Election Year and a New President

"True wisdom is found in knowing that you know nothing" -- Socrates

I can't say with any truth or sincerity that I am a neutral onlooker of politics. I used to believe that I was, but I can be inspired as much as anyone by a good speech and a set of ideologies with which I (at least mostly) agree based on my current level of (self) education. Better still, I can no longer expect others to be neutral when commenting on their own ideas about our existence and how fucked up it is, or is not. We as human beings are inspired by all things that affect us. Our religion, our politics, and our individual passions drive us to do what we do and to be who we are. If you're a musician, the things you're going to be most concerned with will most likely be the creation and performance of music, and the near-obsessive dedication to practicing and playing your instrument of choice. However, in your consciousness (if you choose to maintain consciousness) will be the things that drive your individual passion, or the ideals for which you strive to improve or maintain your way of life. Whether it is plumbing, construction, computers, the clergy, dock work, music, art, chemistry, psychology, et al., your ideals and actions will define the results of your pursuits. The ideologies with which you approach things beyond your control are manifest in those things within your control.

Everything in your life is a microcosm of the big picture. The moment you believe it's not, you lose control and start to falter in your convictions. It's not necessarily a bad thing, great revelations and realignments of ideals happen in these transitional periods of self-doubt. Mine, up until now, has been a constant transitional period for many years. I started doubting myself at the age of 10, and it's been without a light at the end of the proverbial tunnel for the last fourteen years. Finally I found my identity and a sense of comfort in knowing that the true battle of my life is constant speculation and redefining of details. As some people find comfort in knowing their path, I've found that same comfort in not knowing.

My approach to religion is the microcosm of that realization. The people who accept the idea that God has created all, in some form, and will guide us through life represents 'the comfort in knowing'. I represent the opposite side of this viewpoint. I've always been driven to ask why and never settle for any 'because I said so' types of answers. Whether it comes from a person of high regard, or a book written centuries ago, nothing is immune to speculation. Sure, it's my pretense and presumption that guides a lot of my attitude, and I've always had a distrust of established authority. After all, we are all human, no one is better than another. Those who believe otherwise are victims of narrow social development in their upbringing.

My speculation on politics is approached with a similar attitude as described above. I find myself in a position now at age 24 with an inability to take anyone or anything at face value. This includes any medium, whether it is broadcast or print. Worse yet I can no longer trust the words and ideas of my own father and brothers. It's a tough, often frustrating position not being able to rely on those whose opinions and ideas formed the base of my own approaches to the world during my formative years. It's a constant state of limbo, but the full reward is in finally knowing your identity is yours and you approach things with a sense of independent ease. You've broken away from that which you've known your whole life and realized the most important flaws in yourself as well as others close to you. The battle is truly in front of you, and you're no longer stabbing away at your old demons.

I understand that I had planned a new 'Election Year' blog for directly after the conventions, but looking back at the last few weeks' assessment of the past nine months' attention and research I've done, I'm glad I didn't jump to any conclusions and write something I might regret.

This is not to say I have changed my stance, or my expected vote, but I feel certainly more confident that I am doing the right thing. After all, I only have one vote, and my dad's vote cancels mine in any event. With the pressure of action relieved from my conscience, I can turn to influence as an alternative. I'm no politician, and some things said here will be opinion, and others will be fact. It'll be up to you to figure out which is which. I don't like being pressured, and as a result I am more conscious of how I pressure other people. My current approach to politics has been founded on one simple term, two words that guide every passion, every idea for me:

Intellectual Curiosity

As a voter, as many of you already know, I've chosen to vote for Barack Obama, and those two words are the main reason. I've done a lot of studying, reading books, watching debates, and even browsing Wikipedia (it's a more reliable source than many would like to give it credit for), and the most important trait I've found in Obama is his willingness to listen, think, and solve. Reading his book, I've realized that relative inexperience is not such a significant drawback. He's been a teacher of constitutional law, and he understands the way the legislative system works. He understands from experience that there are rules, and favors, and power struggles in the senate that are the center of what we like to call 'croneyism'. The fact that he's inexperienced in this case only serves to give him an advantage. He's still an idealist. I myself, as an individual who is considered by others and who considers himself to be a true idealist, know that there is no boundary between idealism and realism except those put in place to divide ideologies. Simply, it is possible to be an idealist and a realist at the same time, the reason: Intellectual Curiosity.

A person can simultaneously see precisely how things should be, and how things are, and understand that though he or she can strive for one (ideal), the action must be based in the other (real). You have to be able to move, work, and improvise around the established rules, policies, and boundaries before you can ever expect to change things. It requires a willingness to see and understand from different points of view, from different points of the issue. Not only that, but is also needed an intellectual generosity in order to admit that a certain idea or a certain talking point of an opposing side is right, and one's own ideas are incomplete. Here will be my main stab at specific politicians:

The Republican base, and especially the current administration, generally doesn't exercise either intellectual curiosity or generosity. Whether they believe it or not, they exercise a more dictatorial method of managing the country and affairs around the world. Although there's no true unilateral decision-making in the sense that George Bush didn't sign the document and send us to war on a whim (though it sometimes feels that way), it required some measure by congress to approve the authorization to go to war. Abuse of influence and lack of collaboration between the minds in congress in a time of fear compelled them to follow the man who would take action, proving to me that even senators, when the correct buttons are pushed, are as easily led as some of the rest of us who aren't in congress.

Enter Barack Obama: Average-Joe American.

