Two more primaries to go and the season will be over but the Democratic race is still to close to call.  Everyone claims their candidate has the edge but, no matter who comes out on the top of the ticket, the party will come together and play nice.  Oh, for a crystal ball! 

I must admit I am weary of these contests but I can’t deny that during this election I have learned more than I thought possible about the party process, the interplay between state governments who pay for and hold the primary races and the political parties who make up the rules, that Native Americans who have their own sovereign nations within the United States can vote for the President of another nation, while Puerto Ricans can vote in the primary but not in the general election.  I have observed the media as it curries favor with one candidate or another, and have been surprised at how little real mud slinging has occurred….. so far.  It certainly is a time for change but it will take more than a new President.  It will take a coalition of Congress people on both sides of the aisle working with an Administration dedicated to reform.   Or will it?

One thing I’m certain of is that government equals power and it’s naïve to think that any politician is immune from that heady perfume.  How can we expect that change will come from the top down?  How do we create change from the bottom up?  There are so many issues, so much government, so many global influences, so much committed tax money, and so great a debt.  What can each of us do?

It takes a significant emotional event to cause real change in behavior.  We’ve been through that with September 11^th and our invasion of two sovereign nations.  Are we tired enough of the status quo to demand our government take notice?  Is our economy creating enough pain that we will make changes ourselves?  Just by making the difficult choices of our daily lives, will we be able to send a message that our country must fundamentally reform? 

I don’t have the answers to these questions, only the energy to muse.  I have lived long enough to know that our society swings like a pendulum from far left to far right to a more reasonable moderate stance over time.  Normally I’m an optimist but this time I’m just not sure that time is on our side.  Then again, maybe all we have for sure is time.

This brings us to the third and fourth assumptions of pluralist theory: that there are many competing interests that converge around a given issue and that these competing interests result in policy by consensus. Inherent in this statement is the presumption that those with power have not taken steps to put up road blocks for other parties attempting to utilize their resources to affect change. E.E. Schattschneider explores the idea that those with power can affect the ability of others to act in opposition to them. He outlines a theory of conflict for us which states that “every fight consists of two parts: (1) the few individuals who are actively engaged at the center and (2) the audience that is irresistibly attracted to the scene,” (1975, 62). He continues on to assert that the outcome of the conflict is dictated by how the audience chooses to react. He refers to the “scope” of a conflict as the means by which parties directly involved can maintain control over the outcome (1975, 64). In other words, if the conflict is kept private in the hands of a few people, those people can dictate its outcome. If the conflict becomes public and a greater portion of the audience is included in resolving the conflict, its resolution leaves the hands of the few and is dictated by the voice of the majority. This theory has very interesting implications in terms of elite theory because it suggests, based on the premise that there is an elite class who have managed to coordinate their accumulated power, that this group of people might have a means of a silencing the voices of their opposition through privatizing conflict. Those who have interests contrary to the interests of the Corporate Community cannot be heard because the Corporate Community so dominates the political sphere that no authorized representative would, or could, get it placed on an agenda to be voted on in the first place (Domfoff 2002). This demonstrates the wielding of power beyond the actual decision making process and into the realm of agenda setting. If that is the case, the pluralist assumption that there are many competing interests that result in policy by consensus is false. Rather, there are competing interests but if they have converged around an issue that matters to the Corporate Community, the result is policy in favor of the Corporate Community (Domhoff 2002).  

