Dear Mr. President,
As a small child there were a number of foods I convinced myself I didn't like. Broccoli. Pizza. Tomatoes. Really it would be faster to list the foods I did eat than those I didn't. It took me years of insisting I didn't care for a variety of foods I'd actually never tried before I finally began to question this mindset and experiment. While I gradually grew to like many of the kinds of food I'd convinced myself never to try, I've held out on certain things. Tonight I finally tried bubble tea, a drink that most people in this city love and that I've long insisted not to like. It was absolutely delicious. (If my best friend is reading this I am in so much trouble.) Every time this happens to me I have the disconcerting experience of questioning my other long-held beliefs. My friend who changed my mind on bubble tea is also married. What if this means I might like that, too?
So while I've been thinking most of the night about all of the things I've convinced myself I don't like or that I can't do, changing my party affiliation would have to top the list. I could no sooner identify as a Republican than I could wake up tomorrow with normal sized hands. When I read Arlen Specter's farewell speech I chuckled at his characterization of the tea party insurgency as "sophisticated cannibalism" but I couldn't get my head around the idea of an ideology that could sway so easily from Republican to Democrat. I'm so fiercely and consistently liberal that I just can't conceive of such contradictory ideas being contained in the same mind. But, if I can't identify as a Republican, must that also mean I could never compromise with one, work together with one, or even hold a rational conversation with one? I don't think it must, but I do see how the labels make this difficult. I've certainly heard (and parroted) the comparison of primary politics to cannibalism before today. I'm not sure if I'm more sympathetic to the party-purist cannibals calling for more partisanship or the centrists like Mr. Specter decrying it. Centrism and caution certainly have a role to play, but with voters increasingly frustrated with congress' inability to get anything done, I'm not surprised that more liberal Democrats and more conservative Republicans are gnawing at the bones of their compromising incumbents. But who is to say what is liberal or conservative enough? Who is to say if this enthusiasm for either extreme is actually a hinderance to progress and change in the way it polarizes those who govern us together?
As you can tell, the revelation that I like bubble tea has really shaken me up. I'm not sure I'm really sure about anything any more. Perhaps this state, this rejection of certainty and reexamination of opinions based on new information is really what we should look for in candidates. The more I learn about our political system, the more I wish we could do away with political parties all together. I think that the party system engenders laziness in the electorate, who no longer have to discover for themselves where a candidate stands, but can decide votes based on the parenthetical letter after a candidate's name. I think it also creates a falsely combative state, implying that the Senate and House have 2 (or, generously, 3) competing opinions rather than 535. That an allegiance to party is more important for funding and re-election than an allegiance to voters or even to a politician's personal views. For example, the Republicans holding up health care funding for 9/11 first responders aren't answering questions about why, and I think that's probably because "the party leadership told us to" doesn't spin well as justification. The party system encourages this, and each side's talking-point explanations sound more and more like my own childish insistence that I hated things I'd never even tried.
Maybe getting rid of political parties wouldn't rid us of extremists, but I think it would encourage honesty (and courage) in a system sorely lacking it. What do you think? How could our system be improved to ensure that public servants (most of whom I believe to be well-intentioned) are better able to serve the people? You've been accused of extreme centrism and unforgivable liberalism (often for the same position.) Does your identity as a Democrat compel you to support or oppose issue you might not personally? Would you rather be seen as an ineffective centrist or an authoritarian extremist?
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Thanks to Jessi for the Bubble Tea :)
Showing posts with label Democrats. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Democrats. Show all posts
Tuesday, December 21, 2010
Friday, December 17, 2010
Day 351- Celery
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| Exclusive - Mike Huckabee Extended Interview | ||||
| ||||
Dear Mr. President,
Watching The Daily Show last night, I felt like cheering when Mike Huckabee suggested that Democrats were making health benefits for 9/11 first responders a political battle and Jon Stewart retorted "honestly, to their discredit, they haven't." Stewart goes on to compare the situation to the Democrats being handed a feast of a political win on a silver platter and refusing it in order to sit in a corner and eat celery. His entire show seemed to beg the question "hey, where's your outrage now?" of every 9/11-invoking Republican, FOX news pundit and mosque-protesting bigot. Because honoring those who died on (and continue to die from) 9/11 is about more than keeping Islamic community centers outside of a 10-block radius of ground zero. Mr. Stewart, after the rally to restore sanity, forcefully reminded Rachel Maddow that unlike pundits representing real news networks, he doesn't have any skin in the game, he doesn't play so much as shout drunkenly from the stands. I think yesterday's show demonstrated rather clearly why that isn't always true. It must be frustrating to watch a comedian out-articulate you with a message that Democrats ought to have been owning since the Republican filibuster began.
Another silver platter story arrived in the form of the Republican opposition to the International Protecting Girls by Preventing Child Marriage Act of 2010. House Republicans voted against the bill (even some who co-sponsored it) citing fiscal concerns and bizarre fears that such legislation could increase abortions. I just want to tear my hair out at the horrifying logic being used to justify this. Where is the family-values outrage now?
(See that Cat? See the Cradle? )
I understand the desire to live in merry bipartisan bliss, especially now that every one is in the spirit of the holidays. But Jon Stewart is right. Enough celery! Democrats ought to be finding every TV camera they can and repeating some version of the same line about honoring 9/11's heroes and protecting vulnerable children from exploitation in the name of marriage. The race for 2012 starts any day now (if not yesterday) and voters across the country need to know that voting Republican is tantamount to saying it's OK to let 9/11 first responders suffer and struggle and die, that it's OK to quibble about the global gag rule while 12-year old girls are forced to marry men old enough to be their grandfathers.
Put down the celery Mr. President, it's time for a more satisfying entree.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Monday, December 6, 2010
Day 340- A bad compromise
Dear Mr. President,
I'm sure you'll be getting no small amount of hell from the left over the tax-cuts-for-unemployment deal you made today with Republican leadership. I won't add to it. Not because I don't think this was a show of weakness, a terrible decision given the economic climate and a bad political move to boot, but because I wasn't in the room.
I actually wasn't in any number of rooms, as I'm sure this negotiation took place over many days on many levels in many, many rooms. I don't know what was said, what was offered and what was threatened. I can say I'd have done it differently, but I don't know, for sure, that my solution would have worked any better than yours.
I won't add to the criticism, I will say only this; I am disappointed. I feel let down, I feel ignored, I feel as though you caved in to demands you might have stood up to. I, and other liberals who voted for you, are owed an explanation. Who are we to hold accountable? What blue-dog democrats backed down? What possible justification do so-called fiscally responsible Republicans have for this massive increase to the deficit? Where were we beaten and where were we just too afraid to fight back?
It's been a long week for me, already, and it's only just Monday. Taking a break from finals week madness, I tried to follow some of the reactions to this deal. The usual name calling is all around, as is plenty of voter's remorse and more than one "I told you so" from fellow liberals. One comment came from a man whose unemployment insurance is going to be extended because of this deal, and all he had to offer was gratitude.
Maybe it's because I'm tired, maybe it's because I can accept the limits of my own knowledge, or maybe it was the gratitude of this man, but I just can't share in the fury on the left tonight. It was a bad deal, a bad day. All I can do is tell myself that tomorrow will be better.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
I'm sure you'll be getting no small amount of hell from the left over the tax-cuts-for-unemployment deal you made today with Republican leadership. I won't add to it. Not because I don't think this was a show of weakness, a terrible decision given the economic climate and a bad political move to boot, but because I wasn't in the room.
I actually wasn't in any number of rooms, as I'm sure this negotiation took place over many days on many levels in many, many rooms. I don't know what was said, what was offered and what was threatened. I can say I'd have done it differently, but I don't know, for sure, that my solution would have worked any better than yours.
I won't add to the criticism, I will say only this; I am disappointed. I feel let down, I feel ignored, I feel as though you caved in to demands you might have stood up to. I, and other liberals who voted for you, are owed an explanation. Who are we to hold accountable? What blue-dog democrats backed down? What possible justification do so-called fiscally responsible Republicans have for this massive increase to the deficit? Where were we beaten and where were we just too afraid to fight back?
It's been a long week for me, already, and it's only just Monday. Taking a break from finals week madness, I tried to follow some of the reactions to this deal. The usual name calling is all around, as is plenty of voter's remorse and more than one "I told you so" from fellow liberals. One comment came from a man whose unemployment insurance is going to be extended because of this deal, and all he had to offer was gratitude.
Maybe it's because I'm tired, maybe it's because I can accept the limits of my own knowledge, or maybe it was the gratitude of this man, but I just can't share in the fury on the left tonight. It was a bad deal, a bad day. All I can do is tell myself that tomorrow will be better.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
Day 320- Friends
Dear Mr. President,
Sometimes I find it strange the way friend have taken the place of family as the care takers in my life. I love the way they take care of me, and put up with me, and I appreciate them for it. I feel like many people my age have seen that transition from surrounding yourself with people you're related to, into surrounding ourselves with a family we get to chose. It is a strange kind of family, but, for the most part, we do OK.
My friends, besides being brilliant in their own right, tend also to have similar political values. I have a few libertarian or outright conservative friends, but I tend to avoid making new ones. I have no problem relating to people of other ages, races, or sexual orientations, but my political beliefs tend to exclude me from friendship with those who outright disagree with my political values.
I'm not a professional politician, and I'd say this polarization of beliefs would probably be much worse if I were. Avoiding those I disagree with doesn't help me, and it certainly doesn't help those whose minds I would attempt to change. When the photo-ops are over and the cameras and microphones have subsided, do you find yourself, honestly relating well to republicans? Do you have republican friends? Or do ideological divides determine your friendships, as well?
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Sometimes I find it strange the way friend have taken the place of family as the care takers in my life. I love the way they take care of me, and put up with me, and I appreciate them for it. I feel like many people my age have seen that transition from surrounding yourself with people you're related to, into surrounding ourselves with a family we get to chose. It is a strange kind of family, but, for the most part, we do OK.
My friends, besides being brilliant in their own right, tend also to have similar political values. I have a few libertarian or outright conservative friends, but I tend to avoid making new ones. I have no problem relating to people of other ages, races, or sexual orientations, but my political beliefs tend to exclude me from friendship with those who outright disagree with my political values.
I'm not a professional politician, and I'd say this polarization of beliefs would probably be much worse if I were. Avoiding those I disagree with doesn't help me, and it certainly doesn't help those whose minds I would attempt to change. When the photo-ops are over and the cameras and microphones have subsided, do you find yourself, honestly relating well to republicans? Do you have republican friends? Or do ideological divides determine your friendships, as well?
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Monday, November 8, 2010
Day 312- Quack. Quack. Quack.
