Campaigns and memories
Nov. 5th, 2002 11:16 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
semperfionaAll the election and campaign discussions this year have made me feel like I need to get back into politics again. I need to volunteer for a campaign, to get into some local activism organizations, to do something that has a bigger effect than my own house.
In 1992 my friend Kelly--whom incidentally I hadn't even thought of for months or years until today--got me involved in Sen. Tom Harkin's presidential bid. I can't remember what all I did, anymore, but I know I was there at his St Louis campaign office many evenings stuffing envelopes and making calls. It was during that campaign that I first really started drinking coffee.
At that time Missouri did not have a presidential primary election. We had caucuses instead, and to participate in the caucus you had to be a member of a ward party chapter. I was a member of the 8th Ward Democrats. I had a card in my wallet and everything. By the time of the Missouri caucuses Harkin had quit his campaign due to lack of success in other states, so everyone at the caucus who had come there to support him first went for Jerry Brown.
That of course is the reason they gave up caucuses after that election: it tended to cause the more radical candidates to win, and the national party wanted centrist candidates like Clinton who might appeal more broadly to the rest of the country. I'm not so sure that is a good thing. It has tended to water down the message until we have very little to distinguish the parties from each other. There are still a few things, of course, but nowadays it seems to me that that is because the Republicans have gone further right--right into the pockets of the Christian Coalition--and the Democrats have moved into the empty space in the middle.
But I didn't actually start this with the intent of writing a discourse on party politics. I intended to talk about something else altogether. So I shall leave this digression and rant half-formed and return to my original topic. I was working for the Harkin campaign, and spending two or three evenings a week and some Saturdays on it. I was also taking an RPG/400 programming course at Meramec Community College. (Yes, I know. No, I don't remember a thing about it except that it had some really weird column-based structure rules. No, I never used it for anything. Did briefly use the AS/400 environment background I picked up in the course of the class.)
First day of that class, a dark-haired dark-eyed man walked in, looked around the room, and sat right next to me. Over the next several Saturday mornings we got acquainted, talked about all sorts of things, I helped him with his assignments, one of our classmates--a skanky old man with greasy black hair--made a fuss because we talked too much in the computer lab...I went back to work during the week and told my friends I'd met someone I thought I liked, blah blah blah blah. But he never asked me out.
Finally I decided I was going to have to make the first move myself. I was going to ask him to have coffee after class. But then one Saturday, I had some campaign obligation or other and had to leave class early. So I handed him a scrap of paper with my phone number on it and said, "For the homework." I figured if he was too dense to figure out what to do with that...!
That, of course, was Ray. He did call, and we talked for about two hours that first night. He asked me out to the Funny Bone comedy club; we went on the following Saturday night. We got to talking about Star Trek: The Next Generation because the show was on while we were out and he was somewhat regretting missing it. I told him I had taped it, so after the comedy show we adjourned to my apartment and watched Star Trek. One thing led to another, and he stayed the night. Next morning, we went to the Missouri Botanical Garden and spent most of the day there.
It was quite a good first date, and we were pretty much inseparable after that. We quickly settled into a routine where he stayed over about three nights a week, and on December 12, 1992 we got married.
Years later when the marriage was starting to crumble, he blamed all our problems on our sexual activity while dating.
In 1992 my friend Kelly--whom incidentally I hadn't even thought of for months or years until today--got me involved in Sen. Tom Harkin's presidential bid. I can't remember what all I did, anymore, but I know I was there at his St Louis campaign office many evenings stuffing envelopes and making calls. It was during that campaign that I first really started drinking coffee.
At that time Missouri did not have a presidential primary election. We had caucuses instead, and to participate in the caucus you had to be a member of a ward party chapter. I was a member of the 8th Ward Democrats. I had a card in my wallet and everything. By the time of the Missouri caucuses Harkin had quit his campaign due to lack of success in other states, so everyone at the caucus who had come there to support him first went for Jerry Brown.
That of course is the reason they gave up caucuses after that election: it tended to cause the more radical candidates to win, and the national party wanted centrist candidates like Clinton who might appeal more broadly to the rest of the country. I'm not so sure that is a good thing. It has tended to water down the message until we have very little to distinguish the parties from each other. There are still a few things, of course, but nowadays it seems to me that that is because the Republicans have gone further right--right into the pockets of the Christian Coalition--and the Democrats have moved into the empty space in the middle.
