Saturday, July 26, 2008

Ain't no Messiah

As a pre-blog appetizer:




I had a dream a few nights ago that I think is worth sharing.

I have a place in my dreams where I meet famous people. It's typically in Eugene, and is a run-down warehouse type of location. The first person I remember meeting here was Richard D. James, also known as Aphex Twin, the second was Tom Waits, and in this particular instance the famous individual was Barack Obama.

There were a lot of twists and turns in this dream. Something about him moving to Eugene and making his campaign headquarters here because he liked it so much. There was a cute, "Gentle Ben" friendship that ensued, of course. However, there was one particular moment of profundity, when I asked Obama the following question:

"Honestly, what are you about? Do you really mean everything you say about change, or are you just in search of power?"

"What do you think? Everyone who is in my position is in search of power. I would like to think though that I have noble intentions for that power."


A lot of people have been too quick to bestow messianic status to Obama. His message has transformed him into the beacon of change that Americans so desire. From my observations this is the same obsession with symbolism that we all too often revere in our lives. The cross and the bible are more precious than the messiah it represents or the messages contained within, respectively. The wedding ring falls down the shower drain amidst tears and panic, yet the marriage spoils amongst petty bickering and a lack of communication. You may see Obama as change and a message of hope, but what does that mean? What kind of change are you looking for? Face it America, you can't even articulate what's wrong much less find someone to make things right. Sure, the economy is in spoils and we're amidst a not-so-legally defined war, but are those the ailments or the symptoms? There is something seriously wrong with the country and you need to accept the fact that no one person is going to have all the answers, or maybe even the one that will make things right. In essence, at this time, you are making a symbol out of Obama and in that obscuring your insight into Obama: the person.

Remember Choose Your Own Adventure books? Try this: Businesses are shipped overseas where they can employ cheap labor, evade taxes, and have free reign over the environmental discrepancies that make their ship sail smoothly. The loss of these jobs in America generates unemployment, saturates the market with inferior goods, and does not lower costs for consumers, because although products are made cheaply, they are not distributed as such. The business that goes overseas offsets the local economies of the host country as well as ruin the standards of their environment. This causes unrest in these citizens due to reasons concerning health and wealth, so they matriculate to a more prosperous country. These people illegally enter America because their lands are worthless to them, where they supposedly take jobs from local Americans, create a lack of border security in a post-9/11 world, and import crime with them as well. The only one who prospers in this scenario is the board of directors and the CEO. YOU LOSE. The end.

It would be nice if the story ended so simply. All you would have to do is open the cover, go back to the beginning, and keep business practices clean. Insert the businessman, his money, and his desire to keep that money. Also enter the president, willing and able to make change. Money keeps the lobbyists at the president's door, his voters in constant scrutiny, and the crosshairs on his head. Tell me where change is going to come from. President brings the businesses back home, does not grant tax relief to factories shipped overseas, demands higher environmental regulations in all US-related businesses, and takes one to the head as a result. YOU LOSE. The end.

The point? No one man is going to fix the problems with America. That's what has bothered me most about this election campaign. Everyone's always talked about Hilary-this, Barack-that, McCain-something... no one realizes that these people are one person in an entire checks-and-balances government that cannot do it by themselves. The president, in reality, is not that powerful (assuming Bush doesn't pull a Pervez Musharaff and declare himself emergency rule). The question that hasn't been asked nearly enough is who these people will surround themselves with. We're now getting a glimpse into this variable because everyone is interested in the vice presidential candidates, but it's not the executive branch that determines the total prosperity of America. We need to elect the person that is going to surround himself with the best possible people of service. Only then can things start to turn out right.

And really, if you want to win the adventure, you have to convince the corrupt and wealthy that they're really not doing THEMSELVES any favors. It's much nicer to cooperate on par with your society and be able to sleep at night.

2 comments:

chris bailly said...

Good post, Ruxton. You made a lot of good points, and I'll try to comment on some of them.

