Confessions of a Starving Artist

With the presidential elections finally beginning to loom, I feel like a person akin to those poor bastards who had to be supervisorily sat through the directors cuts of all three Lord of the Rings movies because their friends said that they “needed too”.  And while a handful of the players involved directly, if not on the ballot themselves, do look a little like extras from Middle Earth, the entertainment value of this election, has become a bit monotonous as a definitely omnipresent mainstay throughout the media and daily discussion for the past fourteen months.  I wish that we as an American public could just destroy the One Ring and go back to the Shire to live happily ever after.

Still, I am dubious, despite all this so-called ‘change’.  Begrudgingly, I think that I have somewhere along the line stepped fully into Senator Obama’s camp after first finally coming to terms with the fact that Senator McCain is simply out of touch with the American people and is really just more of the same past eight years.  Secondly, after returning from Europe, I was shocked to find out that Senator Obama’s picture is plastered on the front of a third of all major newspapers, magazines, and daily editorial pieces at any given newsstand on any give day in the
UK or France.  That kind of international social currency is a bit eye opening.  Regardless, that’s not the point; the point is that despite both candidates trying to pull us closer (though in effect just creating a rift) come the second of November, I really don’t see much difference being made one way or the other.

As it was pointed out to me a few days ago by a fellow man in uniform, overall the election doesn’t mean too much; a point that I don’t agree with as much rigidity as this gentlemen did, but do acknowledge.  He rightfully claimed that American has had one system of government since its inception, because that’s how our Founding Fathers planned it.  Any deviation from what is America would unravel the delicate dream.  Meanwhile, he observed, during that same amount of time, France has been a monarchy, an empire (with an emperor king), a republic, an oligarchy, and a democracy, sometimes flip-flopping back and forth several times between each with revolutions and governmental policy changes of the most radical form.  That being said, what real option for change do Americans have (or have every had) in comparison?  The choice between Republican and Democrat pales when seated next to something like a political revolution that maintains the unity of the state, I think.  Furthermore, both candidates agree almost whole-heartedly on the issues, they only disagree on ways to solve them, which to me is a resounding siren for the potential for political change (at least electorally) that is being both overlooked and underplayed.  Better said, in the past we usually have candidates arguing about is problem X really a problem?  Candidate A says no, problem Y is the problem while candidate B says yes, problem X is the problem.  Glory be that we have a race where almost every “problem” is agreed upon by the candidates: the economy, the environment, the gas crisis, the war on terror, etc.  What is grinding is that the solutions are being looked at in the same A or B mindset.  Solutions to a problem once agreed upon are infinite… which to me means third party candidates.

Its no secret, I’ve been a staunch disapprover of the two-party system since I first became old enough to vote.  Thing is, there really hasn’t been much of a way to launch it into the forefront of an election.  Sure, Ross Perot tried and might have succeeded if it wasn’t for the quitting for a few months in the middle of the campaign, and of course there is always the dark green horse, the ever present, ever suborn Ralph Nader who will seemingly never step-down from his Green Party nomination like some sort of despot dictator-environmentalist.  What platform could these guys or any other third party candidate possibly stand-on that could set them apart from the other candidates or at the very least place the idea of the third party back in vogue?  Sadly, I agree that in the past thirty years the openings have been few and far between.  But let’s look at the past thirty years.

The largest spoiler, in terms of potential, was Ross Perot in the middle of the Clinton v. Bush Sr. re-election campaign in ’92.  True, he didn’t win a single state, but it would have been interesting to see what would have happened if he hadn’t pulled out for those few critical months.  Even more interesting that actual question on the election was this: why did the American public even grant Ross Perot an audience?  It had to do with the issues surrounding the election as well as one large governing fact: The Cold War was over.

Yes, The Cold War did end several years prior under then President Regan, who notably, had George H.W. Bush as a his Vice-President.  Bush did very little in the way of change as a President.  After all, he had been the head of CIA for nearly a decade and a Vice-President for eight more years after that.  During his four years the country ran on as it always had, and really only two serious events occurred during that tenure: the economy went into recession, and we beat the world’s fifth most powerful army in about three weeks.  So come election year, everyone, candidates included, agreed that change had to be made - economically, militarily, and globally as well as domestically now that the treat of the Red Horde had been lifted for the first time in about forty-five years.  The reason that we listened to Perot and his silly graph charts is because he had a different strategy, a different solution.  Parties can hold the market on issues because they are yea or nay subjects, but when the issues are agreed upon, the doors swing wide open for strategy.  One cat, one hundred ways to skin it…

Coming back to present day, we again find ourselves in a similar scenario as far as the election goes.  We have our agreed upon issues, an outgoing president who held the status quo (rather poorly, I might add), and a new age dawning, though this time it isn’t the Iron Curtain falling, it’s the Environment rising.  The only thing missing is this year’s Perot.

