Caring for the Health of our Politics

There are many ways to pick a candidate. You can be devoted to your party or your people, you can pick your pocket or your heart. To quote Paul Simon, there must be 50 ways to . . .

Democracy is about YOUR RIGHT to do as you freely choose, but the real test that life presents us is the challenge to make good choices! Good, yes, but who defines the good?

One of the perspectives I have taken in regard to community issues in this forum is that maintaining the health of political processes is crucial. If an organization's processes are allowed or induced to decay, the consequences are bad for the "people" whom the organization is supposed to serve! This is plain common sense. The principle of maintaining healthy political processes is as fundamental and wholesome as grits.

How does this apply to our national politics?

For one, it is the responsibility of the major parties to present the nation with decent candidates for the highest office in the country. McCain is a fine candidate (he was even finer in 2000), and both Obama and Clinton have stature. This is good for the country. Cast your mind back over the last 20-or-so years, and ask whether those decades were as good as we are getting now? My contention is that from the time the Republicans gave us an actor (from the B movie list, no less), politics has been decidedly on the wrong track. We finally have a chance to put that right.

Now, given the tight primary run-off for the Dems, we are hearing about "super" delegates and how they are free to do what they want. Well, in truth, they need to do what is best, not for themselves as individuals, or their vested interests. They need to do what will have the best effect for the health of our nation's politics. Overriding the general notion that the rules matter, will have terrible consequences. The central pillars of democracy are justice and the rule of law. Turn these over, and it will be a sucker punch to our mutual goodwill.

This ain't rocket science, folks, just common sense.

Now I happen to think that the candidate with the greatest ability to unite this country, and to provide the leadership this country needs to provide the influence for good in the world is Barack Obama.

The big questions that people have about him are: experience and Israel?

In regard to experience, I prefer senators / congressmen as candidates for president to governors, mayors and businessmen. Why? We are talking about being a "President" - being presidential. We are talking about class - world class! We need someone to lead the world.

And here is where I turn down Hillary Clinton, as good as she is with all the specifics. We need a world leader without all sorts of baggage ( you know, like wonky distractions from a controversial past-president as your spouse! Rush and company do not need another go at the carnival shooting gallery, ok?)

So, what about Obama and Israel? My position is simple: choose right for America, and the world will be a better place. And if the world is better for America, it's better for Israel too.

But just in case you want to see something in writing, here is a link to a piece from Ha'Aretz.

For more, check out Rosner's blog on Obama, also on the Ha'Aretz web page.

and remember how Hillel framed our responsibilities:

"If I am not for myself, who is for me?

And if I am only for myself, what am I?

And if not now, when?"

As ever,

Shalom

Update: 2-24-08 Attended the talk given by Linda Gradstein at the College of Charleston earlier today. She fielded some questions after the meeting, including saying that there was no particular fear in Israel about Barack Obama. All they say is that he is new on the political seen, and is relatively unknown.

More perhaps later.