Dear Mr. President,
For all the prattle about the new agenda of the Republican-controlled Houe, the year isn't quite over. While the lame-duck session may be a short one, and subject to the unfortunate political reality of a weakened Democratic party, I hope that repealing DADT is given the effort it deserves. The support of Defense Secretary Robert Gates for such a repeal (and his sage urging that the repeal take place before the new year) should indicate enough will within the military establishment to pull off such a herculean task.
I suppose my usual cynical dismissal of the political courage of Democrats will kick in any moment, but I actually feel pretty confident about the prospects of a lame-duck session. From my perspective, the Senate has been governing like lame-duck senators since 2008. It seems as though there is at least the same chance of the repeal as there was before the election.
As usual, I believe that the Senate's action on this issue will be a direct result of White House leadership. Only Presidential direction and political influence will ensure that the Democrats are successful in this attempt. Coming through on this major campaign promise would be an encouraging sign to all of your supporters that, even after a loss like the midterms, you aren't giving up on the change we were promised.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
For all the prattle about the new agenda of the Republican-controlled Houe, the year isn't quite over. While the lame-duck session may be a short one, and subject to the unfortunate political reality of a weakened Democratic party, I hope that repealing DADT is given the effort it deserves. The support of Defense Secretary Robert Gates for such a repeal (and his sage urging that the repeal take place before the new year) should indicate enough will within the military establishment to pull off such a herculean task.
I suppose my usual cynical dismissal of the political courage of Democrats will kick in any moment, but I actually feel pretty confident about the prospects of a lame-duck session. From my perspective, the Senate has been governing like lame-duck senators since 2008. It seems as though there is at least the same chance of the repeal as there was before the election.
As usual, I believe that the Senate's action on this issue will be a direct result of White House leadership. Only Presidential direction and political influence will ensure that the Democrats are successful in this attempt. Coming through on this major campaign promise would be an encouraging sign to all of your supporters that, even after a loss like the midterms, you aren't giving up on the change we were promised.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Thursday, October 28, 2010
Day 301- Undecided
Dear Mr. President,
Tonight Rasmussen released another poll showing Dino Rossi pulling ahead. I'm pretty much in a state of panic, even as I continue to console myself with the frequent inaccuracy of Rasmussen's polls. Paul Krugman's Op-ed isn't making me much calmer. I'm terrified of the results we'll find on election day, and even more so of the resulting legislative agenda. Keith Olbermann's recent comment on the Tea Party articulated the fears that many of us on the left are experiencing this year.
But polls and pundit comments aside, this midterm should have people scared. Every election, about this time, I start marveling at the very idea of undecided voters. I feel so strongly about politics that I can't even date Republicans; and I may not be able to stand them, but I at least respect the passion that I see in my friends on the right. It is undecided voters, swing voters, people who seem to change their entire value system (or not understand how that value system is represented by their vote) every 2-4 years who confuse me. It baffles me. How can a voter who clearly understood the problems with the Bush administration (and the candidates who wanted to continue them) just two years ago suddenly be confused about who to vote for? It seems to me that the center has long been controlled by the most willfully disengaged, and the fact that they're the ones who get to decide so many elections frustrates me to no end.
I don't think that congressional Democrats are entirely blameless. Between the cowardly ones who are now running away from the party's agenda in their ads, and the cowardly ones who never had the guts to defend that agenda in the first place, it is really difficult to see why Democrats are a viable alternative to the bad ideas of Republicans. While I don't think that a disillusionment with Democrats justifies a vote for Republicans, unfortunately the two-party system (and the increasing similarity in the way the parties take money from corporations) leaves many voters feeling that this is the best solution.
Personally, I've been proud to be a Democrat lately. Watching you and Senator Murray and Governor Gregoire speak, meeting President Carter, watching you make such a compelling case for your administration's accomplishments on The Daily Show last night, all of it has restored the pride I thought I'd lost in my party. I hope that the predictions and the polls are wrong. I hope that Democrats get two more years to prove that we're not completely spineless. Because, as much as they confuse me, we're probably going to need those undecided voters in 2012.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Tonight Rasmussen released another poll showing Dino Rossi pulling ahead. I'm pretty much in a state of panic, even as I continue to console myself with the frequent inaccuracy of Rasmussen's polls. Paul Krugman's Op-ed isn't making me much calmer. I'm terrified of the results we'll find on election day, and even more so of the resulting legislative agenda. Keith Olbermann's recent comment on the Tea Party articulated the fears that many of us on the left are experiencing this year.
But polls and pundit comments aside, this midterm should have people scared. Every election, about this time, I start marveling at the very idea of undecided voters. I feel so strongly about politics that I can't even date Republicans; and I may not be able to stand them, but I at least respect the passion that I see in my friends on the right. It is undecided voters, swing voters, people who seem to change their entire value system (or not understand how that value system is represented by their vote) every 2-4 years who confuse me. It baffles me. How can a voter who clearly understood the problems with the Bush administration (and the candidates who wanted to continue them) just two years ago suddenly be confused about who to vote for? It seems to me that the center has long been controlled by the most willfully disengaged, and the fact that they're the ones who get to decide so many elections frustrates me to no end.
I don't think that congressional Democrats are entirely blameless. Between the cowardly ones who are now running away from the party's agenda in their ads, and the cowardly ones who never had the guts to defend that agenda in the first place, it is really difficult to see why Democrats are a viable alternative to the bad ideas of Republicans. While I don't think that a disillusionment with Democrats justifies a vote for Republicans, unfortunately the two-party system (and the increasing similarity in the way the parties take money from corporations) leaves many voters feeling that this is the best solution.
Personally, I've been proud to be a Democrat lately. Watching you and Senator Murray and Governor Gregoire speak, meeting President Carter, watching you make such a compelling case for your administration's accomplishments on The Daily Show last night, all of it has restored the pride I thought I'd lost in my party. I hope that the predictions and the polls are wrong. I hope that Democrats get two more years to prove that we're not completely spineless. Because, as much as they confuse me, we're probably going to need those undecided voters in 2012.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Saturday, October 16, 2010
Day 289- A bit late
Dear Mr. President,
It's much later than I usually post my letter to you. Since it won't, at all, affect the time you receive the letter, I'm sure this will go unnoticed. I like to think my excuse- I was playing my oft-repeated role as Designated Driver for a few friends who'd had way too much to drink- is worthy enough that those who do read this online won't judge me for missing midnight by several hours. I spent the evening around people I care about, people I respect, people who have achieved the kind of goals in life I'm supposed to be setting for myself- graduate degrees, successful careers, marriage, family- and found very little to make me want any of it. Through it all I felt incredibly out of place, unable to relate to the things that make them happy or even the things they find important. By the end of the night, as I was attempting to herd drunk friend into safe modes of transportation and get them home, I'd been thinking a lot about the midterms.
I started the night out with a clear agenda, an ambitious idea of how the night would go and what was important to me. l was quickly forced to compromise. The conflicting agendas of others, the logistical complications, the whole evening began to feel a lot like I've always imagined negotiating a piece of legislation through congress would feel. By the time I was struggling with drunk friends to keep them safe and get them home, I felt like I was fighting the forces of gravity just to hold my sanity together. Forget about my agenda; it had been lost for hours. Not to belittle the complexity of your current political situation, by comparing to to a bunch of drunk kids at a bar, or anything. You're a big fan of the responsible-driver vs. the republicans metaphor, and tonight i regretted ever cynically complaining about how overused that particular fable has become in your stump speech. The whole country handed you the keys and said they were just going to have a couple beers. You look around now and every one is screaming about marxism and your birth certificate and Obamacare and you have to wonder why you agreed to stay sober in the first place. No one will listen to you, or take your advice, or let you just fix things the way you want to. Even when inebriated, we Americans tend to be pretty protective of the idea of our own superior judgement as individuals.
I don't imagine that I've done anything more tonight than found a small my-life-sized analogy to the massive problems and struggles you face. But I think you're making the right call. Because, for a moment, I leaned back against my friend's car to appreciate the stars, and thought about the absurdity of it all. I almost laughed, because the night had already gotten so far away from funny that there was nothing else to do. I don't know if it helped me at all, but I can say that at least no one got hurt, and at least every one got to a safe place to sleep. You may have had the most tedious night of your life and be surrounded on all sides by fellow Democrats stumbling and senseless with the fear of the whims of a capricious public, but you're still criss-crossing the campaign trail, making your case, recognizing that even if you can't keep your agenda you can at least get every one home in one piece.
It's a tough job, but somebody has to do it. Tonight, I am immensely grateful that it's you and not me.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
It's much later than I usually post my letter to you. Since it won't, at all, affect the time you receive the letter, I'm sure this will go unnoticed. I like to think my excuse- I was playing my oft-repeated role as Designated Driver for a few friends who'd had way too much to drink- is worthy enough that those who do read this online won't judge me for missing midnight by several hours. I spent the evening around people I care about, people I respect, people who have achieved the kind of goals in life I'm supposed to be setting for myself- graduate degrees, successful careers, marriage, family- and found very little to make me want any of it. Through it all I felt incredibly out of place, unable to relate to the things that make them happy or even the things they find important. By the end of the night, as I was attempting to herd drunk friend into safe modes of transportation and get them home, I'd been thinking a lot about the midterms.
I started the night out with a clear agenda, an ambitious idea of how the night would go and what was important to me. l was quickly forced to compromise. The conflicting agendas of others, the logistical complications, the whole evening began to feel a lot like I've always imagined negotiating a piece of legislation through congress would feel. By the time I was struggling with drunk friends to keep them safe and get them home, I felt like I was fighting the forces of gravity just to hold my sanity together. Forget about my agenda; it had been lost for hours. Not to belittle the complexity of your current political situation, by comparing to to a bunch of drunk kids at a bar, or anything. You're a big fan of the responsible-driver vs. the republicans metaphor, and tonight i regretted ever cynically complaining about how overused that particular fable has become in your stump speech. The whole country handed you the keys and said they were just going to have a couple beers. You look around now and every one is screaming about marxism and your birth certificate and Obamacare and you have to wonder why you agreed to stay sober in the first place. No one will listen to you, or take your advice, or let you just fix things the way you want to. Even when inebriated, we Americans tend to be pretty protective of the idea of our own superior judgement as individuals.
I don't imagine that I've done anything more tonight than found a small my-life-sized analogy to the massive problems and struggles you face. But I think you're making the right call. Because, for a moment, I leaned back against my friend's car to appreciate the stars, and thought about the absurdity of it all. I almost laughed, because the night had already gotten so far away from funny that there was nothing else to do. I don't know if it helped me at all, but I can say that at least no one got hurt, and at least every one got to a safe place to sleep. You may have had the most tedious night of your life and be surrounded on all sides by fellow Democrats stumbling and senseless with the fear of the whims of a capricious public, but you're still criss-crossing the campaign trail, making your case, recognizing that even if you can't keep your agenda you can at least get every one home in one piece.
