Practical solutions for people + planet
Which is our more timely and needed next president - Obama or Clinton?
As I watch them each cope with the lengthy and grueling process of the primaries, I increasingly wonder about their styles, values and ways of being in the world.
I notice how much Barack seems to listen carefully, pausing to reflect before responding. I admire how he writes his own speeches, and seems to speak from the heart. I feel enthused at how much he points the way toward true innovation, while she seems to focus on returning to the democracy we 'used' to have. Ironically, as a deeply committed feminist, I find myself far more inclined toward his 'feminine' originality, relationalism and thoughtfulness, whereas she seems to come across in a much more traditionally 'masculine' way. Check out Linda Burnham's article on this, noting the challenges each is facing, as the 'firsts' in their perspective ways.
Then I read Alice Walker's great posting, where she speaks of the value of Obama's sense of being a global citizen, reminds us of the recentness of our race history and the inequities that persist, and lauds his lack of privilege as the immense asset it would be in healing our international relations.
Foreign relations experts note that the first thing we'll need to do, to repair our global relations, is admit how wrong our actions have been, these past years. Then, llisten respectfully to others' grievances with the US. I can far more readily imagine Obama doing this effectively than Hillary, given her behavior in recent months.
And then there's the everpresent issues of how our next president may handle the challenge of corporate power. With Obama so much more financially supported by the populace, and Hillary's ties to corporate allies throughout her adult life, I'm more inclined to believe in his capacity to challenge the status quo.
What do you think?
I notice how much Barack seems to listen carefully, pausing to reflect before responding. I admire how he writes his own speeches, and seems to speak from the heart. I feel enthused at how much he points the way toward true innovation, while she seems to focus on returning to the democracy we 'used' to have. Ironically, as a deeply committed feminist, I find myself far more inclined toward his 'feminine' originality, relationalism and thoughtfulness, whereas she seems to come across in a much more traditionally 'masculine' way. Check out Linda Burnham's article on this, noting the challenges each is facing, as the 'firsts' in their perspective ways.
Then I read Alice Walker's great posting, where she speaks of the value of Obama's sense of being a global citizen, reminds us of the recentness of our race history and the inequities that persist, and lauds his lack of privilege as the immense asset it would be in healing our international relations.
Foreign relations experts note that the first thing we'll need to do, to repair our global relations, is admit how wrong our actions have been, these past years. Then, llisten respectfully to others' grievances with the US. I can far more readily imagine Obama doing this effectively than Hillary, given her behavior in recent months.
And then there's the everpresent issues of how our next president may handle the challenge of corporate power. With Obama so much more financially supported by the populace, and Hillary's ties to corporate allies throughout her adult life, I'm more inclined to believe in his capacity to challenge the status quo.
What do you think?
Tags: democracy, election, gender, hillary, obama, politics, progressive, women
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by J.T. Hessert on -
I was thinking along the same lines :
http://www.wiserearth.org/forum/view/b36dbf442b8b7f559bc419b5ca0cbaf7
In these radically changing times I feel here in the U.S. we need to look at the potential for our next president to profoundly influence not just our daily lives here in the U.S., but to actually influence / transform global society. Barack Obama is a true leader capable of anything, I completely support his approach and vision for America... And I would like to see that kind of vision applied at the international level...
Peace-
-
Permalink Reply by Bob Russell on -
Barack Obama is the only candidate that might be able to help our nation change direction, and there are a lot of changes and direction to choose from. I see his first 2 years, if elected, as being blocked by the entrenched corporate power representatives in congress. If citizens, especially youth, are still engaged by the mid-term election that is when there is an opportunity to unseat the corporate representatives. If that happens to any significant degree there is a chance for post war, post fossil fuel solutions to begin.
-
Permalink Reply by calliopesofar on -
Thanks for pointing out the feminine aspect of Obama's most notable qualities. When the Democratic field was still large, my fear about Clinton was that she, of all the candidates, seemed the most likely to follow the Bush administration's style of ruthlessly expanding executive power to achieve results. Especially since so many of the challenges facing us seem likely to blow up into full-on crisis at some point, the last thing we need is to put a bipartisan stamp on the totalitarian response. As any bioneer knows, these are not problems that can be solved by one person (or one powerful group) going into a room, coming up with a solution, and imposing it. The solutions all come from acknowledging interdependence, complexity, ambiguity, humility - and only then adding on daring and caring. You're right I think, that Obama has the more needed capacities for the moment.