The Green Party fucked up big time about two or three months ago.  The week that followed Senator Hillary Clinton stepping aside and basically giving Senator Obama the go-head nod was a rather down week.  Senator Obama took the week and campaigned very unadventurously while Senator McCain took a planning week to get out of his recliner (face it, he hadn’t had to do crap up until that point).  I remember seeing a blip on the news that very week that Ralph Nader had once again thrown his hat into the ring on the Green Party ticket, sticking to the same ol’ rhetoric that he was garbling twenty years ago.  While I couldn’t quiet figure out why I was so edgy about that short clip, it stuck with me until sometime later I figured it out.  It was the perfect time to insert a third party candidate.

The stage was set, the audience silent, and every third party missed the cue.  Honestly, there is really nothing symptomatic of change anywhere near either of the two current guys running.  Senator McCain has very clearly stated some of his plans, which only add to his deepening stereotype as a Bush Administration clone.  Senator Obama has offered up the near cliché word ‘change’ like its some sort of war cry, but really, other than offering opposing views on the handling most things contemporary Republican, he has not given us much in the way of a plan… likely because he doesn’t want to give the media or his critics anything to chew on while he is riding this current wave of popularity… which is smart.

Just of the heck of it, let’s play around for minute.  Let’s make up a candidate, one who is set solidly solutions to issues without boundaries and party lines.  Let’s see what we come up with.

But before we get started lets talk about the candidate as a man.  First off his party; Green.  The mainstay of all the current political issues facing the next president, save perhaps the war, revolve around the environment, so to me, the next president should be a Green Party member.  Second, he should be young, in his forties perhaps, a common man who is still in touch.  Third, he should be funny, capable of making a politically correct joke off the cuff, thus showing he is cool, calm, and laid back.  Fourth, he should come from a military or civil service background to show that he is rooted in reality, i.e. not the hippie stereotype.  Fifth, he should be a straight talker all the time, not just when pushed to do so by scandal or personal ambition.  That being said, let’s see how he would stand on these ten issues facing the American public.

Issue One – The War:  “The major failure of the past administration as well as my fellow candidates is continually leading Americans on with false hope that someday soon all our boys will be coming home.  This just isn’t the case.  As a quick history lesson, American troops began their extended stay and commitment to the immerging nation of South Korea in 1953.  The Republic of Korea held their first democratic elections for president in 1987, approximately twenty-five years later.  Iraq and Afghanistan both entered into near parallel democratic elections less than five years after each was liberated.  I’ll be the first to say that maybe we are moving them forward too fast, and yes, I do believe that the decision to do so was firmly made with the interests of the United States in mind and not that of the Iraqi or Afghan peoples.  Still, the overall point is that the American people need to understand that we are here to help, and that we are committed for the long haul.  The question is not when do our boys come home, but first, how can we streamline our policies of military assistance as an administration without degrading the effects we are currently achieving on the ground, and secondly, what manners best stabilize these this region as decided up on by our partnered nations of Afghanistan and Iraq?

The most costly effort is not coming from expendable items sent into the combat theaters, but rather it is coming from the logistical efforts to move entire units’ equipment back and forth from the theaters.  This is needless and not cost effective.  I would work with the Joint Chiefs of Staff to establish within the current forward operating bases individual units that would become permanently stationed within the Iraqi and Afghan theaters where the individuals would be rotated in and out of the theater after year to two year tours, voluntarily to a point.  Weapons, vehicles, all manner of unit equipment would remain forward; only personal would need be transferred akin Korea or Germany.  Also this would decrease, if not eliminate, the current concept of battle hand-over’s between units overseas, which can leave a unit on unsure footing for up to two months.  And if anyone is concerned if this would lead to current US military base closures, it would – in Korea.  The US Army is slated to be completely pulled out of Korea by 2012. 

Further governing of these two states has been modeled after America.  Our way of government is ridged and does not change, but this does not mean that Iraq or Afghanistan cannot decide for themselves how they should best be governed.  Isn’t this the true mark of democracy?  The State Department will become more involved in advisory affairs with the host nations’ governments that are currently being handled by senior members of the military.  We are advisors who are there to assist in the national security of the sovereign nations of Iraq and Afghanistan.  That being said, we must advise them on how to best run their country, but that, in the end, is for them to decide. 

