Arrived in Tokyo, Japan -- Essay About Hillary’s Victories Tuesday

I just completed a 16 hour journey to Tokyo, Japan. Soon I'll add more about our weekend in Houston, including video footage on United For Obama. While on the plane, I wrote an essay that I posted on the new AsianWeek blog I am writing with Annabel Park. AsianWeek is planning a "launch" event next month when Annabel and I are in San Francisco. We are currently shooting an upcoming documentary in Japan and Korea and Annabel has yet to post. Anyway, here is my tirade about the "negative campaign" strategy being employed by Hillary Clinton:Flying to Japan on Wednesday I was wearing a Barack Obama hat, and I was asked twice by strangers whether the new voters that Obama has inspired would continue to participate if Hillary Clinton somehow managed to steal the nomination. My answer: “It would be very discouraging if the will of the voters was reversed. Many of those who are new to the process (people of color and young people in particular) would go back to being apathetic. But others would stay with it, much the way those who were inspired by Howard Dean’s candidacy became major contributors to John Kerry’s campaign. It would be better for the party and for the country if Obama’s coalition of new voters, young voters, Democrats, Republicans, and Independents stayed in tact. Although the die-hards like me would be there anyway, I wouldn’t want a repeat of 2004.”

Hillary Clinton has no chance of legitimately winning the nomination. With the process now 80% complete, Obama leads by 154 delegates. Clinton’s victories on March 4th netted her 6 delegates, three less than Obama’s net gain of 9 delegates in the Washington DC primary. Nonetheless, she has vowed to prolong the Democratic nomination process, probably until the convention in August. While I welcome the fact that more Americans will have the opportunity to participate in a way that is meaningful, the tragedy is that Clinton strategists have reached a consensus that “going negative” is the only way they can win. For Hillary Clinton, this may be so. But for our nation, “going negative” is a step in the wrong direction.

During the past three weeks, few can recall a positive statement offered by the Clintons. Their calculated attacks on Senator Obama have overshadowed all substantive discussion. The Clintons have complained about media bias (a classic Republican tactic) while using the media to spread rumors and put forth “stories” that are irrelevant and/or dishonest. They have delivered negative speeches criticizing Obama for making positive speeches, and crafted negative slogans to criticize Obama’s positive slogans. Worst of all, they have devised attack ads that employ the same fear-mongering manipulation we saw in the darkest years of the Bush Administration.

Barack Obama’s candidacy, and more importantly, the movement he has inspired, offer us a chance to move beyond a diseased and dysfunctional era of American politics, and commence a 21st century approach to the deliberative process, in which “government by the people” involves an engaging, honest, and substantive conversation. Barack Obama is the leader best suited to conduct that conversation. That is why the Clintons are seeking to prolong the previous era.

For Republican strategists, misrepresentations and distortions are necessary to induce us into supporting policies that are not in our interest: tax breaks for oil companies, war profiteering, corruption and incompetence at all levels of government, etc. The Clintons employ such tactics, not to distract from bad policy (their policies are sound), but to compensate for “high negatives,” that is, a high percentage of Americans who vehemently dislike them. Because over 40% of voters say they will not vote for Hillary Clinton under any circumstances, Clinton strategists are forced to “go negative” in order to raise the negatives of their opponents to Clinton-like levels.

But there is a price to pay for this style of politics. It hardens and embitters the politicians who employ it. It causes them to look upon the voters in much the same way advertisers look at consumers. They rely on exaggerated or fabricated “attacks” and distortions to manipulate as many people as possible in one fell swoop. They assume that we are too passive to see through their tactics, and too distracted to be persuaded by anything else. This style of politics benefits Republicans more than Democrats. If the Clintons do manage to engineer a takeover at the Democratic convention in August, negative politics will continue whether or not they are successful against McCain.

As we have seen during each of the previous administrations, a government that is dominated by negative politics makes it difficult, indeed dangerous, for elected officials to tell us the truth. For example, during the run-up to the Iraq War, Democrats in Congress, including Senator Clinton, felt compelled to vote to authorize the war because public opinion at that time had been so masterfully manipulated by slogans like “we don’t want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud,” and lies like “there is no doubt that Saddam Hussien has weapons of mass destruction.” Barack Obama, then an Illinois State Senator, spoke out against the war, and he has made this contrast a top issue during the primary campaign. In response, the Clintons’ have offered the disappointingly cynical argument that, if Obama, like Clinton, had been a U.S. Senator at the time, being honest about his opposition to the war would have been politically dangerous. This illustrates the sharp contrast between the Clinton approach to politics and the approach being offered by Senator Obama. Hillary Clinton voted for war when war was popular. Years later, she revealed that she was opposed to the war (not surprisingly, just as the war had become unpopular). That’s not good enough for me. I don’t want a President who calculates the best political timing for the truth; I want a President who tells the truth as a matter of principle.

The politics of fear and manipulation lead to detachment and disillusion.  In turn, a detached and disillusioned electorate is more susceptible to manipulation.  This is what allowed Republicans to overshadow the accomplishments of the Clinton Administration (a balanced budget, a powerful peacetime economy) by obsessing over an extramarital affair. It allowed the mediocrity and intellectual laziness of George W. Bush to be glossed over by astonishingly misleading slogans like “I’m a uniter not a divider,” and “I’ll restore the dignity of the White House.” It allowed the tragedy of September 11th to be parlayed into an inhuman war for profit, waged against a people whose only infraction was having the same religion and skin color as our attackers (but not the same nationality). It allowed John Kerry’s heroism during the Vietnam War to be turned against him by the infamous “Swiftboat” lies propagated through TV commercials.

If Bush/Clinton Era politics were the only option available, I would embrace the Clintons as proven warriors in a world of partisan gridlock. But until and unless the Super Delegates decide to reverse the results of the primary process, I will be asking Americans to aim higher. This election is not just about who will be our President; it’s about who we will be as a people.

If the Clintons somehow steal the nomination, the Democratic Party would be fractured, while the Republican party would be unified against a familiar enemy. This would be toxic for Democratic Congressional candidates. By contrast, the Obama movement HELPS Democratic Congressional candidates. A “wave” election would result in a filibuster-proof, Democratic majority in the Senate and a commanding majority in the House.

If this weren’t such a crucial period in our history, I’d be pleased to see the Clintons get another chance. We’d see a continuation of petty, partisan gridlock, but it would be in its preferable form: with Clintons in the Oval Office instead of Bushes. Essentially, a new generation of leaders would be put on hold while we watch a last hurrah for 20th century prejudices, 20th century politics, and 20th century culture. I prefer a President Obama sooner than later because so much more will be accomplished when we enter an era of true democracy, led by those who are already living in the 21st century.