Behold, the CNN Election Center Results for Texass' March 4, 2008 Primary AND Caucus. As you know the Texass Two-Step allocates 2/3 of the state's delegates for the primary vote and 1/3 for the caucus vote. Texass has (sortof) finally finished counting up the day's votes and Senator Obama has emerged victorious!
Senator Obama 99
Senator Clinton 94
We have not seen this much reported in the news, so we thought that we would draw your attention to these facts. Enjoy!
Have you ever thought about the fact that from 1988 to 2008 the President of the United States has been named either BushorClinton? That is twenty years of two families dominating the presidency--twenty years! Let's look at the definition of an oligarchy, shall we?
Oligarchy (Greek Ὀλιγαρχία, Oligarkhía) is a form of government where political power effectively rests with a small elite segment of society (whether distinguished by wealth, family or military powers). The word oligarchy is from the Greek words for "few" (ὀλίγον óligon) and "rule" (ἄρχω arkho). Compare with autocracy (rule by one person) and democracy (rule by the majority).
Yes, dear Founder-Stalkers, there are important differences between an oligarchy and a democracy. When the same two families dominate the presidency, then we can say that our political system is the rule of the few, not the rule of the majority. With the presidency controlled by two families and with the consolidation of political power into the Executive Branch that we've seen over the past twenty years, our government has become less majority rule and more oligarchic rule. For the past twenty years--a generation--we have allowed the same two families to control our government. If we saw another nation allow two families to dominate their politics, then we would not hasten to call that nation an oligarchy. But, when we look at ourselves we somehow still think that we still live in a democracy. How strange, we think. Of course, we know that many of our leaders have been born to privilege and have been somehow distant relations, but we believe that our current oligarchy is different in kind and we fear the effects of an entire generation (current college students were born between 1986-1990) that knows no other president than either Bush or Clinton.
Many of the Founders were concerned with the question of how to limit political family dynasties. GW was the perfect choice to be our first president many argued, in part, because he did not have a son and thus would not be allowed to set up a hereditary president-monarchy. John Adams was feared on account of his politically active son, JQA, and the family was often tarred with the "monarchist" label by politicians of both the first and the second generations. Since the Adamses we've had other important political dynasties--theHarrisons, theRoosevelts, and the Kennedys--but, none of these family members ruled back to back like we've had recently. In fact, we've not had two families so completely dominate American politics since the Hutchinsons and the Olivers divided all of Massachusetts Bay Colony's political offices between them--and, we know what happened to them.
Tommy wrote a letter to Gerrymander on January 26, 1799 when he was hoping to become president that pretty well sums up his political principles and pointedly denounces hereditary office holding:
I do then, with sincere zeal, wish an inviolable preservation of our present federal constitution, according to the true sense in which it was adopted by the States, that in which it was advocated by it's friends, & not that which it's enemies apprehended, who therefore became it's enemies; and I am opposed to the monarchising it's features by the forms of it's administration, with a view to conciliate a first transition to a President & Senate for life, & from that to a hereditary tenure of these offices, & thus to worm out the elective principle.
We understand that Senator Clinton, and indeed one day Chelsea Clinton and Jenna and Barbara Bush, have the right to run for president under our Constitution. We understand further that if the people choose them, then these Clintons and Bushs are justly the President of the United States. We just wonder if this kind of oligarchy is really in the best interest of the nation.
M.O.W. believes that when Senator Obama argues that Senator Clinton represents "politics as usual," that this might be a part of what he means.
Our last post on our experience at the Texass Two-Step and our reflections upon Senator Clinton's negative campaign strategy, which we called the "politics of alienation," has caused quite a stir over at The Rhetorical Situation. We are trying mightily to come up with something clever to say in response to all of their important points, but in the meanwhile, we thought that you might enjoy listening in/being a part of the conversation.
P.S. Our dear friend forwarded us the above picture as a t-shirt for sale around the interwebs. We found it very wrong, obviously, but yet kinda funny, and perhaps apropos to this post in an earnestly ironic kinda way. Please don't hate on us.
M.O.W. voted twice for Senator Obama yesterday. The first time we used one of those new-fangled electrified machines and the second time we signed our name to a list. We have to admit that we had never caucused before now--we are relatively new to Texass, after all. We found the caucus slightly disorganized, but we believe that it only appeared disorganized because most of the people there had also never been to a caucus before and we none of us quite knew what we were doing. Thankfully there were a handful of folks there who had been doing the Texass Two Step seemingly for decades and they kept things organized.
We waited in line outside of our polling place and Founder-stalked for a while (was Jimmy Buck really the worst president or has GWB out done him in suckyness, we wondered and discussed with our line colleagues), then we filed into our church polling place (most polling places seem to be churches in Texass, they being in such abundance) and stood around for a while. There was an awkward moment when the dozen or so Republicans outted themselves and were asked to hold their caucus elsewhere. Then once the Republicans had removed to another location we Democrats got in line to sign our name and declare our candidate. After so doing the votes were counted (and witnessed by second parties--no shenanigans here!) before the Chair made his announcement:
SENATOR OBAMA WON OUR PRECINCT! Hooray!!
