Montana Maven's
Opinions Worth Ropin'
Opinions Worth Ropin'
Aristocrats and Democrats are the Real Divide says Jefferson
This entry was posted on 1/2/2008 4:26 PM and is filed under Barack Obama,John Edwards,Democrats.
Andrew Sullivan has made some sort of generational argument as to why he admires and supports Barack Obama. And a diarist on dailykos cited not wanting to fight the 1960's all over again as a reason for his support of Obama. In other words, any candidate other than Obama is a generational drag. But I just don’t buy the whole generational conflict that Obama and Sullivan have set up.
One of the many reasons I supported John Edwards last time was because I didn’t want to talk about actual military experience in Vietnam again i.e. who did what in Vietnam or back in the U.S. during the war. Edwards was too young by a hair to have to make a life changing decision of going to Vietnam or dodging it. The big difference here is that discussing serving or not serving in Vietnam is different from discussing the 1960’s in general. There were great movements towards civil rights, women's rights, and the anti-nuke movement besides the anti-war and growing peace movements. Wonderful people rose up and worked hard for other people's justice, not their own glory. I admire them. Each generation has their heroes and their villains.
But please, a small fraction of the "boomer generation was composed of protesting radicals. Most college kids, like me, went about their education, work study programs, summer jobs and then into the work place without ever going to a Washington protest or a sit in even if we were liberals. I missed being at the Chicago convention in 1968 because I couldn't get off work or just didn't try hard enough to find a replacement. I always felt I missed out on a major part of history.
I don't like the divisive nature of Sullivan, Brooks, and other establishment status quo supporters. We should unite as a people against the real bad guys, anti-social globalist corporations and flim flam fundamentalist economics. Obama is either falling into the trap or feels comfortable in dividing people along generational or occupational lines or religious lines. Edwards on the other hand is trying to unite the people in rural and urban America to join in pushing back against a bad economic system perpetuated by both Republican and Democratic elitists.
I also thinks it's faulty logic to label the boomers as the "me" generation. Every generation turns out to have a big "me" part. My 23 year old niece is quite a liberal but she thinks her generation is totally spoiled and very narcissistic. In other words, "me". And my conservative boomer rancher husband from Montana and his friends are hardly "me" "me" me-ers" except when they start drinking beers at the American Legion.
Obama is selling himself as this diarist says as the one to unite. But who is he uniting? Yes, he is uniting business people of both parties. But is he uniting working people of both parties? Is he uniting rural people of both parties? Is he uniting the older folks with the younger folks? I hear words now of peace, love, beauty and folk rock like the summer of love crowd spoke as they danced in the streets and sang "Wouldn't it be nice to live together...la...la...la....." But Martin and Bobby were also shot and kids heads were bashed in by the Chicago machine politicians thugs. Let's not lose that perspective, ever.
The divide in this country has never been between red and blue; as Jefferson said, it has always been between the aristocrats and the democrats; between exclusion and inclusion; between patriarchy and fraternity.
The diarist said that this election was about the future versus the past which is another slogan that has little real meaning for me. It's also dangerous because of its slightly delusional qualities and, again, it is divisive and not a uniting message.
This election is not about the past, present or future. It's about all three.
Our future is always at stake if we take it for granted. Our past is something we must never forget which the diarist does acknowledge by mentioning the greatness of a man like FDR who fought corporate greed and was hated, hated for it. Not loved. He was not sitting around at a hootenanny singing with the barons who didn't want their taxes raised or their employees wages raised either. He was not having a discussion with them at a gentlemen's club.
And this election has always been firmly about being in the present and making every moment count by being impeccable with your words and actions. Yes, actions speak louder than words and "by your deeds shall ye be known." Action is the opposite of hopelessness, not fine words. Pessimism of the mind is always combatted by optimism of the will.
Men like the Roosevelts who busted trusts and brought on the anger of elitists and monopolists were tough and scrappy and clever. They used everything in a President's arsenal to push through reform, but with integrity and in an open way. That's what a strong liberal does. He or she pushes for equality and freedom for workers. A Republican pushes for equality for companies . And the companies have won most of those battles for the last 40 years and most of the freedom. They have won the class war.
