Politics as usual

I have tried to watch parts of both National Conventions, but in both cases the sis-boom-bah rah-rah-rah atmosphere pretty much did me in. Often I found myself hitting the mute button when I couldn't take anymore of a particular speaker -- and always when some new singer started screaming at us (why have entertainment?!) -- I'd turn to my book, or my dinner, or even slip into the study to write some more at my computer, until a check of the screen showed me that somebody new had taken the stage. Then I'd give the new speaker a couple of minutes, to see if something new was being offered, or if it was the same old same old. For example, at the Democratic Convention I felt that far too much time was given to speakers in support of women's rights. Thought we should have heard from just one pro-choice advocate (and one who would not keep using the word abortion, as that word is such a button-pusher -- Democrats who do not favor abortion can live more easily with the word 'pro-choice' than they can with the 'a' word), rather than a parade of women who kept assuring us that we women could lose our right to choose if Romney is elected. Polls have made it clear that such social issues are low on the list of priorities for most Democrats, and even for most Republicans, though not necessarily for many Fundamentalist Republicans.

And there were lots of Hispanics -- often women -- as well as blacks, who all emphasized how various policies of President Obama have benefited the group they belonged to. Frankly, if I were a white male Democrat I think the Convention would have almost had me feeling left out! We needed to hear from more of those "white bald men," that one commentator said made up the Republican base. There have to be some of those guys among the Democrats, too!

I was impressed by all the Hispanics speaking at the Republican Convention, virtually everyone of them an illustration of the Successful American Dream. But of course, most Hispanics in this country are no more Big Success Stories than are most whites, and I felt like the plight of regular Joses was as missing from the Republic perspective as that of regular Joes.

Indeed, David Brooks, the conservative commentator who joined the PBS Newshour anchors Judy Woodruff and Gwen Iffil at both conventions, and whom I in general respect and admire as a highly intelligent, articulate, and reasonable, not fanatical, conservative, made the statement at one point that he felt the Republican Convention had been too individualistic, and I agree with that completely. The Democratic Convention then bent over backwards to emphasize the opposite concept, that of success-through-cooperation. This is not a bad concept to emphasize, but I got tired of hearing it.  Especially since, as stated by both the commentators Shields and Brooks, and some of the people interviewed outside the convention hall, what is most on most people's mind right now is the economy, and the President's plans for same. We needed to hear more about those issues. The successful bail-out of the automobile industry is a good story, but it's too bad there couldn't have been more such stories; that one got sort of played into the ground.

I didn't watch the much-admired speech by Michelle Obama, because I feel I already "know" President Obama to the extent I need to know him. I already admire his intellect, his courage, his integrity, his idealism combined with pragmatism, his coolness under fire. I don't need to have him "humanized" for me by his loving wife. But I was very glad I caught Bill Clinton's speech. It was invigorating and inspiring -- as well as frequently amusing -- while at the same time answering some of those questions that hadn't been answered, or even addressed, by anyone else so far in the convention. Clinton took on the issues of our national debt -- which got a great deal of play at the Republican Convention, but almost none at the Democratic, even though polls show many Americans are very concerned with lowering the debt -- he took on the question endlessly asked by the Republicans: are we indeed better off than we were four years ago (individually, maybe not, but as a nation, given how bad things could have been, yes) -- and he gave some specific examples. And he took on various lies of the Republicans, particularly those of Paul Ryan, and shredded them. He surely helped the Obama campaign enormously with that speech.

And I discovered Elizabeth Warren! Her speech was a pleasure to listen to. She struck me as a tells-it-like-it-is lady with class and a heart. We will surely be hearing more from her.

In a little while we will be hearing from President Obama himself. He has a history of giving terrific speeches. Let's hope this one is a doozy. And then, thank God, the Convention nonsense will be over.

The other side of the aisle

Having commented on the Democratic National Convention (DNC), I feel I should do the same for the Republican National Convention (RNC). I actually watched more of the latter than of the former, since I wanted to hear what the opposition was saying.

Patriotism was the big theme of the convention (its official slogan being “Country First.”) While the DNC concentrated on what was wrong with this country -- the watchword there being “Change” – the RNC concentrated on the valor and sacrifices of our servicemen and women, past and present, with the thread always leading back, of course, to John McCain’s service record. I have absolutely no problem with honoring and thanking those people who serve in such a way that the majority of us don’t have to, but I didn’t see how all this had anything to do with a presidential campaign. And I thought way too much time was given over to McCain’s POW experiences. I don’t think there’s anyone in this country who doesn’t acknowledge McCain is a bona fide war hero. But does that automatically make him good presidential material?

Very interestingly, the big night seemed not to be the last night, when Senator McCain spoke, but the night before, when his high-energy running mate made her highly effective speech (my, but the crowd did love her). One statement of hers really got me: “And I have never been ashamed of my country.” This, presumably, was in response to Michelle Obama’s controversial statement months ago that for the first time in her adult life she was proud of her country. But...our treatment of the Indians doesn’t make Governor Palin feel the least bit ashamed? The fact that for many years (until government stepped in) we were working children as young as five years old 12 hours a day in factories – that isn’t something to be ashamed of? Or our treatment of blacks prior to the civil rights movement of the 1960s? Our incarcerating during World War II thousands of loyal American citizens who happened to be of Japanese extraction doesn’t make the governor feel the tiniest twinge of shame? Or the fact that right now millions of Americans avoid going to the doctor because they have no medical insurance, and if a medical catastrophe strikes it can completely ruin a family financially...this is something to be proud of?

It could be argued that Governor Palin wasn’t around for, and therefore had nothing to do with, most of the “shameful” situations I mention above. And therefore, she has no reason to feel shame for them. But...what if she had been around then? As many people were, who objected to, were ashamed of, and fought against, the conditions I’ve cited. And who were, without exception, demonized by the status quo. Would Governor Palin have been able to feel ashamed of her country then, at least of some of the conditions it was tolerating? Or what about the last situation I mention above, the health care situation in this country, this “richest country in the world.” Isn’t that condition shameful?

I’ve always had trouble with the “my country right or wrong” attitude, and it’s all-too-often accompanying attitude, well, if you don’t like how things are, go somewhere else. The United States, for all its wealth, power, physical beauty, and yes, warm-hearted, generous, hard-working people, has done plenty of lousy, bad, shitty things, just like every other country has. And, like others of my ilk, I don’t think a willingness to point out when the country is doing something unacceptable indicates a lack of patriotism. What it indicates is an acceptance of the (very American) idea that things can always be made better. And should be.

As to other speakers, I did think Rudy Giuliani got in some good hits about Obama’s “present” votes in the Illinois state legislature. That’s the kind of real information I like to hear about candidates (and I’d say it’s pretty damning for Obama). But then Giuliani got snide. As Sarah Palin was snide. Oh, preserve me from snide. (And isn’t it amazing, my Spell Check knew how to spell Giuliani.)

I was very impressed with Mike Huckabee as a speaker. He was not snide, but relied on affecting personal anecdotes to get his points across. For example, his description of how poor his family was, when he was growing up, followed by the statement (which got tremendous applause, and rightfully so): “I’m not a Republican because I was born rich, I’m a Republican because I didn’t want to spend the rest of my life poor, waiting for the government to save me.” He is way too conservative for me, but I like the man’s style.

And that’s enough about politics for a while. Everybody vote.