Now we divide up Clinton supporters on one side and Obama on the other and we elect our County Delegates (M.O.W. is proud to say that we will represent Senator Obama at our county convention later this month--step one in our master plan to get to go to the DNC). After a few resolutions were proffered from the floor and many handshakes and congratulations were exchanged we Democrats parted the scene to watch how the rest of the state(s) voted in their own precincts.
As you would expect, M.O.W. enjoyed our time at our caucus. We love being among the politically active people. We love when old, young, white, black, brown, rich, and poor come together to act politically. We saw that they who caucused were respectful of one another, interested in politics, hopeful for the future, angry about the past. We talked, laughed, stood, and sat together. We acted together to make decisions.
We formed a community last night--however briefly--and we knew it.
We shared a lot of information and opinions. We talked, in particular, about why we supported Senator Obama and how we felt when we were told that we were mere members of a herd that did not know rhetoric from reality. As you can imagine, our fellow caucus members were a wee bit sensitive about this question.
Once we returned home and turned on the news M.O.W. quickly lost the afterglow of our political community building experience. 3 AM phone calls. All rhetoric. Unprepared. No plan. Meetings in Canada. Ug. It seems as though HRC would win Rhode Island, Ohio, and Texass and that she would do so by nasty and negative invective against our hero.
After our experience at the Texass caucus we wonder about the wisdom of HRC's choice to try to win the Democratic nominee at all costs. As we have already discussed, rhetoric is nothing more than a tool of language; rhetoric binds a community together; rhetoric allows us to avoid violence. They who critique rhetoricare really critiquing the people because they are implicitly arguing that the people do not know right from wrong, true from false. They who critique rhetoric presume that the speaker is a manipulator and that the audience has been easily manipulated. The good folks that we spoke to at the caucus last night were very aware that the criticisms of Senator Obama's rhetoric were actually criticisms of them and they were hurt by them. They defended their choice, they defended their right to choose, they defended their judgement.
Senator Clinton's attacks on Senator Obama put the citizens on the defensive as much as they put Senator Obama on the defensive.
And M.O.W. wonders at what cost? Senator Clinton is squandering the peoples' opportunity to unite the nation and re-invigorate the political process and she is so doing for her own benefit at the expense of the people and the nation. We would remind you, dear founder-stalkers, of the founders' originalunderstanding of patriotism. According to Henry St John Bolingbroke, from whom the founders learned about patriotism, a true patriot would defend the the peoples' liberty by defending the constitution, would reject party and faction, and would seek to unite the nation behind one vision so that all could work toward the common good. The patriot did not do any of this for her own benefit--we must never seek power for our own sake--but, rather the patriot acts for the good of the people.
We ask, dear fellow founder stalkers, by these criteria who is the patriot? We believe that it is clear that Senator Obama alone possesses true patriotism. One candidate is a war hero, yes, but that is not the same as being a partriot by Bolingbroke's (or the founders') standard. Another candidate is a party hack, a policy wonk, who claims that her experience with her party gives her the credibility that Senator Obama lacks. Senator Clinton is mistaken. Her experience makes her a part of the problem, not the solution. The true patriot rejects party in order to unite, Senator Clinton embraces party in order to divide.
And divide she will if she continues these attacks on Senator Obama and the people. She cannot divide Senator Obama from his supporters without alienating them from the political process. Alienated voters do not vote. If Senator Clinton thinks that she will defeat Obama with negativity in the primary and then re-gather together his constituency to support her in November, then she is seriously misguided.
Alienated voters do not vote. And Senator Clinton is practising the politics of alienation.
As we witnessed in our conversations at the caucus last night the people are very aware that they are being insulted by Senator Clinton, the media, and the Republican Party (this is the company you keep Senator Clinton?). They are tired of politics as usual. They want to believe that we can make a difference in politics and improve all of our lives. Calling the people stupid followers of empty rhetoric is a failing strategy because it will only alienate those Americans who are excited about politics for the first time in a long while.
All of the pundits last night urged Senator Obama to find a way to respond to Senator Clinton's attacks while still staying on message as the uniting candidate who stands for hope, change, empowering the people, and the end of politics as usual. M.O.W. believes that his strategy is clear:
Senator Obama must draw from the founders' understanding of patriotism to win this election.
Senator Obama already behaves as Bolingbroke described the Patriot. He already seeks to protect the people's liberty by defending the constitution, he already rejects party and faction, he already seeks to unite the nation for the common good. He needs to stay on message and be more clear about why Senator Clinton is NOT a Patriot and why her attacks on him only prove precisely how far away she is from the founder's ideal of patriotism. In other words, Senator Clinton's negativity needs to be turned against her to show that it is precisely the thing that makes her unworthy of our trust.
