Friday
Oct052007
Card-carrying Republican...
Friday, October 5, 2007 at 12:27AM
(This post is about politics. I don't want this blog to become super political, I want it to make you want to buy my records, but it's something I care about and want to share. I promised I'd talk about Iran. I didn't get to it in this one, but I'll try to tomorrow. Ok, you've been warned...)
So I almost became a Republican last week.
I've been getting more and more into reading the news, following the war, watching the candidates for the Presidency... I wrote about him once before (and link to him on the main blog) but I really like this guy named Ron Paul. I mean, I really like him.
It's the first time in my very short tenure as a voter/citizen where I feel like I actually want to vote FOR someone, not just the lesser of two evils thing.
For more info on him you can CLICK HERE and go to his main website. CLICK HERE to see where he stands and why I want to vote for him.
I almost became a Republican because that's where he's running, and I want to vote for him in the Primary, to get him the party nomination. If he was running as a Democrat, I'd join that party. Turns out that in Tennessee you don't need to join the party to vote in the Primaries, though, and I felt no further desire...
----
Ok, all stumping aside, it's been really interesting to watch how people get from wanting to run, to running, to actually being their party's nominee. It's actually a very sad, discouraging process, to be honest. To me, anyway.
It really comes down to two things: Money and fame.
Really? Money? Fame? What do those have to do with being a good, wise, responsible leader? Nothing. They have nothing to do with it. That's why I believe we're in the situation we're in now.
I don't think George W. is a bad guy. I feel pretty bad for him, actually. It's obvious to me that he's in way over his head. I think he means well, but he's just not President material.
Unfortunately, he was campaign material. He had fame and he had money. Lots and lots of both. People don't vote for who they don't know. Fame means people know you. Money buys ads which get the people who don't know you to, you know, know you. (That was an awesome sentence.) And with ads you can let them know the "you" you wish you were, or think you are, or whatever. You get people to believe in you. That's called "campaigning". It's why candidates who have less than 5 million dollars at this point are counted out over a year before the election.
George W. had the right gifts for campaigning. So do Hillary Clinton and Rudy Guiliani. Which leads to my other big, sad realization about this process.
----
The media controls the elections. Almost completely. How do people hear about you? The media. How do people hear what you think? The media.
Something I've noticed since I've been paying a lot more attention to the news is how much the news talks about the people who deliver it. There are always headlines about Katie Couric and Dan Rather. Why? They're not news. Not to me, anyway. They're just the people who read it.
Ah, but you and I are not the people who write the news. Just like a story about my friend Jason only really interests the people who know him, the media like to talk about the media, because it's who they know. Katie Couric is far more important to an Associated Press writer than to you or me, I assume. Am I explaining this well at all?
Either way, the same thing is seen with campaigns. Most of our major media outlets are based in New York. The New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, all the big TV headquarters. And who gets the most coverage, thus becoming "the frontrunners"? Hillary and Rudy. From New York.
The media is reporting what seems most important to them. I don't completely fault them for it, though I believe it's very poor journalism. But the problem is, that sets the pace for everything else that will happen. There may very well be better candidates. People with better records, more honesty, interesting ideas... But without the fame and the money, and without the NY media knowing about them, they may never really get heard.
And so democracy takes a major blow. Our freedom to vote is severely limited by what the media decides we get to know. And by a two-party system, which is a terrible, terrible thing, but another topic entirely.
----
What's been exciting me recently, though, is that Ron Paul, while being pretty much completely ignored by the major media, and without the fame, has been raising money. Pretty much just like me, people hear about him, like what they hear, and send him a few bucks. All of a sudden he's got 5 million bucks and is starting to have to be talked about by the media. Which I'm sure they hate.
But I'm excited. He may not win the election. He may not win the Primary. But he says good things and other people than me are obviously responding. And that gives me hope, when the government I see leading us now gives me none.
----
I'm glad to know that no government will ever fully succeed. No group of sinners will ever usher in a utopia. But if I really believe that Jesus commanded us to love others, and if we are a part of our nation's government (which I don't always think is true...) then we have a responsibility to try and make that government as good as it can be.
So vote for who you want, or don't vote at all, but I encourage you to become aware, if you aren't already, and to seek out good in an overwhelmingly sad and broken system. To encourage that good to grow and spread, and to pray for it, and for the healing of the bad.
And to wax philisophically on political tangents when you should be going to bed...
So I almost became a Republican last week.
I've been getting more and more into reading the news, following the war, watching the candidates for the Presidency... I wrote about him once before (and link to him on the main blog) but I really like this guy named Ron Paul. I mean, I really like him.