Those who still quibble over the funny name and ethnic background really have their priorities in the wrong place, and that's a fact. I've been studying presidential candidates, debates, speeches, policies, and social ideologies pretty solid for the four years since the last presidential cycle. So much so, that if I'd been in college studying political science, I'd be a year away from a degree right now in that field. However, college, like any other organization, gives you knowledge, but doesn't teach you how to think. I can think for myself already, and instead of paying $20,000 for a five year tour guide, I'd rather just develop my knowledge organically. I can read, write, and do some math, and that's all I need to succeed on my own. I learned what I need to know in public school and I don't need another institution trying to tell me that my way of thinking is wrong while not implementing a sane, reasonable substitute.

That's not to say that a university education is a terrible thing. In fact, I consider it a good thing when not approached as the be-all, end-all of life. Too many people aren't smart enough to realize that what someone else tells you is only perspective. Only so many perspectives are packed into, and absorbed through the college system. I'd sure like to go back to college, mainly to fill gaps and gain the experience and perspective of others. Plus, the experience of being in a studious college atmosphere is still appealing to me, as much as I'd like to travel and see other parts of the world, I'd like to have the true college experience.

Anyways, that's not entirely pertinent to this line of thinking. What is pertinent is that in my studies I've learned that Obama, who used to be a teacher of constitutional law, has that studious, intellectually curious, intellectually generous nature. It's perfectly evidenced in his debate approach. He's constantly interested in McCain's stances on the issues, and gives credit where credit is due. McCain, being as hot-tempered as he is, doesn't grant the same courtesy. He hardly speaks directly to Obama, he's condescending, and he brushes off Obama's ideas like they're completely wrong and it's based on the belief that 'Obama doesn't know anything because he hasn't been around long enough, he hasn't been to war, he's never been an executive of anything, he's not part of the status quo'. That's completely unfair, and it's exactly that attitude of exclusion and favoritism that has turned me off to the last eight years, and turns me off to John McCain AND Sarah Palin.

As far as political affiliations go, there's only one way I can truly label myself: Progressive.

If we don't allow for, and embrace changes (i.e Energy, foreign relations, new technologies, gay marriage), then this is never again going to be a country worth living in and we'll collapse as an influential society (because, as I see it, it's more important to be influentially powerful than physically or militarily powerful).

Conservatives, by literal meaning, don't appreciate and, at most turns, choose to fight change in order to preserve a more traditional way of life. See 'Conservative' in the dictionary. The country is founded on changing of ideals, changing of methods and has developed as a result of change. If we weren't constantly figuring out new answers to new and old problems, another country could possibly have defeated our military by now and we'd be speaking some language other than English.

Based on my research, Obama is clearly more prepared and more willing to embrace changes in the world. When he spouts off about being the '21^st century President', as pretentious as it sounds, he's not too far off.

1. He's for homosexual unions, because rightly, he sees it as not affecting the interests or security of the American public, but instead that the idea of opposing it is based in religious faith and that we should maintain separation between Church and State.

2. He understands that offshore drilling is a bad idea, not because the Republicans think it's a good idea, but because it's not a long-term solution. Alternative energy NEEDS to be implemented as the long-term solution otherwise our security and economy are bust. These oil/power companies would be helping themselves in the long term by putting venture capital into the alternative energy industry, otherwise in 30-40-50 years we don't have any reasonable amount of fossil fuel to be found and the entire world economy collapses because 'the Americans were too stupid to see beyond their own immediate needs'. Oh yeah, and need I remind anyone that we're not doing great things for the Earth with our reliance on fossil fuels?

3. I agree, and have always agreed, that a phased redeployment is the way to go with Iraq. We can't be babysitting them forever, and the money we're spending there could be used for better things, like developing and implementing alternative fuels. I'm not saying, and won't say that we should completely eliminate our presence there now that we've done our thing, but redeploy those troops to Afghanistan, get the job done there, and then return us to pre-9/11 deployment levels or something reasonable that will maintain our security but won't impose upon the rest of the world. We're in a lot of places we shouldn't be, and that's the primary reason all these radical Muslims hate us so much. It's not our religion, or our freedoms, it's the fact that we stepped into situations where we didn't belong. Don't let the powers that be convince you otherwise.

4. Obama's approach to foreign relations is truly a breath of fresh air. McCain's sticking point in the debates and in speeches is that Obama wants to engage in relations 'without precondition', as if Obama just wants to stroll into the Ahmadinejad's office, sit down over a cup of coffee and talk. We all know that's not possible, but I understand that where Obama's coming from, we've had foreign relations by fear and blackmail for the last 8 years under Bush. 'Precondition' as I see it, is that Bush has been unwilling to talk to these leaders unless THEY do what HE wants them to do first, which usually has something to do with halting their nuclear proliferation. This is a completely unreasonable way to approach collaboration and conversation, like Bush is playing 'big brother' to the whole world, and if he doesn't get his way, he just won't talk to you. It's juvenile. Obama, of course wants security to be involved in the talks, but the whole point of talking with these leaders is convincing them why they should or shouldn't do what they do for the sake of the world, and he seems to understand that and wants to extend the courtesy of equality into his foreign relations. Like I said, a breath of fresh air in a stagnant, stuffy room.

Those are some of the major things that turn me on to Barack Obama as a president. I urge you to decide, but make sure it's an educated decision instead of one based on party loyalty or specific, passionate interests. Make sure you see the big picture, try to decide what's best for everyone, and not just yourself. What I've just said is my own opinion on these subjects, and I don't want everyone to agree with me, and don't expect anyone to.

Read some books (especially 'The Audacity of Hope' by Obama), read Wikipedia. If you only do one Wiki entry a night between now and election day, you've still got the opportunity to read 28 between now and then. Learning is a journey with no true destination, and you use your own judgement to decide.