But now it's labor's turn at the front of the line for awhile. You cannot have a thriving democracy without a middle class. You just can't. That's where the fight is. And is will not need a rock star. It will need a great champion for the people. It will not need some charismatic leader. Hitler was very charismatic and had people rising to their feet over and over again at rallies. No, we do not need someone to look up to. We need someone to link arms with who is our equal. We need a brother and a champion. So for all these reasons, I’m still with Edwards.
One of the many reasons I supported John Edwards last time was because I didn’t want to talk about actual military experience in Vietnam again i.e. who did what in Vietnam or back in the U.S. during the war. Edwards was too young by a hair to have to make a life changing decision of going to Vietnam or dodging it. The big difference here is that discussing serving or not serving in Vietnam is different from discussing the 1960’s in general. There were great movements towards civil rights, women's rights, and the anti-nuke movement besides the anti-war and growing peace movements. Wonderful people rose up and worked hard for other people's justice, not their own glory. I admire them. Each generation has their heroes and their villains.
But please, a small fraction of the "boomer generation was composed of protesting radicals. Most college kids, like me, went about their education, work study programs, summer jobs and then into the work place without ever going to a Washington protest or a sit in even if we were liberals. I missed being at the Chicago convention in 1968 because I couldn't get off work or just didn't try hard enough to find a replacement. I always felt I missed out on a major part of history.
I don't like the divisive nature of Sullivan, Brooks, and other establishment status quo supporters. We should unite as a people against the real bad guys, anti-social globalist corporations and flim flam fundamentalist economics. Obama is either falling into the trap or feels comfortable in dividing people along generational or occupational lines or religious lines. Edwards on the other hand is trying to unite the people in rural and urban America to join in pushing back against a bad economic system perpetuated by both Republican and Democratic elitists.
I also thinks it's faulty logic to label the boomers as the "me" generation. Every generation turns out to have a big "me" part. My 23 year old niece is quite a liberal but she thinks her generation is totally spoiled and very narcissistic. In other words, "me". And my conservative boomer rancher husband from Montana and his friends are hardly "me" "me" me-ers" except when they start drinking beers at the American Legion.
Obama is selling himself as this diarist says as the one to unite. But who is he uniting? Yes, he is uniting business people of both parties. But is he uniting working people of both parties? Is he uniting rural people of both parties? Is he uniting the older folks with the younger folks? I hear words now of peace, love, beauty and folk rock like the summer of love crowd spoke as they danced in the streets and sang "Wouldn't it be nice to live together...la...la...la....." But Martin and Bobby were also shot and kids heads were bashed in by the Chicago machine politicians thugs. Let's not lose that perspective, ever.
The divide in this country has never been between red and blue; as Jefferson said, it has always been between the aristocrats and the democrats; between exclusion and inclusion; between patriarchy and fraternity.
The diarist said that this election was about the future versus the past which is another slogan that has little real meaning for me. It's also dangerous because of its slightly delusional qualities and, again, it is divisive and not a uniting message.
This election is not about the past, present or future. It's about all three.
Our future is always at stake if we take it for granted. Our past is something we must never forget which the diarist does acknowledge by mentioning the greatness of a man like FDR who fought corporate greed and was hated, hated for it. Not loved. He was not sitting around at a hootenanny singing with the barons who didn't want their taxes raised or their employees wages raised either. He was not having a discussion with them at a gentlemen's club.
And this election has always been firmly about being in the present and making every moment count by being impeccable with your words and actions. Yes, actions speak louder than words and "by your deeds shall ye be known." Action is the opposite of hopelessness, not fine words. Pessimism of the mind is always combatted by optimism of the will.
Men like the Roosevelts who busted trusts and brought on the anger of elitists and monopolists were tough and scrappy and clever. They used everything in a President's arsenal to push through reform, but with integrity and in an open way. That's what a strong liberal does. He or she pushes for equality and freedom for workers. A Republican pushes for equality for companies . And the companies have won most of those battles for the last 40 years and most of the freedom. They have won the class war.
But now it's labor's turn at the front of the line for awhile. You cannot have a thriving democracy without a middle class. You just can't. That's where the fight is. And is will not need a rock star. It will need a great champion for the people. It will not need some charismatic leader. Hitler was very charismatic and had people rising to their feet over and over again at rallies. No, we do not need someone to look up to. We need someone to link arms with who is our equal. We need a brother and a champion. So for all these reasons, I’m still with Edwards.