to our future but we can not re-live that past. We must continue to build upon it. I sometimes feel that groups such as these have good intentions but fail to differentiate between our country's past, present and future. The return to the good ole days mentality isn't what we need. We need a strong step forward with a clear cut, solid plan for our future.

I'm interested to see where the Coffee Party heads next. But for now, I'll wait before I jump on their bandwagon. How bout you?

The Death of Conservatism

I just finished reading a great book that I'd like to recommend to all of you. It's a short, stirring read by Sam Tanenhaus called "The Death of Conservatism."
I'm sure there's no question as to why this caught my attention, but what I read has educated me much on the past 50 years of conservative politics in this country.

As a moderate, unwilling to cling to any one side, I have to admit that I used to be a die hard liberal. At times, I still find myself whispering sweet anti-conservative nothings under my breath as I watch footage of Palin, Bush, Romney, Cheney or any other one of those fantastic examples of political smarts and integrity. I have to admit, however, that I was not that educated on my opponent. I knew basics and broad facts on issues and standpoints but I never really dug deeper to see the roots of this movement. I didn't understand the basis to which these neo-conservatives clung to, the past that brought them to the conservative politicians of today.

I obviously can't go through the entire book but I would like to share some quotes and pieces that I found very interesting. It may come as no surprise that history does indeed repeat itself and that this death of conservatism came from the birth after a liberal death. This liberal decline occurred in the mid to late 60s as the Democrats had and had enjoyed a long stint controlling Washington. The Democrats were becoming cocky in their comfortable position at the top and made many mistakes that the people found unforgivable and unacceptable, including Vietnam and race relations (or lack thereof). What I found interesting is that the conservatives, in order to combat the waning Democrats, felt it would be most beneficial to guide the Right further towards the Center...
In the closing pages of his book, Tanenhaus gives some friendly advice to the now waning Conservative constituents, the same pitfalls that got the liberals booted out of office 30 years ago: "...listening more closely to the arguments being put forth by the other side." Again, this doesn't mean acquiescing to all conservative or liberal demands, it means working together - holy shit, what a concept! And I'm not talking about lobbyists and deep pocketed politicians in Washington, I mean us.

He says in a closing remark: "Most of us are liberal and conservative: we cling to the past in some ways, push forward into the future in others, and seek to reconcile our most cherished notions and beliefs with the demands of unanticipated events."

Is this not true? Do we not all have two sides? That's not to say that I'm pro and anti abortion, it just means that I, for example, believe that illegal immigrants do not deserve to use of a system they do not put into. That is a classically conservative standpoint. I also believe that government needs to govern and can not do so by slashing its own ability through privatizing essential government functions. That is classically liberal.

I'm not the only one who sees the world with both eyes, am I?

It's the economy, stupid

Although, I was more into GI-Joes than into politics in 1992, that phrase could certainly use a resurrection today. It seems that the people, whether they be gun-toting Republicans or tofu-eating Liberals can agree that the economy is crap. However, our constituents, on both sides seem to be doing nothing. The right continues it's ever entertaining quest to defile the name of Obama and his supporters, seeming to forget that to defile the name of an elected official is to defile the name of the American people...tricky. The left seems to be suffering once again from the teetering, I-want-to-please-everyone syndrome of being too vague, too slow and too indecisive as to what needs to be done.
So, where does that leave us?
No other political issue is as pressing as the economy. The right screams and shouts like a paranoid grandmother that there are terrorist on every corner. Obama seems wrapped up in the bloody gauze of healthcare bill that has yet to make clear anything other than its own disabilities to reach a clear consensus and heal an ailing system.
As if trying to avoid the giant dollar sign in the room, Obama has yet to speak out decisively on any economic issues, such as unemployment. As many politicians do, he got that over with on the campaign trail and now seems quite content to enjoy the white house, where men in Boss suits are wined and dined at the expense of those eating ramen noodles for dinner.
Speaking of campaign trails and dashed hopes, consider that many of Obama's biggest supporters during the campaign were bankers and lobbyists from the very institutions which the people are now suffering at the hand of. Thanks to the Supreme Court, big corporations now have even more leeway in ensnaring politicians into their web, giving them huge piles of cash for their political souls. I wonder how much the Supreme Court judges got for that decision. I hope enough to retire to a nice little island where the people, if they ever wake up, can't rise up and slay them.
And yes, I do blame us. I blame politicians for their uncanny ability to skirt issues, sell their souls and fight amongst themselves. However, we watch it all as if it's a particularly entertaining episode of Jerry Springer.
We must act. We must force those who represent us to act. There can no longer be apathy. This is our country and we have to save it from itself. A government FOR the people, BY the people, OF the people, not FOR big banks, BY lobbyists and OF paid off pawns.