Issue Two - The Economy: “The slump in economy is directly related to two things; gas prices and a strange new sense of American entitlement.  I speak about gas prices later, but the take away point here is that the average American puts 150 to 300 dollars worth of gas in their automobiles every two weeks where they used to put a mere 75 just two years ago.  That’s about 200 to 400 dollars a month that used to go into the economy not Exxon.  The Bush Administration offered up to 600 dollars to each tax-paying American as an economic stimulus check during this past tax season.  The American people are spending twenty-four to forty-eight hundred dollars extra in fuel each year.  That’s problem one.

Problem two is that our society has somehow spiraled out of control with what it says that a young person should have regardless of their education background or current monetary income status.  This is the fault of lender and credit agencies riding a wave that has unfortunately broke leaving many Americans high and dry.  Is it the average American’s fault for running away in debt for a large screen TV and a shiny new car?  Yes, it is, and each of us must take personally responsibility for the situations that we find ourselves in.  But it is also the fault of the American government for allowing such loose regulations on credit agencies.  It’s a two pronged effort to fix this matter.  First, the average American must be held financially responsible and bare full consequences for spending money that they do not have on things that they do not need, but have rather wanted.  Of course these punitive measures should be looked at in a case by case basis by the Federal Credit Bureau, which will enjoy increased jurisdiction in these matters.  The second prong will become the Federal involvement with credit agencies whose lending practices are unsound or immoral towards the those seeking a loan.     

Issue Three – The Environment:  “As you all know, this is the foundation for the Green Party.  Our commitment as a nation towards our environment should lead the way and set the example in the global community in all contemporary matters.  America does well already, but we can do much better in terms of consumption and conservations… and in terms of population control.  The average American ultimately is more less consumptive and conserves more than any generation prior to it, yet our nation and our world continues to fall prey to global warming and pollution.  The concern that people should have is not how much they are doing for the environment, but how many people are doing the same thing along side them.  I’m not saying that the current efforts of environmentalism are futile, rather they are amazing and under my presidency, I will establish an entire new department within the Federal Government dedicated to finding and funding new reusable forms of energy, fuel, and recycling efforts.  Also I’ll direct the Department of Transportation to re-establish the United States as the world’s leading example of intra-national transportation by revitalizing the literally thousands of miles America’s currently unused but existing railroads with state of the art trains and trans systems.  Further this administration will work with State and City legislations to establish clean and useful mass transit in as many major cities as possible. 

Issue Four - The Gas Crisis:  “This is the crux of the matter of with respect to the environment and the economy.  Off-shore drilling is like stabilization for a trauma patient, but it is not treatment.  While I do think that off-shore drilling should be explored with governmental supervision, especially in environmentally sensitive areas or locale of national security interest, I will refer back to what I said about creating an entirely new Federal Department – The Department of the Environment and Atmosphere.  This Department will be the re-flagging of NASA and absorb their budget, as they are the leading scientists and subject matter experts on this world and beyond.  Further, the direction of space exploration needs to become redirected to have an impact with our nation, or better said our world rather than a departure from it.  The goal of this new Department will be not only to find ways to release us from our nation’s dependence on foreign oil, but also to develop new methods of energy technology which can be exported or withheld from foreign powers.

Issue Five - The UN, NATO and the EU:  “I personally feel that the United Nations is a defunct organization whose bureaucratic power offers very little in the form any sort of “World Order”, of which was its model at inception.  The fact that NATO forces serve as the defacto enforcers of the UN is ironic when only a handful of the nations whom sit on the UN actually make up the effective armies which NATO is comprised of.  And while NATO missions brief well to world leaders, the truth on the ground is that NATO forces simply function as separate nations all work on their own separate piece of the same puzzle once employed rather than a cohesive and unified command effort.  Sometimes they are functioning as in Bosnia or Afghanistan and sometimes they aren’t such as Somalia, but never are they a blossomed success story.  America’s interests are not served by remaining attached to these unions.  America’s removal from the United Nations would allow it to make independent negotiations, treaties, and alliances with other nations which may or may not serve all within a “World Order”, establish its own trade laws, and further quicken our actions toward US interests abroad. 

