ppatt

It's a safe assumption that most here want to see political change occur. Many might like to see such marked change that we can regain the confidence that the trials of the last 7 years will never be forced upon us again.

Though I want to say something like "it's a shame that we cannot agree on how to go about it", that might not necessarily be such a bad thing. Among the dem field are several good candidates, 3 of which stand a reasonable chance of receiving the nomination. Internecine squabbling aside, the differences between these 3 are miniscule compared to the differences between any one of them and the one over whom historians will debate as being "worst ever."

We lament the lack of campaign reform even as those we would have as reformers are beneficiaries of corporate largesse, ostensibly with no strings attached, but most of us know better.

Sometimes I wonder whether we have not become a nation of absolutists, viewing only in monochrome black and white, steadfast in our insistence that no shade of gray would ever satisfy us. I wonder where this comes from since any time there is more than one person there is politics and compromise. My wife never let's me forget this.

My hypothetical ideal candidate would have to disavow all but individual contributions but this would put that hypothetical candidate at a severe disadvantage in a campaign. Campaigns require lots of cash just to be in the running. However, if such a candidate could win it would be the first step along the difficult road to campaign reform. There might be just a smidgen more moral authority with someone who, for the first time, would not be saying, in effect, "do as I say, not as I do."

Has any candidate ever done this? Will any candidate ever dare to try?

The receptivity of the voting public to such a candidate would be problematic. We have become so inured to and accepting of the inherent dirtiness of politics that any renunciation of business-as-usual is met with extreme skepticism and even derision. Our steadfast belief in the inevitability of any winner being a bastard at the core is such that we can only hope that he will be our bastard. Sadly enough, that seems to be the best hope for many. In some ways this says more about the voting public than the canidates themselves.

This cuts to the core of what appears to be cultural myths regarding strength and weakness but I am hoping that Americans might be a little smarter this time around. As Rudy leads with anti-FISA sentiments, Mit raises his 3 Guantanamos and a waterboarding, all I can think is how these cartoon characters really do not impress me as being tough men but rather scared little boys. I would not feel safe with any such candidate at the helm and it would not be America's enemies that I would fear but rather these unbalanced, incomplete cardboard cutouts and their unsteady hands during rocky times.

It's as if we are weak-willed young girls, inexplicably attracted to the "bad boy" who we cannot take home to mother and who's destined to disappoint. We blissfully ignore the warning signs, paralyzed in our efforts to break out of the trance.

My hypothetical ideal candidate would not talk about his religion so much but he'd be talking about the plight of the least among us and this would exhibit values which are not owned lock stock and barrel by those with religious affiliations but which are innate to all of us, with or without religious conviction...common needs of humans, spiritual or otherwise. These are the values that have been lost in our national dialog -- those relating to community, fairness, and benevolence rather than those which usurp religious icons while demonstrating so few of the values that icons of cross, church and bible supposedly represent.

My hypothetical ideal candidate would be a practiced, bare-knuckles fighter and he/she would harbor no illusions regarding what the fight would take, whether they would be up to it, and who it would be had with. They would be itching for the fight and realize the inevitability of it. This candidate would be strong enough to expose greed and corruption with an aggressiveness that would make the violators heads spin, smooth enough to smile while doing it and clear enough that there would be no doubt as to why. This candidate would not hesitate to bring the full force of the US government down on companies which were unable to play by the rules of civil society and which assumed, as evidenced by their actions, that they were not beholding to any power except their own.

My hypothetical ideal candidate would usher in a world in which corporate polluters would not rest assured that the taxpayers would pay the price of their neglectful practices. They would lay awake at night wondering whether they did not slip up or overlook something. They would piss themselves in fear when they did slip up, not because of the frequency and inconvenience of the wrist slaps but rather because of the certainty of significant punishment, severe enough to adversely affect their competitive viability. In this new world when corporations did not see fit to hold themselves to the high standards that the rest of us expect then they would be informed of the standards they'd have to uphold and those standards would be fairly enforced among all to whom they applied.

Corporations would quaked in the sight of my hypothetical ideal candidate and would ask not what the congress (whose elections they financed before campaign reform was enacted) could do for them (in terms of tax breaks, lower standards, and turning a blind eye with a wink and a nod) but what they could do for their country...not how they could profit from war but how they could contribute to peace.

This candidate would engage all countries, not just ones which passed some unilateral litmus test conjured up by one man without non-partisan collaboration. He/she would also value diplomacy and pursue it as a means, above all others, of giving peace a chance. Just as dedication to diplomatic engagement internationally would be a priority, this candidate would refrain from the stop-me-if-you-can politics and blatant disregard of Congress by active seeking consultation on a regular basis. Never would this leader suggest that some course be taken "because I know I am right" but instead only after efforts to build consensus so that it could honestly be stated "because Americans believe it is the right thing to do." As in any family, total agreement might not be possible but at least efforts would be made.

This candidate, once elected, wouldn't have an administration that embraced secrecy and flaunted the rule of law. Instead it would work hard to build confidence in its openness and fairness and to lead by example. This candidate would possess the strength to embrace international law and institutions willingly through fair-minded engagement rather than unilaterally seeking advantage. He/she would be wise enough to know that, as with national law there are ample opportunities on the international front to seek compromise and agreement that benefits all rather than favors just one. Though America's claims over the years have to have been exporting democracy have been met with cyncism throughout the civilized world, bridge-building by this new leader will turn heads and demonstrate that we are willing to export justice rather than transparent self-interest disguised as transparent self interest, package in ways that only succeeds in fooling the American people but no one else. Mutli-lateral engagement led by the US would put a quick end to humanitarian crises like Darfur.


Is this unrealistically Wishful foolishness? Does this hold the bar too high? For starters I'd be stirred and motivated by one who disavows corporate contributions as a demonstration that their alleigance is to the American people. In my mind only this would give the rest a chance to happen. Could there be one like this among the current pack? Would we even recognize such a person or would we crucify him in some manner for having the audacity to suggest himself or his ideas better than the rest?