The Last Best Hope
The drama and particulars of the current Democratic contest for the Presidential nomination are those of high theatre and speculative orgasms. It is entertaining but I think most miss the forest for the sake of the trees. To the extent any window of opportunity exists for avoiding global disaster, this is it.
These are the strangest of times---the best of times for the few and the worst of times for the many. The entire planet is being stressed from all directions: overpopulation, depletion of natural resources, land /water/air pollution, species extermination, global warming/greenhouse gases, record homelessness, sordid refugee camps in record numbers, rampant genocide, rapidly increasing disparities in the distribution of wealth, and pervasive use of violence to solve conflict at all levels of human society---from school shootings to domestic violence to endless war across the globe, whether it be by sophisticated weapons, roadside bombs or suicide bombers. Everyone is determined to win. Everyone of course has a noble cause. Everyone has God on their side. For the most part the only uniformed soldiers are the Americans, mostly darting from one secured green zone base to another, mostly to clean up carnage from some missilized area.
And amidst it all, especially in the United States, is a sort of head-in-the sand oblivion. The prevailing attitude is perhaps best expressed by a gentleman at dinner the other night who commented that the current economic recession is no big deal---"we have had recessions before, we always survive." The dire poverty either at home or abroad is dismissed as "There has always been poverty". The now endless American wars carried out by volunteer armies have become an accepted, almost normal part of foreign policy, any concerns dismissed as "well there have always been wars, they come and go, are part of the way the world works". Even in those rare instances when Americans admit there was no legitimate reason to invade another sovereign country, the solution is, "well we are there now, so we have a legitimate reason to finnish it, win the war for the security of our country." While most would probably agree, in some sort of vague meaningless way, that violence begets violence, the slaughter of people and leveling of countries goes on and those who dare fight back are labeled terrorists---deranged evil people who are willing to die for whatever their cause is. Yet a President who starts wars as a first resort, never the last resort, slaughtering 10 fold the 'enemy' for every American killed, himself having always avoided placing his body in harm's way all his life---well this American President, by some sort of patriotic definition, can't be a deranged evil person; instead he is merely one who enthusiastically offers up for meaningless death, thousands of his own citizens, calling them peace warriors. And the people mostly yawn. With the absence of a military draft, few are threatened personally by these wars financed by borrowing. So they go on as a now normal part of resolving conflict.
A small portion of Americans, including myself, see the big picture of our current status in the world as this: a giant successful civilization, in many respects the greatest of the great civilizations to date, heading full steam ahead to the same fate of most great civilizations in history--- self destruction. Most great civilizations never collapsed because any other country captured them. No, they collapsed essentially because they tried to control an extended empire, and in so doing the distribution of wealth at home become quite lopsided. What is different today, for us, is the additional population, environmental, and pollution problems. Stopping the impending collapse seems, in any historical perspective, hopeless. The citizens never see impending chaos and collapse it until it is too late. Somewhere in the distance I swear I hear Nero fiddling. Maybe it is just George Bush whistling how great everything really is, and how, with strong determination, we are going to bomb into oblivion all the evil discontents across the globe with pre-emptive war, military surges, and peace---the peace of eerie desolation and dead bodies (mostly innocent civilians) everywhere. This we are told, is how we put an end to terrorism. Just like we have been told for 50 yrs that the way to put an end to recreational drug abuse is attack our urban cities in the same fashion. 50 yrs later, with that eerie peace of desolation in our urban drug war induced ghettoes, there is no end to recreational drug abuse, and we now have imprisoned so many people, especially young people, in this drug war that we lead the world in number of people in jail per 100,000 population. Like 23% of all people in jail on the earth are in American jails. And the band plays on. 1 out of every 100 American citizens are now in jail. The solution, of course, is longer jail sentences. Maybe let's just take every kid born in a urban or rural ghetto and put them in jail at birth. At least that way they will get some medical and dental care. Besides, why not, instead of spending the same amount of money per student to educate poor kids, save the tax money for war, throw the bastards in jail when they attempt to make some money selling drugs on the corner, and then spend $30,000/yr to keep them in jail for mandatory long sentences. It certainly fits in perfectly with the political mentalities of the last several decades---some sort of good Christian tough love, the domestic version of our global Christian tough love. Some sort of John Wayne wrapped in a clerical robe. Onward Christian Cowboys.
Oddly, out of the blue comes this guy Barack. Barack Obama. As likely to succeed being nominated for President as any other caricature of our worst prejudices. But some how Barack gets elected Senator from Illinois by carrying white downstate Illinois. Interesting. Then out of a field of 8 or 9 Barack ends up one of two remaining, and in the delegate lead. What the hell is going on here? What does it all mean? Anything? Is it possible he might succeed?
