Tag Archives: obama

The politics of charisma

Posted on by
1

Among my friends, one of the most prevalent reasons for distrusting Obama, even now, is that he’s too charismatic. This argument annoys me to no end, because like any stupid justification, it’s not grounded in fact and ignores information that would have taken about five minutes on Google to find.

Early in the campaign when no one knew who he was, Obama’s charisma was a valid consideration to bring up. Was there any substance to his rhetoric? How would he govern? Did he have the capacity to handle the Presidency? As the campaign went on and he demonstrated that he was competent, this argument became less and less of an issue. And in the months following his electoral victory, he proved that he could act quickly and decisively and act transparently, through his first executive actions and cabinet appointments.

So why is the fact that he’s popular still a strike against him now that we’ve learned that he’s not just an empty suit and he is fully capable of the Presidency? If you’re a conservative and reasonably well-informed, there are so many other points to hit him on. I suspect it’s because most of the people that subscribe to the “popularity makes me suspicious” meme are not well-informed.

It’s an easy argument to make, because most people will consider it reasonable to mistrust something that’s popular. That cynicism appears to most people as intelligence. It’s the same reason people believe in retarded conspiracy theories. It’s the belief that you’re not one of the sheeple and that you’re sticking it to The Man.

During every election cycle, there’s always someone that reminds everyone else that the Antichrist is supposed to charismatic. I guess the implication is that we’re not supposed to vote for that particular candidate, but that conclusion is retarded based on theology. I mean, if a particular candidate is the Antichrist, they’d be in power regardless according to prophecy. So why does that have any bearing on your political views?

The other case study in “popular people are bad” is always Hitler. The fact that this argument even works betrays the lack of informedness among the people having the conversation. Anyone with even a cursory knowledge of history can explain why. Reagan was ridiculously popular, but American conservatives still worship him. Or how about Roosevelt or Kennedy?

This argument is made even more ridiculous when you consider that most of the people that I talk to are in their twenties. They’re always suspicious of super-charismatic politicians? Who was the last politician with charisma that they would’ve been suspicious of? Was it Clinton or Chretien? George H.W. Bush? Brian Mulroney? For the States, it probably would’ve been Reagan, but none of my friends would’ve been born. For Canada, it’s even more hilarious, because it’s probably be Trudeau.

But this matters because this idea harms good candidates while promoting bad ones. Under this hypothesis, getting people to like you and having a firm grasp of English and rhetoric is bad while oversimplifying issues and sounding like an idiot is good. What other reason is there for labeling anyone who can put coherent sentences together an elitist? Why else would McCain be pressed to choose Palin? Why else would George W. Bush win the presidency twice?

Not supporting a particular politician just because they’re charismatic is just a way for someone to avoid being called out for not actually understanding anything and is a convenient way to avoid having fact bear on their political views while not having to justify it.

I had a dream

Posted on by
Reply

It was back when I was in Seattle for PAX. It was Saturday night and since our hotel was about half an hour away from the convention centre, we decided to skip out on that night’s concerts. Even though I was looking forward to seeing Anamanaguchi, the Minibosses, MC Frontalot, and the Darkest of the Hillside Thickets, the physically painful experience of attending the Friday night concerts was enough to persuade me from pushing for it. After all, Jonathan Coulton and the OneUps were awesome enough as it were.

Anyhow, we got back to the hotel at about 10 pm and realized that we hadn’t eaten yet, so we ordered some pizza from Pizza Hut, which I was thrilled with since that was during the height of Code Geass R2 mania. Anyhow, while were nom-nom-noming on delicious stuffed crust, we had the TV on. It was only two nights before that Obama gave his nomination acceptance speech in Denver. That night, CNN was running a documentary about Obama’s life from the start all the way up to present day.

The dream that I had when I fell asleep was unique in that I could clearly recount the details. I was at the White House and everyone was in like the garden or something sitting around a bunch of tables like you would at a cafe, and George W. Bush was addressing everyone there. Now, Bush being Bush, he was saying some garbage, the details of which I don’t remember. But, I did think what he said was incredibly stupid, so being the devastatingly sarcastic smartass that I am, I heckled him.