Another sub-matter to all this is globalization and the free market.  The Clinton Administration is truly the architectural mind behind our economies boom into the global market place; however, lack of governmental oversight has us in chasing our economy all over the world in efforts to protect corporate interests which in turn feed our economy which in turn then feeds our government.  Whether our efforts are manifested in miring what might be political action or unnecessarily hastening it, the American economy, investors, and corporations need to become redirected within our own localized economies, creating a demand for export abroad and self-reliance at home.  This is a benchmark of security.  Allow the European Union to envelope the UN and NATO.  I suggest we focus on restimulating NAFTA in order to create a check and balance within the Free Markets. 

Issue Six – Russia and Iran:  “While we are on the subject, let’s look at Russia and Iran.  I would almost respect these countries if I didn’t consider them a security threat.  These are great examples of what I was just talking about.  Both of these countries exist outside of the UN and thus operate with a level of political freedom in their respective regions.  However, while in that respect I would have the United States emulate them, they are both very dangerous players in the world theater for just this very reason.  Notably China and North Korea have the same entitled freedom of maneuver though currently neither exercise it mainly because the world community keeps both of them feed on humanitarian aid (N. Korea) and free market trade (China).  I do wonder what would happen should either of those lions stop being fed…

I suggest a much closer diplomatic hand must be kept toward both Russian and Iran, though, like Iraq and Afghanistan, both must be handled differently.  Russia needs to be brought in as an economic partner if possible.  Iran needs to be engaged in diplomatic talks as American military presence along its boarders is going to be a reality for that country for decades to come.  Iran should also be made aware that proxy aid to insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan will not be regarded as an act of war on the United States, but rather as disregard for the sovereign boarders of those two countries.  If such were to occur, Iranian boarders will be treated with the same disregard should such actions were to continue. 

Issue Seven  – Immigration:  “The largest issue that touches Americans more than any other on a day to day basis is that of immigration, namely the large volume of illegal Mexican immigrants.  The plight of the Mexican immigrant is one that is completely understandable and one that warrants more attention from the American government that it has received, more than the plight of the Iraqi or the Afghani if you ask me, because unlike the Iraqi and the Afghani, this is happening here at home.  Personally, I dislike the term “illegal immigrant” when used in terms with these people.  I prefer the term “refugee”.  Many of these men and women did not come to America because they wanted to be Americans.  They can because they feared for themselves in their home country.  They bring with them a retainment of the way that they lived in Mexico, extremely active ties to their culture if you will, as well as a lack understanding or education necessary to assimilate into American ways of life if that even is their desire.  Mexico itself is run by a corrupt government who keeps ‘order’ with corrupt police.  It is a country rife with poverty, sub-standard living, organized crime, and drugs.  Our blind eye to our neighbor to the south is something that we should be ashamed of.  Most of all, Mexico poses a major security risk to Americans, moreso than any port of call or northern boarder.  I would have firm dealings with the Mexican government on my first day in office.

Issue Eight – Education:  “No Child Left Behind is a horrible standard of education that needs to be scrapped as soon as possible.  State governments should have an increased say so in the education of their youth.  The Federal Government should set a standard funding rate based on the student population of the various districts inherent within the each individual State, in other words, each student maintains a monetary value within each State who will then be able to spend their budget and set the majority of their curriculums as they deem fit.  Rewards and reprisals for States educational markers shall be meted out in other junctures of Federal and State government; punishing poor test scores with cut funding only hurts the students.  Also state employed teachers should be paid in a manner that is similar to military personnel; this is the only thing that should be standardized. 

Issue Nine – Heathcare:  (personally, I don’t have a very good answer for this problem.  I can’t offer much insight here, so I’ll just skip it.  My perfect candidate would likely need a strong cabinet member to help out here…)

Issue Ten – Abortion:  “I would not have an abortion should that decision arise for me today.  However, my personal stance on abortion is mine, as I believe it should be for each and every consenting adult in this country.  If that makes me Pro-Choice, then so be it.  However, I firmly stand for the altering of the current law and would campaign strongly against any abortions for any reason past the first seven weeks of pregnancy.”

Okay, so maybe this wouldn’t be everybody’s first pick, but he would be a few.  Also, I’m not saying that I would need a candidate to say all these things, but it would be nice for a candidate to say some of these things.  Like I said before, it isn’t just about the issues, it’s about the perspectives and the solutions as well.  With that, we can’t just keep limiting ourselves to chocolate or vanilla.  If we do, we may lose our taste for ice cream, if you’ll take the metaphor, which something that we may be experiencing in our society now.  We forget our civics and our heritage, our very history because we do not acknowledge our ability to become all those things within our own lives.