Immigrant Endorsing Obama
As an immigrant, leftist, and feminist man, I am trying to understand what is going on in this historic primary election within the Democratic Party. Here, for the first time, either a Black or a woman will be the democratic nominee for the highest office in the United States. It is historic but these two people are not in an equal footing. Obama is starting from scratch, he is the son of an immigrant, and he is competing with the wife of a popular two-term president who, with her husband, is trying to perpetuate a Clinton dynasty – is that what democracy or free elections are all about in a “free market” economic system?
Obama has vision, and he is taking the political high road. He is trying to appeal to all Americans, and he is coming to people with a fresh outlook, claiming that racism and racial divides have no place in 21st-century America. Obama is a mix of black and white, and he represents what America, as a whole, looks like. His presidency promises to ease the tension between blacks and whites, by bringing them together to fight for the same cause, real equality and justice for all. He is brilliant, and he knows when to take a stand. He has the heart and the skills to talk to people who have been marginalized because of their race, gender or economic status. Obama is in touch with the people, especially the youth; he is a person who can connect the dots, bringing both people and issues together in a big picture; and who can shed light on the dark history of race in the United States.
This election could be a tremendous step towards healing for our country. We all can dream big again, to see a black person elected. It is a sign of us all rising above racism – voting not for our gender or race, but instead for what we believe in, for a vision of a more equal, just and democratic nation. The stakes are high. This kind of window of opportunity comes very rarely, and it has global implications. The US and the world need leaders who can unite us and give us hope.
Obama is reaching beyond divisive identity politics, for the higher ground of an anti-racist, feminist, and transformative vision for our country’s future. But the Clintons are trying to stir up racial divisions, identifying Obama as the Black candidate, pushing him to take the side of one race — the old “if you are not with us, you are against us” slogan that has alienated Americans from one another and from the rest of the world. If the Clintons wanted to play the high road, and really want to serve their country, they would bless Obama for bringing back to life the dream that Martin Luther King and others, blacks and whites, fought and died for. But they don’t: the well-being of the country isn’t their first priority; they want to win. It is time for Americans to take a stand, to draw and line and say no to any dynasty, no matter how appealing the successor appears to be. Much of Hillary’s claim to experience is, in fact, her appeal to the having been groomed for the job when she was First Lady – she actually claimed that “it takes another Clinton to clean up Bush’s mess.”
As an immigrant from a continent which has suffered from many dynasties – I see red when I see this kind of claim. It is all about them; no one else can do it. I was born and grew up in Eritrea, in Northeast Africa, where a ruthless and corrupt President, Isayas Afewerk, has “served” since independence in 1993, and openly says that Eritrean people are not ready for democracy; he is grooming his son to succeed him when he dies. The country has no constitution or elections. The Prime Minster of Ethiopian, Melse Zenawi, and President of Egypt, Hosin Mubark, are all grooming their sons to replace them. Kim Jong-il, is now head of state of North Korea, succeeded his father in a similar process. All of these fathers except Mubark claimed to be revolutionary, yet refused to pass the torch to others who were capable of carrying it. After the Clinton interlude, George H. passed the presidency on to George W. Hillary is claiming she should inherit the presidency due to her grooming experience as First Lady. There is something severely wrong with this picture.
When Bill Clinton came to office in 1992, it was inspiring for me, who comes from a poor background, to see someone who also came from a poor background come to hold the highest office in the country. But now the Clintons have had their turn. It is time for Americans to say no to a Clinton dynasty, no to any dynasty, to prevent this undemocratic practice of political dynasty from taking hold in the United States.
Furthermore, I don’t think that the Bill Clinton presidency was such a great model for Hillary to follow. As I see it, Bill Clinton is a cunning politician who has a big appetite for power – he uses all kinds of people, including Hillary, to satisfy his ego. The truth is that he didn’t really serve the Democratic Party’s traditional constituency well. It was Clinton’s presidency that crystallized the gap between the rich and the poor. According to David Jay Johnson, Bill Clinton gave a bigger tax break to the 400 highest income people in America than George Bush Jr. He promoted a free market economy to its max – he eliminated “welfare as we know it,” leaving thousands of mothers with children without benefits. He promoted a distorted vision of NAFTA, gambling with the US workers’ future; now off-shoring and cheap Chinese imports are pulling the rug out from under American workers across the country. In this election, Clinton is gambling with the American spirit by trying to create a dynasty, something which is inherently un-American. In this democratic primary, we have a choice. Yes, Hillary would be the first woman president—but electing her would create a dynasty, and perpetuate the problematic politics of her husband. Barack Obama is equally feminist. He can keep us from being made hostage to a Bush-Clinton dynasty for 20 years or even more (who knows? Jeb could be next). In stark contrast to Hillary, Obama is self-groomed through work as a community organizer in the streets of Chicago. He’s pro-worker and pro-immigrant. He’s a good listener and learner, who can inspire us all to work for the real change we need to make this country live up its ideals.
Germai Medhanie February 3, 2008 at 4:47 pm
“Even so, affluenza has reached the point where government interference is necessary to control these wants…”
This statement makes me nervous. I agree that government interference will be a part of the “cure” for affluenza, but I think it needs to have more to do with controlling firms rather than people. The concept of a government controlling the “wants” of the people brings to mind several failed experiments – Cuba, for example. People have natural “wants” that for the most part are perfectly reasonable – we want to be comfortable, we want to be well-liked, we want to be happy. The problem is when unregulated firms go out and advertise, brainwash and capitalize on those wants, attaching false solutions to them. We will be comfortable if we have a big house and an expensive car, we will be well-liked if we wear designer clothing, we will be happy if we keep buying things that make us happy. Yes, now these attachments or amendments to our wants are fully internalized by the public, but I think it makes more sense for the government to go about addressing the cause of the problem – advertisement and unregulated firms, rather than the effect – a public that buys unnecessary and unhealthy products.
I like the idea of limiting options to children, but I think it would be even more effective in the long-run to limit the amount of advertising of unhealthy foods that reaches children. It’s a good first step to take unhealthy food out of school, but the children are still being inundated with advertising outside of school. Kids tend to want what they can’t have, especially when they know what it is and that other kids like it.
Lauren, I really appreciate your comment, but I think you may have misunderstood what I was saying. If you read on, I clearly say that the government can’t control the wants (desires) of the people directly. What I was trying to say in the phrase you commented on was that the government will be necessary to control affluenza (whether that be by a carbon tax, limiting the food options to children, or by controlling advertising–which I think is a very good point). I meant that the government (in some cases) will have to control the wants in an indirect way by controlling the causes. I should have been much more explicit in saying that. Thank you for drawing that to my attention.
Sorry for nitpicking about the wording, Ali. I definitely agree with what you are saying. I’m sort of having an inner debate right now about how much government regulation I want in general and I think I took it out on you!
I think it’d be cool to do something like an ad campaign to teach children about healthy consumption, a mix between regulating advertisement and regulating consumption.
I, too, find it especially interesting to consider the role of government intervention in the context of both affluenza and our country’s current financial situation. We live in a country that very much values capitalism and individualism. Many people are very wary of government intervention and its potential to “rob” the individual of rights and infringe upon our personal freedoms. With lingering Cold War-era taboos against communism and socialism, some people look very negatively upon the notion of government control. However, I believe that the government should hold the fundamental role of acting in the best interest of its citizens. In that context, the government should step in and enact programs that promote the overall well-being of the people. I agree that, in fighting against affluenza and strengthening our country’s economy, government action is necessary and has the potential to bring about a great deal of positive change.