Fire with Fire

It looks as if Obama is doing the same thing to McCain now that he did to Clinton in the Primaries. The popular vote is tightening a bit...but look at the electoral map. He has steadily been creating a stable and ever-growing lead. Will it hold? At this point McCain has a steeper hill to climb (according to some pundits) than any candidate in modern history. I can't help but think that we're seeing is a genuine change in the American political landscape.

There have to be many, many solid reasons for a reasonable person to vote against Obama, or vote Republican. But there is a lot of fuzzy thinking going on as well--or, at least, thinking I consider fuzzy. Clustered over on the Conservative side are not only millions of solid, intelligent citizens, but also a substantial number of people who believe

1) Obama is a Muslim

2) Ally Oop rode dinosaurs.

3) Gay people are evil, sick, or sinful.

4) Think black people are less than white people

It is reasonable that those of us who don't believe any of these four things wonder what Barack's lead would be if you subtracted these groups. Jeeze, I'm sure that Conservatives look at some of the stuff believed on the Left and shake their heads...for their sake, I hope it looks just as whacky to them.

In terms of the issues at stake in this election, one of the huge ones is Universal Health Care. I've talked with dozens of people from around the world on this issue, and some are enthusiastic about their country's system, others talk about it as if it's the Post Office. But I literally, LITERALLY, know people contemplating suicide because, after a lifetime of work, they are now sick and broken, and fatigued unto death from trying to navigate the system. UHC just doesn't seem to be a disaster, and I strongly suspect that in a generation we'll consider it as much of the Commons as Universal Education. Now, there are certainly people who (rightly) criticise our education system, but odd how rarely it is spoken that almost every system pointed out as superior to ours is...tax-based, public education. It seems to me that the wrong lessons are being learned. It isn't necessarily that we need to change to charter schools (although if that helped create a competitive environment for teachers, I might be in favor of it) but that we aren't modeling success properly.

It urks me when I see people criticise Unions, when they speak as if management can be trusted by union organizers can't. This, to me, is just blindness. They're the same people, arguing on different sides of the table. And if you weaken one, the other will take all the chips. I've been in career situations where I've earned much more than the union demanded, and therefore didn't need them at all. And others where management would have screwed me right into the ground without those union rules. People are just people. A BIG percentage of 'em will take everything that isn't nailed down, and justify it rationally and sincerely as if they are entitled to it.

Those who believe (reasonably) that there are some with greater capacity than others almost always assume they are part of that group, and it seems to me also share an underlying belief that not only is their group smarter, but also "better" morally and ethically. I've seen this in every race, gender, sexual orientation, and political persuasion. Mike Malloy is just as vile and insulting as Micheal Savage--only in the other direction. Gays rag on straights, and women are just as convinced of their superiority as men are. Blacks criticise whites for racism, while making racist assumptions of their own.

I try very hard to keep out of those arguments, considering them games for the sleeping children. When you can hold your position, and love yourself, without automatically thinking less of those who hold differing opinions...you have made a leap.

##

Regarding Obama's relatives. For a politician as astute as Obama to refuse to help a relative would be a staggering omission--assuming that he didn't give a shit about her, he should still maintain the APPEARANCE of generosity, right? That said, it might be an omission, and evidence of some lack or flaw on his part.

ﾠ

But on the other hand...there isn't a rich person in the world without poor relatives, and that is regardless of the level of that wealthy person's generosity. We simply don't know the factors here, but I can think of one, quite easily:

ﾠ

Ever tried to get an elderly relative to move from a bad neighborhood? If you haven't, and haven't heard the degree to which they cling to friends, and familiar routines, and wish to assert independence, and so forth...frustrating as hell. I remember a relative of mine who wrote a script entitled "The Ghetto...it's Hell, but I won't leave it" (honest!) that speaks to this.

ﾠ

We don't know. And without information, the assumptions we make will, I suspect, do no more than express our pre-existing beliefs. I can think of both negative, neutral, and positive reasons for his aunt to be living where she does. If you can't, you may want to wonder why.

##

ﾠ
"I just saw someone say that he'd said that Obama needed to fight fire with fire, and now he realizes that the high road was better.

And I just posted this video, which has quite a bit about how to get a good open source group by protecting where the group's attention goes. This includes avoiding fights while not avoiding useful feedback.

So, I'm wondering what virtues are needed in addition to distaste for conflict. I note that "ignore them and they'll go away" is frequently just not good enough, as was shown by Kerry and the Swift Boat problem.

So, does it take courage? Intelligence? Specific knowledge about how to deal with people? Something else?"

ﾠ

The ability to kill. Frankly, the deadliest people I know are best at turning the other cheek. If you run from a fight because you can't win, that is quantitatively and quantitatively different from walking away because you are afraid. I read an interview with Obama's Tae Kwon Do instructor, who said that O's defensive footwork was "incredible." In order to have a good defence, you MUST be able to hurt your opponent. If he has no need to fear you, he will simply wade in and take you apart.

So...understand human weakness, and your potential attack lines. I've told the story about being mugged in Oakland, and talking the guy down. What made it work is that I was thinking about crushing his larynx the entire time. Clear visualization in my mind. If he'd made the wrong choice, I was going to try my very best to kill him. He chose peace.

ﾠ

If Obama wins, part of the reason is that he forced his opponents to play HIS game, fight HIS fight, dance to his rhythm. So long as you can do that, the old attacks just don't work as well. Functionally, McCain was playing checkers, and Obama was playing chess. Of course, if he loses, I'm gonna look pretty dumb saying that, but who cares?