Well, as the first of the new set of articles, this article will be notably more subjective than the previous ones. Let’s start with a subject that I’m sure is a (relatively) hot topic – the Democrat race to the nominations. The recent Pennsylvania primaries were supposed to either make or break Hillary Clinton’s campaign – however, it did neither. A resounding victory would have really launched the former first lady back into the campaign, while a defeat would spell the end of her campaign.
Mrs. Clinton did not go down in defeat, but neither did she win a convincing victory. In other words, the latest primary just kept her alive, to lengthen the race. She still has a chance of victory, but this primary really did not change anything in the long run – the race still maintains the same nature it has since Mr. Obama took the lead.
However, what was important about the Pennsylvania primary is that it brought out the ‘pity me’ Democrat nature that never seems to be away from the party. Mrs. Clinton capitalized on Mr. Obama’s statements about rural Pennsylvanians (a justified one, by all means) and then portrayed herself as a poor humble (grand) daughter of a millworker. Mrs. Rodham has managed to bring back the typical Democrat attitude to nominations by portraying Mr. Obama as an elitist and herself as an impoverished proletarian.
Mrs. Clinton lived a cushy suburban life, but as all Democrats, she holds the idea that her grandfather’s life as a millworker had a direct effect upon her, growing up in the suburbs of Chicago. Here is the problem with the Democratic party. Without fail, at every election, they will consistently manage to show the incredibly difficult lives of their parents, grandparents, and occaisonally great-grandparents. But why do they need to prove to the voters that their ancestors had a tough life? In all honesty, who cares? What impact does that have upon the campaign and how the candidate conducts themselves? Personally, I would expect that a candidate would use their personal experience and knowledge to approach problems in the modern era – not bank on the tough experiences of those that are long gone, and who lived in a completely different world than we live in today.
Hillary Clinton’s pandering to the proletarians was just what won her the Pennsylvania primary – and now, of course, Mr. Obama will make his grand debut, speaking sermons about the suffering of his ancestors as goat herders. Why does it matter how impoverished the candidates’ grandfathers were? This should not have any effect upon the race – but yet it does. American proletarians (and middle-class workers as well) are voting for the candidates, who are obviously just playing up their past to get votes. At the end of the day, it won’t be the working class that will get the tax cuts, regardless of the leader of the nation. The facade made so obvious at Pennsylvania is being ignored and bought into by the American voters. Of course, it is not the fault of the voters, but the fault of the Democrat institution – allowing candidates to basically bribe the working class into voting for their sob stories. This nomination has never been based on ideals politically – rather, it has been based on all but that. It has just been candidates who demand pity from voters by breaching topics like income and race, and has been candidates bribing voters without promising any real social and political reform.
The way the Democratic race is shaping up, and for all my liberalism, I’ll have to swallow it and root for McCain. Unless the nomination reverts to the proper subjects for an election – political and social ideals and reforms rather than being about anecdotes to make the voters pick a candidate out of pity.
