|
The following was a post to the Clark blogs. It is posted with the author's permission. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Posted to artemisia's weblog on Sun Nov 23rd, 2003 at 11:12:59 AM EST
As I've been reading blog entries yesterday and today, I've noticed a fair amount of criticism of "hyper liberals," Dean supporters, and "draft dodgers." I urge bloggers to think twice before alienating a population that may very well decide who gets the Democratic nomination.
Today's poll asked where we would rate ourselves on the political spectrum. Twenty percent of us rate themselves as very liberal / green. But even the "very liberal" category may be too conservative for me. I define my political position as progressive, radical, lesbian, feminist. I pride myself on being the kind of woman that keeps Bill O'Reilly up at night with nightmares of being neutered by "feminazis." I am the kind of progressive feminist that drives Rush Limbaugh to drugs.
I guess it's a Talking Heads day for me today, because as I think about finding myself now becoming a Clark supporter, I find myself singing: "And you may ask yourself -Well... How did I get here?"
What follows is a very long explanation of how I became, however reluctantly, a Clark supporter. Normally, I wouldn't expect anyone to be interested in the details of my thought process on something like this, but I think there may be some value to my putting it out there in this forum. You see, I'm thinking that the biggest obstacle to Clark winning the nomination, and eventually the election, is people like me.
People like me don't come to support a military general easily. People like me will surely fall in behind Clark if he wins the nomination, under the "anybody but Bush" rationale if for no other reason.
But people like me really want to vote for Kucinich, Sharpton, or Mosely-Braun and wind up supporting Howard Dean because we know our true favorites aren't electable. The problem is that while we are a sizeable enough share of the Democratic party to affect the nomination, we tend to nominate people that simply can't win in a race decided by a much larger, much more conservative mainstream electorate.
For idealists such as myself, every election boils down to questions like "Just how many of my values am I willing to compromise this time around?" and "When do I get to vote for a candidate I wholeheartedly believe in?"
Like every good progressive, I downloaded my Bush countdown clock in December 2000 and have anxiously watched it tick off the number of days and hours until his term is over. By June 2003, I was already interested in Dennis Kucinich and by August I was signing up as a Kucinich volunteer. He has walked the walk of progressive ideals in his personal and political life and his positions most closely match my own.
But then Carol Moseley Braun came along. And how could I not support such a vibrant, articulate, intelligent woman! I quickly sent her a check.
And despite his past anti-Semitic comments (since apologized for), who couldn't love Al Sharpton? He shined in the debates, speaking truth from his heart with such wit! I still smile to myself imagining him waking up on his first day in the White House and changing the locks to make sure Bush couldn't get back in! And even though I'm a strong believer in non-violence, Al Sharpton is serving an important role in these primaries as the official donkey kicker.
But despite my idealist, progressive soul, I have a practical brain. I know that mainstream America votes for white men with good hair and short last names. Kucinich, Moseley-Braun, and Sharpton don't stand a chance.
That still left me a long way from considering General Clark. My goddess! He's a (*&&*^% General! There were plenty of other, seemingly more appropriate candidates to choose from, candidates with a lifetime commitment to progressive, or at least democratic principals. Let's face it; the military is not a democracy.
Lieberman was out, of course. I saw enough of him in the last election to know that he's just a repub dressed in a donkey suit.
Kerry seemed promising. He certainly has better military credentials than dubya when it comes to the "war against terrorism" and that would help him get more conservative voters. And yet, he came back from war as a strong anti-war protestor, which earns him my vote. He's from my home state and so I've watched him over many years. He's got a good history of doing right by the citizens of Massachusetts and usually voting the way I would want my rep to vote. But his campaign never seemed to catch fire. He seems tired, lacking in passion. Moreover, good hair aside, a rich liberal senator from "the Peoples Republic of Massachusetts" just isn't going to win many votes in the South or Midwest.
Edwards was certainly electable by the short name, good hair standard. And he's got the Southern thing going for him. But frankly, he just seems too inexperienced. Choosing a candidate is not just about picking someone who agrees with you policy-wise, it's about hiring someone with the skill sets to run a large, complex bureaucracy, someone who has a lot of experience in the inner workings of government. And in this case Edward's good hair may work against him, because he probably looks too young to be elected as a wartime president.