Understandably, Bush was pissed as hell that I was heckling him. He walked over, very angry-like and confrontational and overall had a fairly threatening composure. Of course, as luck would have it, Obama was at my table, and he noticed angry Bush approaching. He decided to step in and try and calm him down, but Bush wasn’t having any of it. So, Obama being the cool guy that he is, decides to swing back with an utterly devastating remark to Bush.

How did I know his remark was devastating? Because immediately, Bush looked absolutely dejected and he turned around and walked back to the stage slowly. And what would be an excellent burn without a high-five? So I gave Obama a high-five and we were very pleased with ourselves and smiling and all.

Congratulations, America and hi5, President Obama.

Techmology 2

Posted on by
Reply

A while ago, I wrote about the effect of technology on our social interactions and relationships. And now I return with more, sparked with a random thought that entered my head. That thought was that I kind of take for granted the knowledge I have about how all of this crap works. I mean, I’m not good enough at it that I can do anything useful, but I know enough to know that it’s not the result of some sorcelations. And then, at the risk of sounding elitist, what logically follows is the scary thought that most people have no idea how computers or the interwebs work.

This is a problem. It causes an unrealistic expectation of what this thing we have built can and cannot do. This becomes more of a problem now that our society is fairly integrated with it. Ten years ago, people were kind of crawling around and exploring this new-fangled thing. Today, people are participating in it. It has defined our society. We now have this thing sitting around that can reach everyone in the nation that everyone can be a part of.

You may remember that I am a fan of Barack Obama. I have mentioned in passing that one of the reasons why I support him is because of his promise to make government data online in universally accessible formats, which is one of the many things he has included in his technology platform. The thing is, though, this will not be a huge thing to anyone who doesn’t understand how computers work. Most people don’t see why this will help “create a transparent and connected democracy”.

Of course, this ties into the other issue of open formats. People don’t understand why keeping documents as Microsoft Word files is a bad idea. People don’t understand why digital rights management is unnecessary. People don’t question service providers on things like bandwidth caps or network neutrality.

I am a fairly large proponent for using technology to improve our democracy. It stems largely from the same basic argument that I laid out in my last post about social relationships and technology. We’re still not taking technology seriously and using it properly. Again, the same basic problem is the people. Technology is not magic. It doesn’t automatically solve all our problems.

How does our government become corrupt? We let it become corrupt by being uninformed and apathetic. Technology solves one of those problems. Obama’s technology platform gives people the tools to be informed. Making government data available, making live feeds of government proceedings available, web tools to track government finances, and using wikis and blogs for public communication are all ways to give people information and let them do something with it.

It’s these sorts of things that convince me of Obama’s trustworthiness. And the wonderful thing is that he’s proven this power. He’s already crafted legislation that created USAspending.gov, he’s centralized his supporters on his website by giving them forums and blogs, and he’s managed to outraise every other candidate using his website and refusing lobbyist money at the same time. It’s also these sorts of things that have convinced me of the power of technology to shape an open and accountable government.

And this is why we need to understand how all of this works. I’m sure you can see how easy it would be for someone to do just the opposite of all of this and actually take away our rights and freedoms using technology, simply because we don’t understand it. It’s already started with digital rights management and the DMCA in the US. This is why technology occupies a large weight in terms of my political considerations. It’s definitely the reason why I’m an NDP supporter, what with their support of network neutrality and real copyright reform (as opposed to the Conservatives’ and Liberals’ capitulation to American interests).

Again, technology is something that we shouldn’t and can’t be afraid of if we want to harness it for good. If we don’t, we’re just letting it sit around as an easy way to catch up on TV shows when it can be so much more. And the danger is that if we don’t use it, someone else will.

