I think today was the day the obesession that is the Democratic primary ended. It has been quite the journey I must say. As a Canadian, I have been accustomed to the prominence of the American political machine in Canada; through the media, through popular culture... but it is a whole other story in the United States. Sometimes you forget that there is actually another party out there competing... I mean, you see the elderly John McCain trying to match Barack Obama in whatever way he can, but he seems to be an afterthought. I don't think too many people seriously expect Senator McCain to win. Perhaps that is why the election battles between the old white woman and the younger half-black man (perhaps half-black is unfair, but really, he is half black and he seems to be all-black when it suits him) have caught the attention of the popular media, and as a result of the non-stop reporting, the public.
This election is quite interesting. I see many parallels between this country and the ones I have had the pleasure of calling my own. This is quite the election though. I hear words like history being made fairly constantly. And to some degree it is true. Its quite surprising that a white woman and a black man are causing such a huge stir in this country. But then again, this country is quirky and unique in so many ways, all its own. There have been many a powerful woman out there. I mean, you can look at recent history for examples. Mrs. Gandhi and Mrs. Thatcher come to mind. Both were very powerful women who ran their countries, started wars, and in Mrs. Gandhi's case, oversaw the detonation of a 'peaceful nuclear device'.
Women have been in power in all sorts of places; South Asia has had its share - from Mrs. Gandhi to Benazir Bhutto, from Sirimavo Bandaranaike to her feisty daughter Chandrika Kumaratunga to the duelling begums of Bangladesh, Sheikh Hasina Wajed to Begum Khalida Zia. The Middle East has had female leaders too; Golda Meir comes to mind, so do the Hashemite Queens (Noor and the younger, more politically aware, Palestinian, Rania). Africa has had a bunch of female leaders too; there's Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf of Liberia (a country founded by freed American slaves no less! Take a look at their flag in case you have any doubts of how much America means to them), there's Agathe Uwilingiyimana of Rwanda (who was killed in the hell that was Rwanda in the mid-90s).
So why is it that when a woman, and that too, a woman who seems quite bright, is married to quite a brilliant man, runs for a chance to become President that the country goes nuts? I've always wondered how a country so diverse and so open to immigration has yet to have anyone other than a white man rule the country. There have been women who have held posts of great power; Condoleezza Rice, former attorney general Janet Reno, Madeleine Albright etc. However, what is interesting is that all these women were appointed. The political system here interests me greatly; it is a democracy but one that I am unfamiliar with. Where I come from, you generally need to be elected by the public as an MP and be fairly competent (though that is debatable) before you're nominated to head a government department. In this country, the President seems to bring in his coterie of folks when he comes in. And it seems that in the recent present, the folks he brought along have had other agendas that seem to have taken the country off course into adventures not necessarily appreciated by the public that did not elect them. Perhaps my definition of democracy differs from the one here.
So why the fuss? Why the fixation with his blackness or her pant-suit wearing womanness? To me, the Democratic party has an embarassment of riches. Other parties in other parts of the world would wet their knickers for candidates such as this. Here, there is never ending debate on some miniscule shallow part of these folks; from her drinking beer with the working class white folk in some state to his lunatic pastor, to her husband's wandering eye and his white grandma's racial foibles.
I've seen some of this before. In Canada, if you don't speak French, leading the country is almost impossible. And yet, today, Stephen Harper is the Prime Minister. Not too long ago, Brian Mulroney was Prime Minister. And by the way, Kim Campbell was too. That's right. Kim. A woman. She lost an election (among many other reasons) because her party made fun of her opponent's face (Chretien had an illness that made his face slightly disfigured). Many Canadians look back, I think rather fondly on their history towards people like Lester Pearson and Pierre Trudeau. Now, I have to say, Trudeau is my favourite. Nevermind that I was not born when he lead Canada (initially) and nevermind that he had long ago retired from politics when I immigrated to Canada. From what I have read and seen (including the below video), he was quite the guy. He spoke both languages fluently (unlike dear Mr. Chretien who spoke neither fluently apparently), he was charismatic, he went to Red China way before Nixon made it somewhat sexy, he made friends with people such as Fidel Castro (who flew in for his funeral), he repatriated the constitution, enshrined the Bill of Rights, said things like "there's no place for the state in the bedrooms of the nation" when he was Justice minister.
The video, by the way has such wonderful words as bleeding hearts and weak-kneed people. The kicker is the last question the journalist (Tim Ralfe of the CBC) asks him.
I suppose the story here is that every country has its own obsessions. When Trudeau was in power, the obsession was his charisma in most of the country and his Englishness in Quebec. Le Devoir used to call him Pierre Elliott-Trudeau. And apparently so did Mr. Levesque. So he said this:
This election is quite interesting. I see many parallels between this country and the ones I have had the pleasure of calling my own. This is quite the election though. I hear words like history being made fairly constantly. And to some degree it is true. Its quite surprising that a white woman and a black man are causing such a huge stir in this country. But then again, this country is quirky and unique in so many ways, all its own. There have been many a powerful woman out there. I mean, you can look at recent history for examples. Mrs. Gandhi and Mrs. Thatcher come to mind. Both were very powerful women who ran their countries, started wars, and in Mrs. Gandhi's case, oversaw the detonation of a 'peaceful nuclear device'.
