Nixon when we need him

I’ve been thinking about what purpose this current interminable campaign for president serves. No other nation in the world holds such a protracted, financially bloated circus for the right to lead. Are the 24 hour news networks so desperate for programming that every candidate’s move and whether they fart after they dine becomes the next line of scrolling text below the latest disaster or mass murder on the screen?

What purpose does it serve to hold debates with eight candidates on both the Democrat and Republican sides, when anyone with any experience following politics knows that at best, two, or maybe three candidates on either side, have a legitimate chance to win. I’m not sure that most casual voters could name more than one, or maybe, two candidates on either side. If pressed, they even might have a hard time knowing, for instance that Hillary Clinton is a Democrat and that Rudy Giuliani is a Republican.

In our recent political past, campaigns traditionally ramped up just after Labor Day, the year prior to November’s presidential vote. This year, candidates have been battling it out and visiting the key primary and caucus states since early 2007.

Personally, I think some of the most interesting candidates, are the ones towards the back of the pack. On the Democrat side, Dennis Kucinich is the most outspoken about bringing our troops home from Iraq. To those on the right, he’s just a “kook,” and he might be viewed by some on the left similarly. In reality, Kucinich is a principled candidate that in person is charismatic and very persuasive. Unfortunately, he’s short and has big ears, so he comes across less than telegenic. Actually, that theory is somewhat dubious when you consider Hillary, who is shrill and often comes across terribly on TV, or Giuliani, who is just plan “ghoulish” looking.

Speaking of television, Barack Obama has fully embraced the reality that politics is nothing more than entertainment on crack. The candidate that charges for access, has enlisted Oprah to wipe his ass and push his candidacy forward with all the brain-addled mothers and Wal-Mart shoppers of America.

Oprah is the personification of today’s entertainment-saturated culture. An African-American drama queen, no minority entertainer has so captivated white America like she has. All a book, movie, or new pop psychology theory needs to break it nationally, is an endorsement from the maven of mothers everywhere. It will be interesting if the candidate that charges for access gets the same bump politically, from Oprah's stamp of approval.

I can’t think of anyone that personifies our cult of celebrity and entertainment better than Oprah. Corporate America has no better shill for their products than the queen of afternoon programming. In our current cultural milieu; apparently all it takes is savvy marketing and pulling at women’s heartstrings to build an entertainment empire. Oprah’s kingdom is worth in excess of $1 billion.

Recently, I read an old Rolling Stone article written by the late Hunter S. Thompson, penned during the nightmarish 2004 campaign for emperor.

Few saw politics in quite the way that Thompson did. Thompson’s ability to write about the candidates, with irreverence, yet still accurately capturing the hubris, lust for power and blood sport that is the race for the American presidency, always made Thompson essential reading.

His article made me reflect back on Richard Nixon, a candidate that few on the left ever lionize.

Thompson wrote that, Nixon “looks like a flaming liberal today, compared to a golem like George Bush. Indeed. Where is Richard Nixon now that we finally need him?

If Nixon were running for president today, he would be seen as a "liberal" candidate, and he would probably win. He was a crook and a bungler, but what the hell? Nixon was a barrel of laughs compared to this gang of thugs from the Halliburton petroleum organization who are running the White House today -- and who will be running it this time next year, if we (the once-proud, once-loved and widely respected "American people") don't rise up like wounded warriors and whack those lying petroleum pimps out of the White House on November 2nd.

Nixon hated running for president during football season, but he did it anyway. Nixon was a professional politician, and I despised everything he stood for -- but if he were running for president this year against the evil Bush-Cheney gang, I would happily vote for him.

You bet. Richard Nixon would be my Man. He was a crook and a creep and a gin-sot, but on some nights, when he would get hammered and wander around in the streets, he was fun to hang out with. He would wear a silk sweat suit and pull a stocking down over his face so nobody could recognize him. Then we would get in a cab and cruise down to the Watergate Hotel, just for laughs.”