Gephardt on the other hand has tons of government experience and his daughter is a lesbian and a progressive! And Gephardt has paid his democratic dues; he's been fighting the good fight for working people for a lot of years, long before anybody noticed. But Gephardt supports the Iraq invasion and dubya's doctrine of pre-emptive punishment. If his daughter Chrissie was running in his place, I would vote for her, but I think this doctrine of pre-emption is extremely dangerous and I can't possibly support Gephardt for that reason.
Which of course brings me to Howard Dean and the reason I am writing this long entry to begin with. There is no doubt in my mind that if Clark can get the party nomination he will win the election. But the biggest obstacle to his getting that nomination is people like me. Most everyone I know from my progressive, radical, lesbian, and eco-feminist circles has gravitated toward Howard Dean. The few that haven't are still hanging on to Kucinich, Mosely-Braun, or Sharpton.
Why is Howard Dean so attractive to people like me? Well he's the former governor of the state that gave us civil unions for lesbians and gay men, the very same state that gave us Ben and Jerry's ice cream. He meets the white man, short name electability standard, and his hair, though not as good as some other candidates, isn't horrible. But most importantly, Howard Dean spoke up early and vehemently against shrub and against Iraq invasion. He was the first in the field to get attention for criticizing the current administration. Most of us progressives know that Kucinich was making the same complaints much earlier than Dean, but Kucinich's voice never really rose above the din.
Howard Dean's campaign is structured in a way consistent with progressive principles. It is a bottom-up, grass roots campaign. I have a friend who likes to say that conservatives may have a monopoly on radio, but progressives have the internet. Dean tapped into the progressive voices on the internet and took them to heart. He set the standard for internet-based campaigning. His bloggers feel like they have real input into important campaign decisions. And what grassroots progressive couldn't love the notion of a campaign dedicated to financing itself with zillions of small individual donations instead of a few very large corporate ones? Kucinich, Mosely Braun, and Al Sharpton may live progressive values in their personal and political lives; but Dean was the first candidate to find a way to make progressive values an integral part of his campaign structure. Every other democratic candidate is playing catch-up with him in this regard, including the Clark campaign.
Privately, many of the Dean supporters I know suspect he can't win, but cling to a hope that maybe, this time, it's finally "our" time and "our" candidate will prevail. We are not quick to give up the dream of having a progressive government structured with integrated progressive ideals working to make this country better for every single person who lives here.
And besides, the only candidate left to consider is General Clark, a man who has devoted his career to the business of killing.
So how did I wind up a Clark supporter instead of a Dean supporter? And how can I convince other progressives to make the same leap?
Well, for starters, I live in Maine, a state very much like Vermont. Maine, like Vermont has a mostly homogenous population. The entire state has fewer people than the city of Houston. Our largest cities are no bigger than small suburbs of places like Chicago, Los Angeles, or New York. Being governor of a state like Vermont, New Hampshire, or Maine doesn't begin to qualify a person to preside over the complexity of the Federal Administrative Branch. Don't get me wrong. I love living in Maine. The advantage of these small northern states is that we get to be more flexible, more innovative, and more creative in the way we govern. It's the upside that offsets the downside of 8 months of cold weather. But I just can't conceive of any way that President of the United States is the next step up the promotion ladder from Governor of Vermont. Maybe if Howard Dean spent a good 10 years in the U.S. Senate dealing with issues of a national scale, or spent some time governing a bigger state like New York or California, he would then have the requisite experience to deal with issues faced beyond the borders of Vermont.
And as much as I would like to envision a world in which a Kucinich, a Mosely-Braun, a Sharpton, or even a Dean could win the Presidency, the reality is they can't. Maybe pre September 11<sup>th</sup> they could have had a chance. But not now. I can't see moderates and centrists choosing instead of George dubya Bush a candidate with no national, international, or military experience. Of course, dubya had none of that experience going into the job either, but that's irrelevant now. At the moment, in the minds of many moderates, dubya has proven his skills in those areas. Those folks won't take a chance on Howard Dean in a head to head match up with Bush.
