Earlier, I mentioned my cynicism for U.S. presidential politics. Despite that, or perhaps to actually articulate it, I want to write a few thoughts regarding the presidential primaries. And unless something happens that is interesting enough to compel me to write, (something like Hillary Clinton winning would not be it) this and one following short post will probably be the last things I say on the subject this year.

It was interesting after the Iowa caucuses, while browsing through my usual list of blogs, to see the surprised response to the fact that Barack Obama and Mike Huckabee were the winners of their respective parties. There seemed to be a lot of excitement in the air at this because neither of the winning candidates were what I heard vaguely referred to as the “establishment choices.” Therefore, many came to the conclusion that the people of Iowa loudly spoke out for “change” with their votes. But I fail to see how this is really all that significant, even if these men are to go on to win the party nominations. I mean, I understand the sentiment regarding these two men not being the expected favorites or most experienced, etc; but looking beyond the obnoxious media fuss over things like Obama’s chances as a black candidate and Huckabee putting himself on Rush Limbaugh’s bad side, these men have still been given star treatment – for good or bad – by the media establishment and as a result are among the few who are given the OK to proceed as worthy and “electable” candidates.

Nothing overly remarkable there to me. So, ultimately, just how much does it matter? Sure, there seems like there would be some difference between a Clinton White House and an Obama one or between a Huckabee White House and a Giuliani one, but just how much of a difference? And what do people mean exactly when they talk of change? It all begs these questions what kind of change and difference are we talking about and to what degree? Certainly not too much. In fact, the way we elect presidents, all this “change” might as well be primarily about a simple change of face, and this time around the cast of faces has a little more physical diversity than usual but, besides that, I doubt little more.

When it comes to all this talk of “change,” my thinking tends to fall in line with what Patrick Deneen had to say on his blog discussing arguments among conservatives about Huckabee specifically and all of the other candidates ostensibly for “change” in general;

the call for “change” is an empty cipher: what matters is whether that change would actually result in more stable families and communities; … whether the critique of “corporations” (such as Edwards) understands that they are providing us with things that we don’t have the good sense to avoid and eschew (Edwards’s version of anti-corporatism lets us all off WAY too easily); whether the call to “make the oil of Saudi Arabia as worthless as their sand” is accompanied by calls for self-sacrifice and a reduction in our mobility and wealth; whether the call for smaller government is accompanied by an understanding that the government has already fostered a world in which such reduction would only redound to the assertion of ever more private power.

At this point, some of you may be reading this and thinking, “if real, substantive change is what you are after, then Ron Paul is the only candidate for you.” I agree Ron Paul is one of the only candidates that really represents major change, (one of the only to oppose the war from the beginning and promote a totally different foreign policy for example) but for some reason I have a little bit of a struggle with Ron Paul on the whole. I have not joined the “revolution”, as it were, though I came close at first. Maybe it shouldn’t be, but it is complicated in my mind. I, like many others, like much of what he has to say about foreign policy and his opposition to the war. And a lot of what he says about fiscal policy and the role of government makes good sense as well. But it is the total mode of thinking that seems to mostly surround him that I have trouble embracing.

One problem is, I think for one reason or another, I am simply not at a point of feeling like the big and growing government has us only on the evil road to certain doom and tyranny. Certainly, there are many things that concern me, the power grab and terrible “preemptive” violence of the “War on Terrorism” being the one I’ve complained about the most on this blog; but the whole picture of where we are currently just seems very complex and, while very ludicrous in many ways, not necessarily so terribly sinister – at least not any more than the world or imperial powers have ever been – or leading to absolute, dreadful dystopian living.

The thing is, if I’m being gracious, our government is what it is now for many reasons and is a source of both good and bad, having often extended itself domestically in response to dynamic and irreversible growth and change. Sure, it is still full of ever-growing problems, but what exactly are we to do? There is no doubting for me that a Ron Paul presidency is a complete long shot; but even if he somehow were to win his goal of not merely halting government presence and growth but throwing it fully into reverse seems to be even less feasible short of an actual revolution. And I’m not sure how any of it would even work or, if it did, how many of us would really want life like that now. While we have a lot of things to work on, both in the public and private spheres, and many things have changed since this country’s founding, I’m not sure we’re quite at the point of needing some kind of extreme political revolution to cure our ails or if that is the way to really cure our ails.

Frankly, though the term “moderate” doesn’t satisfy, I really do feel like I am stuck somewhere in between some kind of conservatism (or libertarianism) and progressivism. I feel too sensitive to social issues and the history that has brought us here to want to leave everything to the private sector or “market.” And I am much more concerned with considering why we value what we value materially and ideologically and how we have shaped our lives and surroundings around that as well as why our infrastructure is accordingly as disjointed and wasteful as it is, big government or no. In short, yes, I suppose change is needed, but it is needed everywhere in my opinion, and first and foremost in the way we have, each of us, wastefully and shortsightedly chosen to live, not just in big government waste but all of the underlying reasons for it. We need to strike some kind of balance, really examining what we have created and how we can truly best go forward with all things considered.

But perhaps all of that is fully interconnected and we can’t lose one thing without throwing out the other (government provides a large amount of the money after all), and I am being naive about government power because I have had it too good. Or perhaps I wouldn’t have been on the “patriot” side in the Revolutionary War. And maybe that is OK, or maybe that means I will openly accept an awful fate. Maybe I am just not interested enough in clinging to one nation state or way of life as being the best and highest goal. Power will continue to breed more power and the thirst for empire, more authority and centralization will go on as always, and all power will ebb and flow and rise and fall. And maybe none of that matters as much as we have been raised to think it does. Who knows how long we will be here and in this state or where or how else we might enjoy living? Maybe we would all do better to first focus more on our own communities and critical thinking about our values; or hey, here is a novel idea; how about getting out of our cars and trying to actually create communities again to talk about all of this!? Oh what a mess.

—————-
Now playing: Yo La Tengo – Tired Hippo
via FoxyTunes