Senator Clinton stands for politics as usual, Senator Obama stands for patriotism.
Last night we were very fortunate to attend the political rally/ Wisconsin Primary Victory Speech of Senator Barack Obama. M.O.W. sat alongside 19,000 chanting, cheering, waving Texans and we can confirm that any report that you might have heard of the junior Senator's rock star appeal with the people is true. What is more interesting in this era of pseudo-events and faked for tv emotion is that M.O.W. observed that the people's love for Obama was decidedly genuine, and not just made for tv.
The People Love Obama. Let's see why, shall we?
1. His Populist Message:
The first reason why the people love Obama is because, as you can tell as you listen to his speech above, Senator Obama loves the people. Obama is for healthcare--just as good as his as Senator--that everyone can afford. Obama is for raising the minimum wage so that Americans who work are not poor. Obama is for ending the Iraq War because those soldiers who are giving their all for America deserve America to give its all to them. Obama is for lowering taxes on the lower & middle classes and raising them on the wealthy. Obama wants you and your children to be healthy. He wants your kids to get a good education--and he wants them to do some service work in exchange for college tuition money. He wants the rich to pay their fair share of taxes. He wants to improve your standard of living. He wants to get the nation out of a war that is killing your kids and making the world that they will inherent less safe.
Yes, indeed, fellow Founder stalkers, Senator Obama wants all of these things for you. He does not want the presidency because he wants power for himself. No, he wants the presidency because he wants to empower you. Furthermore, Senator Obama wants you to act to make these changes. As you know dear Founder stalkers, we care very much about whether our leaders desire power for its own sake or whether they desire power so that they can do something good for the people. We believe that Senator Obama desires power for the very best possible reason: to give the people the chance to make this country the kind of country that they want it to be.
Let's just listen to what he said and try to believe--we know that it is hard--that Senator Obama is earnest, and try to meet him half way by dropping a wee bit of our own ironic distance:
"I was convinced, most of all, that change in America does not happen from the top down. It happens from the bottom up."
"I am here to report that my bet has paid off and my faith in the American people has been vindicated, because all across the country, people are standing up and saying, "It is time to turn the page. It is time to write a new chapter in American history. We want to move forward into a better tomorrow."
"We'll invest in you; you invest in America. Together, we will march this country forward."
That my friends, is what good old fashioned American populism sounds like. His message is that we've got problems, but they are problems that we can solve if we all do this together. The catch is that he wants you, you the people, to solve the problems. He will lead, of course, but Senator Obama seems to believe that the people should be empowered to act to solve America's problems themselves. Yes, we can.
2. His Rhetorical Style
Senator Obama has been criticized for his popularity with the people and for his rhetorical abilities. We find these criticisms predictable and absurd. For who would criticize a presidential candidate for being popular with the people except for someone who did not trust the people to know who or what they should like? In other words, Obama is accused of being a demagogue by those who do not like the people or believe that the people are capable of judging for themselves. We say we see you to those who would find fault with a popular candidate merely because s/he is popular. That kind of circular reasoning leads back to elitism on the part of they who hurl the abuse in the first place.
The second criticism--that Senator Obama is merely a good speaker and that his speeches are "empty rhetoric"--follows from the elitism of the first criticism. If you do not trust the people to make good decisions, then you must believe that the demagogue is able to control the people easily with his words. In this view of rhetoric--found in Plato, among others--rhetoric is a kind of trickery or a drug that enables demagogues to control the people against their will. Rhetoric is inherently bad; the people are inherently stupid; and the demagogue is inherently power hungry.
Yet, this view of rhetoric and the people cannot withstand scrutiny. Rhetoric is a tool, nothing more or less. We use rhetoric everyday in everything that we do and say. We cannot escape rhetoric, it is everywhere, everything. Nor should we want to escape rhetoric. For it is only by rhetoric that human beings can live together in groups. We persuade one another and that allows us to avoid violence. Rhetoric itself is not violence. Of course, there is good rhetoric and bad rhetoric--we have seen much rhetrickery over the last seven years--but we cannot assume that merely because a presidential candidate is popular, that s/he is a demagogue and that their rhetoric is rhetrickery. To do so is sloppy thinking and belies our hatred of the people.
Last night's speech was full of the kinds of stylistic devices that others have noted as characteristic of his style in general: parallelism, chiasmus, antithesis, anaphora. As Aristotle would recommend, Senator Obama argued by example and by enthymeme. In short, it was a well crafted speech and the crowd in Houston went bananas for it.
