A Country Divided
During my more than three decades of political and cultural awareness, I have never experienced the United States in such turmoil. Questions such as “Who are we?” and “What have we become?” as a people, as a country, are on the minds of so many. And it isn’t simply a question of political affiliation, gender, race or religion: it goes much deeper than that. I remember the gas lines of the 1970s; the Iran hostage crisis; the stark political shift from Carter to Reagan; the 1980s leveraged buy-out boom and the Crash of 1987; the real estate crisis of the early 1990s; Rodney King trial; the Presidential election vote count irregularities of 2000; and so many more high-impact events. While these events may have shocked, scared or angered us, they didn’t appear to shake us to our core, to question the very foundations of our nation. What, then, makes the present different than the past?
The 21st century has caused our nation to deal with new challenges and threats, ranging from the tragedy of September 11th; the rapid globalization and the offshoring of millions of jobs; the rise of China and India as superpowers; and the resurrection of Russia as an economic and political force with a military agenda. And the list goes on. But even these threats pale in comparison to the threat posed by a country divided, a schism that will only become clearer by the choices offered in the upcoming Presidential race. It clearly has gotten to the point in Presidential politics - specifically Republican Presidential politics - where it’s not about crafting the right ticket, one where the two parts complement one another in skills, experiences and world-views, but in presenting a slate that appears to only provide the best chance of winning. Alaska Governor Sarah Palin was a coldly calculated, carefully analyzed choice by Senator McCain and his advisers. Grab the Christian Right, maybe some women on the fence, plug those gaps in McCain’s voting record. McCain as a maverick? Hardly. This isn’t patriotism. This isn’t demonstrating love of country. This is playing on people’s deepest fears, and upping the ante such that the only result can be bad, regardless of the outcome. Robert Reich has a great take on this, and several others have highlighted different facets of the matter. My question is: is this what our country has come to, and what does it mean in how we view the Constitution?
We now have a person running for office, who is potentially a heartbeat away from becoming President of the United States, who could potentially send us straight back to medieval times. She stated in a televised debate that she supports the teaching of creationism in schools; she does not believe global warming is due to man-made causes; she opposes state health benefits for same-sex couples; and she is not only firmly pro-life, but opposes abortions for women pregnant either due to rape or incest. Anti-separation of Church and State (that concept, first put forth by Thomas Jefferson, is immortalized in the First Amendment of U.S. Constitution otherwise known as the Establishment Clause); anti-science; anti-equality. These are not the characteristics of someone who can bring people together, but someone who can push them apart. Regardless of one’s political views, I find it hard to believe the the majority of this country support the candidacy of a person with such narrow-minded, backward-looking beliefs. Divisiveness is not what we need at this critical point in the evolution of our society and of the world, especially when challenges to the status quo haven’t been higher in generations. Do you think China, India and Russia are moving light-years backwards in their science programs to teach creationism? Do you really think we can continue to be competitive on an increasingly challenging global stage when science is something you learn from the Bible, and not from scholarly texts in biology, anthropology, chemistry and physics? I shudder to think what will happen to our knowledge economy in such a scenario.
I have been reading a fascinating book about Intel’s Andy Grove by Richard Tedlow. It traces Mr. Grove’s childhood and eventual escape from Hungary in 1956, and the remarkable life he has built since his move to the U.S. Mr. Grove is a man of science, of determination, of massive intellect and is a lifelong learner. He has used his powers to fight both prostate cancer and Parkinson’s disease, and was employee #3 and the architect of growth at arguably the most important company to bring us into the PC generation and out towards the Internet generation. I wonder what Governor Palin would think of Mr. Grove’s life story and the role of science in his personal and professional development? It is hard to imagine this self-proclaimed “hockey mom” being impressed. Rest assured, I am.
When I see the U.S. through my prism - being whatever you want to be if you work hard enough, inclusive, edgy, aggressive about ensuing our personal freedoms, innovative, caring, focused and fierce under duress, willing to change but without compromising the spirit of our Constitution - it saddens me to see where we find ourselves. Eight years of a fractious, troubled Administration, with the possibility of not more of the same, but perhaps much, much worse. It angers and scares me that Mr. McCain would choose someone like Governor Palin as his running mate. We are, without question, the laughing-stock of the world, which will come even more into focus if Senator McCain and Governor Palin actually win. It is almost as if the election has become merely a game to him. Let me assure you, Senator McCain, this is no game. And if I am right and there are millions of others who are just as angered and as scared as I am by your actions, this is not a game you’ll be able to pursue after November 4th.
