It has been months, but this morning I did not get out of bed until 7 AM. Even during school breaks normally even if I do not have to get up early, the cats insist upon my arising to feed them. They know better that to bother my wife. But because the phone had rung insistently at around 1:30, I had had to get up then. While up I had fed the critters, so they were content to let me stay under the covers, with several curled up next to me, providing additional warmth and a soothing sound, like several soft outboard motors, as their purrs provided an ambiance of calm
Yesterday I did almost all of my necessary tasks for the weekend, so upon arising my mood and my pace of movement are different, an appropriate accompaniment to my late arising. And as a result, so is my perspective on life, and on politics. This diary is the product of all of this, but most of all of my having had the luxury of sleeping late.
Like many here,I am often an information junkie. I hunger for the latest news and analysis. While I no longer bet on politics (and in this my past success has been at times notable, but on a few occasions embarrassingly the opposite) I do like to feel as if I simply have enough information somehow it will provide me with the basis to intuitively understand what is about to happen. It is not that I point to any one piece of information: I am not that analytical. It is rather than I feel as if with enough information somehow a clear pattern will emerge. And when it does, it gives me a feeling that the world around me is congnizable, that it makes sense. I can try to explain it to others, and for some my words will seem accurate while for others they will appear as little but blather.
This morning I do not feel so impelled. Oh, I have glanced at a number of papers online, as I normally do. There are things worth sharing,and I could allow a picture to appear in my mind, and perhaps offer predictions and analysis. But perhaps because I feel more rested than usual, perhaps because I am still closely accompanied by purring felines, I have a far different sense this morning. So I will indulge that and offer reflections therefrom.
Tuesday will be critical, but for reasons far beyond the possibility that it may determine the next president of the United States. Close friends may well see those on the other side of our current political divide have hopes dashed. Those who support Obama might see Clinton devotees crushed if the winning streak continues unabated, or nearly so. Those who would be elated by the opposite turn, of Clinton performing well enough to justify a fierce continuation of the campaign might see the Obama supporters devastated that the contentiousness of the past two weeks might extend yet another six, or even until the convention. And if the picture is unclear all might see a move by party elders and super delegates to bring the contest to a conclusion even thought the voters have offered a mixed reaction to such a prospect.
It is tempting for partisans to seek to portray things in the most favorable way for the one they have chosen to support. The more fiercely and closely fought the contest is, the greater the possible bitterness as every advantage is eagerly sought. We point at dueling ads, competing endorsements, contradictory polling information, seeking any nugget upon which we can seek to focus attention and claim our side is winning, or the other side is cheating. Hogwash.
No, not Hogwarts. Hogwash.
Clausewitz wrote that war is politics continued by other means. But the phrase can be easily reinterpreted, that in order to succeed at politics one must be willing to fight as if an unrestricted war. The danger, for winner and loser and all others, of such a reinterpretation, is that we then find ourselves in the position of the American officer in Vietnam who said that in order to save the village we had to destroy it.
There is no doubt that our national leaders have a responsibility to keep us safe. But as most reading this would agree, that does not justify gutting our constitutional liberties and carefully balanced structure and limitations of power in the name of security, for what we have thereby kept secure will no longer be the liberty we claim to protect. Similarly we cannot argue that we have to be a fierce as we can imagine, leaving nothing out, in our striving to achieve leadership on behalf of our party because that is what the other party will do to us in a general election. We run the risk of finding ourselves like Pogo overlooking the devastation of the swamp and saying that we have met the enemy and he is us.
The actions of self-appointed surrogates should not be how we judge a candidate. Please note the use of the adjective: "self-appointed." There has been far too much criticism of candidates because of the perceived excesses of the supporters who post here. The candidates do not always bear responsibilities for what others say on their behalf. It is not just the figures like Bill Cunningham, Louis Farrakhan, or Adelfa Callejo, who in each case has seen the candidate s/he supports place distance from the supporter and the remarks. It is inappropriate to judge or reject candidates because of what the most extreme supporters might offer on their behalf. But it is also incumbent upon those of us who do support to remember that- like it or not - how we express will reflect upon our candidate, fairly or not, and may make a difference of whether or not post primary we are able to come together for a common purpose.
The United States could have been a much larger country upon achieving its independence. A force under Benedict Arnold invaded Canada in 1775. George Washington had given strict order on how the Canadians in Quebec were to be treated, which included not disrespecting their religion - remember the Quebecois were largely Catholic, a religion to which there was great hostility among some of the American colonists. One can perhaps imagine that had the American forces acted with the circumspection with which they had been tasked by Washington the results of the Canadian endeavor might have turned out very differently. Instead the actions of American forces antagonized many in Quebec who had been predisposed to join the effort to rid the continent of the governance of Britain.
it is not an exact parallel, but it should serve as a cautionary tale as we deal with one another, on line, and in person. Regardless of the outcome on Tuesday, at some point we will have to come together. Threats about who will or will not support the candidate of the other side merely escalate tensions and bitterness beyond a level that is already too extreme, almost unbearable. Of course those of us strongly committed to one of the candidates cares deeply. But our internecine conflict, as strongly as we may contest it, cannot cause us to lose sight of our ultimate goal of restoring constitutionally appropriate government in this nation.
I got up late this morning. I had few specific tasks that I had to accomplish. The cats encourage me to mellowness by their very presence. So I decided to reflect.
This diary is a product of that unusual confluence of events. It may have little effect on others. For me, it has reminded me of the need to keep an eye on the larger purposes which justify my involvement in politics, sometimes at the expense of other things about which I care deeply. Consider my words not as a scolding of others, but something with which I now charge myself, and which I offer publicly in the faint hope that perhaps they may have a salutary effect for others as well.
It is a pleasant Sunday morning in Arlington Virginia. As I experienced that pleasantness upon awakening, surrounded by the love and warmth of several of our felines, I choose to remain in the pleasantness I encountered with my awakening. I hope that all of you, even as you dedicate yourself on behalf of whichever candidate you support, also allow yourself the time to enjoy whatever pleasantness is available to you.
Peace.
peace.