It’s a sad day in American politics when our current slate of hacks and wannabes makes one wax nostalgic for “ole” Nixon. But, I think that’s where we’re at.

Dumb politics

By now, it should be obvious to anyone with more than a passing interest in politics that the 2008 presidential horserace is comprised of a field of mostly mediocre and a few arguably, awful candidates. This may explain why much of the reporting coming from the mainstream has focused ostensibly on the horserace itself, rather than the issues. Or, maybe it doesn’t.

For anyone wanting in depth coverage that adheres to some traditional standards of journalism (if any still exist), there are a few places, mostly online, where the emphasis is placed on the side of journalism, rather than entertainment, in covering the candidates. Jay Rosen’s (What Are Journalist’s For?) project, Off the Bus, is one example. There are others.

Rosen characterizes the site as, “open platform campaign journalism,” and in fact, eschews taking a “horserace approach” to the coverage of the candidates.

There’s been an ongoing debate/concern about the role of television and how it has changed politics and campaigns. The late Neil Postman and others have argued that television, which emphasizes image, rather than substance, renders today’s politics more about selling a candidate, using emotion and evocative props and less about carefully crafted position papers. Of course, this is nothing new and was carefully detailed in Joe McGinnis’ book, The Selling of the President, about Richard Nixon’s 1968 campaign. Forty years later, things have only gotten worse.

It seems like new technology and gadgets get trotted out every four years. While it makes the media go “ga-ga,” rarely, if ever does it give voters a better sense of what the candidates stand for. Inevitably, it narrows discourse, which at this point, doesn’t seem like it could constrict any further, given the five-second sound bites that are the rage.

An example of new methods and technology would be the YouTube factor and specifically the recent YouTube/CNN debate. I ran across this letter to the editor in the Washington Post highlighting the issue and the writer closely captured my own sentiments about videos from snowmen and pro-gun questioners, “locking and loading” for effect.

Dumber and Dumber Discourse
Friday, November 30, 2007/The Washington Post

The dumbing-down of America continues, judging by the latest Republican presidential debate, presented by CNN/YouTube.

Candidates who surely have better things to do than to waste their time with trivia and nonsense fielded questions not from a knowledgeable, distinguished panel of journalists but from ill-dressed, offbeat, humor-focused "everyday" Americans who asked such "probing" questions as what type of guns the candidates own, whether they believe every word of the Bible and why Rudolph W. Giuliani rooted for the Boston Red Sox.

Although some of the questions were interesting, valuable and posed cleverly, many were pure fluff.

It is regrettable that the political process has degenerated not only into a perpetual cycle that is bound to disgust most people but into one that demeans and degrades the process and is an insult to the intelligent voter.

If YouTube and its "stars" are now to dominate the process, the process will have collapsed into slop.

Owen M. Spiegler
Upper St. Clair, PA

Speaking of technology, many of the candidates, at least on the Republican side, seem lost when it comes to discussing this subject. The Washington Post’s Garret M. Graff, had an article in Sunday’s Washing Post titled, “Don’t Know Their YouTube FromTheir Yahoo.”

The article highlighted the glaring deficiencies of Republican presidential hopefuls, when it came to understanding technology. Apparently, as we tunnel deeper into our technological bunker, our political candidates, all falling within a demographic, which tends to have phobias towards technology, are being left behind. Mitt Romney, who hails himself as “America’s leader” at every paid opportunity and who has a high-tech background (at least compared to other candidates), didn’t know the difference between YouTube (the fourth most popular site in the world) and MySpace (which is #6). Do you want this man making decisions at the presidential level?

In the rapidly changing world of the 21st century, which relies upon instant communication and whose economy is based upon technology, to have presidential candidates this ignorant of something as ubiquitous as technology is quite telling about where we are at, politically.