——-
——-
COMMENT:
AUTHOR: FN
EMAIL: fn@altgate.com
DATE: 09/01/2008 01:07:41 AM
Well said. The Pahlin pick makes no sense from a governance point of view, but as you point out it has the potential to help with the election. The national polls are mis-leading (they’re essentially tied). When you look at the data state by state (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/) McCain trails badly and needs a “game changer” to have any hope of winning. I can’t fault him for doing anything to find a way to win, but that’s hardly putting “country first.”
——-
COMMENT:
AUTHOR: Kris Tuttle
EMAIL: kris@research2zero.com
URL: http://www.research2zero.com
DATE: 09/01/2008 03:44:26 AM
Roger, I’ve been deeply worried about the US for the last decade or so. I am so struck by the difference between our leaders in government today and those that established the country. Even the people I have known and know from only two generations go still deeply reflected values like honor, integrity, and above all service to others. To me there is no question that in many ways we lost our compass and our edge.
On a more positive note it seems that this election and issues around the world are galvanizing more people in America to get involved in local and national matters. I tend to believe that if more Americans can reinvest their time and energy in what type of country they want to build for themselves and their children and relearn what the US is all about to begin with, we can start to make some better choices.
At least so far in this election we have been reminded of some higher ideals and original purposes for our government. Some of the politics are scary and many voters are exasperatingly closed minded and party affiliated. It still feels like we are at a potential turning point. If we don’t make the turn I’ll be mighty disappointed.
——-
COMMENT:
AUTHOR: Khyron
EMAIL: khyron4eva@gmail.com
URL: http://alphaguy.blogspot.com
DATE: 09/01/2008 05:41:06 AM
I don’t speak for anyone else, but no matter who wins, I know I’m looking to get out of this sinking ship of a nation. However, the Republican ticket definitely blows a bigger hole in the hull than the Democratic ticket. (And that hole is under the waterline too!)
——-
COMMENT:
AUTHOR: Michael
EMAIL: tilomacm@yahoo.com
URL:
DATE: 09/01/2008 08:05:33 AM
Interesting take on the Republic VP pick. There is no doubt whose camp you’re in and that’s not a bad thing. I suppose the democrats have to come up with an argument against Palin or any other VP pick and this seems to be a sensible choice.
I wonder if I would sound like you if I were to write a blog entry about Obama-Biden. Something tells me I wouldn’t. I would not use terms like “country divided” or say “I have never experienced the United States in such turmoil”…etc. This is an important election just like all of the ones before and all the ones that will come after. I’m guessing I could predict the next election in which you would NOT resort to such dramatic prose. It would be the next presidential election with a democratic incumbent. Am I wrong?
Anywho, I love democracy and the ability to freely share ideas. If yours are better, I hope yours prevail.
Regards,
Michael
——-
COMMENT:
AUTHOR: Eric van der Walde
EMAIL: evander40@yahoo.com
URL:
DATE: 09/01/2008 09:58:46 AM
Wow,
I had to check my feed reader, thought I had somehow mistakenly subscribed to the DailyKos.
——-
COMMENT:
AUTHOR: Dave
EMAIL: frieddave@gmail.com
URL:
DATE: 09/01/2008 10:26:09 AM
I’m not thrilled with Palin, but your argument essentially boils down to: “McCain should not have picked someone who he thought could get him votes.”
This is rather asinine; the whole point of running for President is to be elected. If his “cold calculation” is the best one he came up with, then who are you to say that there is anything wrong with that?
Your argument does not supports its assumptions.
——-
COMMENT:
AUTHOR: Peter Kropf
EMAIL: pk22901@yahoo.com
URL:
DATE: 09/01/2008 03:05:33 PM
I am shocked by the recklessness and political (cynical) calculation displayed by Sen McCain in this decision.
Does he really think we can thrive in a Palin Presidency?
If we were living in any other country, this would be reason enough alone for an Obama landslide.
The absurdity of Palin’s nomination is mind numbing.
——-
COMMENT:
AUTHOR: mark
EMAIL: schultzmj@earthlink.net
URL:
DATE: 09/01/2008 04:30:20 PM
Interesting take. Find it a little hypocritical when your man was hard to the left all through the primaries when that’s what he needed to win and then as soon as he won the nomination, he headed hard back to the center because that’s what he needs to do to win the general election.