So it was only after eliminating every other conceivable candidate, that I began to look at THE GENERAL. And much to my surprise, every single preconceived notion I had about a career military candidate for President was shattered. I was suspicious that Clark would run a top-down operation, an authoritarian campaign in which higher ups (large donors and campaign and party professionals) devised campaign strategy and assigned tasks to underlings. Frankly, I've seen a lot of campaigns run this way and so of course a General would run his campaign this way. Wrong! I find myself surprised at how grass roots the Clark campaign really is, starting with its origins as an internet-based draft movement.
Frankly, I expected THE GENERAL to be more like Lieberman, more supportive of the pre-emptive punishment doctrine and more conservative on social issues like abortion and gay and lesbian rights. Wrong again! Instead I find that Clark is much more open minded, liberal and progressive than I ever expected!
I also expected THE GENERAL to have way too much testosterone. I expected to find a man who was patriarchal, authoritarian, defensive, and dismissive of dissenters. And there are enough career military personnel who fit that description to justify my expectation. But again, I was wrong! I find Wes Clark to be cordial, respectful of all people, surprisingly laid back and soft spoken. I noticed the way he works the room after the debates. Many candidates shake the hand of one person while looking at another and waving to a third person. Clark always looks people in the eye and gives them, for the moment that he has with them, his full attention. It shows his sincere respect for people.
OK, so the General wants a constitutional amendment against flag burning. I strongly disagree. But I can respect the personal emotions that lead him to his position. His is not a blowhard "America love it or leave it" attitude. His willingness to ban this form of dissent is forged in blood and sacrifice and the highest ideals that he sees the flag as standing for. I don't need to agree with him on this flag burning question in order to support him. I am satisfied that Wes Clark supports and encourages the democratic principle of dissent and free speech. He just personally loves that flag.
Women's issues. As a feminist, this is a litmus test. I expected to find in THE GENERAL a candidate who was simply oblivious to women's issues. Women survive in the military by adjusting to a male culture. What could this General possibly know or care about women's issues. And yet, what do I find on his website? Links to progressive feminist sites, including groups fighting domestic and sexual violence against women!
So in the end, try as I might, I couldn't find a single reason not to support Wes Clark. All of my preconceived notions and prejudices about what his military career said about him were just wrong.
Oh, there was that pesky "integrity" issue that kept popping up. But try as might to find some substance there that could justify not supporting him, I could find none. There was nothing there. Petty envies, bad feelings about promotions, policy disagreements, and typical bureaucratic rivalries. Nothing you don't find in any large organization. I've seen the same thing in corporate environments. But try as I might, I could find no evidence of any deep seeded character flaws.
Instead, what I did find is the compelling story of him repelling down that cliff face in Bosnia in an attempt to rescue some compatriots. And I have to ask myself, who among the current field of candidates would risk their lives in such a way? Not Howard Dean, I'm willing to bet. And certainly not our current President George dubya Bush.
So here I am, with my progressive, radical, lesbian, eco-feminist politics, supporting a 4-star General for President. And doing so not just because he can win and anyone is better than Bush. But supporting him because, surprise surprise, he has good progressive policy positions, the skill sets and experience necessary to lead a large administrative bureaucracy, and a very personal, very tangible, very real respect for all people, regardless of status, wealth, race, education, gender, sexual orientation, religion, or national origin.
He doesn't just talk the talk of progressive values. He holds those values dear. They are the values that define his sense of patriotism.
And yeah, he's electable. He can easily win in a head to head match up with Bush on matters military. He's a white male, he's got the short last name and the great hair. In fact, he's got the best hair of any candidate.
But I find myself supporting Clark not just because he's electable, but because he's an electable candidate that I actually believe in. I don't have to compromise in order to support Wesley Clark. All I had to do was get over my own pre-conceived notions about military men.
http://artemisia.forclark.com/story/2003/11/23/111259/00 |
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