It's a tough job, but somebody has to do it. Tonight, I am immensely grateful that it's you and not me.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Saturday, October 9, 2010
Day 282- Hold 'em
Dear Mr. President,
I learned to play Texas Hold 'em because I didn't want to feel left out. The boys I went to High School with had begun having weekly poker nights, and it was strictly No Girls Allowed. I'm still not sure what made them change their minds and include us; maybe playing a guys-only game just wasn't as fun? Maybe they just wanted more sources of money in hopes of increasing their winnings? For whatever reason, the boys broke down and let a few of us girls join. We played late at night, small-stakes, unlimited re-buying and way too much of Mrs. Yunker's delicious coffee and snacks keeping us up sometimes until dawn. Later in the summer, seeking the thrill of higher stakes and the greater glory of taking money from strangers, we moved our weekly nights to a limit game in a local casino. When Teddy Roosevelt said "walk softly and carry a big stick" he probably didn't imagine that decades later an 18 year old girl would adopt it as her mantra for hustling poker tables full of 40-year old drunks. (It was a very good summer, in some respects.) The whole poker culture fascinated me, especially at the world series, where the ancient celebrities clashed with the young turks learning the game online.
These days I only play for fun, an occasional night game with friends, like tonight. Coworkers, new friends and total strangers, we gather around a too-small table in a motley assortment of chairs, trading banter as we bond over junk food and movie references. A game like poker will quickly give a table full of strangers the familiarity of friends or even kin. You play the person, not the cards, I'm told. This strategy appeals to me, as does the way the tides of fortune change. At any point the weakest player can take on the strongest and win. Tonight I've already won and lost more money than I care to think about, but I'm still pretty confident that I'll manage to claw my way back to a tidy profit.
So, strangely enough, this has me thinking about the filibuster. Domestic policy is not dissimilar from poker, in that strategy tends to trump substance. The strength or wisdom of policy proposals is secondary to the wrangling, bluffing and bullying institutionalized in both houses of congress. Maybe that's part of the fun, part of the challenge. And I won't claim more than an amateur observer's expertise in the finer points of political strategy, but, as a poker player, I feel like Democrats have great cards and rarely, if ever, know how to play them. Just the other day a friend asked me about filibusters and why the threat of a filibuster is enough to hold things up. Why don't the Democrats just let them filibuster and see how bad they look doing it? I didn't have a satisfying answer for her.
Anyway, I should probably go focus on this game, if I'm ever going to scrape my way back into the black. Not to beat the whole metaphor to death or anything, but it is long past time to call the Republican's bluff. I will add my voice to the chorus of those on the left who want to see these Filibuster threats acted on. I suspect that the Republicans are just bullying; I'd bet that the first display of strength from the Democrats and they'd back down. But I'll stick to playing cards and leave such musings to those more qualified to offer them. I hope you're enjoying your weekend.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
I learned to play Texas Hold 'em because I didn't want to feel left out. The boys I went to High School with had begun having weekly poker nights, and it was strictly No Girls Allowed. I'm still not sure what made them change their minds and include us; maybe playing a guys-only game just wasn't as fun? Maybe they just wanted more sources of money in hopes of increasing their winnings? For whatever reason, the boys broke down and let a few of us girls join. We played late at night, small-stakes, unlimited re-buying and way too much of Mrs. Yunker's delicious coffee and snacks keeping us up sometimes until dawn. Later in the summer, seeking the thrill of higher stakes and the greater glory of taking money from strangers, we moved our weekly nights to a limit game in a local casino. When Teddy Roosevelt said "walk softly and carry a big stick" he probably didn't imagine that decades later an 18 year old girl would adopt it as her mantra for hustling poker tables full of 40-year old drunks. (It was a very good summer, in some respects.) The whole poker culture fascinated me, especially at the world series, where the ancient celebrities clashed with the young turks learning the game online.
These days I only play for fun, an occasional night game with friends, like tonight. Coworkers, new friends and total strangers, we gather around a too-small table in a motley assortment of chairs, trading banter as we bond over junk food and movie references. A game like poker will quickly give a table full of strangers the familiarity of friends or even kin. You play the person, not the cards, I'm told. This strategy appeals to me, as does the way the tides of fortune change. At any point the weakest player can take on the strongest and win. Tonight I've already won and lost more money than I care to think about, but I'm still pretty confident that I'll manage to claw my way back to a tidy profit.
So, strangely enough, this has me thinking about the filibuster. Domestic policy is not dissimilar from poker, in that strategy tends to trump substance. The strength or wisdom of policy proposals is secondary to the wrangling, bluffing and bullying institutionalized in both houses of congress. Maybe that's part of the fun, part of the challenge. And I won't claim more than an amateur observer's expertise in the finer points of political strategy, but, as a poker player, I feel like Democrats have great cards and rarely, if ever, know how to play them. Just the other day a friend asked me about filibusters and why the threat of a filibuster is enough to hold things up. Why don't the Democrats just let them filibuster and see how bad they look doing it? I didn't have a satisfying answer for her.
Anyway, I should probably go focus on this game, if I'm ever going to scrape my way back into the black. Not to beat the whole metaphor to death or anything, but it is long past time to call the Republican's bluff. I will add my voice to the chorus of those on the left who want to see these Filibuster threats acted on. I suspect that the Republicans are just bullying; I'd bet that the first display of strength from the Democrats and they'd back down. But I'll stick to playing cards and leave such musings to those more qualified to offer them. I hope you're enjoying your weekend.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Friday, October 8, 2010
Day 281- Of and For
Dear Mr. President,
I understand why people are upset over recent revelations about Lou Dobbs' shameless hypocrisy. I think that the real shame of the matter is not that undocumented workers were hired by Dobbs' contractors, but that this man who claims to represent the everyday populism of the working class owns horses and an estate large enough to require that many workers for upkeep. The right is notoriously good at pretending to be representative of so-called average America, while hailing from backgrounds of unfathomable wealth and privilege. And while Democrats are often equally wealthy, it seems like they're also more likely to be criticized as "elitist" while they work for policies that are more beneficial to the poor and middle class. I suppose both sides are hypocritical to varying degrees. A system like ours that requires a certain amount of wealth (and, let's face it, a certain shamelessness about asking for money from the rich) while the public increasingly requires our officials to be of the people they represent is basically a recipe for lies and hypocrisy.
Electing those with similar experiences and life history to our own may feel good, but it doesn't guarantee true representation of our interests. The fact that really any poor people vote Republican proves that we often don't vote in our own best interests, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't be responsible for governing ourselves. It's our right to vote for candidates we like instead of candidates who will promote policies that are the most beneficial to us; it makes our whole screwed up system kind of beautiful, actually. The problem Democrats have is that, for too long, they have allowed the right to set the terms of the discussion- to make it about faux populism and personality, to force themselves to drink whiskey shots and talk about guns in Pennsylvania (I'm lookin' at you, Hillary) or stage back-yard photo ops to counter the damning perception that a candidate might like arugula. The conversation needs to be changed. Instead of focusing on how of the people they are, Democrats should be doing a better job showing how for the people they are. I'm a liberal because I believe in liberal ideas and I think liberal policies are the best for our society- not because liberals look, act, or live like the same way I do. Instead of wasting time trying to convince me how similar we are, personally, I'd rather hear what a politician honestly believes and what they honestly plan to do in office. Actual straight talk- not the affected, folksy patronizing McCain variety- requires a frankness that has nothing to do with using too many big words or how much a person's haircut costs.
A politician who speaks honestly and bravely will do more good and, I would imagine, ultimately feel better about their campaign, win or lose on election day. I suspect that it will also, ultimately, make them more likable. I still believe that this is the fundamental change that people hoped for when they voted for you in 2008, regardless of their personal ideology. All politicians, all political pundits, even those of us tiny people out here in the blogosphere who just comment on things in quiet anonymity, all of us are Lou Dobbs. We're hypocrites who can never hope to live up to the grandiose ambitions of our best selves. Accepting our own hypocrisy and refusing to run from it or hide behind a more forgivingly crafted identity is the only way we can move forward, the only way we can elect representatives who will actually work in the best interest of all Americans.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
PS this is the second time I've defended Lou Dobbs and I really don't feel great about that.
I understand why people are upset over recent revelations about Lou Dobbs' shameless hypocrisy. I think that the real shame of the matter is not that undocumented workers were hired by Dobbs' contractors, but that this man who claims to represent the everyday populism of the working class owns horses and an estate large enough to require that many workers for upkeep. The right is notoriously good at pretending to be representative of so-called average America, while hailing from backgrounds of unfathomable wealth and privilege. And while Democrats are often equally wealthy, it seems like they're also more likely to be criticized as "elitist" while they work for policies that are more beneficial to the poor and middle class. I suppose both sides are hypocritical to varying degrees. A system like ours that requires a certain amount of wealth (and, let's face it, a certain shamelessness about asking for money from the rich) while the public increasingly requires our officials to be of the people they represent is basically a recipe for lies and hypocrisy.
Electing those with similar experiences and life history to our own may feel good, but it doesn't guarantee true representation of our interests. The fact that really any poor people vote Republican proves that we often don't vote in our own best interests, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't be responsible for governing ourselves. It's our right to vote for candidates we like instead of candidates who will promote policies that are the most beneficial to us; it makes our whole screwed up system kind of beautiful, actually. The problem Democrats have is that, for too long, they have allowed the right to set the terms of the discussion- to make it about faux populism and personality, to force themselves to drink whiskey shots and talk about guns in Pennsylvania (I'm lookin' at you, Hillary) or stage back-yard photo ops to counter the damning perception that a candidate might like arugula. The conversation needs to be changed. Instead of focusing on how of the people they are, Democrats should be doing a better job showing how for the people they are. I'm a liberal because I believe in liberal ideas and I think liberal policies are the best for our society- not because liberals look, act, or live like the same way I do. Instead of wasting time trying to convince me how similar we are, personally, I'd rather hear what a politician honestly believes and what they honestly plan to do in office. Actual straight talk- not the affected, folksy patronizing McCain variety- requires a frankness that has nothing to do with using too many big words or how much a person's haircut costs.
A politician who speaks honestly and bravely will do more good and, I would imagine, ultimately feel better about their campaign, win or lose on election day. I suspect that it will also, ultimately, make them more likable. I still believe that this is the fundamental change that people hoped for when they voted for you in 2008, regardless of their personal ideology. All politicians, all political pundits, even those of us tiny people out here in the blogosphere who just comment on things in quiet anonymity, all of us are Lou Dobbs. We're hypocrites who can never hope to live up to the grandiose ambitions of our best selves. Accepting our own hypocrisy and refusing to run from it or hide behind a more forgivingly crafted identity is the only way we can move forward, the only way we can elect representatives who will actually work in the best interest of all Americans.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
PS this is the second time I've defended Lou Dobbs and I really don't feel great about that.