Is he following his beliefs (and if so then what are his beliefs) and putting the country first (by your defintion) or is he just trying to get elected.
Can’t have it both ways.
——-
COMMENT:
AUTHOR: George
EMAIL: GSchubert751@gmail.com
URL: http://thevolatilitysoma.blogspot.com
DATE: 09/01/2008 05:45:14 PM
Nothing most of these people do makes sense looking at it from the view of what really is best for the country long term.
——-
COMMENT:
AUTHOR: Roger
EMAIL: roger@informationarbitrage.com
URL: http://www.informationarbitrage.com
DATE: 09/01/2008 11:44:54 PM
Thanks for the comments. i’d like to specifically respond to a few:
- michael, you are 100% wrong about my close linkage to party. i support people whom i believe can be trusted, are rational, support innovation and investment in technology, math and science, and believe the u.s. is a member of a global community, and not the sole arbiter of its conscience. the current republican slate, especially with the recent vp nomination, scares the hell out of me. the fact that they are republican is neither here nor there. governor palin is unlike any republican with whom i am personally acquainted.
- dave, i vehemently disagree with you. is running for office simply about winning, and not about what winning means? as i stated in the post, this isn’t a game. just as being a board member conveys certain fiduciary duties, i’d argue that running for public office carries similar moral and ethical responsibilities. choosing a person who is truly ill-equipped to run this country as the vp candidate is a breach of this duty, plain and simple. you may disagree with my perspective, and i respect that. but this is how my thinking goes.
Thanks, Roger
——-
COMMENT:
AUTHOR: Greg Battle
EMAIL: gbattle@gmail.com
URL:
DATE: 09/02/2008 08:37:46 AM
This morning on CNN, I watched as Dr. Jennifer Baxter, an ardent Clinton supporter, explained her rationale for now supporting the McCain/Palin ticket. Her logic is that because the Obama camp not even vet Clinton as a VP candidate, the Democratic party does not support women voters in this election. However, when Baxter was asked if she supported Palin’s ideas on Pro-Life, gun laws, trade and the possibility of 3 Supreme Justice seats being filled by the next president, she stated that although she may not wholly agree with the ideology, she has to support the non-Democratic ticket. This begs the question, of those 18 million cracks, how many would put a woman’s right to choose at risk in order to spite the democratic party? My guess is not that many.
——-
COMMENT:
AUTHOR: dave
EMAIL: doleary@epiphanyresearch.com
URL:
DATE: 09/02/2008 09:17:04 AM
Hard to take you seriously here, Roger. Reich’s piece is pathetically partisan. Where was your post or comment on Edwards? Clearly less qualified for the VP spot based on any conscious analysis. Coldly calculated? Yeah, the 17 year old pregnant daughter is a pollster’s dream. Please take a moment to think instead of grabbing the DNC talking points from the NYT.
If Palin is woefully inexperienced for the VP spot how exactly is the community organizer qualified at the top of the ticket? When the junior senator from NY, and her husband, raised that question they was derided as racist. He has a record of exactly nothing. He did not vote on the war, and he was wrong on the surge. He has passed zero legislation in IL or the senate. But he is ready to lead because he is handsome and gives fabulous speeches?
I am not sold on Palin, but your analysis is inch deep and reflects the the beliefs on the liberal media elite.
——-
COMMENT:
AUTHOR: zzzzzz
EMAIL: taloots@yahoo.com
URL:
DATE: 09/03/2008 09:04:36 AM
pretty emotional post, Roger. VP choice was a calculated decision, just like Joe Biden was for Obama. To think otherwise is naive.
pretty easy to pick apart obama’s liberal pandering policies (anti nuclear, anti oil drilling, pro environmental, tax and spend redistribution of wealth etc.) as partisan in nature.
dont know why anyone would think Obama has the track record to unite a divided country more than McCain who has 30 years of experience doing it.
but im not voting and dont really care at the end of the day.
——-
COMMENT:
AUTHOR: Doug K.
EMAIL: doug.kersten@hotmail.com
URL:
DATE: 09/03/2008 12:30:30 PM
My thoughts exactly. I was undecided until McCain made this choice. Now I am decided. I can not support a man who does not think about the larger consequences of his actions and I can not support a woman who does not have some mode of tolerance. She can have her guns but the hate and deviciveness have no place in America anymore! I am sick of it and my vote is now cast.
