Since this election is (apparently) about CHANGE ...

[dissent]

I think it's worth posting this.

As the saying goes, you should be careful what you wish for.

There are always things that need to be changed, but to listen to the convention speeches, and the fawning acolytes who think that all we need is \"change\", I think folk should be prepared to modify their expectations \"a bit\".

[Krom]

No matter who is in office, the bureaucracy in Washington DC will not change. About the only practical way to induce the kind of change that people running for election usually spout would be for the general population and the elected officials to stand up and overthrow the rest of the government. Only the top of the government actually turns over in an election, the vast majority of the middle is not elected, does not answer to the public and increasingly doesn't answer to the top either.

[Sergeant Thorne]

I had a thought the other day, and I wonder if one of the reasons that the message of change is so popular is that, to a degree, people project their own ideas of change onto it.

[Top Wop]

The masses get exactly the kind of government they deserve because the masses elect those kinds of people. Its apparent to me that the only way we can get a decent president is if one takes office by accident. The stupidity of the electorate prevents otherwise.

[dissent]

Another post worth reading, in the \"be careful what you wish for\" vein.

[Lothar]

I had a thought the other day, and I wonder if one of the reasons that the message of change is so popular is that, to a degree, people project their own ideas of change onto it.

I once heard someone call Obama the "Rorschach candidate". He says "hope and change" and people assume he means the things they hope for and the things they want to change.

[Top Wop]

Sounds like brainwashing at its finest! Too bad it works so well.

[Kyouryuu]

The stupidity of the electorate prevents otherwise.

That what most of it boils down to. At the end of the day, for every person who tries to learn about the candidate, goes on-line, tries to ferret out the truth - there are 10 people who vote for someone on the basis of how many signs they put up around town.

What voters have to understand is, to appropriate a phrase from Obama, change starts from the bottom up, not the top down. We pay a lot of attention to the President. It's exciting and it's glamorous. But the people who we really ought to be questioning are the ones lower on the food chain. Senators and Congresspeople, both on the local and federal levels, have had it too good for too long.

People get angry about Bush and Cheney's approval ratings, but as Republicans are quick to point out, the Congress rating is even worse. You don't see people lining up to address that problem and that's the sad part. Agree or disagree, I still maintain that we should have term limits on these positions to ensure some degree of turnover. I'm always dismayed when you have a Senator who has been in that position for 20+ or 30+ years. That just shouldn't happen.

[woodchip]

The problem as I see it, most people do not want change. At least to the point where where they themselves are willing to do something about. How many people do you see who are satisfied with a dead end job but complain about the well to do. How many complain about the political process but don't even vote, let alone get involved. How many are appalled about crime in their neighborhood but won't call the police if they see a crime being committed.

It is too easy to hear someone pontificate about how he will bring change, become enamored with the mantra and chants formulated by behind the scene puppeteers.
What impact do any of the kool aid followers think their candidate will have on their lives. Crime will disappear? They will get a call from someone offering them a better job? Politicians will magically become honest and caring people?

Lothar is right in that people have these self images of change not realising at the end of the day, after their hero of change is elected, life will go on and their lives will be the same.

[Kyouryuu]

That's true, Woodchip. Sad, but true.

But in any case, a \"change election\" is a healthy thing, don't you think? Nothing inspires politicians to wake up like a threat to unseat them. Even if the incumbent wins by a narrow margin, they'll have to acknowledge that next time, they may not be so lucky, so they better get their act together.

[Bet51987]

But you at least have to try for a change... If you want a chance for change you have to vote for the administration that doesn't appear to be an exact image of the previous administration. Other than that the only other choice is do nothing.

Bee

[woodchip]

Change is great. The problem is, someone like Obama, once they get into office and the realities of the office hits them, all of a sudden find their rosy preconceptions of what they can or can not do fly out the window. I'm sure Bush had rosy ideals but then 9/11 smacked him and all he might have planned for the country became moot.

OTOH someone like JFK had a sputnik happen and so he wound up implementing our whole man in space program.

Yes change can be good, but it can also be bad. The world is just too complex a place to think that what you want to change will be what really happens.

[Gooberman]

Woodchip,

Think of the past eight years. How many times have Al sharpton or Jesse Jackson fabricated race issues. (The reason he wants to castrate Obama is that he is a direct threat to his livelyhood!)

1. Do you think having Obama as president is sort of an instant \"i win\" card in debating them? Don't you think it would kill these race profiteers, whom I am convinced do alot more harm to their race then good.

That is change, and we can agree if it were to happen, it would be good change.

2. Do you think it would help race relations in America, to show that not only white people can become president?

This is change that Obama would bring, and would be good.

I am under no delusions that there will still be war, poverty, partisan politics, etc, after Obama is president. And at this point in my life, McCain's agenda is more beneficial to me personally then Obamas. But Obama would be change for this country.

Perhaps I am too idealistic. Does that mean I am voting for Obama because he is black? I don't think so, but maybe, I know I would of voted for McCain over Kerry....but it's fair and honest to say that the previous 43 were elected because they weren't.

[Lothar]

Goob, what happens if (IMO, when) Obama turns out to be a disastrous president? Doesn't that give Sharpton et al an opening to manufacture more race issues, as well as giving white racists ammunition for their \"see, n****rs shouldn't run nothin, theys stupid, f***ing affirmative action f***ed the country again\" arguments?