Alright, I know that was painful, but at least you didn't have to write it. Lets recap: Pluralists make four assumptions when advocating their ideals of how the government responds to interest group involvement. To begin with, it is assumed that power is not centralized, that the state acts as an impartial referee between competing interests, that there are many competing interests that converge around a given issue, and finally that these competing interests result in policy by consensus. By examining elite theory it was revealed that power is, in fact, centralized. Furthermore, a discussion of the state as an impartial referee linked power to resource management, as dictated by the way our government is naturally set up. The combination of these two discoveries makes it unreasonable to assume that policy decisions are reached by consensus. Rather, that claim was qualified with the requirement that the issue not be of interest to the Corporate Elite. This counter argument to pluralism confirms what we already know: The government has too much control over our lives and cares too little about what we think about that. The thing that this study should lead us to recognize is that the issues that we face now, and that we will face in the future, are issues of class. Contrary to what the two democratic candidates would have you believe, prejudice against skin color and sex are possibly gone forever, thanks to those who worked before us. But they have been replaced by prejudice based on economic standing. And why shouldn’t they have been? Capitalism always leads to inequality, and our second favorite thing next to democracy in this country is "the silent hand of the market."

After much reflection, this is my short (incomplete) list:

I want a President who will bring together diverse and divergent points of view, one who won’t be isolated from the real world by cabinet appointees and who will listen to concerns of the people. 

I want a President who will defend the rights and issues of women and children, regardless of color, social status, religious beliefs or influence.

I want a President who will put environmental concerns at least on par with (if not above) big business.

I want a President who will keep as much government intervention and interference as possible out of my daily life.

I want a President who will once again be respected as the leader of the modern world.

I want a President who has a realistic view of life’s risks and who doesn’t have an agenda kept alive by fear.

I want a President who will enforce current laws before enacting others that muddy the water or enacting Executive Privilege to by-pass the laws of the land in the name of National Security.

OK, I admit some of my list is still what I don’t want. But I’ve tried to listen carefully and I recognize that no politician is going to meet every one of my criteria. Initially, my vote was for John Edwards and I hope that he will run again some day. But, now, the field has been whittled down to three Senators – McCain, Clinton and Obama. For me, John McCain is too much of the same ol’ Bush thing. I think I’ve been pretty clear that what I don’t want is another Bush. But would either Senator Clinton or Senator Obama come close to what I want in a President? And how about the issues that matter to me –health care, Veterans benefits, the environment, Medicare and Social Security, taxes and the economy, the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, and more?

I have read the issue statements for both Senator Clinton and Senator Obama. While there are differences, I could vote for either one. Again, no one candidate is perfect and - this is a biggie - each will have to compromise with Congress in the end. Rather than list supporting statements here, I’ll suggest that you go to their official websites and read their statements for yourself. Instead, I’m going to explain why I choose to support Hillary Clinton.

As a baby boomer woman who grew up in the middle of second the wave of feminism (see http://www.legacy98.org/move-hist.html if you missed it in a previous comment), I admit I am drawn the Senator Clinton because of her gender. All other things being equal between candidates, this is an historic moment for women. While discrimination is more subtle these days, it has not been eliminated. For example, men in the media consistently refer to Senator Clinton as Hillary, but refer to Senator Obama as Obama when using a one name reference.  They refer to women by their first names as though they have not attained the status of a man.  This may seem like a small thing but it is a subtle form of discrimination, and it is only one of dozens of small examples, not to mention those examples that are blatant.  Discrimination against women is not a thing of the past.

I would like to see a national holiday in remembrance of Elizabeth Cady Stanton who started the women’s movement in 1848 much like the holiday of Martin Luther King where we gather and remember where we’ve been, assess where we are, and bring to the forefront where we still need to be to establish equality for all men and women. Young women today take for granted the very things my generation and generations of women before me fought against, and we have no one to blame but ourselves for not regularly reminding them of the hard fight - a national holiday would help us remember and remind. Towards that end, I see the election of a woman as President as the next giant step in changing the mindset of future generations.

I am aware that people either love Senator Clinton or they hate her. There seems to be no middle ground with the electorate. There are questions of integrity and I’m not belittling the importance of integrity, but I’ve heard all three Senators caught in lies. She has experience, and is well known and respected throughout the world. She’s a fighter, there’s no denying that, and she’s spent her life fighting for issues that affect women and children. I also believe she will be more than competent as Commander in Chief.

