Yeah, sorry, I know I should, but I really don't give a tuppence about
Bernie Sanders or the 2016 presidential election in the
United States.
Oh, I can still vote in the U.S., a fact I seem to have to keep reminding Americans of. I just have a work permit for
Canada after all; I didn't have to give up my citizenship to move here.
Nor would I do so, despite recently having begun the process of applying for permanent residency here. I miss the United States. More than I thought I would. It is still home, and I still worry about it. Is it eating alright? Is it getting along with others? Is it happy? Has it killed anyone lately, by accident or on purpose? Or is it just constantly bickering for no discernible reason--despite unemployment having dropped to under 5% for the first time in god knows when, despite enjoying a number of other common indicators of a successful economic climate? Certainly more successful than the economy we have in Canada at the moment.
And yet, watch the news on
CNN or
MSNBC (but, please, not
Fox News) or read it online (but avoid the comments section if you can) and everyone seems angry and miserable. Or at least those talking politics or attending political rallies seem so. It is a self-selecting group, so who can say for sure?
I wouldn't vote for a
Republican if all the candidates promised me a non-stop winter weekend in sun-dappled
Mexico with my favorite porn star, guilt-free, room service, and all necessary
accoutrements on tap. (That would be mid-1990s super Southern stud
Sam Crockett, in case anyone wants to know, but I can make other suggestions if he is unavailable.) I think there's a certain segment in the U.S. that's still living with this fantasy of the
Rockefeller Republican of long ago--fiscally conservative but socially benign. I'm not sure that manor house baron ever existed, although
Dwight Eisenhower is perhaps a better exemplifier than any one of the Rockefellers.
Instead what we seem to have is some time-warped brigade of evangelical
Dixiecrat-wannabes,
George Wallaces (the white one) without a cause (except the misanthropic, middle-class
Caucasian): Race bait, shoot from the lip, and by all means be as mean-spirited as possible when it comes to judging others' behaviors without paying too much attention to your own.
Or you get
Donald Trump, whose all of that but without the
God. 'Cuz, like, he and God are best friends, and God is amaaaaazing but God's knows he's not nearly as great as Donald Trump . . . .
(Not an actual quote . . . yet.)
Turning to the not-Republicans, aka the
Democrats, we have . . .
heavy sigh. Hilary Clinton and Bernie Sanders.
I know I'm supposed to like Hilary. In fact, I clearly remember my frenemy
Spencer for Let chastising me way back in 2007 for being an on-the-fence
Barack Obama supporter. Over dinner, he proceeded to brow-beat me and bad-mouth anyone for their positive spins on Obama's candidacy. Clearly, I did not understand--but desperately needed to!--that Hilary was the far superior candidate.
I don't know if that tipped me over the fence into the Obama ballpark, but it happened soon thereafter. It wouldn't surprise me if that was the defining moment--or at the moment that made me consider more closely my choice--as ol' Spence has done a great job over the years of brow-beating my opinions over various and sundry. (I distinctively remember making a passing remark about enjoying the American/Canadian version of
Queer as Folk, an opinion I came to later in the series run, which then provoked an extended lesson on why I was morally wrong to like the show. That ol' Spence. He has a way with humanity.)
At this point, in 2016, I'll concede that Hilary's the most experienced candidate and would have less of a learning curve than any of the other players on the field. Way back in 2007, I think she might have had a few more years of a
U.S. Senate career under her belt than Obama, but counting her time as
First Lady as being equal to bonafide
POTUS experience makes only slightly more sense as
Sarah Palin claiming she had foreign policy experience because
Alaska is located next door to
Russia.
But I could deal with a Hilary presidency. She's not my favorite, but I hardly think she's the horrifying shrewish mother/anti-mother figure that Conservatives imagine in their nightmares. Or dreams. Hey, Conservatives are a freaky bunch.
But I don't think I can deal with another
Bill Clinton presidency--and you just know he won't be able to stop himself from inserting into every nook
ie and
granny cranny of Hilary's administration. Everyone seems to remember Bill fondly, at home and abroad, except me. He was a liar and a womanizer back then, I suspect he's the same now (just more discreet), and he'll continue to be so in the afterlife. The thought of him being anywhere near a whore house, let alone the
White House, should be cause for alarm.
* * *
And yet I am no fan of Bernie Sanders either, and I'm not sure I really, fully understand why. I mean, policy-wise, we are not in disagreement. I'm all for more affordable education and universal healthcare. (I would ask, "who wouldn't be?" but I'm afraid this would show how far I've fallen from American grace.) I do think Bernie over-imagines his potential effectiveness as POTUS. For pity's sake, people went berserk over Obama's moderate changes. What would they do with an actual, self-professed socialist in the
Oval Office?
Then again, Bernie's not
black, which has always seemed to me to be the reason that those who have a problem with Obama have a problem with Obama. Maybe the unconventional senator from
Vermont can pull it off, but I feel doubtful over both his policies and his background. In 241 years of American history, we've had one moderate Catholic president and one moderate African-American president, and people nearly crapped a cinder block over both. I can only imagine the eruption over a secular Jewish socialist hippie from Vermont talking "revolutionary" politics.
