Day 355- Bubble Tea and cannibalism

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 :)

Day 249-Third party

Dear Mr. President,

In Arizona, a Republican candidate has taken to recruiting homeless men to run as Green Party candidates in hopes they will attract votes away from the Democrats they run against. This seems to be pretty low, even for the GOP. I'm generally in favor of third-party candidates, but not when it requires the exploitation of vulnerable populations. If these homeless men really wanted to run for office as members of the Green Party then I have no cause for objection to this and neither does any one else. Somehow I doubt that the anti-tax candidate for State Senate who calles himself "Grandpa" and thinks we should have more God in the public school system is really emblematic of the Green Party platform.

I think what bothers me the most about this is that it plays on the ignorance of voters who see "Green Party" and look no further at a candidate's qualifications or policy positions. That this ploy might be successful undermines my faith in the voters (even in the State of Arizona,) and makes me even less hopeful for a unified and politically capable alternative to Democrats on the left. (I confess, I've long hoped that a viable third party might emerge, if only to make my conscience a little lighter on election day.)

Instead we get candidates like Goodspaceguy, Ross Perot and Ralph Nader. I know that as the standard-bearer of the Democratic party, you have no obligation to worry about or cultivate a serious third party alternative, especially one that would take away voters on the left. But it is in your interest to protect yourself and other Democrats from a damaging third-party challenge, and the day will come when more serious candidates than Perot or even Goodpaceguy will emerge. Unifying the liberal base of the Democratic party can only be done by allowing us to be represented in the party's mainstream. Until that happens, tricks like the one in Arizona will continue to be effective. Not because the left is stupid and uninformed, but because we are so tired of voting for the cowardly centrists who lay claim to our loyalty on the mere basis of being the lesser of two evils. Real progressive candidates with serious credentials and gravitas will make their way onto the ballot one way or another, Mr. President; Democrats need to decide now if, when that day comes, they'll be the ones running them, or if they'll be stuck running against them.

Respectfully yours,

Kelsey

Day 229- Welcome to Seattle

Dear Mr. President,

For all of the traffic-snarling inconvenience, it was really exciting to have you back in Seattle after so many years. (A sentiment that might be easier for me to express, as I don't drive, but I'm sure the commuters got over it.) It's too bad that the Secret Service said no to your stroll around town because it really was a lovely day out. Early returns from the primary are showing a healthy and unsurprising victory for Patty Murray, which is a good sign for Washington. If Dino Rossi manages to rally enough supporters to win in the general, I'll worry for the Senate even more than i already do. It may be purely symbolic, but having you visit Washington after so long almost felt like an attempt to assure solidly blue states that you haven't forgotten us. Or maybe Senator Murray's re-election is less assured than you're comfortable with. Either way, it was good to have you in the city. Apparently you even got to visit my neighborhood.

The howling sirens of your motorcade really took me back to my time in DC. It used to amaze me to see the Presidential motorcade (or the smaller processions of other government officials) speeding through the streets. I always wondered if the powerful occupants of the limos and SUVs ever noticed the run-down neighborhoods or the homeless men and women on the corners downtown. I know that as the country's leader you're constantly aware of the big-picture problems we face, the crushing effects of unemployment and poverty. Sometimes I wonder if your position distances you from the reality of these problems too much to see them as more than an abstraction or political liability. But that's more cynical than I'm comfortable being on a night like this.

Thank you for visiting Seattle. I hope it doesn't take another 4 years to get you back here, but I suppose there are worse things than having a reliably liberal population. Have a safe trip home.

Respectfully yours,

Kelsey

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

Day 139

Dear Mr. President,

Tonight you're having a state dinner for the President of Mexico. The First lady looks beautiful, the food sounds amazing, everything looks perfect. I'm at home, making dinner with my best friend, on one of those rainy nights that Seattle makes its reputation on. It's surreal to see the photos of the guests coming to dinner in dresses worth more than next year's tuition will cost me. I'm not dissing $10,000 gowns, or anything, but it is a clear reminder that there is an echelon of American society I'll never be a part of.

The media speculation that you're avoiding the press corps in order to dodge questions about Arlen Specter's primary defeat yesterday seems a bit hysterical, to me. I think that Specter was defeated by a better candidate, with a more solid history as a Democrat. It can be spun as part of an anti-incumbency trend, or as a failure of the White House's political mechanism, or as yet another sign that the world is going to end in 2012; I think, however, that when local or state-wide elections are described to be indicative of a national trend, voters rarely consider that when going to the polls. Pennsylvania democrats were probably voting for the candidate they thought would be best for Pennsylvania, not making a statement about national political trends. I think it was probably a mistake for the White House to endorse Specter, but I recognize that considerations of loyalty and strategy are probably more important than the media's perception that the President's endorsement isn't a magic bullett.

That being said, I think you should probably hold a press conference and let the press corps have at you. It's tedious and undignified and usually not much different from the talking points the White House is already using, but it does people good to see their President engaging with the media, and gives us the idea that you're willing to answer challenging questions. So many of us will never get an answer from you, directly, it's nice to see journalists asking for us, even if the right questions often elude them in their haste to obsess over process stories.

Respectfully yours,

Kelsey