If we could agree that your version of change would happen, it would be good change. I'm just not convinced that's the direction of change we would see. A competent, reasonably centerist black president would likely do good things for race relations in the US. I worry that Obama wouldn't... and even if he did, I worry that it'd be offset by other things he'd make worse.

[Gooberman]

I think Sharpton et al feed their families on two presumptions:

1. The American system is fundamentally racist.
2. White people are inheritly racist.

I personally don't think either of those are tied to Obama's performance. I also don't think they are tied to him if he loses, but they are defeated if he wins. I would like to add that I think Obama is also the beginning of the end of affirmative action (again, perhaps I am too idealistic).

On your second group, sure. But iirc you were with me when Korrupt had his racism BB awhile ago, (not sure if its still active). You've argued with people of that nature just as I have. There is really nothing that you can do about them, best to just forget about their existance. They will hate Obama and think he fucked up the country no matter what happens, just as they would a republican black president. The KKK has already predicted his assassination

[woodchip]

1. Do you think having Obama as president is sort of an instant "i win" card in debating them? Don't you think it would kill these race profiteers, whom I am convinced do alot more harm to their race then good.

That is change, and we can agree if it were to happen, it would be good change.

Goob, I think to a extent, you are right. The problem I would see is if Obama was to do something contrary to what the blacks think is right, the term "Uncle Tom" will rear it's ugly head. Now lets reverse the Obama scenario to where Condoleeza Rice was running for president on the republican ticket and Hillary was the democratic nominee, what rhetoric would we be hearing from the Dems? Would there still be a I win button if Rice won the race?

2. Do you think it would help race relations in America, to show that not only white people can become president?

As in my above reply, I think it depends on what party the black president belonged to. There are plenty of talented black people but unfortunately it also depends on how conservative their views are. For example just look at how vilified Bill Cosby was when he got up and said blacks need to be educated and learn to speak good english to get ahead.
While Obama is well educated, the question I have is, "How many people voted for Obama during the primaries because they wanted to view themselves as non-racist?" Lets face it, other than being black, Obama has absolutely no qualifications to run anything. I was debating myself as to whether I would vote for Hillary over McCain as I didn't see a big difference between the two. That's all moot now with McCain's pick of Sarah Palin for VP.

[Krom]

I'm sorry but \"qualifications to be president\"? What kind of ridiculous nonsense is that crap? Are there ever people other than FORMER presidents who are really \"qualified to be president\"?

[dissent]

I'm sorry but "qualifications to be president"? What kind of ridiculous nonsense is that crap? Are there ever people other than FORMER presidents who are really "qualified to be president"?

Indeed (since hindsight is often 20/20) some would contend that there are many former presidents who are not qualified to be president.

[Gooberman]

Goob, I think to a extent, you are right. The problem I would see is if Obama was to do something contrary to what the blacks think is right, the term "Uncle Tom" will rear it's ugly head. Now lets reverse the Obama scenario to where Condoleeza Rice was running for president on the republican ticket and Hillary was the democratic nominee, what rhetoric would we be hearing from the Dems? Would there still be a I win button if Rice won the race?

Oh if Rice won it would be so much worse. Not only would it take care of points 1 and 2 in my response to Lothar, but I would add that it would open up the conservative philosophy to many minorities. Along with being a woman, Rice solidifies the 'anyone can be president in this country' argument. That being said, it is important to distinguish that right now Rice was "picked" she wasn't voted for. There is a huge difference.

I'm not saying Obama would end racism, or racists, or people who try and stir the race pot. But his win does puts down the notion that "the system is keeping you down." And thats a good start.

Rice would have been the 'I win' sledge hammer. Mainly because, people like myself, don't think your party would ever actually nominate her! I would personally, and gladly, take a few hits with that hammer.

Remember Hillary Clinton was leading among blacks going into IOWA.

Preconcieved notions are powerful things.

[Kyouryuu]

In my opinion, history will probably show that Rice was the only member of Bush's cabinet who knew what she was doing. As Cheney and Rumsfeld butt out of the war decisions, and Gates and Rice got involved, things changed for the better. It wasn't just the surge, it was a fundamental change in control and thinking.

I too was disappointed with how Cosby was vilified by his own community. The man spoke the truth and it's a bitter pill for some members of that community to swallow. The day Jackson and Sharpton are dismissed for the hacks they are, the sooner we can actually solve the problem of racism. Both men promote the cultural divide. They are the self-righteous enablers.

In the wake of Obama's fantastic speech last week, seeing Jackson cry and praise him was laughably two-faced, given that just a month ago he wanted to give him a vasectomy. In some sense, the very fact that Obama is a Presidential candidate shatters the glass ceiling. And Hillary? Palin? Those windows have also broken. Jackson and Sharpton know that their days are numbered and they are fearful that their status as messengers is being challenged. Even if Obama doesn't win, you know he can do a ton of good on the lecture circuit.

[MD-1118]

If we survive long enough, and that's a pretty big \"if\", I'm going to run for President in 12-13 years. That's my contribution. Oh, and I vote.

I really don't think the world will last that long, though. People are too stupid as it is. Any stupider and they'll start mimicking lemmings.