In large part, I think my problem with Sanders is twofold--
The first fold--see above. I really can't see anyone, establishment or hoi polloi, to the right of
Eleanor Roosevelt easily digesting a Sanders presidency. Should it even come to pass--and I think that's about as likely as it was for
McGovern to have won in 1972.
The second fold (which is manifold--so much so that we're practically on the verge of origami)--I'm exhausted from hearing a certain subset of friends praise Sanders every time he makes up as much as a grocery list. I have a couple of
Facebook friends who are relentlessly, slavishly
Sanderistas, a-quiver at every statement, pronouncement, or offhand remark made by
el Comandante. There is no escaping their zealotry for a guy, who, frankly, I consider passionate and opinionated, but not much else.
I think you have to have more than passion and opinions to be a leader. Otherwise, you're
Ron Paul. Or worse, you're Donald Trump.
Some might argue that Obama spawned the same kind of zealotry. I would not, however. Oh, there are people who would blindly follow him to the ends of the earth and the ends of time, no doubt. The difference is that Obama, in my view, is less about the cult and more about being the actual president to everyone, not just those who agree with him.
His handlers and celebrity fans, sure, they're all about the cult. But at the end of the day, I have always thought of Obama as just a decent, incredibly intelligent, and poised man who has tried hard to do the right thing. Not just African Americans. Not just gays. Not just business. Not just liberals.
Everyone.
As the saying goes, you can't please everyone. Or sometimes even anyone. And during the Obama age, this has shown itself to be true.
Do I think he's perfect? Have I liked everything he's done? Have I been bothered by things that I didn't think he did well enough. No, no, and yep.
A case in point: I feel that his administration could have done more to address the growing inequality in the U.S. Nonetheless, he's done a lot to be sure, and if he accomplished nothing more for the rest of his life than getting the
Affordable Care Act done, then he's a genius and a statesman and deserves our praise and generosity for the ages to come.
I also feel like criticizing him about not doing more to address inequality is a bit unfair. For one, the
U.S. Congress, one of our many national shames, actively and unabashedly fought him and undermined him over everything he proposed, large and small. For another, it's not like "let's fix inequality" has been the zeitgeist; rather, most of us were focused on getting back on our own two feet following the
Great Recession. We didn't have much time, energy, or interest to think about anyone else's plight. let alone legislating to improve it.
* * *
I've been thinking about
Ronald Reagan lately, not something I care to do, honestly. I despised him and I loathe his legacy, but he certainly left us with a mark--a very dark, costly, punishing, simplistic, and selfish one--that continues to color our judgment and cover up our reality. Call it what you will--conservatism, neo-conservatism, the love of "freedom" (especially the free market and
laissez-faire economic policy), "making America great again," etc. ad nauseum--it all sounds like bullshit to me. It has left us with a legacy of inequality, one that we can't seem to surmount. And it has left us with a clown's parade of politicos who have had to live up to or live down Reagan's "simple solutions" of low taxes for the rich, no money for social services, trickle down economics, and free reign to markets and evangelicals. Even Bill Clinton continued to follow much of this trajectory, at least when he wasn't
schtupping secretaries and lounge singers.
Will Obama leave us with a legacy that is different and fairer than before? I hope so. I don't know if he's been able to make his mark as strongly as Reagan did, but then Reagan had more support, politically and popularly. Advocating selfishness tends to succeed more than advocating respect for humanity.
Obama, on the other hand, has had to deal with the
Know-Nothing age of Republican politics and the standard set of weak-willed Democrats. He has succeeded in many ways, despite this, but unfortunately, I don't feel as though he's been able to graft this progressiveness and humanity on the American body politic. Time will tell, and I pray that time will tell me that I'm wrong.
Who would be a likely, worthy successor to Obama? I haven't a clue. Both Hilary and Bernie have their pluses and minuses, and maybe either/or will do a stellar job, should we be so lucky to find ourselves with this option come the fall. Hilary has more baggage than I would prefer. In addition, she seems to have the resolve of a willow tree in a hurricane. By that I mean she is tough and resilient but will bend whichever way the wind blows. For me, she lacks authenticity.
Bernie's got authenticity, but is it an authenticity that we want? His baggage seems to have gotten stuck on a luggage carousel at an airport outside of
Woodstock, circa 1969.
A case in point: He recently chose a
Simon and Garfunkel song for a campaign ad, which, naturally, the left has gone all
verklempt over. All I can say is I hope someone tells him
Jerry Garcia's dead before he invites him to serve as
Vice President.
Please, for the love of
Janis Joplin and
Jimi Hendrix, let's not have another American presidential election where we battle out the unresolved issues of the 1960s once again. Heck, I'm in my 50s, and even I'm not that nostalgic.