And it is no wonder that they did for Senator Obama's rhetorical style mimics the populism of his message. Each of these stylistic devices is meant to bring your audience into your speech, to allow them to participate in the rhetorical moment by prompting them to finish your thought, to follow your pattern, to engage in your speech not just as a mere spectator, but as a co-creator of the speech itself. Yes, we can!
In short, just as Obama has promised to empower Americans to act, he delivers speeches that empower his audience to think and act with him. No wonder other politicians are scared of his rhetoric. When a speaker's message and their rhetorical style are so completely in sync and when both promise to empower the people, then it might mean that the speaker actually means what s/he says. Senator Obama sounds like a populist, acts like a populist and populism is very, very scary to some politicians.
3. His Humble Confidence
Senator Obama's populist rhetoric is supported by his humbly confident leadership. As our fellow Founder stalkers well know, the Founding generation took great care to appear to be from the people--think of Tommy's expansive mansion that was cleverly designed to appear like a fairly typical middle class home from the outside or GW's constant concern over whether or not it appeared that he was power hungry and whether or not history would portray him as the American Cincinnatus. Likewise, Senator Obama presents himself as a man of the people who feels the call of duty:
"And I had to explain to them I'm not running because of some long-held ambition...I'm not running because I think it's somehow owed to me. I'm running because of what Dr. King called the fierce urgency of now, the fierce urgency of now."
"The American people have spoken out, and they are saying we need to move in a new direction. And I would not be running, as aware as I am of my imperfections, as clear as I am that I am not a perfect vessel, I would not be running if I did not believe that I could lead this country in that new direction, that we have a unique moment that we have to seize. But I have to tell you, Houston, I can't do it by myself. No president can. Remember: Change doesn't happen from the top. It happens because of you."
"You know, I was born to a teenage mother. My father left when I was 2. So I was raised by a single mom and my grandparents. And they didn't have money, and they didn't have fame. What they could give me was love, they gave me an education, and they gave me hope.
And so I talk about hope. I put "hope" on my signs. I gave a speech in Boston at the convention about hope. I wrote a book called "The Audacity of Hope."
But now some are suggesting that I must be naive, that if you talk about hope it means that you're fuzzy-headed, you're not realistic, you're peddling in false hopes, you need a reality check. The implication is, is that if you talk about hope that you must be passive and you're just waiting for good things to happen, and you don't realize how mean and tough the world can be. But understand that's not what hope is.
Hope is not blind optimism. Hope is not ignoring or being ignorant of the challenges that stand between you and your dreams. I know how difficult it will be to provide health insurance to every American. If it was easy, it would have already been done. I know how hard it will be to change our energy policy, because the status quo serves many powerful people. I know how hard it will be to alleviate poverty that has built up over centuries, how hard it will be to fix schools, because changing our schools will require not just money, but a change in attitudes. We're going to have to parent better, and turn off the television set, and put the video games away, and instill a sense of excellence in our children, and that's going to take some time.
I know how easy it is for politicians to turn us on each other, to use immigrants or gay people or folks who aren't like us as scapegoats for what they do. But I also know this. I know this because I have fought on the streets as an organizer, I have fought in the courts as a civil rights attorney, I have fought in the legislature, and I've won some battles, but I've also lost some, because good intentions aren't always enough. They have to be fortified by political will and political power. But I also know this, Houston: that nothing worthwhile in this country has ever happened except somebody somewhere was willing to hope."
In other words, Senator Obama was not born a member of the elite. He really is a man of the people and while he recognizes that he isn't perfect, he feels the call of duty to try to do his best to lead this country through the changes that must come if we are to improve our economy, our enviroment, our healthcare, our energy policy, and our relationships with the rest of the world. Senator Obama admits that he is not perfect--he is humble--but, he knows that he can lead Americans. Yes, he can.
Founder-Chic Bonus Analysis:
We would like to note one more thing about Senator Barack Obama's populism: Senator Obama somehow managed to give an entire speech in which he advocated for the power of the people without using the word democracy at all. As we have noted here on many occasions dear fellow Founder stalkers, America's political discourse is full of the political elite making "democratic" appeals to our desire to control the government. They often promise us power and call it democracy, but democracy is a lie. The elite have always used democratic rhetoric against us; they have used our desire to control the government to control us.
Thus, what could it mean that Senator Obama delivered a populist speech without relying on the democratic fiction? We believe, we hope, that it means that Senator Obama actually means what he says and that he actually does desire to empower the people.
"That's what hope is. That's what hope is, imagining, and then fighting for, and then working for, struggling for what did not seem possible before...It will not be easy. But at some point in our lives, we all have to decide, as hard as it's going to be, we are going to join together, lock arms, and go about the difficult but noble task of remaking this nation, block by block, county by county, state by state. Houston, this is our moment. This is our time."
Founder-Chic will do our best to notice and respond to posts. We welcome all comments, but if you are a big old meanie, then no one will want to play with you.