The real horse race is not really between Obama and Clinton at this point as between change and no change. Just about everyone fusses that government is paralyzed, that everything is a mess and has been so for some time. Hardly anyone says things are getting better or the future looks bright. But human nature is human nature. Change always looks good on paper or from a distance but when push comes to shove, fear sets in. What would change really mean? What happened in Ohio is truly an irrational fear of change. Here we have a state hardest hit economically by current government policies, people out of work or downsized right and left with lost pensions and health insurance and while clamoring loudly for change. But when the ballot is in front of them they still stick with the tried and known. This is part of the reason Barack may find garnering votes more and more difficult down the stretch. Suddenly this is not a meaningless protest vote or a message vote----a vote for Obama at this stage could actually ensure change. Whoa, wait a minute, this is too much of a gamble and the messenger is not exactly the image people had of any 'savior'.
So who is Barack and what would be different if he became President? For a start, Obama is an ethnic mutt. A little bit of about everything. Who can claim he is one of them? Then too, he is some sort of social gypsy. Someone, in terms of living in various cultures and experiencing life from all sorts of educational and economic environments, a person who cannot be really claimed by any economic class or culture. The ultimate "been there, done that". Precisely because he is so 'different' one can almost be ensured that he would bring about change. All those who have thrived so well on 'divide and conquer', shell games, and through special interest groups have been able to cut for themselves bigger and bigger pieces of the pie, will now suddenly see Obama as public enemy #1.
Barack appears sincere enough, honest enough, and smart enough to handle the Presidency. But the choice for many people is still stressful. There is this innate suspicion that Obama might really mean 'fair is fair' as a domestic and foreign policy. Right now, and increasingly so, those with the clout get the perks, the preferred treatment. Suppose all of us really had to pay our fair share of taxes? Suppose all of us had to contribute to provide universal health care to all citizens or to spend the same amount of money to educate each child? Suppose all of us had to sacrifice or live a bit more efficiently to protect the environment? Suppose all of us had to sacrifice if we attack another sovereign country? Suppose all of us had to pay more for the goods we purchase in order to enforce global minimum wage levels so that our own workers could compete in producing things? Suppose we really did enforce our border and ensure employers could not hire illegal immigrants? This latter alone would drive up the cost of many things. Would we really commit to the principle that slave labor anywhere is wrong? Everyone knows that right now in Texas new houses are cheap because much of any house is built by the slave labor wages of illegal Hispanic immigrants. Are Texans going to be for getting rid of that slave labor force? Suppose Obama should go so far as to hit head on the overpopulation issue---the issue which, until solved, negates progress on most of the issues listed above. Most of the stresses on the planet today are fathered by overpopulation. Our we really going to give up the freedom to produce like rabbits if that is our choice, or are we going to remain steadfast that this will only happen over our dead bodies? Are we ever going to grant governments the right to determine how many kids we can have? Are religious leaders ever going to alter their sacred religious tenets to accept population control? Obama's greatest strength is that most everyone trusts him. He alone, of all the candidates, has the ability to get diverse leaders across the globe to sit down, negotiate in good faith, and maybe, just maybe, resolve differences peaceably with fairness ruling the day.
In the end, it is likely to be some mix of the assorted fears above which will deny Obama the nomination. When push comes to shove, people fear real change. What we really want is someone who can push a button and make everything ok without any sacrifice from us. A high percentage of American citizens no longer vote, perhaps because they are smart enough to realize most all of the political verbiage is bullshit, that little will change no matter who gets elected. Only Obama gives out vibes that maybe he will be different---that give him a supportive Congress and things will really change. Obama has caught everyone off guard. Enough of the indifferent masses have been aroused to get Obama this far. But the political establishment is wide awake now, the political machines have the time to gear up and stop the 'nonsense'. And many people caught up in the novelty of this 'curiously odd' candidate will start to hedge, fear what change might really mean, and rationalize their way out of supporting him with some sort of "not yet, too soon, he is not ready yet, maybe another time". All those forces operative in our present political mentality will plant fears about Obama that will stick. On paper, this is how it will play out, and Obama will not get the nomination.
For Obama to last takes mostly hope and in my case down to a hope that maybe just once in a while, God intervenes in His evolutionary process. Clearly there is no evidence this happens very often, and maybe it just never happens. I have always sensed that the Lincoln saga had a sort of unreal scenario to it, that too many things seemed past the capabilities of human control for Lincoln to have ever succeeded. This, of course, might well be silly speculation. BUT, the saga of Obama seems, to me, to be some sort of eerie replication of a script we have seen before. With or without divine intervention, it does sort of seem Obama might be our last best hope.