It's the first time in my very short tenure as a voter/citizen where I feel like I actually want to vote FOR someone, not just the lesser of two evils thing.
For more info on him you can CLICK HERE and go to his main website. CLICK HERE to see where he stands and why I want to vote for him.
I almost became a Republican because that's where he's running, and I want to vote for him in the Primary, to get him the party nomination. If he was running as a Democrat, I'd join that party. Turns out that in Tennessee you don't need to join the party to vote in the Primaries, though, and I felt no further desire...
----
Ok, all stumping aside, it's been really interesting to watch how people get from wanting to run, to running, to actually being their party's nominee. It's actually a very sad, discouraging process, to be honest. To me, anyway.
It really comes down to two things: Money and fame.
Really? Money? Fame? What do those have to do with being a good, wise, responsible leader? Nothing. They have nothing to do with it. That's why I believe we're in the situation we're in now.
I don't think George W. is a bad guy. I feel pretty bad for him, actually. It's obvious to me that he's in way over his head. I think he means well, but he's just not President material.
Unfortunately, he was campaign material. He had fame and he had money. Lots and lots of both. People don't vote for who they don't know. Fame means people know you. Money buys ads which get the people who don't know you to, you know, know you. (That was an awesome sentence.) And with ads you can let them know the "you" you wish you were, or think you are, or whatever. You get people to believe in you. That's called "campaigning". It's why candidates who have less than 5 million dollars at this point are counted out over a year before the election.
George W. had the right gifts for campaigning. So do Hillary Clinton and Rudy Guiliani. Which leads to my other big, sad realization about this process.
----
The media controls the elections. Almost completely. How do people hear about you? The media. How do people hear what you think? The media.
Something I've noticed since I've been paying a lot more attention to the news is how much the news talks about the people who deliver it. There are always headlines about Katie Couric and Dan Rather. Why? They're not news. Not to me, anyway. They're just the people who read it.
Ah, but you and I are not the people who write the news. Just like a story about my friend Jason only really interests the people who know him, the media like to talk about the media, because it's who they know. Katie Couric is far more important to an Associated Press writer than to you or me, I assume. Am I explaining this well at all?
Either way, the same thing is seen with campaigns. Most of our major media outlets are based in New York. The New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, all the big TV headquarters. And who gets the most coverage, thus becoming "the frontrunners"? Hillary and Rudy. From New York.
The media is reporting what seems most important to them. I don't completely fault them for it, though I believe it's very poor journalism. But the problem is, that sets the pace for everything else that will happen. There may very well be better candidates. People with better records, more honesty, interesting ideas... But without the fame and the money, and without the NY media knowing about them, they may never really get heard.
And so democracy takes a major blow. Our freedom to vote is severely limited by what the media decides we get to know. And by a two-party system, which is a terrible, terrible thing, but another topic entirely.
----
What's been exciting me recently, though, is that Ron Paul, while being pretty much completely ignored by the major media, and without the fame, has been raising money. Pretty much just like me, people hear about him, like what they hear, and send him a few bucks. All of a sudden he's got 5 million bucks and is starting to have to be talked about by the media. Which I'm sure they hate.
But I'm excited. He may not win the election. He may not win the Primary. But he says good things and other people than me are obviously responding. And that gives me hope, when the government I see leading us now gives me none.
----
I'm glad to know that no government will ever fully succeed. No group of sinners will ever usher in a utopia. But if I really believe that Jesus commanded us to love others, and if we are a part of our nation's government (which I don't always think is true...) then we have a responsibility to try and make that government as good as it can be.
So vote for who you want, or don't vote at all, but I encourage you to become aware, if you aren't already, and to seek out good in an overwhelmingly sad and broken system. To encourage that good to grow and spread, and to pray for it, and for the healing of the bad.
And to wax philisophically on political tangents when you should be going to bed...
Reader Comments (33)
Ron Paul seems pretty awesome. He's basically a pro-life libertarian, and being a pro-life libertarian myself, I tend to line up fairly well with him. More important, however, than my ideological agreement with Paul over the importance of liberty, is exactly what you are talking about: Ron Paul is not a politician in the way we usually use the word (in how many songs do you use politician as a negative metaphor? enough that I noticed a pattern). He seems to be about what I (ok, so I stole this distinction from Plato) like to call CONVERSATION, rather than DEBATE. Sure, he'll give you an energetic argument for his position, but he's concerned about convincing you of the truth, not trying to yell so loud that you can't hear everyone else. And that, more than anything is what gets me excited about him. Even though he has almost no chance at winning, he might get just help us learn a little bit about what political discussion among reasonable people should look like.
