Are the Democrats shooting themselves in the foot… again?

I am a proud man, I admit it, but this flaw has the benefit of making me fairly comfortable with admitting I am wrong. Indeed, I must do it often. I note this because I think it's important regarding politics in America. In 2000, I saw little difference between Democrats and Republicans; little enough that I didn't vote and probably had a soft spot in my heart for Ralph Nader. Call it cynicism, or call it realism, but I firmly believed that politicians are politicians first, not people with policy ideas or concerns with important issues. To a large extent, I still believe that, but the last 8 years woke me up to the reality of the situation. While politicians of all stripes are no doubt self-serving hypocrites first and foremost, and while the system certainly seems broken, my naïve theory that things wouldn't be much different with Bush than with Gore has proven earth-shatteringly wrong. How many people have died, both American and non-American? How far backward have we gone internationally and environmentally, and perhaps even more importantly how much have our civil liberties been gutted?

All this to say two things: first I still distrust politics and politicians, and second that I am firmly a Democrat, for lack of another viable option. That said, I am not particularly sanguine that Barack Obama really represents change in any substantive way, other than possibly being the first black person to hold the office of President of the U.S. In fact, the system (as we all should remember from high school government class) is build to resist substantive change. The only way to affect it is to do what FDR, Reagan, and Bush/Cheney have done—semi-legally consolidate executive power and attempt to bypass the legislative branch. The only other change Obama promises is change from this current state of American affairs, one which I'm sure most people would like changed. McCain of course offers, as we have heard ad nauseam, more of exactly the same as the last 8 years.

In theory, Obama should be light years away in the polls, right? The two complications are no doubt his abundance of melanin and the job the Republicans have done painting him as an elitist, a tried and true (and effective) GOP tactic. But I want to suggest that there's something else at play here: a problem the Dems have had for as long as I can remember. Democrats, in national races, don't want to get their hands dirty. The Sarah Palin issue is the current prime example of this. Let's face it, she's a right-wing kook and probably a big old chunk of moron as well. She's a typical right-winger from the "real" West (Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, etc): anti-environment, pro-creationism, gun-toting, private property freak, pro-big business, vicious nutbar. If you grew up in a Western state, you are familiar with the type. She also went to 6 colleges to finish her undergrad degree (in Journalism), has an unmarried pregnant daughter, "ties" to bizarrely anti-Semitic preacher, possible ties to secessionism, etc., etc. She is a terrible, terrible candidate and one that should be torn down, publically.

Now I may sound mean-spirited here, but I am not. I am merely making an argument that since the very idea of politics as we know it began, with the Greeks, politics has been a dirty business. It requires ad hominem attacks, it requires strident debate, and it requires tawdriness. Have we learned nothing from Karl Rove? Palin's own speech was full of mean-spirited innuendo, yet her family life is "off-limits." The VP nominee from the "family values" party's daughter is off-limits? We don't want to hurt their feelings? Fuck that. Presidential politics is life or death both for candidates and more importantly, for citizens of this country. If the Obama campaign is unwilling to call bullshit on an extreme right-winger, they could well lose this election. Democrats have been shockingly unable to call bullshit for a long time, and in my view this has dramatically hurt them.

The GOP loves to play dirty, and it works, but beyond platitudes about an eye for an eye, let me be clear about one thing: the idea that there is a moral high ground in politics is a fallacy. Politics is a shouting match, a competition, an ugly battle. Its very nature precludes the clean hands approach favored by the Dems. Sure, you seem petty if you attack people personally. And yet, the 'Pubs have done so consistently since at least Nixon, attacking the patriotism and character of every Democrat in every election (Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, anyone?), local, state, and national. No one will question John McCain's wartime activities the way they did Kerry's. No one will attack Palin on her record (what little there is), her views, her hypocrisy, her personal failures, or the fact that this fucking freakshow of a person might be, as the cliché goes, one bullet away (or more likely heart attack) from being PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

Sarah Palin is a huge liability for the McCain campaign. Exploit it. That's what politics is about. Don't fool yourself into thinking otherwise. There are more important things at stake here than someone's hurt feelings or looking petty. "Hope" does not win in politics, indeed it only fires up those who have already been converted.

It's a common complaint that Democrats have been on the defensive for as long as most of us can remember, at least on the national stage. Yet we see the Obama campaign in danger of falling into that trap again because they are not willing, yet, to do the dirty work. I hope this changes. If it doesn't, the Dems may blow their biggest chance in a long time to gain the White House… again.