Access fees

Barack Obama is coming to Portland on Tuesday, September 25th, at 4:00 pm. He'll be speaking at one of Portland's storied venues, The Expo. In my opinion, if you have a chance to see a candidate in person, definitely take advantage of it. Often, something they say, or how they say it, can tip you off on whether or not you want him/her as your candidate for the White House.

While Obama isn't my guy (to be honest, I'm at a loss right now as to who I'd vote for, if I had to make a decision), I've somehow ended up on his fundraising list. It seems I became a target for the BarackObama.com folks when I sent my blog/article about Gary, Indiana, along with a few suggestions I had for dealing with urban America's problems. Rather than respond, I just became another name on the list of people to target for funds.

While on the topic of fundraising, if you are planning to head down to the Expo, you better look closer at the fine print; attending this event, another one of Obama's "Countdown to Change" exercises will cost you $23.00 a pop! Apparently, just for the privilege of hearing the candidate, you've got to cough up cash, whether you've made up your mind, or not.

Now I know running for office cost boatloads of cash, but I've seen countless other candidates for free. Personally, I'm somewhat offended by being asked to pay to hear the candidate. In 2004, I saw Dennis Kucinich in Bath, John Kerry in Portland and John Kerry/John Edwards in Lewiston and I didn't have to fork over a penny. I guess it's a new day in America where access to political wannabes requires payment.

I probably would have attended the Portland event, if it was for free. But being charged to hear what the great Obama has up his sleeves for America doesn't sit well with me. Then, I hear from my wife that she got an email from the campaign, justifying their policy of charging, when she expressed similar reservations about paying for political access. I've definitely soured on Obama for 2008. In my opinion, our pickings for president are pretty slim.

Need to raise funds? Have a fundraiser and bring out your well-heeled supporters and shake them down, which is what everyone does. But don't charge admission for your first event in Maine, open to the public. It doesn't make you seem very inclusive and it does nothing to attract those on the fence who might come see you, but resent being asked to contribute to a campaign that they haven't yet decided to endorse.

Hillary Clinton hails herself as a progressive

To listen to the political pundits, you would think that last night’s YouTube debate ushered in a new golden age of politics. Like everything else that get’s lumped in with technology and in particular, social networking sites like YouTube, it’s given a free pass and little or no scrutiny. Technology=good, or better, great, every time.

While some articles pointed out the paucity of substantive questions, most were willing to lionize the gimmickry and mostly irrelevant questions, as some kind of watershed event in the way that political dialogue will now be carried out. Whether we have questioners dressed as snowmen, or yielding assault rifles, or the scripted questions being spoonfed by the likes of Jim Lehrer, the current debate format absolutely sucks!

I didn’t watch the debate, but I could have predicted the near orgasmic gushing that would follow the proceedings. Which brings us back to the questions, which I viewed online and from transcripts of the debate. The form which we ask our questions will determine the answers that we get. As Francis Bacon put it, some 350 years ago, “There arises from bad and unapt formation of words a wonderful obstruction of the mind.” Bacon’s quote is a fitting definition for stupidity, which our culture is drowning in at the present time.

As Postman commented upon, in Conscientious Objections, it may be that "we have adapted ourselves to disinformation, to Newspeak, to public relations hype, to imagery disguised as thought, to picture newspapers (USA Today comes to mind) and magazines, to religion revealed in the form of entertainment, to politics in the form of a thirty-second television commercial."

This last one is what our political debates are about—30-second television commercials.

Take for instance Hillary Clinton, when asked if she considered herself a “liberal,” demurred by answering Rob Porter’s YouTube clip by saying that she preferred the word “progressive.”

This won’t be a problem for Clinton because no one but a few sticklers for historicity, even know what the hell progressive once stood for. For all the brain-addled masses know, her self-identifying as a “progressive’ might mean that she’s been bought and paid for by Progressive Insurance, since we’re not far away from having corporate spots accenting our political events, like our sports; as if that would be a problem—our candidates are already bought and sold.