Thursday, September 30, 2010
Day 273- Keeping Fear Alive
Dear Mr. President,
You seemed to endorse the Rally To Restore Sanity in an interview the other day. I think that's probably a wise decision on your part, since the rational, calm and willing to disagree without outrage are probably your most loyal constituents. While conventional wisdom continues to spell certain doom for Democrats this fall, I think that the quieter voices of those who would rather not shout or hang tea-bags from their hats or paint hitler mustaches on their opponents are yet to be heard. I understand, however, that it is actually in your interest to keep the fear alive, so to speak. Lowering expectations frightens supporters to the polls on election day, scares money out of donors and time from volunteers. Doing and changing and acting and governing with conviction might also accomplish the desired result, but that is, to be fair, a much more challenging thing to do.
I heard Robert Gibbs insisting that the things you have accomplished are more surprising than the things you haven't accomplished. I understand that Mr. Gibbs is paid to try to make reality sound more favorable, but I think your administration's strategy of insisting you've kept your promises is not going to work. For one thing, the level of discontentment among voters would not exist if their daily lives had measurably improved over the last two years. I think that they will improve, and that your policies have often looked to favor the long-term benefits over instant gratification, but I don't think that is a message you or Mr. Gibbs will be able to sell to an increasingly desperate middle class.
Honestly, Mr. President, when you spoke, I used to listen. What you were saying and the way you were saying it, used to inspire me as few people ever had. When I heard you speak, I heard a leader. These days, you sound like a politician. And it isn't style that bothers me; I don't think that your political problems can be solved by changing the tone of your voice. It's substance. You can't rely on the same soaring rhetoric when trying to justify the underwhelming and often mundane changes you're making. And while I'm not suggesting that every speech you give ought to lend itself to a youtube music video I think the reason people are so disappointed is that there isn't much glory in bickering with right-wing democrats to wrangle watered-down legislation through inane congressional procedures.
I think you can be a better President than you have demonstrated, and I think Democrats can lead the country better than they have so far. I hope you find your voice again soon. What brought liberal voters out in record numbers in 2008 wasn't fear of losing to John McCain. It was the faith you gave us that we didn't have to be afraid all of the time, that our collective efforts and our collective courage could change our country. That we could make it safer, as we made it freer. That we could make it fairer as we made it more reflective of our values. That we could would wake up one day and believe, again, in the promise it held for all of us, no matter who we are. And those aren't promises you can make to the voters, this time around. You can say we're not finished yet, you can scare us with what Republican control will do to the little progress we have made, but you can't rely on fear alone. Stop lowering expectations and putting off controversial votes and trying to win the middle by turning on the left. Start showing people that you're not afraid of an ugly fight in the fall, that Democrats will stand up for our values and talk to us like we're adults. Empower your supporters instead of just scaring them. And watch that Yes We Can music video, one more time. I feel like I'm staring at a fresh glass of Hope Koolaid, just waiting for you to give me a reason to start drinking it again.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
You seemed to endorse the Rally To Restore Sanity in an interview the other day. I think that's probably a wise decision on your part, since the rational, calm and willing to disagree without outrage are probably your most loyal constituents. While conventional wisdom continues to spell certain doom for Democrats this fall, I think that the quieter voices of those who would rather not shout or hang tea-bags from their hats or paint hitler mustaches on their opponents are yet to be heard. I understand, however, that it is actually in your interest to keep the fear alive, so to speak. Lowering expectations frightens supporters to the polls on election day, scares money out of donors and time from volunteers. Doing and changing and acting and governing with conviction might also accomplish the desired result, but that is, to be fair, a much more challenging thing to do.
I heard Robert Gibbs insisting that the things you have accomplished are more surprising than the things you haven't accomplished. I understand that Mr. Gibbs is paid to try to make reality sound more favorable, but I think your administration's strategy of insisting you've kept your promises is not going to work. For one thing, the level of discontentment among voters would not exist if their daily lives had measurably improved over the last two years. I think that they will improve, and that your policies have often looked to favor the long-term benefits over instant gratification, but I don't think that is a message you or Mr. Gibbs will be able to sell to an increasingly desperate middle class.
Honestly, Mr. President, when you spoke, I used to listen. What you were saying and the way you were saying it, used to inspire me as few people ever had. When I heard you speak, I heard a leader. These days, you sound like a politician. And it isn't style that bothers me; I don't think that your political problems can be solved by changing the tone of your voice. It's substance. You can't rely on the same soaring rhetoric when trying to justify the underwhelming and often mundane changes you're making. And while I'm not suggesting that every speech you give ought to lend itself to a youtube music video I think the reason people are so disappointed is that there isn't much glory in bickering with right-wing democrats to wrangle watered-down legislation through inane congressional procedures.
I think you can be a better President than you have demonstrated, and I think Democrats can lead the country better than they have so far. I hope you find your voice again soon. What brought liberal voters out in record numbers in 2008 wasn't fear of losing to John McCain. It was the faith you gave us that we didn't have to be afraid all of the time, that our collective efforts and our collective courage could change our country. That we could make it safer, as we made it freer. That we could make it fairer as we made it more reflective of our values. That we could would wake up one day and believe, again, in the promise it held for all of us, no matter who we are. And those aren't promises you can make to the voters, this time around. You can say we're not finished yet, you can scare us with what Republican control will do to the little progress we have made, but you can't rely on fear alone. Stop lowering expectations and putting off controversial votes and trying to win the middle by turning on the left. Start showing people that you're not afraid of an ugly fight in the fall, that Democrats will stand up for our values and talk to us like we're adults. Empower your supporters instead of just scaring them. And watch that Yes We Can music video, one more time. I feel like I'm staring at a fresh glass of Hope Koolaid, just waiting for you to give me a reason to start drinking it again.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Tuesday, September 21, 2010
Day 264- Griping and Groaning
So when I hear Democrats griping and groaning and saying, well, you know, the health care plan didn’t have a public option; and I don’t know, the financial reform -- there was a provision here that I think we should have gotten better; or, you know what, yes, you ended the war in Iraq, the combat mission there, but you haven’t completely finished the Afghan war yet; or this or that or the other -- I say, folks, wake up. This is not some academic exercise. As Joe Biden put it, don’t compare us to the Almighty; compare us to the alternative. That’s what’s at stake in this election.
-President Obama DNC finance dinner 9/21/2010
Dear Mr. President,
I understand that the rich control this country. I understand that donating thousands of dollars to the Democratic Party can buy a person a seat at a table of power or at least a few minutes of your time. So when you go to fundraising dinners and make jokes and give slightly less interesting versions of your stump speech to people wearing single-use clothing that costs as much as I make in a month, I usually don't mind. But when you take an opportunity like this and use it to take a shot at those of us who are struggling just to get by, I have to admit it rubs me the wrong way. "Griping and groaning?" Do you think the people upset about losing the public option are upset because they lost a political game? Because they didn't get their way? A lot of people, even under the new Health Care legislation still can't afford insurance. We still can't afford to get sick, to miss work or to see a doctor for anything short of a true emergency. Is it "griping and groaning" to worry about what happens if I get into an accident or if one my roommates catches strep throat? Or being upset that while you compromise on financial reform, my roommate is told by her small-business owner boss that payday will have to wait a few weeks because business has been too slow? When I read your quote from this dinner, this thirty-thousand-dollar-a-plate dinner, and thought about the way I've been laughing about being rich over a $500 paycheck this week, I felt humiliated.
The tragedy of this recession isn't your low approval numbers or the enthusiasm gap among your supporters. Blaming the left for being disillusioned with your lack of progress isn't going to turn us out at the polls and it isn't going to help you get Democrats to line up in support of your agenda. Your chief of staff might call us whatever names he wants, but without the liberal wing of the Democratic party to fight for things like the public option, you'd be left compromising your tepid centrism to the far right and I don't think that would look much different than President Bush's America. Our griping and groaning is the only reason Congressional Democrats were given the supermajority they spent the last 2 years squandering. I credit your leadership with a number of the accomplishments from congress this year, but why would you berate those of us still hoping to push them to do more?
So while you might mistake our vocal disappointment for griping and groaning, maybe you should step out of the rooms full of people paying more per plate than I take home in a year and remember that all the money from all the rich people in the country can't buy you the support of your base, and it can't give you the satisfaction of actually doing right by the people you got into politics to work for. So while I appreciate your recorded message for OFA volunteers, and your request for more donations from us, I guess I just don't have $30k for dinner and listening to you mock me, my values and the people who share them.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
-President Obama DNC finance dinner 9/21/2010
Dear Mr. President,
I understand that the rich control this country. I understand that donating thousands of dollars to the Democratic Party can buy a person a seat at a table of power or at least a few minutes of your time. So when you go to fundraising dinners and make jokes and give slightly less interesting versions of your stump speech to people wearing single-use clothing that costs as much as I make in a month, I usually don't mind. But when you take an opportunity like this and use it to take a shot at those of us who are struggling just to get by, I have to admit it rubs me the wrong way. "Griping and groaning?" Do you think the people upset about losing the public option are upset because they lost a political game? Because they didn't get their way? A lot of people, even under the new Health Care legislation still can't afford insurance. We still can't afford to get sick, to miss work or to see a doctor for anything short of a true emergency. Is it "griping and groaning" to worry about what happens if I get into an accident or if one my roommates catches strep throat? Or being upset that while you compromise on financial reform, my roommate is told by her small-business owner boss that payday will have to wait a few weeks because business has been too slow? When I read your quote from this dinner, this thirty-thousand-dollar-a-plate dinner, and thought about the way I've been laughing about being rich over a $500 paycheck this week, I felt humiliated.
The tragedy of this recession isn't your low approval numbers or the enthusiasm gap among your supporters. Blaming the left for being disillusioned with your lack of progress isn't going to turn us out at the polls and it isn't going to help you get Democrats to line up in support of your agenda. Your chief of staff might call us whatever names he wants, but without the liberal wing of the Democratic party to fight for things like the public option, you'd be left compromising your tepid centrism to the far right and I don't think that would look much different than President Bush's America. Our griping and groaning is the only reason Congressional Democrats were given the supermajority they spent the last 2 years squandering. I credit your leadership with a number of the accomplishments from congress this year, but why would you berate those of us still hoping to push them to do more?