"It’s obvious to me that he’s in way over his head. I think he means well, but he’s just not President material."
How could this be obvious to you? What makes you an authority on who is or isn't President material? What in his makeup or experience would indicate that he wasn't President material? The fact that he's a Harvard MBA? The fact that he was the Chief Executive of one of the biggest states in the US for six years? Or was it the fact that he had an intimate knowledge of the office of President, and what the job entailed? Or is it just because he has the courage to stand up for what he believes is right instead of bending to the will of polls?
D'you watch the clips of Ron Paul on Bill Maher? Those are my fave...
Despite the criticism, it's good to see that Karl Rove reads your blog, Andrew.
Eesh, Andy, these political topics are always touchy.
-- I'm totally on board with you about Ron Paul. While I don't think he has a chance of winning, his conservative libertarianism resonates with me. Heck, I live in Iowa, so I'll have to put in a good word at the caucuses for him.
-- I want to challenge you to think about another angle of this whole war/president/media thing. you said:
And I can't disagree too much. But here's my question: how much does the media's reporting bias affect our view or understanding of President Bush, and how well or poorly he is doing his job?I'm no anonymous commenter, neither am I Karl Rove. (Karl has more hair than I do.) But I think the anonymous commenter has, in the midst of the snark, some fraction of a valid point. I am quite sure that what is "obvious" to us armchair quarterbacks on our blogs is not nearly so obvious or simple if you're the guy sitting in the chair. And while I can certainly say that I don't like some of the things he's done, I won't presume to say that the guy's obviously out of his depth. I will pray for him, though. And whoever the next person is.
Amen, brother.
ok here come all the Bush supporter-christians to rally to his defense!!
Anyone who thinks Bush isn't almost a complete failure as president (except for the 2 supreme court justice nominatons) doesn't live in reality.
He has trampled on the constitution, grown the government more than Bill Clinton ever did and gotten us into a useless war in Iraq-- not to mention a national debt that our children's children children will be paying for.
George Bush is not the Messiah!!! I get so tweaked when christians defend him like he is God Almighty.
I voted for him twice and there are few things I regret more in my life as an adult.
I've been hearing are reading more and more encouraging things about Ron Paul this week, for some reason. Maybe he'll at least get an appearance on some state's primary tally...you know "Ron Paul with 12% of the vote..." something just to let us pro-life folks know there is hope in the masses.
Perhaps, though, his grassroots campaign will work. You never know. I mean, Radiohead clearly stole your idea of giving away music for "whatever you want to pay" and now it's all over the media. Think of what the internet can do for these kinds of movements...we can always pray! :)
OK, so an attack like that is not exactly helpful to a discussion.
If this is gonna be a discussion (which I'd kinda enjoy, actually), can we take it over to the forum? I'll start a thread.
The forum topic is here. Or carry on here if you prefer.
For all I know, Andy may hunt me down and take me to the woodshet for trying to move the conversation. :-)
Well, that link didn't work. Just follow the link to the forum over on the sidebar. :-)
Though Andrew might lack firsthand knowledge of what it 'takes' to be a president, he is (we are) certainly encouraged a the tree by it's fruit.
The Christian problem with our current president should be that he is a fallen and broken man, much like the rest of us. No biggie, right? Wait. The problem really comes to light when we (he) pretend not to be that fallen, fail-able individual, those who almost never publicly admit fault, seek forgiveness or make amends. Nor, from all media appearances, has he an ear to listen. Instead, he has the courage to stand up for what we he believes. Those are his words. And those words become like a snare when policy and posturing run afoul of what God tells us through his Word.
For someone to pronounce themselves a follower of Jesus and bear the weight of power, much as our current President has, much is required.
Wouldn’t it be nice to have a commander-in-chief who would honestly and publicly wrestle with radical ideas like ‘Love your enemies. Do good to those who persecute you.’ as it pertains to foreign policy? What about corporate globalization and the words of Jesus - ‘Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth’? What would it be like for our country to be led by someone who was open to earnest dialog instead of exhibiting the courage to be proud and stiff-necked?
Ultimately, we should seek to endorse anyone who would not stand in the way of the true gospel message (as told to us in scripture) and God’s ever-growing kingdom as he/she seeks to lead our country.
Cliff, if President Bush is truly the arrogant, stiff-necked, stubborn, anti-gospel person you claim him to be, then I agree with most all of your conclusions. However, I'm a bit troubled by your premise, given that you admit that all you know is what the media reports to you. (Heck, that's all that I know, too.)
