First, I want to make clear that I will rarely write about electoral politics, and when I do, it will never be from the horse-race, who’s-ahead-and-why point of view we see so much in the mainstream media.
That being said, I recently read a piece online from Newsweek magazine headlined “Andrew Sullivan: How Obama’s Long Game Will Outsmart His Critics“. Aside from being an unabashed apologist for Obama, Sullivan seems satisfied with the notion that because Obama is better than the Republican alternative, and his time in office has been better than a third Bush term or a first McCain term would have been, and he would do so much more in a second term, he should be reelected.
I agree with the conclusion that Obama is better than the GOP alternative, but I vehemently disagree with the underlying premise that we should accept the fact that we have a binary choice of Obama or the GOP nominee, Democrat or Republican, A or B. What Sullivan doesn’t understand is that many of us are no longer comfortable with the two-party paradigm because though there is a difference between the two major parties, it’s not big enough that we feel truly represented by either.
As long as we judge Obama’s performance solely against the Republicans, we shortchange ourselves and the nation. To be clear, I never saw Obama as a liberal hero who would change the American political landscape, so while I am disappointed, I am not surprised. I greatly preferred Dennis Kucinich, John Edwards and Green Party candidate Cynthia McKinney over Obama. I believe a significant number of Americans may have also liked what they heard from Kucinich and McKinney — if they heard it. But the mainstream media pretty much kept them out of the conversation. Same story with Ron Paul and candidates from the Libertarian and Constitution parties.
On the bright side
One positive product of the Republican primary process so far is the inclusion of income and wealth equality in the overall debate. The continued analysis of Mitt Romney’s wealth, and how he obtained it, as well as his record as a “job creator” has at least shone some sunlight on topics that are not normally discussed on cable news, such as the practices of private equity firms and tax policies that overwhelmingly favor the wealthy. This isn’t real change — yet. It may not lead to real change in the near future. But it is a small step forward.