So while you might mistake our vocal disappointment for griping and groaning, maybe you should step out of the rooms full of people paying more per plate than I take home in a year and remember that all the money from all the rich people in the country can't buy you the support of your base, and it can't give you the satisfaction of actually doing right by the people you got into politics to work for. So while I appreciate your recorded message for OFA volunteers, and your request for more donations from us, I guess I just don't have $30k for dinner and listening to you mock me, my values and the people who share them.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Sunday, September 19, 2010
Day 262- Carrot sticks
Dear Mr. President,
Glenn Beck is continuing to hone the skill that made him popular- telling people what they want to hear. Today he has decided to attack the First Lady for the Let's Move campaign, which he inexplicably sees as a threat to his french fries. Beck makes people feel good about their bad choices. Don't let the government tell you what to eat! Don't let them take your freedom fries! He's the ultimate enabler. I have no problem with Beck eating french fries until his arteries turn entirely to trans fat. I'm sure the First Lady doesn't, either. Attempting to combat the undeniable epidemic of obesity and weight-related diseases by improving the way children in this country learn about healthy lifestyle choices is admirable, and exactly no threat to Beck's, or any one's access to french fries. The conversation is uncomfortable; many people probably feel guilty about the choices they make when it comes to food and exercise. I'm sure many of these people would rather be told that they are fine and that no one should be allowed to talk about better choices they could make, as Beck does.
What Beck is doing is pathetic and ultimately perpetuates the problem of complacency, but it is nothing compared to what the government does. Our government has provided $300 billion in federal subsidies of the commodity crops corn and soy, which have made exactly the kind of processed food we should be avoiding cheaper and more accessible than ever. While the First Lady campaigns tirelessly to encourage healthier eating, your federal budget continues to undercut her efforts. All of the positive role models in the sports world can't have half the impact of altering the economic reality that processed, nutritionally bankrupt food-like-substances are cheap and widely available. Poverty is an undeniable factor in this epidemic, as well, and must be addressed in a more comprehensive way before we can expect to see any real improvement.
Taxing soda and snack food is an often-suggested way to reduce consumption. I think that's a great plan, but I know enough junk-food addicts who would fiercely oppose such a tax that I can understand why you might not want to undertake such a step in an election year. Ending subsidies of corn and soy, however, would slowly raise the cost of processing these foods, raising their price (and saving huge amounts of money for taxpayers) without directly taxing consumption.
The First Lady is having a difficult conversation with the country. Telling people that they haven't been doing right by their children is never easy, but it is a truth that must be told. Many will turn to the false comfort of people like Beck who will assure them that their way of life is sacred, untouchable. But unless policies that support the First Lady's efforts are put into place, our health and the health of our planet will continue to suffer the effects of heavily subsidized, cheap, insubstantial calories. This seems like an obvious example of Democrats saying the right thing and being completely unable to back it up with substantial policy changes. Is it any coincidence that the states with the highest obesity and poverty levels also tend to be so-called red states? Maybe it's a stretch, but I think that people generally want to be healthier and more economically stable than they want to be told comforting lies. In the absence of politicians with the courage to offer these things, however, i can see why they'd at least choose the lies that make them feel good over empty promises.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Glenn Beck is continuing to hone the skill that made him popular- telling people what they want to hear. Today he has decided to attack the First Lady for the Let's Move campaign, which he inexplicably sees as a threat to his french fries. Beck makes people feel good about their bad choices. Don't let the government tell you what to eat! Don't let them take your freedom fries! He's the ultimate enabler. I have no problem with Beck eating french fries until his arteries turn entirely to trans fat. I'm sure the First Lady doesn't, either. Attempting to combat the undeniable epidemic of obesity and weight-related diseases by improving the way children in this country learn about healthy lifestyle choices is admirable, and exactly no threat to Beck's, or any one's access to french fries. The conversation is uncomfortable; many people probably feel guilty about the choices they make when it comes to food and exercise. I'm sure many of these people would rather be told that they are fine and that no one should be allowed to talk about better choices they could make, as Beck does.
What Beck is doing is pathetic and ultimately perpetuates the problem of complacency, but it is nothing compared to what the government does. Our government has provided $300 billion in federal subsidies of the commodity crops corn and soy, which have made exactly the kind of processed food we should be avoiding cheaper and more accessible than ever. While the First Lady campaigns tirelessly to encourage healthier eating, your federal budget continues to undercut her efforts. All of the positive role models in the sports world can't have half the impact of altering the economic reality that processed, nutritionally bankrupt food-like-substances are cheap and widely available. Poverty is an undeniable factor in this epidemic, as well, and must be addressed in a more comprehensive way before we can expect to see any real improvement.
Taxing soda and snack food is an often-suggested way to reduce consumption. I think that's a great plan, but I know enough junk-food addicts who would fiercely oppose such a tax that I can understand why you might not want to undertake such a step in an election year. Ending subsidies of corn and soy, however, would slowly raise the cost of processing these foods, raising their price (and saving huge amounts of money for taxpayers) without directly taxing consumption.
The First Lady is having a difficult conversation with the country. Telling people that they haven't been doing right by their children is never easy, but it is a truth that must be told. Many will turn to the false comfort of people like Beck who will assure them that their way of life is sacred, untouchable. But unless policies that support the First Lady's efforts are put into place, our health and the health of our planet will continue to suffer the effects of heavily subsidized, cheap, insubstantial calories. This seems like an obvious example of Democrats saying the right thing and being completely unable to back it up with substantial policy changes. Is it any coincidence that the states with the highest obesity and poverty levels also tend to be so-called red states? Maybe it's a stretch, but I think that people generally want to be healthier and more economically stable than they want to be told comforting lies. In the absence of politicians with the courage to offer these things, however, i can see why they'd at least choose the lies that make them feel good over empty promises.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Saturday, September 18, 2010
Day 261- One in Seven
Dear Mr. President,
I have written you 260 letters this year. Of those 260, the top two subjects I've tagged are "Hope and change" and "values." These are more for my own reference than anything else. "Hope and change" refers to a letter that addresses something I feel you promised during the campaign. "Values" is usually to indicate a letter about our national or societal priorities. I chose "values" because it's a term often co-opted by the right (and, I'm sure, used by your own staff in the context conservatives use it.) So-called values voters, by the conservative Christian definition, oppose gay marriage, abortion and stem-cell research. The website for the Values Voters Summit lists the agenda as "Protect Marriage • Champion Life • Strengthen the Military • Limit Government • Control Spending • Defend Our Freedoms". I've always been irritated at the idea that voters sharing these particular values are the only ones conventionally identified as values voters- as though all of us are not voting based on our own personal values.
What does it say about what we value that preventing two people in love from marrying or putting the lives and well-being of women at risk is a demonstration of having "values"? Especially considering the 2010 census data, which shows a record number of Americans, 43.6 million or one in seven are living in poverty? When one in five children live in poverty, and one in four African Americans or Latinos? Where are the Christian values in letting twenty percent of American children grow up impoverished? While I do think the main source of this problem comes from corporate greed and corrupt politicians on both sides of the aisle, we as voters must also be held accountable for this. Voters who don't inform and educate themselves before voting. Voters who allow trivial issues of appearance, personality or campaign smears to sway their vote without an appreciation for issues. Especially voters who do not vote at all.
Once, however, we have voted, once we have elected a party to control Congress and the White House, the responsibility falls to you to come through with all the Hope and Change promised to this country during the campaign. Mr. President, for all the right might howl and scream and lie through their teeth on FOX news, Democrats have cowered, backed down, abandoned the values that ought to define our party and set it apart from the greed, xenophobia and selfishness of our opponents. A livable minimum wage, a strong national education system, and access to affordable health care - these are values that Democrats ostensibly stand for, values I support, values I was promised would be defended when I cast my ballot in 2008. If these values were being fought for just as hard as the right is fighting to undermine them than 1 in 7 Americans would not be living in poverty. Your job isn't easy, and it isn't close to finished. This election is going to be ugly and difficult and the next one is probably going to be worse. I do not feel sorry for you. One in seven of us is living in poverty, Mr. President and while every single one of you elected to represent us is living in fear of election day, the situation is just getting worse. I think it is time that you asked every elected Democrat what they really value more- their office or their conscience.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
I have written you 260 letters this year. Of those 260, the top two subjects I've tagged are "Hope and change" and "values." These are more for my own reference than anything else. "Hope and change" refers to a letter that addresses something I feel you promised during the campaign. "Values" is usually to indicate a letter about our national or societal priorities. I chose "values" because it's a term often co-opted by the right (and, I'm sure, used by your own staff in the context conservatives use it.) So-called values voters, by the conservative Christian definition, oppose gay marriage, abortion and stem-cell research. The website for the Values Voters Summit lists the agenda as "Protect Marriage • Champion Life • Strengthen the Military • Limit Government • Control Spending • Defend Our Freedoms". I've always been irritated at the idea that voters sharing these particular values are the only ones conventionally identified as values voters- as though all of us are not voting based on our own personal values.
What does it say about what we value that preventing two people in love from marrying or putting the lives and well-being of women at risk is a demonstration of having "values"? Especially considering the 2010 census data, which shows a record number of Americans, 43.6 million or one in seven are living in poverty? When one in five children live in poverty, and one in four African Americans or Latinos? Where are the Christian values in letting twenty percent of American children grow up impoverished? While I do think the main source of this problem comes from corporate greed and corrupt politicians on both sides of the aisle, we as voters must also be held accountable for this. Voters who don't inform and educate themselves before voting. Voters who allow trivial issues of appearance, personality or campaign smears to sway their vote without an appreciation for issues. Especially voters who do not vote at all.
Once, however, we have voted, once we have elected a party to control Congress and the White House, the responsibility falls to you to come through with all the Hope and Change promised to this country during the campaign. Mr. President, for all the right might howl and scream and lie through their teeth on FOX news, Democrats have cowered, backed down, abandoned the values that ought to define our party and set it apart from the greed, xenophobia and selfishness of our opponents. A livable minimum wage, a strong national education system, and access to affordable health care - these are values that Democrats ostensibly stand for, values I support, values I was promised would be defended when I cast my ballot in 2008. If these values were being fought for just as hard as the right is fighting to undermine them than 1 in 7 Americans would not be living in poverty. Your job isn't easy, and it isn't close to finished. This election is going to be ugly and difficult and the next one is probably going to be worse. I do not feel sorry for you. One in seven of us is living in poverty, Mr. President and while every single one of you elected to represent us is living in fear of election day, the situation is just getting worse. I think it is time that you asked every elected Democrat what they really value more- their office or their conscience.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Sunday, September 12, 2010
Day 255-Tea Partying
Dear Mr. President,
It's 9/12, so I suppose I should talk about the Tea Party. I'm not feeling particularly funny this evening, so I think I'll pass on the obvious opportunities to make jokes about their diversity, average age, fashion sense, or their confusion about American history. The Tea Party may not be much more than a fringe movement of angry white people, but it has an incredibly powerful media outlet representing it and spewing a worldview conforming to the Tea Party's narrative (or, more accurately, responsible for the shape of the Tea Party's narrative.) The Tea Party has gotten so much press in the last year that it seems like the whole country must have gone conservative. I think that's why so many Democrats are running scared. While their outlook for the midterms may not be so optimistic, I have to wonder if their poll numbers started dropping because of a conservative resurgence, or because they started legislating like they were afraid of one.