Not that it matters, but when I hear Clinton call herself a progressive, I alternate between laughter and screams. Some of us still know what the term once meant—particularly as it was used during the 19th century, when it came to mean a definite alternative to the conservative solutions being offered in dealing with the social and economic issues of the day.

Historically, progressive candidates, particularly in the early years of the 20th century, were concerned with social justice and workers rights, not being some watered down version of conservatism that much of Clinton’s platform represents.

For those who have read about progressives like Robert “Fighting Bob” LaFollette, a man who in his day was called “arguably the most important and recognized leader of the opposition to the growing dominance of corporations over the Government.” Not something that Ms. Clinton would know much about.

You see, true progressives, like LaFollette, actually had some backbone and principals, something that Clinton knows little about. LaFollette, was a friend of Emma Goldman, who called LaFollette "the finest, most inconsistent anarchist" of his time. Can you imagine any modern candidate, who associated with the likes of known radicals, like Goldman, having a chance in the era of "handled" candidates--people who have every wardrobe, as well as word, picked out for them, to wear and say?

LaFollette was a man so fierce in his convictions that he would risk consignment to political oblivion rather than abandon an unpopular position. He represented the antithesis of the elected officials whose compromises characterize our contemporary condition, officials like Hillary Clinton.

La Follette believed strongly that the inheritors of America's revolutionary tradition would, if given the truth, opt not for moderation but for the most radical of solutions. This doesn’t sound much like Clinton, or Obama, for that matter.

No, Mrs. Clinton, you may not be a liberal, but you most certainly aren’t a progressive, at least in a historical sense.

Campaign stop, Gary, Indiana

[U.S. Steel plant in distance, viewed from the West Beach, in Miller]

[One of a number of "gentlemen's" clubs on Dunes Highway, U.S. 12/20, near Gary]

[Apparently there is some sort of celebration, although I had trouble finding it]

[This building sits at a major intersection, at 5th and Broadway and symbolizes present-day Gary]

[Gary's former "sugar daddy"]

I've posted some accompanying images that go along with my political parable, below. The idea for this fictitious campaign stop, came from my recent trip to Indiana and the incredulity that I'm still experiencing, after witnessing much of what passes for Gary, Indiana, a city of over 100,000 people, in a major metropolitan area (the Chicagoland area has a population in excess of 8 million people], yet Gary feels like a place that time and certainly anyone of any influence, has long ago forgotten, or better, written off.

I wrote this piece over the weekend and decided to send it off to several progressive news sites, which I thought might have an interest in posting it, online.

I'm thrilled that Counterpunch, one of my favorite progressive sites, chose to run it. Jeffery St. Clair and Alexander Cockburn self-identify as muckrakers, doing battle with the corporate-driven war machine, a business community bereft of a soul and those who would rape and pillage the natural environment. It's an honor to have my writing stand alongside many of their regular contributors, most of whom wage a lonely battle to keep the flame of journalism lit.

Speaking about Counterpunch, Barbara Ehhrenreich is quoted as saying that, "CounterPunch makes me think. It makes me laugh. Above all it tells me things I didn't know."

Campaign 2008, Gary,Indiana-style
By, Jim Baumer

I’ve just returned from a week in Northwest Indiana, America’s post-industrial wasteland, known affectionately by locals as “the region.” I am still trying to process all I’ve seen, particularly my time driving around Gary. It occurred to me, last Sunday morning, trying to remain inconspicuous, with my rental car plates, three-piece suit and camera dangling from my neck that solving Gary’s many problems would go far in solving many of our urban problems elsewhere.

Earlier in the week, I read an article about Michelle Obama and her desire to campaign “off script,” creating a persona sans spin and lacking the usual campaign-speak. Barak’s wife seemed to want to speak from the heart, foregoing talking points created by professional PR people. Thinking about this, I wondered if a campaign rooted in reality and focused primarily on the people on the ground would still work in 2008. For all the talk about the issues and political pandering, particularly to issues of poverty, it appears to an outsider like me that most, if not all of this is just talk—nothing more. We all know that the obscene amounts of money required to purchase TV time and other advertising gives politicians, even newcomers like Obama, a convenient excuse to go right to the corporate till and load up.