But I didn't actually start this with the intent of writing a discourse on party politics. I intended to talk about something else altogether. So I shall leave this digression and rant half-formed and return to my original topic. I was working for the Harkin campaign, and spending two or three evenings a week and some Saturdays on it. I was also taking an RPG/400 programming course at Meramec Community College. (Yes, I know. No, I don't remember a thing about it except that it had some really weird column-based structure rules. No, I never used it for anything. Did briefly use the AS/400 environment background I picked up in the course of the class.)
First day of that class, a dark-haired dark-eyed man walked in, looked around the room, and sat right next to me. Over the next several Saturday mornings we got acquainted, talked about all sorts of things, I helped him with his assignments, one of our classmates--a skanky old man with greasy black hair--made a fuss because we talked too much in the computer lab...I went back to work during the week and told my friends I'd met someone I thought I liked, blah blah blah blah. But he never asked me out.
Finally I decided I was going to have to make the first move myself. I was going to ask him to have coffee after class. But then one Saturday, I had some campaign obligation or other and had to leave class early. So I handed him a scrap of paper with my phone number on it and said, "For the homework." I figured if he was too dense to figure out what to do with that...!
That, of course, was Ray. He did call, and we talked for about two hours that first night. He asked me out to the Funny Bone comedy club; we went on the following Saturday night. We got to talking about Star Trek: The Next Generation because the show was on while we were out and he was somewhat regretting missing it. I told him I had taped it, so after the comedy show we adjourned to my apartment and watched Star Trek. One thing led to another, and he stayed the night. Next morning, we went to the Missouri Botanical Garden and spent most of the day there.
It was quite a good first date, and we were pretty much inseparable after that. We quickly settled into a routine where he stayed over about three nights a week, and on December 12, 1992 we got married.
Years later when the marriage was starting to crumble, he blamed all our problems on our sexual activity while dating.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2002-11-06 04:06 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2002-11-06 04:14 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2002-11-06 06:23 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2002-11-06 09:13 am (UTC)I hate talking politics with people I like but with whom I know I'll disagree with . . . but what are your thoughts on the Libertarian party?
no subject
Date: 2002-11-06 01:07 pm (UTC)But as to the Libertarians, I agree with them on a number of issues, mostly social. Marry whoever you want? Damn straight.
However, I find the idea of removing all governmental regulation frightening. I just don't believe strongly enough in the innate altruism of human beings. I think removing all regulation would result in the "survival of the fittest". Sometimes people just need help. Yes, I know there may be people who take advantage of it, but I'd rather help a few people who don't deserve it than leave those truly in need without any recourse.
And at least people have some chance of speaking up to defend themselves. What about the environment? What would protect our ecosystem from spoilage in the pursuit of capital? We've already seen erosion of the environmental protections under Bush: drilling for oil in a wildlife preserve? Excuse me?
no subject
Date: 2002-11-06 01:34 pm (UTC)My greatest fear with voting Libertarian is the lack of regulation. I'm not a big supporter of legalism of drugs, nor do I like to see the environment raped to benefit corporate greed.
That said, I also see far too many paralells between the war on drugs and the prohibition era. I also believe that resources are there to be used, and I cannot see unregulated commerce managing resources in an intelligent, renewable fashion. (c.f. overfishing)
So, in the end, I'm not completely a Libertarian either. Politics is and always will be about compramise . . . those who don't understand that should never consider a career in politics.
I am, and likely always will remain a proudly independent voter.
no subject
Date: 2002-11-06 04:01 pm (UTC)And I'm not a drug user, either: I've smoked pot exactly once in my life. But I don't see how Joe Blow's use of pot (or any other drug) harms me in any way whatever.
I agree that resources are there to be used. But...not to extinction. Using something isn't the same as using it up.
no subject
Date: 2002-11-07 06:39 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2002-11-07 10:04 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2002-11-08 09:53 am (UTC)You definity have good points there.
>I just don't believe strongly enough in the innate altruism of human beings. I think removing all regulation would result in the "survival of the fittest". Sometimes people just need help.