I've heard lots of ideas about reforming the Democratic party. Granted, most of what I hear (and most of what I think) comes from the left. The left would like to see Democrats act with courage, to stop governing like they've got to apologize for winning the election by pandering to the people who didn't vote for them. To stop compromising to no end. To take the gloves off when criticizing the obstructionist, hypocritical, xenophobic classism of the Republicans. I think this might save a few seats on our side of the aisle come November. But I don't think it's a party strategy that you (or your chief of staff) would take particularly seriously.
I think this is why the Tea Party is so popular. Not because the country is too far left, but because it is too stagnante and slow. The Tea Party might not have great ideas, but they're unscripted and unexpected. I think most of their candidates are even worse than the establishment Republicans they ran against in the primaries- but they resemble the kind of third-party shakeup of the system that our country needs (though preferably from a saner source with less corporate sponsorship.) So while I don't like them, agree with them, or even respect them, I do understand why they came about. People are waiting on a word I'm sure you've got to be sick of hearing by now-change. Actual change. Change that makes voting feel less like an exercise in futility.
Several fellow bloggers are starting a movement to publicly burn ballots on election day. One of the things they would like to see changed is a requirement that each race have a "none of the above" option that, should it receive the most votes, would require a new election with new candidates. I admire the spirit behind this protest, even if I am not going to participate. For one thing, I am a supporter of Senator Murray and I do want to see her re-elected. I will not waste my chance to ensure (hopefully once and for all) that Dino Rossi isn't allowed to represent my state in National office. For another I'm not sure that refusing to vote is a way to be taken seriously by the government. But I understand the intent. The government shouldn't be allowed to ignore us and not take us seriously. The government should be terrified of us. This protest, just like the Tea Party, comes from the deep sense that the American people are not being listened to. That we are manipulated to keep the rich and powerful richer and more powerful. I believe in the values of the Democratic party. I want to be proud of this. I want to call myself a Democrat. Right now, all that seems to mean is centrist, compromising, cowardly and even, in some cases, corrupt. The Tea Party might have changed the Republican Party a little, but it's made the Democratic Party downright unrecognizable. We've got to stop running to the right every time we get frightened of it. The Tea Party has had its time, it has made its mark. But it isn't nearly as powerful or influential enough to justify the fear Democrats are showing this year.
So it's 9/12. Forget the polls. Forget FOX news. Forget the Tea Party. Forget the fear. Lead a Democratic Party that people in this country are proud to vote for and maybe this November won't be quite the massacre everyone is so worried about.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
It's 9/12, so I suppose I should talk about the Tea Party. I'm not feeling particularly funny this evening, so I think I'll pass on the obvious opportunities to make jokes about their diversity, average age, fashion sense, or their confusion about American history. The Tea Party may not be much more than a fringe movement of angry white people, but it has an incredibly powerful media outlet representing it and spewing a worldview conforming to the Tea Party's narrative (or, more accurately, responsible for the shape of the Tea Party's narrative.) The Tea Party has gotten so much press in the last year that it seems like the whole country must have gone conservative. I think that's why so many Democrats are running scared. While their outlook for the midterms may not be so optimistic, I have to wonder if their poll numbers started dropping because of a conservative resurgence, or because they started legislating like they were afraid of one.
I've heard lots of ideas about reforming the Democratic party. Granted, most of what I hear (and most of what I think) comes from the left. The left would like to see Democrats act with courage, to stop governing like they've got to apologize for winning the election by pandering to the people who didn't vote for them. To stop compromising to no end. To take the gloves off when criticizing the obstructionist, hypocritical, xenophobic classism of the Republicans. I think this might save a few seats on our side of the aisle come November. But I don't think it's a party strategy that you (or your chief of staff) would take particularly seriously.
I think this is why the Tea Party is so popular. Not because the country is too far left, but because it is too stagnante and slow. The Tea Party might not have great ideas, but they're unscripted and unexpected. I think most of their candidates are even worse than the establishment Republicans they ran against in the primaries- but they resemble the kind of third-party shakeup of the system that our country needs (though preferably from a saner source with less corporate sponsorship.) So while I don't like them, agree with them, or even respect them, I do understand why they came about. People are waiting on a word I'm sure you've got to be sick of hearing by now-change. Actual change. Change that makes voting feel less like an exercise in futility.
Several fellow bloggers are starting a movement to publicly burn ballots on election day. One of the things they would like to see changed is a requirement that each race have a "none of the above" option that, should it receive the most votes, would require a new election with new candidates. I admire the spirit behind this protest, even if I am not going to participate. For one thing, I am a supporter of Senator Murray and I do want to see her re-elected. I will not waste my chance to ensure (hopefully once and for all) that Dino Rossi isn't allowed to represent my state in National office. For another I'm not sure that refusing to vote is a way to be taken seriously by the government. But I understand the intent. The government shouldn't be allowed to ignore us and not take us seriously. The government should be terrified of us. This protest, just like the Tea Party, comes from the deep sense that the American people are not being listened to. That we are manipulated to keep the rich and powerful richer and more powerful. I believe in the values of the Democratic party. I want to be proud of this. I want to call myself a Democrat. Right now, all that seems to mean is centrist, compromising, cowardly and even, in some cases, corrupt. The Tea Party might have changed the Republican Party a little, but it's made the Democratic Party downright unrecognizable. We've got to stop running to the right every time we get frightened of it. The Tea Party has had its time, it has made its mark. But it isn't nearly as powerful or influential enough to justify the fear Democrats are showing this year.
So it's 9/12. Forget the polls. Forget FOX news. Forget the Tea Party. Forget the fear. Lead a Democratic Party that people in this country are proud to vote for and maybe this November won't be quite the massacre everyone is so worried about.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Monday, August 30, 2010
Day 242- Difference of opinion
Dear Mr. President,
Tonight I saw a movie with friends. Upon exiting, we all had vastly, radically different reactions. Some hated it, the others loved it. Few were in between. The ensuing shouting match, which might charitably be described as a debate, revealed both camps to be intractable. Luckily, we were arguing over Piranha 3-D and not health care, the environment, or anything that actually matters. I understand having different tastes in entertainment, but the stark contrast between those who loved what they saw and those who hated it reminded me of the kinds of shouting matches that political debate usually devolves into. How is it that we can have such differences of perception, even over verifiable facts?
Lately I've been cringing at the all-too-fresh memory of a situation I badly misjudged and, as a result, badly mishandled. I was so sure, so confidently convinced about my perceptions that, once I was slapped back into reality, it was as though the ground below me shifted. This is probably just another aspect of my control-freak personality disorder, but being so wrong about something I was so sure of has thrown me into intense self-doubt. What else am I sure about today that will seem laughably off-base tomorrow? If I'm capable of being so self-deceived, what other perceptions of mine are false?
This kind of doubt is actually good for me. It keeps me from the kind of arrogance that I am often prone to and it keeps me asking questions that need to be asked. In the end, it also often confirms my views, giving me stronger faith in the things I believe and helping me to articulate these beliefs more clearly in the future. I learn not to be so sure of anything that I can't process contrary evidence. I think that maybe a little self doubt might be good for some of the more ideologically entrenched in government. Our society is facing so many problems that we all ought to be wondering what beliefs we've falsely clung to, what choices we've badly made, and how we can change these as we go forward. I think this especially applies to those in government (particularly career incumbents) who continue to do what has always been done without wondering why; to declare the earth isn't getting warmer no matter how much new evidence comes to light, or to define family and citizenship and education in the same tired old terms. Evolution cannot happen without recognizing our mistakes and reaffirming what is important to us.
You have always struck me to be a contemplative individual. Mr. President, I know that flip-flopping is not something a political figure likes to admit to, but have you honestly re-evaluated any of your positions since the campaign? Has the work of government changed the way you view certain issues? How can we reward public servants with the courage to change their mind when presented with new information or alternate views, and encourage more of it in those who lack it?
I suppose for now I'm going to take comfort in the things I am certain about. Like the fact that Piranha 3-d is the worst movie ever made. No matter what Eric says.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Tonight I saw a movie with friends. Upon exiting, we all had vastly, radically different reactions. Some hated it, the others loved it. Few were in between. The ensuing shouting match, which might charitably be described as a debate, revealed both camps to be intractable. Luckily, we were arguing over Piranha 3-D and not health care, the environment, or anything that actually matters. I understand having different tastes in entertainment, but the stark contrast between those who loved what they saw and those who hated it reminded me of the kinds of shouting matches that political debate usually devolves into. How is it that we can have such differences of perception, even over verifiable facts?
Lately I've been cringing at the all-too-fresh memory of a situation I badly misjudged and, as a result, badly mishandled. I was so sure, so confidently convinced about my perceptions that, once I was slapped back into reality, it was as though the ground below me shifted. This is probably just another aspect of my control-freak personality disorder, but being so wrong about something I was so sure of has thrown me into intense self-doubt. What else am I sure about today that will seem laughably off-base tomorrow? If I'm capable of being so self-deceived, what other perceptions of mine are false?
This kind of doubt is actually good for me. It keeps me from the kind of arrogance that I am often prone to and it keeps me asking questions that need to be asked. In the end, it also often confirms my views, giving me stronger faith in the things I believe and helping me to articulate these beliefs more clearly in the future. I learn not to be so sure of anything that I can't process contrary evidence. I think that maybe a little self doubt might be good for some of the more ideologically entrenched in government. Our society is facing so many problems that we all ought to be wondering what beliefs we've falsely clung to, what choices we've badly made, and how we can change these as we go forward. I think this especially applies to those in government (particularly career incumbents) who continue to do what has always been done without wondering why; to declare the earth isn't getting warmer no matter how much new evidence comes to light, or to define family and citizenship and education in the same tired old terms. Evolution cannot happen without recognizing our mistakes and reaffirming what is important to us.
You have always struck me to be a contemplative individual. Mr. President, I know that flip-flopping is not something a political figure likes to admit to, but have you honestly re-evaluated any of your positions since the campaign? Has the work of government changed the way you view certain issues? How can we reward public servants with the courage to change their mind when presented with new information or alternate views, and encourage more of it in those who lack it?