——-
COMMENT:
AUTHOR: Brooks Jordan
EMAIL: brooks@brooksjordan.name
DATE: 09/03/2008 08:03:39 PM
You’re right on, Roger. Thanks for putting it down in a post.
We’re at an inflection point as a country, which is very much pushing our political system into new territory.
I think it’s interesting that many of the people who have commented here see McCain’s choice as simply political strategy.
That is in fact a major issue: what some of us see when we look out at a world in transition and how it differs so radically from not only the fundamentalists, but also some of the people we work and live with.
——-
COMMENT:
AUTHOR: Brooks Jordan
EMAIL: brooks@brooksjordan.name
DATE: 09/03/2008 08:14:55 PM
Roger, would love it if you’d put
on this blog so we can reply directly to other people’s comments (and get all of its other benefits).
——-
COMMENT:
AUTHOR: del
EMAIL: diane.w500@verizon.net
URL:
DATE: 09/03/2008 11:38:12 PM
Roger,
Sarah Palin would not have been my first choice for Vice President, but there is no question that she and her beliefs have been ridiculed by the national media. I refuse to vote for someone for President who is the most liberal member of the U.S. Senate according to the middle of the road publication, the National Journal, and whose total experience consists of being a community organizer and running for President. He has basically used his time in the Senate to run for President, and has not been an effective member there. What makes you think Obama would be an effective President?
——-
COMMENT:
AUTHOR: Roger
EMAIL: roger@informationarbitrage.com
URL: http://www.informationarbitrage.com
DATE: 09/03/2008 11:56:37 PM
del, there is so much lying b.s. in these speeches. sarah palin’s delivery was incredible. her facts about her record and that of obama, well, something other than truthful. she has supported pork-barrel politics and earmarks in Alaska (e.g., she was a supporter of the “bridge to nowhere” - she simply lied). obama has authored more than 150 bills in his first two years in the senate; she lied again. unfortunately, that is the state of our politics.
don’t get me wrong, i am a moderate. neither candidate nor their running mates thrill me. i am much more fiscally conservative than obama and far more socially liberal than mccain (and certainly palin). and i don’t quite buy the idea that we are safe with republicans and in danger with democrats in office. but, above all, i just can’t handle the blurring of religion and statecraft. it is unacceptable to me as a both a human being and as an American. if choosing a slate that supports my views costs me in my pocket, so be it. i don’t vote my wallet. i vote my ethics.
——-
COMMENT:
AUTHOR: Paul Denlinger
EMAIL: paul.denlinger@gmail.com
URL: http://www.chinavortex.com
DATE: 09/04/2008 07:55:35 PM
Looking at the US from China where I live, it looks like the US is trying multiple means to commit suicide. Here is my take on the past 20 years of globalization: US firms exported manufacturing and jobs to China so that the Chinese could create jobs in China, and factories to pollute the Chinese environment, while the US financial industry massively injected American debt into the global financial system, polluting the global financial system.
Democrats and Republicans are equally guilty for letting this happen.
Obama seems to realize the depth of the challenge, and says that Americans need to work their way out of the hole.
McCain/Palin want to play on terrorism fears and fears of big government (excuse me, what’s this huge monster in terms of national debt W has created over the past eight years?).
Look at the faces of the people attending the RNC. They are predominantly white. The US Census Bureau says that whites will become a minority by 2042 if present trends continue. McCain/Palin 2008 is one of the last hurrahs of the Angry White Backlash, which has strong roots in the US south. Go figure.
——-
COMMENT:
AUTHOR: Sammy
EMAIL: skip_203@hotmail.com
URL:
DATE: 09/04/2008 10:08:19 PM
“… win at any cost and by any means.” Both parties have the same agenda and I’m not sure why people get confused over this.
I feel the same anxiety about how our nation is divided and reading the comments makes me think people aren’t willing to drop the axe and come together any time soon. The shame is that we’ve done this too ourselves and when we can no longer afford our homes or to send our kids to college we will just find someone else to blame.
——-
COMMENT:
AUTHOR: anon
EMAIL: habib@peertrainer.com
URL:
DATE: 09/07/2008 12:57:09 PM
Roger-
I think equal rage at the state of the Democratic party is due. The powers that be in the leadership torpedoed Hillary Clinton, who would have won and presumably would have followed policies you favor. We are left with someone who can most positively be viewed as a Taoist “green reed in the wind”— but who will be viewed by most as having very questionable judgement in terms of personal relationships.