Agreed. But the problem lies in having the Government provide that help. doing so enforces compassion, something that is impossible to do. In fact, taking money from people who don't want to give it, and taking it at gunpoint, only increases resentment of the needy. Unfair, yes. But its a reality. Government welfare also creates a culture of dependence that weakens the needy, and the children of the needy, all without addressing the root of the problem. The role of the Government is not to guarentee everyone happiness, but only to guarente the ability to pursue happiness. To put it another way: "Equality" means Equality of Oppertunity, not Equality of Results.
>What about the environment? What would protect our ecosystem from spoilage in the pursuit of capital? We've already seen erosion of the environmental protections under Bush: drilling for oil in a wildlife preserve? Excuse me?
Contrary to popular belief, the LP DOES actually have an enviromental policy, one that makes more sense than Republican, Democrat, or Green party. Check it out (http://www.lp.org/issues/environment.html). It basically boils down to this: poluting the Enviroment is a violation of everyone's rights. Therefor punish the crap out of anyone who does so. Make it more expensive to pollute than to run a clean shop. The big problem is, guess who is the #1 polluter? The Government. and the Governement can't be punished for such offences. Soverign Imunity. Its a bitch. So, the LP plans to get rid of Soverign Immunity, and apply the same Draconian punishments to the guilty, even if they happen to be a bueracrat or a 3 star General
no subject
Date: 2002-11-08 02:40 pm (UTC)The upshot of all of it is that I feel the purpose of government is to find and enforce the balance between conflicting rights, whether between individuals or groups or nations. For example, balancing the right of everyone to clean air with each person's right of maximizing their profit. I readily grant that the present government (both parties, thank you) is not accomplishing this balance very well, but I don't see that replacing the current structure with anything else is likely to help. I feel it what we have is more successful than the alternative would be.
If I had the luxury of choosing everyone I'd allow into my hypothetical country, I would probably be as libertarian as you are, if not straight up anarchist. I was writing up part of my ideas of Fitopia the other day (and I may someday make a story out of it, it started promising plots). The whole thing relies on individual and group responsibility. However, I got stuck for the time being on how one a) determines and b) punishes failures of responsibility. Someone has to monitor the system.
In fact, taking money from people who don't want to give it, and taking it at gunpoint, only increases resentment of the needy. Unfair, yes. But its a reality.
You're proving my point. People are generally selfish. How do you get past individual selfishness to accomplishing things which are to the common good? Isn't that what government, or really leadership, is for?
Government welfare also creates a culture of dependence that weakens the needy, and the children of the needy, all without addressing the root of the problem.
In that case, what is the root of the problem and how would you propose addressing it?
Contrary to popular belief, the LP DOES actually have an enviromental policy, one that makes more sense than Republican, Democrat, or Green party. Check it out.
I just read it. What she seems to be saying is that the government would cede ownership of public lands to private corporations or non-profit organizations, and rely on their protecting their own property to keep the ecosystem in order?
This seems to me like the classic prisoner's dilemma. If everyone cooperates to keep the environment healthy, we all win an apparently-small victory. However, if I destroy my bit of the environment, but everyone else carries on protecting theirs, I win a big victory. If we all destroy our bits, we all lose. Unfortunately, human nature (and lots of experiments have been done to explore this sort of process) decrees that the likeliest scenario is everybody loses.
On further thought, both of these issues are instances of that dilemma. Altruism from everyone produces a healthier society. Altruism from "everyone else except me" insures me a big advantage (I get to keep more money, make more profits, etc). Selfishness from everyone insures the whole society a huge loss.
What's even worse is that the societal gains and losses are intangible, very difficult to measure in terms of money, and worth different things to each individual, while their personal profits are easily counted, and that the damage to society from selfishness does not increase linearly. One polluter is not a problem to the overall society, generally speaking: the effects dissipate to below the threshold of harm. Three may still be safe. But at some point a line is crossed which causes the effects that had previously dissipated to snowball instead. Recovery is not possible. However, no one can know in advance where that line is, and a
Surfing around to find information on the Prisoner's Dilemma, I found some interesting reading. The Tragedy of the Commons. I'm not saying I agree with his conclusions; I'm not quite sure what I think yet. But the principle remains that when each individual maximizes their own gain, the group loses. How do we keep that from happening?
no subject
Date: 2002-11-08 02:42 pm (UTC)However, no one can know in advance where that line is, and a
Oops. Editing goof. I'm not quite sure what the rest of that sentence was supposed to be, so let's just say it read "No one can know in advance where that line is."