-
Permalink Reply by J.T. Hessert on
-
Interesting comments... I believe completely in the power of the people... all great changes thru history seem to have been a combination of bottom up/ top down influence... but you need the top (in this case U.S. President) to be working toward a vision that is consistent with the needs / values of the bottom (grassroots america needs/ grassroots global needs).
I also like to highlight/consider the relevance of the reflective/ artistic side of Barack Obama; the writing/ publishing of his first book prior to a career in politics reminscent to the early writing (communicating) obsessions which yielded books of such influential politicians as JFK and Theodore Roosevelt etc. ... I am not sure if I would define that as a feminine trait though ...
I think the fundamental difference between people is that some are driven toward a "will to power" (nietzsche) and those that are driven to "empower"...
I think of change agents being driven to "empower", and change agents having a creative element to their minds that is consistent with the 'creative genius' of some of the most talented/ influential artists...
(Their is a self-destructive side to this as well... just look at Martin Luther King's courage right up until his death... things can only give so much 'power' (think physics) before being destroyed... )
These Change Agent's unleash this part of themselves by empowering others by their 'work'; they serve others while serving themselves...: watch Barack Obama deliver this speech and you can FEEL the profound unique emotional impact/ brilliance of his words... and you can sense how deeply meaningful what he is communicating is to him and how relevant it is to all of us, both here in the U.S. and in the broader international community...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWe7wTVbLUU
-
Permalink Reply by Edward Paschich on -
The way Sen. Obama has responded to the "mud slinging" from the Clinton camp is what I am most impressed with. Sen. Obama has not let himself been drawn down to her level. He has always responded with respect and diplomacy. That is how I want our president to treat other countries in our foreign relations.
-
Permalink Reply by myna lee on -
AMEN!! I live in CANADA and our HOUSE OF COMMONS spend more time hurling insults than they do having constructive debate and decision making.
-
Permalink Reply by erinely on -
Personally, John Edwards was my candidate but then I had to switch and I waited for a long time to decide. I have never been a big fan of Hillary Clinton but I wanted to see how the whole thing was going to play out.
What really made me think seriously about Obama is the fact the he really inspires young people. Young people are the ones that will move us forward with new solutions.
You cannot fix problems with the same thinking that created them. We need the infusion of young people thinking and I agree with an earlier comment that if Obama gets in it will be two years of difficulty until the mid-term elections.
We need to keep the young people engaged so that we can have a true majority in the House and Senate, combined.
My son, is a first time voter, he is inspired to vote for Obama but he is adamant that he will not vote for Hillary, why he has this perception I am not sure.
I think Barack is capable of doing the job, it just won't be done the same way the Clinton's have envisioned it.
Power to the young people, they need to be inspired again about our political process.
Regards,
Erin
http://elyorganics.com/
-
Permalink Reply by Nina S on -
Erin, I agree completely.
And not only about the young people, but also about the experience and humility that Barack can bring to the job, coming from a mixed-race parenthood, and being raised as a global citizen.
I am inspired by his integrity, the congruity of his vision with his personhood, or personality, and the fact that he advocates such a departure from business as usual.
I believe we need such a deep and profound overhaul of our political and social systems that it requires someone who is much more of an 'outsider' than the Clintons are to help lead the way, and that our young people are hip to that.
That this is so much corruption and over-investment in corporate power while impoverishing our social programs, that it'll require nearly a revolution in thinking and therefore leadership to find our way through.
The more I sit with it, the more impatient I become with the simplicity of the gender analysis. The issues are so much larger and more pressing than whether women or blacks are more oppressed in the US. Both have been the subject of long histories of inequity and discrimination - thank heavens we may have reached a point in our evolution as a nation that we're able to seriously consider (and hopefully vote in) a person with either identity.
He sure does make my spine tingle, though, as the first candidate in all of my adult life that wouldn't be simply voting for the 'lesser of two evils.'
-
Permalink Reply by Afriendof B on -
For me, (and anyone who reads my posts and comments can already fill in the rest of this without reading) the whole debate is pretty pointless. In our system the president may set the tone for the country, and may lead us into stupid situations (a quick look at the last 8 years will highlight the level of stupidity we can expect from a president), but they really can't change, in a fundamental way, the daily way of living in the country. Our 'problems' stem from our way of living, not from our political position. So, in my opinion... all this angst over who the democratic candidate will be it a lot of wasted energy. Who cares. It doesn't matter who gets elected. They wont change anything in a fundamental way because they cant. The only way change can happen is if we change the way we live. That wont come by government mandate or by electing a new "inspiring" president. It will only happen if we walk away from the current system and live differently.