I just want to give the guy the benefit of the doubt. And it troubles me when so many Christians run around saying mean, cutting things about a man who is a leader we're called to submit to and one who claims to be a Christian brother.
Where's the gentleness, the love, the prayer? I think I'm in the same position here with the critics that you are with President Bush; however, I won't claim that they are unloving and unprayerful; I'm only drawing conclusions based on what I hear from them.
(And to be clear: I'm not accusing AO of any of this.)
Chris is totally correct when he points out our very real inadequacy to do any real critique of Bush's capacity to serve. To be very honest, when I read andy's line about it being obvious that he is in over his head...I just laughed. Because he sounded so exactly like the media on that one.
I don't get into Bush bashing....because if it came down to voting for Him or Gore again...I'd gladly vote for Bush.
I appreciate Andy's desire to promote someone with an agenda he actually does like...that is good stuff right there.
Oh, and I'm pretty sure that just about any Dem. nominee would crush Paul. Like we all know and Andy said already, it aint a fair game this politics.
I don't know if you know what it's like to know to be know or knowing how to know. What I mean is that unless you really know how to know, then you really haven't known or been in the know. All I know it that knowing one who is known isn't really knowing anything or even knowing how to know let alone knowing what one should know. You know?
Sorry, I just had to lighten up the conversation and poke fun at Andy's awesome sentance (which by the way, is really awesome).
"Chris is totally correct when he points out our very real inadequacy to do any real critique of Bush’s capacity to serve. "
Let's not let that be an excuse not to evaluate and seek after better leadership for our nation and our children's futures.
You've got to ask questions and you've got to expect more.
I agree with Jerry on this one, actually. Yes, and more yes, the media spins everything, and they paint Bush as an evil demon. I disagree with that. Like I said before, I really do think he's probably a good guy.
But the media can only spin stuff so much. The policies he's put forward and the actions he's taken speak much louder than their rhetoric.
We're involved in a war that was never declared and never fully explained. This war is in a nation NEXT to one who denounces terrorism but whose CITIZENS attacked us. This is the first time in American history we've gone on a preemptive war. It's the high school equivalant of beating up a kid because we think he might try to beat us up later. That kind of action gets you kicked out of school, and honestly, I think it should get you kicked out of the Presidency too.
We went to Afghanistan for revenge. The Christianity that I believe, and that I understand Bush to believe, preaches "love your enemies". That's hard for me to do in my own life. I can't even begin to understand how hard it must be to do on a national level. But I can very honestly say I don't think I've seen it tried. This saddens me.
Also, this war is being funded completely on credit. America is broke, and has been for decades. And now we're spending more than ever before, while taking almost half of what our citizens make (with income tax, sales tax, property tax, etc...) That's money that will have to be repaid, and it will be paid by our generation and by our children. That is completely irresponsible and incredibly frustrating.
Also, the Patriot act was passed by this administration. The complete removal of civil rights. No longer is a warrant necessary for arrest, or even search. No longer are we innocent until proven guilty. No longer do we have the right to a speedy trial or to a lawyer. Millions of Americans have died to protect these rights and this administration took them away while we were busy gnawing for revenge. Shameful.
The media hates Bush, this is true. I do not hate him, but I disagree with him fundamentally on most issues. And I voted for him. And I wish I hadn't. I can't say Gore or Kerry would have been better. But I do know that we'll be struggling to undo what this administration has done for decades, and the burden will be on my children after Bush, Cheney and their cohorts have passed away, passing on their millions of dollars to theirs.
I agree. We have to evaluate, we have to expect better.
But you're missing the distinction. What I said, and what Bo agreed with, is that we're not in a place to evaluate Bush's capacity/ability to serve. It's certainly possible to have the ability and still perform poorly.
If the bulk of the comments here were "the war is bad", "Bush's policies are bad", etc, well, then we can discuss what policies ought to be. That would be a discussion we could all participate in and maybe get somewhere.
Instead, what do we have?
About President Bush:
About a commenter who stated Bush's experience/qualifications:
About a comment suggesting moderation:
That just doesn't make for a workable discussion much at all.
So I should state that my statement "I think Bush is a good guy, but not Presidential material" is an opinion, not a fact. It's an opinion I hold strongly. But I see what you're saying.
My actual thoughts:
I think/feel like/have the opinion that Ron Paul is the only cadidate with a standing chance of bringing our country together. i.e. I just walked through Capitol Hill in Seattle, the most liberal part of one of the most liberal cities in the U.S. There are Ron Paul posters everywhere! And no one is drawing faces on them or writing four letter words all over them. Between being anti-war and anti-fetus murder/pro-life/anti-choice and anti-tax, he can win a lot of people over to the same side.