Maybe I was downwind from the towering smokestacks of U.S. Steel and the fumes had fouled my thinking, but I began envisioning a scenario about a campaign stop in Gary. I had an idea for an event in America’s very own version of a war zone city, like Bagdhad, would help dispel much of the cynicism most voters feel toward politicians, as more often then not, they get whisked from photo op to photo op, nary a hair out of place and too often, in front of carefully selected supporters and donors.

Gary, Indiana, a once proud city that symbolized America’s industrial prowess, has fallen on hard times over the last three decades. Situated along the southern shore of Lake Michigan and only a short commute from Chicago, is a place that many non-residents and travelers have come to avoid like the plague, fearing it like no other place in America. Just read some of the comments sometime on various travel websites and you’ll get a quick sense that Gary isn’t a place you want to stop in, even for gas, or a quick bite. Worse, when you actually spend time driving around its various neighborhoods, in the shadow of dilapidated buildings designed by legendary architects, including Frank Lloyd Wright, you grasp how far the place has fallen, bypassed by economic policies benefiting America’s rich, ravaged by drugs and gangbangers and plagued by corruption at all levels.

If the field of presidential hopefuls want Americans to embrace them as legitimate, then staging a political debate, in downtown Gary, at the Genesis Convention Center, opening it up to anyone who wants to come, would help promote some real hope in a city that’s had precious little for nearly 30 years. Maybe Oprah Winfrey could make the trek from Chicago, via the Skyway and be seated in the VIP section down front. Other notable politicians and community leaders from the area should also be invited. I suggest that the candidates and some of the dignitaries arrive mid-afternoon and load onto a bus and spend time riding through Gary’s once majestic and now crumbling neighborhoods. Of course, security is always an issue in certain areas of town, so doing in daylight would be a much safer option and I’d suggest a police escort, even though I didn’t have one on my recent visit.

Since soul food and in particular, southern BBQ is one element that Gary does right, maybe the bus could find a rib joint near downtown, where the candidates could break bread over some authentic local cuisine, before heading over the convention center. If there was one close enough, maybe the entourage could walk off their chicken, pulled pork, corn bread, cole slaw and beans, with a short jaunt over to the center, to prep a bit before the TV lights and moderator brought them back to reality.

I think this event would favor certain candidates, particularly in light of Gary’s demographic makeup. According to the 2000 census figures, Gary’s racial makeup is nearly 85 percent African-American. One out of every four residents live below the federal poverty line, including nearly 40 percent of those who are below 18. The per capita income of Gary’s residents is just over $14,000 a year. If candidates want voters to believe they represent all voters, not just the uber wealthy, then Gary might be a campaign stop worth making.

Here’s my handicap of the night by candidate:

Barak Obama: As the great hope for African-Americans and in light of his political credentials having been forged in neighboring Illinois, Obama would be considered the “home town favorite” and possessing a solid advantage going in. He could use Gary as an opportunity to dispel the charges against him by some leaders in the black community that’s he’s an “Uncle Tom” and just another political opportunist.

Of all the candidates, Obama probably is the only one that even has a sense about some of Gary’s difficulties, given its close proximity to Chicago.

Hillary Clinton: Don’t dismiss her, as she has some “cred,” being married to Bill, who some dubbed “America’s first black president.” Hillary has the ability to connect with her audiences and as someone who knows her way around the inside of a black church, she wouldn’t be outside her element in Gary. Also, I’m sure she knows here BBQ, from her days in Arkansas.

John Edwards: Talks a good game when it comes to playing to the working class. With his roots in North Carolina and a dad who was a textile mill worker, he wouldn’t be lost in terms of understanding Gary’s industrial heritage. However, with his $400 haircuts and pretty boy good looks, he might not connect with most in Gary, who probably are lucky to own a $400 car. Still, Gary would be a good place for Edwards to fully grasp issues of poverty, up close and personal, not just from the perspective of a wonk, or an author.