More on Obama

Posted on by
Reply

Earlier in the US Presidential race, I mentioned briefly that if I were an American, I would definitely support Barack Obama. I’m not going to get into the liberalism versus conservatism thing here, because I will most definitely talk about that later on. But, my belief in the necessity of Obama winning the White House will be what I’m going to be getting into.

At the beginning of the race, I’d believed that as long as the Republicans don’t win, the States should be set. Both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama were very strong candidates and both should have been able to beat McCain. I’d chosen Obama for his commitment to open governance, his goal to unify the nation, and his belief in rising above the same old crapflinging in politics.

My point of view began to change when Obama started overtaking Clinton in the primaries and Clinton’s campaign began becoming increasingly negative. And as Obama began winning more and more and her victory slipped away, in her desperation, she revealed her true nature. In the last few weeks she has definitely differentiated herself with Obama.

The last few weeks of her campaign have been nothing but lying and flinging crap at Obama. This is exactly the kind of politics that Obama has been campaigning against. This is the reason why Hillary Clinton cannot be allowed to win. This is the reason why, at this point, I would not be able to bring myself to support her if she won. While they may be almost identical in policy, their character is obviously completely different.

And the reason why Obama needs to win is because he’s been taking all of this crap and not doing the same in return. He isn’t lying about his experience. He isn’t bringing up Clinton’s slipups. All he has been doing in response to these attacks is refuting them one right after another and demonstrating his ability and commitment to not get entangled in that crap, while trying to focus the contest on the issues.

And at this point, it is impossible for Clinton to win without the Democratic superdelegates overturning the popular vote and pledged delegate count. Should this happen, it would deal two fairly significant blows to democracy in the States. Party officials overturning the will of the people is not something that is a good sign, and in doing so, it would signal a rejection of change in the way American politics is conducted. I’m sure that after eight years of George W. Bush, more of the same is the last thing the United States needs.

Mr President

Posted on by
Reply

This is a post that I really should have written a few weeks ago, but time did not really allow, and I didn’t feel that much of a need to. After spending a bit of today following what’s been going on, however, I felt compelled to finally get to this. This is a post about politics, so be warned, lest you be swept away by my tide of opinion.

As you all know, there’s a little contest being held right now by our neighbours to the south. It’ll be a while before it’s finished, but it seems like things are moving at right about this moment. Yes, I know I’m a Canadian and don’t have a say in this, but I feel the need to echo what many people I respect are saying. And ultimately, the outcome of this fight will affect us up here.

There’s a ridiculous difference in the atmosphere of this presidential race from the one we had in 2004. Back then, all we cared about was getting the Republicans and Bush out. The choice was basically Bush vs. not Bush, and that sort of race doesn’t exactly inspire people. Not so, this time.

I should mention that I am very, very liberal. Many times, people confuse that for being Liberal. That is not so, as I am so liberal that I am not Liberal, but New Democrat. It’s taken me a while to come to terms with this, but I’ve fully embraced this fact during the last election.

Anyhow, essentially, I’ve decided to throw my worthless, non-US-citizen support behind Barack Obama.

So why did I feel a need to go ahead and voice my support for him? Everything that I’ve read about him leads me to believe that he really gets it. For me, the largest issues in politics pretty much revolves around civil liberties, democracy, accountability, and technology. He pretty much hits the nail on the head with respect to these things.

There are many people that have some fame and notoriety on the Internet who are smart and share my sentiments. Randall Munroe and Lawrence Lessig are among several who’ve written about their support for Obama. These are people whose opinions I trust, for their work in the area of the above issues.

Specifically, it’s his positions on network neutrality and his plan to keep the government accountable through the use of technology, making government data open by using standard machine-readable formats. And it’s this smart combination of technology and democratic governance that appeals to me and, evidently, many notables who have the same concerns.

I highly suggest that those of you who also share my choice of election issues to read the endorsements by Randall and especially Lawrence Lessig’s. Lessig’s posts really describe Obama’s character well and the stark difference that the other candidates sort of emit. It’s really been a long while since I’ve felt excited at the prospect of how the Presidential elections can change the States.