There is so much anger at the fake Christian (to borrow a great term from Charles Barkley) crew, but I contend that equal anger could be directed at the leaders of the democratic party- Ted Kennedy and the like. They have killed Clintonism, which I suspect you view as the best approach that has been attempted in practice.
You also need to broaden your assessment of Sarah Palin. Yes, she is frightening on social issues- but she does touch on a very real phenomenon. Most women out there have run up against an older, whiter male who thinks they know better. Many women, even those who are totally pro-choice, are supporting her for this reason.
And these women would have supported Hillary and will vote for her in 4 years- after they cast the votes that puts McCain in the White House. The Dem control of congress will come in handy—divided govt might not be that bad a thing.
——-
COMMENT:
AUTHOR: HN
EMAIL: Haiqnguyen@gmail.com
URL:
DATE: 09/08/2008 03:03:08 AM
I think everyone in Washington should be forced to watch the John Adams mini series that ran on HBO. Those guys (Adams, Jefferson, Franklin, Washington ) fought for the country that is being ruined today.
——-
COMMENT:
AUTHOR: Everyday Finance
EMAIL: everydayfinance@yahoo.com
URL: http://www.everydayfinance.blogspot.com
DATE: 09/09/2008 01:01:17 AM
I thought this was an investment blog?
Regardless, so much focus on a person removed from the President. It’s laughable. Since when was the VP ever a factor in any administration. OK, they can break a tie, big deal. Dems will take Congress again next term and since politicians generally vote along party lines on key issues, moot point.
Regarding her inexperience, she’s the VP and Obama’s no more experienced. He’s running for President!
People question her ability to raise 5 kids and act as VP. Isn’t that a bit sexist from the same party allegedly supporting the womens’ movement all the time?
To the guy looking to get out of the US - yeah right. This is the best country in the world regardless of our pandering politicians. You neglected to cite the destination country.
“A good measure of a country is to look at how many people are trying to get in vs. how many are trying to leave” (roughly, Tony Blair statement, actually quoting an older statement). How many Americans do you see leaving for France?
Each election cycle’s a complete circus and each time around people express “outrage”, etc. But it’s the same each time and we should expect nothing less.
btw, many of the religious believers in both parties support creationism, send their kids to catholic school instead of public, etc. and pander to their audience. I don’t think Palin’s stance is much different than many other politicians. While I disagree with it as a scientist, the reality is you’ll never find a perfect politician were you can support EVERY view, right? If you can name one, you’re blinded and you’re fooling yourself.
——-
COMMENT:
AUTHOR: Paul Denlinger
EMAIL: paul.denlinger@gmail.com
URL: http://www.chinavortex.com
DATE: 09/09/2008 09:54:33 PM
@Everyday Finance—
“Regardless, so much focus on a person removed from the President. It’s laughable. Since when was the VP ever a factor in any administration. OK, they can break a tie, big deal.”
Have you heard of a VP named Dick Cheney?
——-
COMMENT:
AUTHOR: mmm
EMAIL: mxt52@yahoo.com
URL:
DATE: 09/19/2008 12:40:10 PM
It looks like the mainstream media finally caught up to the same debate - there was a recent very interesting and unusual WSJ article on a similar topic.
What dems need to understand and put forward is that this election (and everything else) is not about “change”, or about “economy”, but about values. Yeah, we want change, but change to where? What does freedom mean to you? The right to own a gun and shoot moose, or the right to make your own decisions free of government doctrine (on abortion, for example) and respect decisions of others (foreign nations, for example). When/if Obama puts these questions on the table, that’s when it is going to get interesting. Everything else is smoke and mirrors, and attempts to talk about “experience” and “record” are only going to cost him the White House. It’s a long overdue time for Americans to decide who we are. We all like chanting “U.S.A.”, but it turns out that when we chant, we mean entirely different things.
Yes, Sarah Palin looks like everyone’s neighbour, but it does not automatically mean that her values ARE American values. She has the right to believe in what she believes in, but so do I. Sarah Palin’s America is not MY America, and I have the same right on the slice of this pie as she does.
So, let Barak put his values on the table. And then let’s vote. And then let’s count the vote. (I wish the greatest democracy in the world had such a basic democratic feature as direct elections by popular vote, but, oh, well…) And if Sarah Palin’s America wins, well, then it is what it is…
——-
————
2 years ago
| view comments
| Current Affairs