I will continue to support Senator Clinton through the national convention and, should she become the first woman President, I’ll hold her to a very high standard. As is always the case for the first woman in any position, she’ll have to work twice as hard to be seen just as competent as her male counterparts. In the meantime, I look forward to an election season where gender and race no longer matter in choosing our elected officials.

How are voters suppose to obtain factual information regarding the candidates?  Hwalker would have us believe that “in every statement of fluff and manipulation there is bound to be a grain of truth.”  Therein lies the rub.  Lies and rumors are passed on as truth and believed as truth because of the grain of truth.  There’s just enough truth to give the statement credibility.  Social psychologists tell us that the more times we hear something, the more we are inclined to believe it, even when statements are retracted or denied, and repeating the claim no matter the context increases it’s apparent truthfulness. 

So what’s a voter to do?  Questioning things we read or see in the media, hear on talk shows, receive in emails and read on blogs is essential.  Recognizing that every author and media outlet has an agenda no matter how unbiased they proport to be.  Checking facts on websites such as snopes.com and politifact.com is positive, especially before passing them on to our friends and family as truth.   Instead of looking for the grain of truth in statements, take them all with a grain of salt.  Critical thinking is essential.

Gathering information and listening to opposing viewpoints is healthy as long as we realize we also have our own filters.  We are predisposed to believe those things that validate our own beliefs.  Are most voters open to questioning their own values with differing points of view?

Every candidate has an official website that publishes their positions and a thorough reading of each is essential, recognizing that each one is understandably biased.  They would like to get elected so words are carefully chosen and statements massaged.  Listen to what the candidates say in context. Know for yourself what you heard, the tone of voice and inflection, and the audience the candidate is addressing.

I’m not sure how many voters are willing to put so much time into figuring out what is truth, partial truth, propaganda or outright lies.  I’m not sure I believe that most voters are informed voters but, rather, emotional voters who get just enough information to validate their own feelings before bubbling in their ballots.

And since the average Joe and Jane don’t actually vote for the President and Vice President, maybe they should put that energy into finding out more about their Congressional representatives and the issues. (Issues, now there’s another Pandora’s box.) My name is AuntieD and I approve of this message.

“In politics, a lie unanswered becomes truth within 24 hours.”  Willie Brown, California politician and former San Francisco Mayor

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.”  Joseph Goebbels, Nazi Propagada Officer

A recent phenomenon has developed since the original Super Tuesday in February when it became apparent John McCain had a lock on the republican nomination. It is a phenomenon born of the “wasted vote” syndrome in which voters in states post-Super Tuesday whose lousy state parties decided to graciously wait their turn rather than scramble towards the front of the line (an event known as “front loading”) ask themselves “do I vote my conscience, or do I vote strategically?” In the case of this year’s candidates, this is a question only republicans ask themselves as they wonder if voting Ron Paul will really send a message to the party, or if registering democrat will accomplish a bigger purpose.

Republicans have only two ways to fall, left or lefter, and how they choose which way to vote appears to be somewhat of an unknown. As we observe the aftermath of the second Super Tuesday in which Hillary secured the ever-illusive Texas and the previously thought lost, Ohio we begin to solve our mystery little by little. It is pretty clear that old Hills owes her wins to a vast right-wing conspiracy, spear headed by non other than Rush Limbaugh. He encouraged his listeners to vote for Clinton with the thought that McCain had a better shot against her. As previously stated a few columns ago, I tend to agree. A risky move, but logical strategery non-the less. So the question remains: Who are these so-called republicans who are supporting Obama? And who came up with the cheesy contraction Obamacans? Well, it just so happens that I have secured an interview with one alleged Obamacan, from whom I will attempt to extract an answer.

*Interviewee wishes to remain anonymous for political reasons.

Q: Thank you for joining us on the blog today. Are you perfectly comfortable?

A: I’m somewhat comfortable, however perfectly is really too precise of a term for me to be entirely at ease…

 Q: Uhh…Ok. Moving on. Do you prefer the term Obama-can or Obama-con? Not to be so specific or anything…

A. Oh, Obama-can for sure. It’s much more inclusive, and you know, unifying. Obama-con implies only one faction of the party, where as Obama-can implies a greater segment of the population. Yes, unifying and inclusive, I much, much prefer Obama-can.

