Perhaps the only Democratic Presidential candidate I would vote for on his own merits would be Robert Kennedy from 1968. 1960 Robert Kennedy would not qualify nor would his brother from the same year. The main reason to vote for JFK in 1960 was that he was not Nixon. If it was Nixon who had to handle the Cuban Missile crisis, we might not be here today.
Neither LBJ, regardless of the year, nor 1976 Carter would have earned my vote on their own merits. Nor would either Clinton nor Obama qualify either.
Why would 1968 Robert Kennedy have earned my vote on his own merits? It is because if Red Riding Hood had met him at Grandma's house, she would have said: 'What big ears you have.' For more than any candidate I've seen, 68 RFK listened to people and he especially listened to those who were being marginalized. No matter where he traveled in the US or why he was there, he listened. This was especially true when he went to California to check on the striking farm workers. He listened to them and Cesar Chavez, who was one of the most amazing human rights leader in our history, and he joined them.
And while many, like 1968 Nixon, stressed law and order, '68 RFK wanted to address why there was rioting. Though rioting is always wrong, so much more wrong can many of the conditions that lead to rioting. Thus stressing law and order without addressing the conditions leading to the rioting is often nothing more than an exercise in self-righteousness by those who are privileged against the marginalized.
Listening to others as much as '68 RFK not only distinguished him from the candidates of yesteryear, it continues to distinguish him from today's list of candidates. With the Democratic Presidential selection lottery beginning to appear as a Cecil B. Demille production on one hand, and the Twitter Trantrum & Chief who will virtually run unopposed on the other, today's list of candidates consists of those who talk much more than they listen. And each of our candidates campaigns with long lists of promises so that choosing someone to vote for for is much like choosing who to date: we pick the person who flatters us the most and makes the biggest promises. What we don't see is that regardless of which of that kind of candidate we pick, what we get is an authoritarian leader who first protects the financial base of his/her campaign.
Of course, not all of those leaders exercise the same degree of authoritarianism, some are more authoritarian than others. But they are all authoritarian who already offer ready-made solution while being evasive in answering questions that are sensitive to them. And all that can be said about our Presidential candidates is also true about our candidates for the Senate and the House.
And then there are the 3rd party candidates. They too try to appeal to us as potential dates would. Only most of our 3rd party candidates lack the experience and competency to work in government let alone be the President. One of the reasons why we vote for them is because they are the only ones offering a new direction. But their lack of experience and apparent competency prevents them from competing with voter apathy for votes let alone being able to draw enough votes away from the candidates from our major political parties.
In the end, we need a government that allows us to participate on a high level. And until we can change the structures of our government to create a more participatory system, we need candidates who listen to all of us, especially to the marginalized, at least as much as they talk. Currently, voting for big listeners is our only life preserver that can save us from today's rising tide of authoritarianism. Our problem is that we don't have enough, if any, candidates who listen more than they talk.
No comments:
Post a Comment