Re: Obama, myself and many other progressives have been disillusioned by Obama's vote and failure to filibuster the FISA bill that just passed. Part of the excitement surrounding Obama was that he talked about restoring the proper place of the presidency within the three branches of government. And restoring the rule of law in the presidency. Both of those have fallen by the wayside with his FISA vote, and it is hard to overstate the impact of that. For many people, he has gone from someone they can be excited about to someone who is "just better than McCain".

As to your point that one person can't fix the system because the president is just one part of our government, I agree. The thing is, although one person might not be able to fix everything, the last eight years has shown that one person can royally f--- things up.

In theory a president shouldn't be able to fundamentally alter our government's functioning, but when the other two branches fail to act as a check, and the media and ultimately the people see no problem, things fall apart. You get "when the president does it, it is not illegal". The difference between Nixon and today is that back then they saw a problem and did something about it. Today, the combination of criminal ignorance and complicity means that we sanction the crimes by passing bills to make them legal.

Torture? Detaining anyone, anywhere without due process? No problem, we'll pass the Military Commissions Act. Spying on U.S. citizens without warrants? No problem, here is a FISA bill which immunizes the telecommunication companies that profited from the spying, therefore eliminating any form of meaningful investigation. Starting an illegal war based on lies? As Pelosi says, impeachment is off the table.

When Obama signed on to the FISA bill, we got a glimpse that maybe now that he is close to being in the White House he would rather have the power than give it up. And don't give me any bs about using power responsibly. The whole point of our Constitution is that it is process. Vesting that power in the president undermines the process, whatever the ultimate result. A benevolent dictator is still a dictator, now matter how much good they do for the country.

As for no quick fix to the countries problems, I couldn't agree more. However, this would be a pretty good start. From Al Gore:

"I don’t remember a time in our country when so many things seemed to be going so wrong simultaneously. Our economy is in terrible shape and getting worse, gasoline prices are increasing dramatically, and so are electricity rates. Jobs are being outsourced. Home mortgages are in trouble. Banks, automobile companies and other institutions we depend upon are under growing pressure. Distinguished senior business leaders are telling us that this is just the beginning unless we find the courage to make some major changes quickly.

The climate crisis, in particular, is getting a lot worse — much more quickly than predicted. Scientists with access to data from Navy submarines traversing underneath the North polar ice cap have warned that there is now a 75 percent chance that within five years the entire ice cap will completely disappear during the summer months. This will further increase the melting pressure on Greenland. According to experts, the Jakobshavn glacier, one of Greenland’s largest, is moving at a faster rate than ever before, losing 20 million tons of ice every day, equivalent to the amount of water used every year by the residents of New York City. . .

Just two days ago, 27 senior statesmen and retired military leaders warned of the national security threat from an “energy tsunami” that would be triggered by a loss of our access to foreign oil. Meanwhile, the war in Iraq continues, and now the war in Afghanistan appears to be getting worse.

Yet when we look at all three of these seemingly intractable challenges at the same time, we can see the common thread running through them, deeply ironic in its simplicity: our dangerous over-reliance on carbon-based fuels is at the core of all three of these challenges — the economic, environmental and national security crises.

We’re borrowing money from China to buy oil from the Persian Gulf to burn it in ways that destroy the planet. Every bit of that’s got to change.
But if we grab hold of that common thread and pull it hard, all of these complex problems begin to unravel and we will find that we’re holding the answer to all of them right in our hand. The answer is to end our reliance on carbon-based fuels."

I'm going to put up a post about this speech, but it seems that following this advice would go a long way in solving some big problems.

The trouble is that the power structure is so heavily dependent on oil, I don't think we'll see things change without a fight. Our entire world economy is dependent on oil, and oil is a capital-intensive, centralized industry. Every person who drives to work in the morning, heats their homes, buys products and food from far away places, is using a commodity supplied by a handful of companies with vast financial and political power.

Compare that to a world where solar technology has gotten to the point that each house could generate most if not all of the electricity they need from a panel on their roof. It decentralizes one of the basic necessities of life. We are no longer beholden to the government/oil industry to provide for us.

The fight over renewables is not about cost or practicality. It isn't really even about money. I think its most basic level it comes down to societal control.

Zach Wallmark said...

Between the post itself and Chris's comments, you guys really covered a lot of ground. I don't have anything else to add.