Dennis Kucinich: Actually spent time in an American city similar to Gary, when he was mayor of Cleveland. Having been homeless as a youngster, Kucinich probably comes closest of all the candidates to knowing poverty firsthand. Of all the candidates, his policies might be the most functional in addressing some of the deep-rooted issues of hopelessness that plague many in Gary. Unfortunately, Kucinich, who connects in person, doesn’t project well enough via electronic media to have a chance.

As for the Republican field, African-Americans traditionally vote Democrat, but I’ll at least give my thoughts on the three front-runners.

Mitt Romney: How does someone named “Mitt” carry any credibility with people living in a city resembling a war zone? I suppose as governor of Massachusetts, he had some sense of urban issues, like drugs, gang activity and devastating poverty. However, his law and order agenda probably wouldn’t sit well with many in Gary, who already know someone, either family member, or close friend, doing time in jail, due to America’s failed “war on drugs.”

John McCain: McCain wouldn’t play well, either. Is it just me, or has McCain’s label as a “maverick” worn thin? If McCain’s a maverick, with his support of all things Republican, then I hate to see what being a supporter of the status quo means.

Rudy Giuliani: Another strong proponent of “lock ‘em up and throwing away the key” brand of law and order, his agenda for Gary would probably consist of armed patrols, driving around the streets of Gary in vehicles reminiscent of RoboCop, rounding up drug dealers and others and shipping them 30 miles to the east, to the Supermax in Westville.

Well, that’s my little fantasy, campaign-style, 2008. While it’s offered somewhat tongue-in-cheek, there is a part of me that sees a place like Gary as symbolic for the rest of America. While urban areas nationwide have problems, it’s rare that you come face to face with an urban hell like Gary, within the continental U.S.

Gary represents a great opportunity for a political reality check for politicians who have become too detached and removed from the masses to understand the issues on a personal level that they need to, in order to know how to represent all Americans, not just their corporate donors. A candidate’s event in Gary would at least give them one night of reality and maybe, just maybe, it might make a difference, although I don’t hold out any hope that this would ever happen.

Mitt on a skewer

In the fraternal spirit of New England blogging, I wanted to tell everyone about Lost Nation TV, a New Hampshire-based blog. Billed by Sam Smith of Progressive Review as the "father of the political blog," progenitor Jack McEnany is an equal opportunity crank, skewering both parties at every opportunity.

Being such an inclusive fellow and supporter of fellow bloggers, I won't hold it against my Granite State neighbors for their lower taxes, better roads and that they drive nicer cars. As long as they keep providing "the goods" on the various candidates, I'm grateful.

Like this one about Mitt Romney, former Massachusetts Governor, man of the people and, well, hypocrite. Read it and chuckle, as McEnany zings ole' Mitty. Seems rich folk need more help than the rest of us keeping the estate maintained.

Mitt the Hypocrite

Gov. Mitt Romney (R-MA) has a major Zoe Baird problem. It seems he’s been using illegal aliens to make his little 2 ½ acre Garden of Eden in Belmont, Massachusetts tidy and beautiful. Alvarez Rosales, a recently-repatriated Guatemalan claims that as an employee of Community Lawn Service with a Heart, he kept Mitt’s garden green for eight years.

Mitt, ever the duplicitous conniver, endorses the Taco Curtain concept, and number four in his 10-point plan to keep America great is Getting Immigration Right:

Immigration has been an important part of our nation's success. The current system, however, puts up a concrete wall to the best and brightest, yet those without skill or education are able to walk across the border. We must reform the current immigration laws so we can secure our borders, implement a mandatory biometrically enabled, tamper proof documentation and employment verification system, and increase legal immigration into America.

Do illegal gardeners fall into the “without skill or education” category, or the “best and brightest” division?