When choosing a whore, obviousness is a plus
As the candidates jockey for ideological position, we'd do well to remember:
No matter who takes office in 2009, good policy and moral policy will only come about through mass public pressure.
I see a certain dynamic operating between Hillary and Obama, and perhaps you've seen this, too. At least among people of a certain persuasion, Obama has taken up the mantle of principled optimism, while Hillary is seen as a pragmatist. Obama has vision, Hillary... well, it's hard for me to be as neutral as I would like here, since I really despise her, but let's say she's "reconciled herself well to the powers that be". Or maybe she's a "policy wonk". This may lead some to think of the choice between them in the same way; if you want visionary leadership, go with Obama, but if you're interested in pragmatic administration, vote Hillary.
Let's suppose for the sake of argument that this spin was actually true. Suppose Obama really is more principled and visionary than Hillary. I say it doesn't matter, since the nature of the institution will force both of them to be whores, and in fact it might end up working out the other way around in the end.
If we elect Hillary, then since everyone already knows she's a reed blowing in the wind (e.g., this anti-war stance of hers is purely and only about current public opinion), the grass roots pressure groups will stay focused on holding her feet to the fire (mix, my metaphors, mix!). However, if Obama gets in, I think there's a real risk that people will relax and let him get away with more. Yes, it is possible that for those decisions that the president can make based solely on his or her own private preference, Obama might have a better program; however, decisions of that kind are very rare, since usually there is heavy lobbying on all sides by vested interests.
I don't mean to say that it's always rational to vote for the greater evil, since that will somehow magically maximize resistance to them. Rather, I think there is a certain set of cases in which the real difference between two candidates may be more than offset by the demobilization of activists due to the perceptions of that difference (as some people have alleged took place with the swearing-in of Bill Clinton).
So, my proposal for 2008: flip a coin in the voting booth, then help pressure the winner to do what you want.
Yes, I know that I still owe you all a follow-up to my post about the Greens. It's coming.
No matter who takes office in 2009, good policy and moral policy will only come about through mass public pressure.
I see a certain dynamic operating between Hillary and Obama, and perhaps you've seen this, too. At least among people of a certain persuasion, Obama has taken up the mantle of principled optimism, while Hillary is seen as a pragmatist. Obama has vision, Hillary... well, it's hard for me to be as neutral as I would like here, since I really despise her, but let's say she's "reconciled herself well to the powers that be". Or maybe she's a "policy wonk". This may lead some to think of the choice between them in the same way; if you want visionary leadership, go with Obama, but if you're interested in pragmatic administration, vote Hillary.
Let's suppose for the sake of argument that this spin was actually true. Suppose Obama really is more principled and visionary than Hillary. I say it doesn't matter, since the nature of the institution will force both of them to be whores, and in fact it might end up working out the other way around in the end.
If we elect Hillary, then since everyone already knows she's a reed blowing in the wind (e.g., this anti-war stance of hers is purely and only about current public opinion), the grass roots pressure groups will stay focused on holding her feet to the fire (mix, my metaphors, mix!). However, if Obama gets in, I think there's a real risk that people will relax and let him get away with more. Yes, it is possible that for those decisions that the president can make based solely on his or her own private preference, Obama might have a better program; however, decisions of that kind are very rare, since usually there is heavy lobbying on all sides by vested interests.
I don't mean to say that it's always rational to vote for the greater evil, since that will somehow magically maximize resistance to them. Rather, I think there is a certain set of cases in which the real difference between two candidates may be more than offset by the demobilization of activists due to the perceptions of that difference (as some people have alleged took place with the swearing-in of Bill Clinton).
So, my proposal for 2008: flip a coin in the voting booth, then help pressure the winner to do what you want.
Yes, I know that I still owe you all a follow-up to my post about the Greens. It's coming.