Also, my own impression is that Hillary has been grooming herself to be the first female president for at least the last 30 years. She strikes me as the ultimate figure-head. I get the feeling that Ron Paul wouldn't be running if he didn't think we were in some serious bad shape.
As to Bush, at the risk of refuting my own previous comments, at this point, aren't presidents just a face to put on an administration they have very little control over?
Lastly, we should really be able to figure out that when AO says he "thinks" something that it's an opinion. Benefit of the doubt, people...
I've given up on the Republican Party and can't go to the Democratic Party. There is not much distinction between them anymore in my mind anyway. I joined the Constitution Party. I know they would like Ron Paul to run under their banner is he does not get the Republican nomination - which is doubtful.
I was discouraged the other day while watching the nightly news and they talked about how many Americans don't like either political party. Yet they did not mention any other party out there.
I'm sure the Constitution Party is not perfect, either. But this country really needs a viable third party. I'm tremendously pessimistic about the direction this country is going. And I, too, am tired of voting for the lesser of two evils.
I probably shouldn't comment at all, but I will.
AO says:
"We went to Afghanistan for revenge. The Christianity that I believe, and that I understand Bush to believe, preaches “love your enemies�. That’s hard for me to do in my own life. I can’t even begin to understand how hard it must be to do on a national level. But I can very honestly say I don’t think I’ve seen it tried. This saddens me."
Look around a little more; America does act in love toward its enemies sometimes.
Also, there is a difference in the moral standards applicable to individuals and those that apply to governments. I'm not saying there isn't some overlap, but the New Testament authorizes governments to do some things--such as "bear the sword" (see Rom. 13)--that it does not authorize individuals to do.
"Also, the Patriot act was passed by this administration. The complete removal of civil rights. No longer is a warrant necessary for arrest, or even search. No longer are we innocent until proven guilty. No longer do we have the right to a speedy trial or to a lawyer. Millions of Americans have died to protect these rights and this administration took them away while we were busy gnawing for revenge. Shameful."
I'm not defending every aspect of the PATRIOT Act, but your summary of it and what it does is inaccurate in several ways.
The way I see it, you can hate Bush or like him. The fact of the matter is, we have not been attacked since 9-11. Like it or not he has kept us safe. What provoked 9-11 in the first place? Or the USS Cole or Kobar towers or the first WTC attack? The forces we fight hate us. They hate us because we are free. They hate us because we are Christian. They hate us because the god they pray to tells them WE are the evil ones. I don't care if they have twisted their own religion or not. They want to convert us or kill us. If anyone thinks that a loving, peacful chat around the UN table singing Kumbaya will change their minds is just plain wrong.
My stand is this: I don't see anyone running on the left that will be able to keep us as safe as Bush has thus far, like him or not. I don't see much on the right either but I do think this is a huge factor going into the next election. I havn't spent the last 18 years of my life serving my country to see it fall apart now at the hands of a bleeding heart liberal. After all, the only way Hillary will be able to fund her wonderful health care plan is to radically reduce the military and tax the working class even more. And I don't feel it's just Hillary that would do this. I think all the dems running right now would. And that, my friends, would put us in a far worse place than we are already. I don't have a horse picked out for this race yet but I will definately check Ron out a little more. Peace
right on TonyL
I remember reading alot on Derek Webb's forum when Mockingbird was about to come out and kind of feeling sick over the back and forth politcal crap, and also thinking that I really like talking about music more then politics.
Hey, man, yeah, you're entitled to an opinion, and I understand that's what this whole blog is. :-) And I realize that I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt to a fault most of the time. So... well, the guy will be out of office in less than 18 months, and then we'll see if the next one can do any better.
Honestly, Andy, I think there's decent counterpoints to most of the arguments you made up there; things like how much foreign aid we give all over the world that just never makes the news; and I think, as CM said, you have over-exaggerated the Patriot Act by quite a bit. But I understand it's something that you hold dearly, and it's not gonna make me think any less of you. :-)
Yeah, Ben, I'm thinking I agree with you.
Peace, everybody.
Andy,
I appreciate your warning. I credit you for caring and trying to be informed and for standing up for what you believe in. That is the American way and I'm all for it. (Whether I agree with you or not.)
However, if I want political discourse I will go to political forums. I come here to keep updated on you and your music and Caedmon's. I know a blog is more personal and it is about what is affecting you and therefore what you write about in your music. So I guess what I'm saying is, you have every right to discuss politics here if that is what you are passionate about. But if you do it a lot, I will not be stopping by because it's not what I want to read, or discuss when I come here. Just my .02
Grace and Peace,