I suppose for now I'm going to take comfort in the things I am certain about. Like the fact that Piranha 3-d is the worst movie ever made. No matter what Eric says.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Sunday, June 27, 2010
Day 178- Pride
Dear Mr. President,
The Space Needle, arguably the most easily recognized icon in our city, is flying a rainbow flag this week. This has, of course, caused its share of grumbling, but it makes me proud to be a Seattlite. I went to a high school in a small town where being gay was not acceptable. I saw the struggles of my gay, lesbian, bisexual and not-entirely-straight friends. Some bore the antipathy they received well. Some stayed in the closet, or, at least, out of the way. Personally, I was on a crusade to get the boys on my cross-country team to stop calling things they disliked "gay", and earned their annoyance and even the wrath of my coach, when I called him out about it, as well. This was only 6 years ago, and, while I'm sure that Arlington is a long way away from flying any rainbow flags of its own, every time I see the Space Needle, I'm reminded of how far we've come. I'm proud to live in a city that celebrates its gay community.
As a general rule, I don't date Republicans. I believe that people of different political opinions can be friends, can have mutual respect, but, for me, there are aspects of the Republican party's platform that are so contrary to my values, that I could never be in a relationship with a person who believes in them. The opposition to gay marriage is the most significant of these. One can argue the separation of politics and personal values to a point, but too many people I love are being kept from full rights as Americans because of who they love, and for me, that's as personal as it gets. If a person can cast a ballot for that kind of bigoted ignorance, or a candidate who perpetuates it, they have no place in my life.
Who we love and who we hate define who we are, and, as I am proud of my city for showing its love, I am ashamed of my country for being guided by those who hate. It is 2010, in a nation ostensibly founded on the promise of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. How is it still possible that two consenting adults in love cannot be allowed to marry? What does that say about us, as a nation? Isn't our freedom the root of our national pride? Patriotism is so difficult to muster in the face of such unapologetic hypocrisy. Flying a rainbow flag may be easy, but my state is also beginning to walk the walk legislatively, as well. It is too little, and it is too slow, but it is a lot better than the practices of the federal government.
I think that the opponents of gay marriage in this country need to hear some hard truths. Their fears are based in ignorance, their religions do not and must not dictate the laws of this land or the lives of other Americans. Their prejudices have no place in our legislation. We should repeal DOMA, because it is the right thing to do, and because it would give so many Americans cause to be proud of our country again.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
The Space Needle, arguably the most easily recognized icon in our city, is flying a rainbow flag this week. This has, of course, caused its share of grumbling, but it makes me proud to be a Seattlite. I went to a high school in a small town where being gay was not acceptable. I saw the struggles of my gay, lesbian, bisexual and not-entirely-straight friends. Some bore the antipathy they received well. Some stayed in the closet, or, at least, out of the way. Personally, I was on a crusade to get the boys on my cross-country team to stop calling things they disliked "gay", and earned their annoyance and even the wrath of my coach, when I called him out about it, as well. This was only 6 years ago, and, while I'm sure that Arlington is a long way away from flying any rainbow flags of its own, every time I see the Space Needle, I'm reminded of how far we've come. I'm proud to live in a city that celebrates its gay community.
As a general rule, I don't date Republicans. I believe that people of different political opinions can be friends, can have mutual respect, but, for me, there are aspects of the Republican party's platform that are so contrary to my values, that I could never be in a relationship with a person who believes in them. The opposition to gay marriage is the most significant of these. One can argue the separation of politics and personal values to a point, but too many people I love are being kept from full rights as Americans because of who they love, and for me, that's as personal as it gets. If a person can cast a ballot for that kind of bigoted ignorance, or a candidate who perpetuates it, they have no place in my life.
Who we love and who we hate define who we are, and, as I am proud of my city for showing its love, I am ashamed of my country for being guided by those who hate. It is 2010, in a nation ostensibly founded on the promise of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. How is it still possible that two consenting adults in love cannot be allowed to marry? What does that say about us, as a nation? Isn't our freedom the root of our national pride? Patriotism is so difficult to muster in the face of such unapologetic hypocrisy. Flying a rainbow flag may be easy, but my state is also beginning to walk the walk legislatively, as well. It is too little, and it is too slow, but it is a lot better than the practices of the federal government.
I think that the opponents of gay marriage in this country need to hear some hard truths. Their fears are based in ignorance, their religions do not and must not dictate the laws of this land or the lives of other Americans. Their prejudices have no place in our legislation. We should repeal DOMA, because it is the right thing to do, and because it would give so many Americans cause to be proud of our country again.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Tuesday, June 8, 2010
Day 159-Primary politics
Dear Mr. President,
I haven't followed Blanche Lincoln's career. Her recent primary race caught my attention mainly because of the support for Bill Halter on DailyKos. I won't attempt to pass myself off as any kind of expert on Arkansas politics, but it seems to me that the White House made an incredibly foolish tactical error in throwing its support behind the incumbent. Lincoln opposed the public option, opposes bringing prisoners in Guantanamo bay to the US, she opposes the estate tax, she takes huge corporate campaign contributions, she is, in short, exactly the kind of politician you've criticized in your campaigns, were she a Republican. (I'm sure you'll have ample opportunity to demonstrate this when her Republican opponent wins this fall.) Isn't it hypocritical for the White House to perpetuate the stagnation and inaction caused by the Joe Liebermans and Blanche Lincolns, when you won your office promising a new kind of government?
This isn't to imply that conservative Democrats, or that centrists in general, have no place in our legislature; however, the battle for healthcare reform illustrated our desperate need for the political courage that no bought-and-paid for stooge of corporate interests can possibly provide. It illustrated the need for change. You, Mr. President, were an anti-establishment Democrat who challenged Hillary Clinton and won on the strength of both your grassroots support and the clutch endorsements of members of the Democratic establishment (like Senator Kennedy) who had the vision to see that you could be what our country needed. Why would you not take every opportunity to breathe new life into the legislative branch, to support those courageous few willing to take on the well-funded and complacent incumbents who have frustrated every attempt of your administration to wield the power of the majority? Especially when your support of the status quo results, as I believe the Arkansas race will, in the loss of a Senate seat to the Republicans?
The political leadership of the White House has been incredibly disappointing when it comes to primary challenges. Democratic incumbents are given little incentive to demonstrate political courage when the White House supports them on incumbent status alone. The Democratic party is strengthened by the primary process, not weakened by it; it is how we hold our elected officials accountable. I'm incredibly let down by today's results, and will only be more so when the full effect of this betrayal of liberal principles manifests in November.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
I haven't followed Blanche Lincoln's career. Her recent primary race caught my attention mainly because of the support for Bill Halter on DailyKos. I won't attempt to pass myself off as any kind of expert on Arkansas politics, but it seems to me that the White House made an incredibly foolish tactical error in throwing its support behind the incumbent. Lincoln opposed the public option, opposes bringing prisoners in Guantanamo bay to the US, she opposes the estate tax, she takes huge corporate campaign contributions, she is, in short, exactly the kind of politician you've criticized in your campaigns, were she a Republican. (I'm sure you'll have ample opportunity to demonstrate this when her Republican opponent wins this fall.) Isn't it hypocritical for the White House to perpetuate the stagnation and inaction caused by the Joe Liebermans and Blanche Lincolns, when you won your office promising a new kind of government?
This isn't to imply that conservative Democrats, or that centrists in general, have no place in our legislature; however, the battle for healthcare reform illustrated our desperate need for the political courage that no bought-and-paid for stooge of corporate interests can possibly provide. It illustrated the need for change. You, Mr. President, were an anti-establishment Democrat who challenged Hillary Clinton and won on the strength of both your grassroots support and the clutch endorsements of members of the Democratic establishment (like Senator Kennedy) who had the vision to see that you could be what our country needed. Why would you not take every opportunity to breathe new life into the legislative branch, to support those courageous few willing to take on the well-funded and complacent incumbents who have frustrated every attempt of your administration to wield the power of the majority? Especially when your support of the status quo results, as I believe the Arkansas race will, in the loss of a Senate seat to the Republicans?
The political leadership of the White House has been incredibly disappointing when it comes to primary challenges. Democratic incumbents are given little incentive to demonstrate political courage when the White House supports them on incumbent status alone. The Democratic party is strengthened by the primary process, not weakened by it; it is how we hold our elected officials accountable. I'm incredibly let down by today's results, and will only be more so when the full effect of this betrayal of liberal principles manifests in November.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Wednesday, May 5, 2010
Day 125- Why I'm still drinking the koolaid
Dear Mr. President,
Cults make me uncomfortable. I choke on the corporatespeak they feed us at work. I can't stomach the suspension of disbelief required for organized religion. I'm a skeptical person by nature and I can't shut off the part of me that constantly questions what I am told. I do not often fit in with ideologies, isms or cults of personality. And yet, I drink the Hope Koolaid better than almost any one I know.
It's not that I think you're always right; it's not that I think you always make the best choices or even act with the best of intentions. You're really my last hope, these days. I can't give up, believe the system to be hopelessly corrupt and refuse to participate; that would hand my power as a citizen over to some one else. I can't, honestly, envision a viable third party candidate, especially one who is more representative of my beliefs than you are. I have to believe in your wisdom and in your goodness, because if you're not the person best able to steer our nation right now, I'm at a loss for who the alternative would be.
This is not to say that my support for you is out of a lack of other options. Maybe it's just as irrational and just as naive as any other kind of faith, but it is more than blind loyalty. I do have issues with your policies and some of your beliefs, but I think, even among the Democrats, you're the person I respect the most because of the way you approach problems. I have a tremendous amount of faith in the people of this country; in my generation and the force of demographics to, slowly, move us closer to a fairer, freer and more just nation; I also know I can't change anything acting by myself. I believe that the change you promised us will come, probably long after you've left office, but we have to keep working toward it, more slowly than any one will find acceptable.
I am subject to the system, as are you. The difference, I think, is that I have the capacity to shift it very little, while you seem to have accepted too much of the status quo as inevitable, without consideration of your own, considerably greater, power to change it. You don't have to accept things as they've always been; be it the wars you inherited, the legacy of American imperialism, our backwards and bigoted social policies or the same old blue dog incumbents in the Democratic party. Your campaign empowered so many of the disenfranchised of this nation; it isn't hubris to reject the trappings of the system that disenfranchised them in the first place. The 17 months of your presidency have seen no shortage of missed opportunities to bring about the kind of change you asked us all to hope for; but I'm raising a glass, and keeping the faith, for the two and half years you've got left.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Cults make me uncomfortable. I choke on the corporatespeak they feed us at work. I can't stomach the suspension of disbelief required for organized religion. I'm a skeptical person by nature and I can't shut off the part of me that constantly questions what I am told. I do not often fit in with ideologies, isms or cults of personality. And yet, I drink the Hope Koolaid better than almost any one I know.
It's not that I think you're always right; it's not that I think you always make the best choices or even act with the best of intentions. You're really my last hope, these days. I can't give up, believe the system to be hopelessly corrupt and refuse to participate; that would hand my power as a citizen over to some one else. I can't, honestly, envision a viable third party candidate, especially one who is more representative of my beliefs than you are. I have to believe in your wisdom and in your goodness, because if you're not the person best able to steer our nation right now, I'm at a loss for who the alternative would be.