Women have been in power in all sorts of places; South Asia has had its share - from Mrs. Gandhi to Benazir Bhutto, from Sirimavo Bandaranaike to her feisty daughter Chandrika Kumaratunga to the duelling begums of Bangladesh, Sheikh Hasina Wajed to Begum Khalida Zia. The Middle East has had female leaders too; Golda Meir comes to mind, so do the Hashemite Queens (Noor and the younger, more politically aware, Palestinian, Rania). Africa has had a bunch of female leaders too; there's Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf of Liberia (a country founded by freed American slaves no less! Take a look at their flag in case you have any doubts of how much America means to them), there's Agathe Uwilingiyimana of Rwanda (who was killed in the hell that was Rwanda in the mid-90s).
So why is it that when a woman, and that too, a woman who seems quite bright, is married to quite a brilliant man, runs for a chance to become President that the country goes nuts? I've always wondered how a country so diverse and so open to immigration has yet to have anyone other than a white man rule the country. There have been women who have held posts of great power; Condoleezza Rice, former attorney general Janet Reno, Madeleine Albright etc. However, what is interesting is that all these women were appointed. The political system here interests me greatly; it is a democracy but one that I am unfamiliar with. Where I come from, you generally need to be elected by the public as an MP and be fairly competent (though that is debatable) before you're nominated to head a government department. In this country, the President seems to bring in his coterie of folks when he comes in. And it seems that in the recent present, the folks he brought along have had other agendas that seem to have taken the country off course into adventures not necessarily appreciated by the public that did not elect them. Perhaps my definition of democracy differs from the one here.
So why the fuss? Why the fixation with his blackness or her pant-suit wearing womanness? To me, the Democratic party has an embarassment of riches. Other parties in other parts of the world would wet their knickers for candidates such as this. Here, there is never ending debate on some miniscule shallow part of these folks; from her drinking beer with the working class white folk in some state to his lunatic pastor, to her husband's wandering eye and his white grandma's racial foibles.
I've seen some of this before. In Canada, if you don't speak French, leading the country is almost impossible. And yet, today, Stephen Harper is the Prime Minister. Not too long ago, Brian Mulroney was Prime Minister. And by the way, Kim Campbell was too. That's right. Kim. A woman. She lost an election (among many other reasons) because her party made fun of her opponent's face (Chretien had an illness that made his face slightly disfigured). Many Canadians look back, I think rather fondly on their history towards people like Lester Pearson and Pierre Trudeau. Now, I have to say, Trudeau is my favourite. Nevermind that I was not born when he lead Canada (initially) and nevermind that he had long ago retired from politics when I immigrated to Canada. From what I have read and seen (including the below video), he was quite the guy. He spoke both languages fluently (unlike dear Mr. Chretien who spoke neither fluently apparently), he was charismatic, he went to Red China way before Nixon made it somewhat sexy, he made friends with people such as Fidel Castro (who flew in for his funeral), he repatriated the constitution, enshrined the Bill of Rights, said things like "there's no place for the state in the bedrooms of the nation" when he was Justice minister.
The video, by the way has such wonderful words as bleeding hearts and weak-kneed people. The kicker is the last question the journalist (Tim Ralfe of the CBC) asks him.
I suppose the story here is that every country has its own obsessions. When Trudeau was in power, the obsession was his charisma in most of the country and his Englishness in Quebec. Le Devoir used to call him Pierre Elliott-Trudeau. And apparently so did Mr. Levesque. So he said this:
Mr. Lévesque was saying that part of my name was Elliott and since Elliot was an English name, it was perfectly understandable that I was for the No side, because, really, you see, I was not as much of a Quebecer as those who are going to vote Yes. That, my dear friends, is what contempt is…. It means saying that the Quebecers on the No side are not as good Quebecers as the others and perhaps they have a drop or two of foreign blood, while the people on the Yes side have pure blood in their veins.… Of course my name is Pierre Elliott Trudeau. Yes, Elliott was my mother's name. It was the name borne by the Elliotts who came to Canada more than 200 years ago. It is the name of the Elliotts who, more than 100 years ago, settled in Saint-Gabriel de Brandon, where you can still see their graves in the cemetery. That is what the Elliotts are. My name is a Quebec name — but my name is a Canadian name also.Anyway, the story and hope here is that after all this electioneering and speeches and what not, that people will hopefully realise that much more is at stake than a black man, a white woman and a hero from a past war. One of these three will end up running this country for the next little while. And I sure as hell hope that people don't vote for them or worse, against them, precisely for those same reasons. It is about time that America's politics became a bit more colourful. And it is about time that America sorted herself out and took her place again, with dignity on the world stage. And hopefully, one of these 3 will do so, and give generations something good to talk about.
Comments