 Q: Alright, alright, that makes sense. So you asked to remain anonymous for this interview for political reasons. Have you encountered hostility since you converted?

A: Oh well, you know, you can’t please everybody man. But I don’t let it harsh my vibes, I just turn the other cheek. Doubters make themselves look like fools without any help from me.

 Q: That may have worked well for you so far, but critics of Obama have some very valid points. For example, just how does he plan to handle foreign relations? Or boost the economy for that matter?

A: Well, the way I see it is if he can inspire a nation to voting him as the Chief Enchilada, he ought to be able inspire the economy to boom. With him in office, I have hope for the world. Like he said it: "We can have great plans, but if we don't change how the politics is working in Washington, then neither of our plans are going to happen!"

 Q: Hmm… Well, we seem to be running out of time, so I’ll wrap with this up with one last question: Why Obama and not Hillary?

A: Well, Hillary, she’s pretty scary. She wants to socialize health care and everything, and she plans on ending the war and pulling the troops out of Iraq and I just can’t get on that nut-wagon. But Obama, now he wants to change things for the better. He wants to bring hope over the horizon and make it high noon. You can’t disagree with that! And neither can I. That’s why I proudly call myself an Obamacan.

 Q: Well, this has been very enlightening! I feel light-headed already! Once again thank you for joining us on “From the Mouths of Babes.”

Disclaimer: Not to be taken seriously under any circumstances and definitely not to be quoted with confidant authority when under the influence of alcohol.

The problem lies in what the party platform looks like and what it translates to in reality. When reading the platform, both of the above elements are represented, couched in terms like “ushering an ownership era” and “building an innovative, globally competitive economy” that includes the Republican commitment to cutting taxes while at the same time strengthening social security. At every turn, you encounter a commitment to small government amounts of government interference, backed by confidence in the American people to take care of themselves and to take care of the economy, thus taking care of each other. As we investigate the tag on the end of the platform regarding moral issues, we find that the Republican Party does stand conservatively in regards to protecting marriage between one man and one woman, in relation to the sanctity of life and in relation to family privacy and stability. This is a brief summary, but the wording of the official platform is no less vague. So far, we see consistency in what the Republican Party officially stands for.

Now, what does this look like in reality? How does the Republican Party intend to achieve “building an innovative, globally competitive economy,” and protect the moral interests of the silent majority? As we peer into the pages of legislation passed and spending bills vetoed, we find a disturbing amount of dirt that has settled into the cracks. For example, taxes have been cut, cut, cut, while social safety net programs have been funded, funded, funded. Federal funding for everything from affirmative action to military expansion to education has been approved while taxes have continued to be cut, all resulting in the undermining of local governments and strengthening the federal government. Additionally, nothing has been accomplished in the way of overturning Roe vs. Wade, funding has been approved for embryonic stem cell research, and one man, one woman as a definition for marriage has yet to become constitutional.

And why should marriage be constitutionalized? That would be a further encroachment of the Federal Government on the lives of the individual. But it goes squarely against the notion that the Republicans are the party that stands for what is moral. Certainly they give lip service to that platform, but aside from narrowly escaping the legislation of infanticide when partial birth abortion was banned, not much has really, soundly been accomplished on the front of the culture war. And the middle class who have so doggedly worked for the success of that war are being left behind in post-industrial waste lands, where local government can hardly get a toe hold and power is ever more centralized in Washington. After so much time, and seemingly wasted effort, its no wonder the electorate is beginning to abandon ship in favor of a more moderate approach to politics. This primary season has made it glaringly obvious where the hearts of the people lie, and the majority is not with the noble, but empty rhetoric of old. The party was long overdue for a significant realignment because these two ideas about restoring cultural morality and maintaining minimal government interference are fundamentally incompatible. Minimal government interference will always rule the day, however poorly it is accomplished.