DemoMockracy

You know that the Democrats are overconfident when they pull the plug on a primary in a blue state that turned purple and now is really red, for all practical purposes. Personally, I hate this "red state, "blue state" and the newly-coined "purple state"—not quite republican or democratic—designation, but since I'm metaphorically challenged today, I'll use the lexicon most familiar. Because Michigan moved its primary from March something to January 15th, the National Democratic Party invoked some arcane rule about giving Iowa, New Hampshire precedence, ( and apparently Nevada too.) So it was a square-off between the national party, led by the feisty Howard Dean, and the state party. The state party lost the battle (and the war), and therefore, like refusing to cross a picket line, almost all the democratic candidates opted off of the primary ballot. You could for Hillary Clinton, Chris Dodd, who had already withdrawn from the race, or be "Undecided": if you dare wrote someone in, your ballot was thrown out. The Republicans, to their credit, didn't pull the same shenanigans, so they had the full list of candidates. So, since the Michigan primary is an open primary, Democrats, such as myself, went to play in the Republican sandbox. Unfortunately, many did so in a nefarious way. Most Democrats I know voted for Mitt Romney in order to split up the primaries between Republican candidates, and thus make it a more arduous task for a Republican candidate to win, and then begin the presidential campaign as the party's nominee. I, instead, voted my conscience.

So why this Democratic hubris? Does the national party think that Michigan doesn't count? That its citizens will overlook the fact that we were basically disenfranchised? Presently, there is a lawsuit being filed against the national party, alleging "taxation without representation," basically that voters who wanted to cast votes for Obama or Edwards were thwarted by the party's Machiavellian antics. Although litigation is not always the best means to pursue political equity, in this case it's merited.

I have one word for Howard Dean: Ohio.

Return of the Prodigal Daughter

I know, I know, it's been forever since I posted. Initially it was due to poor health and teaching load, but then—as many of you know—it became like a room that really needs painting: you want to paint it, you have the paint, you moved out all the furniture, but due to circumstances became sidetracked, and then find it extremely hard to resume. Then you feel guilty for not painting, and find other things to do, like cleaning out closets. It becomes a vicious cycle of guilt and regret that nothing short of sheer will (and maybe psychoanalysis) will break.

So it is a new semester and year, thus a fresh start.

I'm teaching Oedipus Rex by Sophocles this semester, and it never fails to provoke the thought that humankind has not learned much in 3000 years about the narcosis of power, and what it leads to: exile and a willful blindness, in order to not face the truth of what a fine mess the misuse of power and resulting hubris has wrought. Sometimes I feel like the United States is a figurative Oedipus, exiled from much of the world community and becoming so insular, it leads to "a blindness" of sorts, a reluctance to accept criticism or truth. Oedipus threatens to either torture or kill those who come to him bearing truth (fearing that they are trying to destroy him or usurp his crown); our government bullies the UN (which has its own power issues) or NATO or governments that disagree with our policies. Presently, we are in a dust up with NATO, who has repeatedly indicated over the past six years that the U.S. has not dedicated enough troops to fighting the Taliban (most returning U.S. vets from Afghanistan state the same). So, in a classic example of hubris, Defense Secretary Gates launched a salvo at NATO, implying that we are now sending 3000 marines to the country because the NATO forces 'do not know how to fight a guerrilla war.' I'm sure that our stunning success in Iraq before the surge, and perhaps even with the surge, fighting a guerrilla war impresses NATO commanders. And I'm sure that British forces, who have fought guerrilla wars around the globe for over a century, were especially impressed! We risk further "exile" if we anger NATO partners to the point they decide to reduce their respective troop strength.

Because of the impending presidential election, and because of the interminable campaigning and primary season, a lot of the recent government's machinations regarding Afghanistan have gone unnoticed. We, the public, are blinded by power too.

The election, the primaries, and especially what happened in Michigan are for another post.