-
Permalink Reply by erinely on
-
Hi Afriendof B,
I do agree with much of what you say but I still believe that our political system can set the tone for an environment of change in our country. You are talking about from the ground up, yes we all need to be conscious about the choices we make to live every day, there is absolutely no doubt about that.
Our way of living can be influenced by the government if it is mandated. Which may have to happen if we want fuel efficient cars (lets face it Americans are not going to stop driving), if we want corporations that are not raping the environment, if we want jobs in our own country and not have them shipped off shore, if we want true health care access for everyone. I do not support the current medical allopathic health care system, we need this changed.
I cannot expect every American to think like me and who am I to say that they should? Most people just want to have a decent place to live, time with their family, enough money to take care of their needs, decent health care. They don't want to have to worry about how they are going to pay their bills every month. We need to have decent food for everyone to eat, our food system is bankrupt.
If they don't agree with me on how that should be done I do not expect them to "fall in line" with my way of thinking. That's where the government comes in, to set the tone for the country, to help bring some awareness to peoples minds. Let's face it all people in the US are not going to live at the most level of simplicity.
You're right the president by him or herself cannot change in a fundamental way, the daily way of living in the country.
We have to do this ourselves but, there are many different avenues to make this happen and the political system is one of them. We need government, I'm sorry but we do need some form of government because all people will not make choices that are in the best interest of the people and the environment.
As much as I would like to think this will happen, I don't believe it will happen...isn't that Libertarian thinking? Government out of our lives, all people take personal responsibility. But, what does that mean for each individual? How is that translated?
I just don't believe that "we will walk away from the current system" and live differently, you might do it, Nina might do it and I might do it but what about the millions of other people in the US that don't think like you do?
The best things that are happening in regards to the environment and innovation are not coming from the government most likely but the government does provide some protection for research and various other things that are not purely driven by profit motives.
When I look at the Federal government I just feel overwhelmed with the amount of "wrongness" that is there. But don't we contribute to that with our own cynicisms and lack of participation in our government? It's much easier to just do our own thing and walk away from the system.
I know I don't want to run for office and be a government official, personally I don't know how anyone does it, but I do believe there are people in government that really do want to see things changed and they do want to see a significant change in a fundamental way.
Without our support and work and help to make this happen, then the only other option is to walk away?
I do think that living can change from governmental mandate, there are a lot of things the government can do to change things, the question is are they willing and able to do it?
Without a true democratic majority in the house and the senate and a democratic president and supreme court justices that have liberal positions it's going to be difficult. We need to have the majority opinion in all three branches of the government. I think that is the best hope we have for seeing some fundamental changes in the government, and that is why I think it is important to not give up on the system....because this is the election that could bring this forward for us.
We will always need to keep grassroots going, change from the ground up, this is a mandate from the people and I believe in that but I'm not ready to give up on the system yet.
Regards,
Erin
-
Permalink Reply by Afriendof B on
-
Erin,
There has not ever been a government mandated change that has really worked. If the enforcement is strong enough you get the appearance of change, but it doesn't really change how people act when they think they won't get caught. Just look at our civil rights history, and the programs put in place to "fix" the problem, or at any of the socialist or other government driven social reforms throughout the history of the world and you will see that meaningful change will never come from the top down. (You can also look to the struggles of any of the major religions to keep their people in line. Mandate doesn't work.)
Stay involved in politics! Hope for the best. But, spend your everyday life trying to live in a different way, by a different story, and helping others who are interested do the same. We will not be saved by the government or the gods. Our only real hope is conscious individual effort to live in a completely new way.
-
Permalink Reply by Calliope on -
AfreindofB, government-mandated change isn't the only way that the sitting President affects the course of the country.
Over the years there's something very subtle but profoundly real that I've noticed: during different administrations different types of individual behaviour get a boost - keyed to the personality of the President. There is just a vague pervasive blessing, a little more grease on the rails, for behaviours that emulate the model from the top.
During the current Bush years, the blessing has been on mean-spiritedness, the end justifying the means, might-makes-right, and secrecy is power. During the Clinton years, the blessing was on parsing meanings, the validity of the double life, secrecy as survival cover. During Bush 1 times it was a teensy bit easier to, with elegance and great propriety, refuse to learn anything or budge from your position.
From that perspective, Obama could have a profound influence on "conscious individual effort". What if, everywhere you live and act, people are just a little more willing to listen to each other, embrace complexity, do more of their own thinking and choosing, talk more honestly about the consequences they see? All not through any enforced requirement, but just through some pretty unconscious behaviour modeling.
- 1
- 2
© 2008 Created by Bioneers on Ning. Create your own social network