This is not to say that my support for you is out of a lack of other options. Maybe it's just as irrational and just as naive as any other kind of faith, but it is more than blind loyalty. I do have issues with your policies and some of your beliefs, but I think, even among the Democrats, you're the person I respect the most because of the way you approach problems. I have a tremendous amount of faith in the people of this country; in my generation and the force of demographics to, slowly, move us closer to a fairer, freer and more just nation; I also know I can't change anything acting by myself. I believe that the change you promised us will come, probably long after you've left office, but we have to keep working toward it, more slowly than any one will find acceptable.
I am subject to the system, as are you. The difference, I think, is that I have the capacity to shift it very little, while you seem to have accepted too much of the status quo as inevitable, without consideration of your own, considerably greater, power to change it. You don't have to accept things as they've always been; be it the wars you inherited, the legacy of American imperialism, our backwards and bigoted social policies or the same old blue dog incumbents in the Democratic party. Your campaign empowered so many of the disenfranchised of this nation; it isn't hubris to reject the trappings of the system that disenfranchised them in the first place. The 17 months of your presidency have seen no shortage of missed opportunities to bring about the kind of change you asked us all to hope for; but I'm raising a glass, and keeping the faith, for the two and half years you've got left.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Saturday, May 1, 2010
Day 121- "Are people being nice?"
“When I took office, I decided that each night I would read 10 letters out of the tens of thousands that are sent to us by ordinary Americans every day –- this is my modest effort to remind myself of why I ran in the first place.
Some of these letters tell stories of heartache and struggle. Some express gratitude, some express anger. I'd say a good solid third call me an idiot, which is how I know that I’m getting a good, representative sample. Some of the letters make you think -- like the one that I received last month from a kindergarten class in Virginia.
Now, the teacher of this class instructed the students to ask me any question they wanted. So one asked, “How do you do your job?” Another asked, “Do you work a lot?” Somebody wanted to know if I wear a black jacket or if I have a beard so clearly they were getting me mixed up with the other tall guy from Illinois. And one of my favorites was from a kid who wanted to know if I lived next to a volcano. I'm still trying to piece the thought process on this one. Loved this letter.
But it was the last question from the last student in the letter that gave me pause. The student asked, “Are people being nice?”
-President Barack Obama, University of Michigan commencement, 5/1/2010
Dear Mr. President,
Today you asked us to be nice. You asked all of us to reach out to information and opinions that we wouldn't normally be open to hearing. You asked us to listen, for a moment, before we start shouting. This made me think of a project I did in high school, a first-person research project they called I-search (before the days of iPod or it would likely have been iSearch.) For mine, I went for a week without talking, in an attempt to take a closer look at communication and the way it affected my relationships with other people. My major takeaway from this project was that listening required a great deal of actual silence, that I usually spent most of my conversations bantering, barely hearing the other person while I planned and constructed my response, often delivered at an even higher volume. Learning to be silent, to listen and to learn from what other people say, has been an ongoing process ever since.
So I took your advice, and today, in that spirit, I read the drudge report and watched some coverage from Fox news. (I also watched a youtube video that "proves" you're a masonic, zionist, Lucifer-worshiping distant relative of the former Presidents Bush. But that was kind of an accident.) Drudge linked to a National Enquirer story about rumors of your infidelity, FOX was comparing your reaction to the oil rig explosion to President Bush's response to Katrina, and suggesting that, in your video address to OFA volunteers encouraging us to help the first-time voters of 2008 stay engaged and participate in 2010, you were playing the race card by excluding white males. (Never mind that white males are the only demographic who have had voting rights as long as they've existed, your words, taken in context, were clearly not excluding any one.) I think that this is pretty low on the credibility scale, even for Drudge, and completely unsurprising from FOX. Needless to say, I was not persuaded. But, you're right, it does me good to listen.
Perhaps the people who need to take your advice the most are the 535 Senators and members of the House of Representatives who seem to talk, constantly, without listening to each other, to you, or to the American people. I suppose it may sound trite, to some, to consider civility when so many, seemingly more important issues are at stake, but we will make more progress working slowly, together, than by refusing to participate or include others. When I was in Palestine, I found myself getting angry all the time, at the injustice, at the entrenchment, at the unfairness of it all. I expressed my anger, once, at the sight of the Israeli flag over a settlement in the West Bank, and one of the guides leading our group cautioned me; "Be careful," he said, "the first thing they take from you is your compassion." I'm still angry, Mr. President, but I decided in that moment that no one gets to take away my compassion. I don't believe that FOX or Drudge or Glenn Beck or Mitch McConnell have much to say that is worth listening to, and I'm sure they feel the same way about you, MSNBC, Harry Reid and bloggers like me, but it won't do any of us any harm to try to set aside our anger and outrage and righteous indignation; to try being silent, listening to one another, and just being nice.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Some of these letters tell stories of heartache and struggle. Some express gratitude, some express anger. I'd say a good solid third call me an idiot, which is how I know that I’m getting a good, representative sample. Some of the letters make you think -- like the one that I received last month from a kindergarten class in Virginia.
Now, the teacher of this class instructed the students to ask me any question they wanted. So one asked, “How do you do your job?” Another asked, “Do you work a lot?” Somebody wanted to know if I wear a black jacket or if I have a beard so clearly they were getting me mixed up with the other tall guy from Illinois. And one of my favorites was from a kid who wanted to know if I lived next to a volcano. I'm still trying to piece the thought process on this one. Loved this letter.
But it was the last question from the last student in the letter that gave me pause. The student asked, “Are people being nice?”
-President Barack Obama, University of Michigan commencement, 5/1/2010
Dear Mr. President,
Today you asked us to be nice. You asked all of us to reach out to information and opinions that we wouldn't normally be open to hearing. You asked us to listen, for a moment, before we start shouting. This made me think of a project I did in high school, a first-person research project they called I-search (before the days of iPod or it would likely have been iSearch.) For mine, I went for a week without talking, in an attempt to take a closer look at communication and the way it affected my relationships with other people. My major takeaway from this project was that listening required a great deal of actual silence, that I usually spent most of my conversations bantering, barely hearing the other person while I planned and constructed my response, often delivered at an even higher volume. Learning to be silent, to listen and to learn from what other people say, has been an ongoing process ever since.
So I took your advice, and today, in that spirit, I read the drudge report and watched some coverage from Fox news. (I also watched a youtube video that "proves" you're a masonic, zionist, Lucifer-worshiping distant relative of the former Presidents Bush. But that was kind of an accident.) Drudge linked to a National Enquirer story about rumors of your infidelity, FOX was comparing your reaction to the oil rig explosion to President Bush's response to Katrina, and suggesting that, in your video address to OFA volunteers encouraging us to help the first-time voters of 2008 stay engaged and participate in 2010, you were playing the race card by excluding white males. (Never mind that white males are the only demographic who have had voting rights as long as they've existed, your words, taken in context, were clearly not excluding any one.) I think that this is pretty low on the credibility scale, even for Drudge, and completely unsurprising from FOX. Needless to say, I was not persuaded. But, you're right, it does me good to listen.
Perhaps the people who need to take your advice the most are the 535 Senators and members of the House of Representatives who seem to talk, constantly, without listening to each other, to you, or to the American people. I suppose it may sound trite, to some, to consider civility when so many, seemingly more important issues are at stake, but we will make more progress working slowly, together, than by refusing to participate or include others. When I was in Palestine, I found myself getting angry all the time, at the injustice, at the entrenchment, at the unfairness of it all. I expressed my anger, once, at the sight of the Israeli flag over a settlement in the West Bank, and one of the guides leading our group cautioned me; "Be careful," he said, "the first thing they take from you is your compassion." I'm still angry, Mr. President, but I decided in that moment that no one gets to take away my compassion. I don't believe that FOX or Drudge or Glenn Beck or Mitch McConnell have much to say that is worth listening to, and I'm sure they feel the same way about you, MSNBC, Harry Reid and bloggers like me, but it won't do any of us any harm to try to set aside our anger and outrage and righteous indignation; to try being silent, listening to one another, and just being nice.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
Day 118- Do and Don't
Dear Mr. President,
The midterm election strategy for Democrats, to own the mantle of practical action and to highlight how this contrasts with the GOP's party of no, may have helped nudge Senate Republicans toward allowing debate on financial reform today. Even if we lose a significant number of our 2010 races, I hope that this strategy encourages voters to put pressure on Republicans to take a more active role in participating, rather than just rejecting, attempts to govern.
That being said, Democrats need to work hard to show that we will try to do difficult things, even if we fail. Tough, fair, immigration reform; clean energy and environmental protection, honest progress toward equality for gay and lesbian soldiers and couples, all of these issues have Democrats on the same side as the majority of the American people. We may jeopardize vulnerable seats, but we ought to push hard for all of these reforms, even if they die in the Senate. Demonstrating our commitment to act and not to be content with the tired game of cautious defense that helps only to preserve the status quo is important if many Democrats are going to live up to the ambitious campaign strategy. We need courageous leaders, leaders who aren't afraid to take positions that are locally unpopular, when its the right thing to do. Voters will always respect gutsy, ambitious policy more than pandering that accomplishes nothing.
The summer should be spent governing, not campaigning. Democrats must prove that the party still has values it is willing to stand and fight for, other than the defense of our tenuous majority. A record of accomplishments, no matter how controversial, is better to defend than a list of excuses for doing nothing.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
The midterm election strategy for Democrats, to own the mantle of practical action and to highlight how this contrasts with the GOP's party of no, may have helped nudge Senate Republicans toward allowing debate on financial reform today. Even if we lose a significant number of our 2010 races, I hope that this strategy encourages voters to put pressure on Republicans to take a more active role in participating, rather than just rejecting, attempts to govern.
That being said, Democrats need to work hard to show that we will try to do difficult things, even if we fail. Tough, fair, immigration reform; clean energy and environmental protection, honest progress toward equality for gay and lesbian soldiers and couples, all of these issues have Democrats on the same side as the majority of the American people. We may jeopardize vulnerable seats, but we ought to push hard for all of these reforms, even if they die in the Senate. Demonstrating our commitment to act and not to be content with the tired game of cautious defense that helps only to preserve the status quo is important if many Democrats are going to live up to the ambitious campaign strategy. We need courageous leaders, leaders who aren't afraid to take positions that are locally unpopular, when its the right thing to do. Voters will always respect gutsy, ambitious policy more than pandering that accomplishes nothing.
The summer should be spent governing, not campaigning. Democrats must prove that the party still has values it is willing to stand and fight for, other than the defense of our tenuous majority. A record of accomplishments, no matter how controversial, is better to defend than a list of excuses for doing nothing.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
