WARNING: This blog may change your opinion of me--especially because I know my cool emerging church friends are mostly registered Democrats, however, despite my best efforts to keep politics off of my blog site, there is no way I can hold back my thoughts about watching the Democrats last night, in all of their self-deprecating glory. There is no point in delving into all of the reasons why I find their convention highly humorous, except when it comes to the idea of feminism and the speech given by Teresa Heinz Kerry, as well as the inherent inauthenticity of John Kerry's campaign. First, the wifey.... I cannot fault Mrs. Kerry for being a billionaire, as she married into money, and last week even told the press that she would give up all her money in order to have her husband back--which seems sweet, until you consider how her current husband who is using her money to try to win the presidency might feel about that statement. In fact, she acknowledged to her son last night that his father would be proud of him, and I asked myself, "Would his dead Republican senator of a father really be that proud if his money was being used to help win a Democratic presidency to a man now married to his wife?" All those issues aside, I saw her speech as a tragic throwback to a different era--an era long gone and conquered by the suffrage movement, Roe V. Wade, and an endless list of prominent female leaders in our country and around the world. A large portion of her speech was dedicated to expressing the fact that women have the right and freedom to their opinions and that their "voices" should not be silenced any longer. What the heck did Hillary Rodham Clinton prove during 8 years in the White House, and even now as a popular senator in New York? When the camera panned to Hillary during Mrs. Kerry's speech, I think I could see the death darts shooting from her eyes, and it was the first moment I actually wanted to reach out and give Mrs. Clinton a good ol' hug. Is this the kind of first lady that is going to appeal to women all around the country? I realize that voters aren't choosing a first lady, but a president, HOWEVER recent polls have indicated that the candidate's wife does affect voter preference. I am pro-life in most circumstances, however, I find it highly weird that Mrs. Kerry did not use her platform to reinforce the rights of women in this country that Democrats feel the GOP is continually threatening. I find it offensive that Mrs. Kerry thinks it is NOW time that women start having a voice. Has she been spending too much time at her Italian villa taking a ketchup bath? Oops, she just sold it to George Clooney for 7 million. Guess not. Before the election, it is better not to have a posh Italian villa compete with W's Texas ranch with stinky cows, snakes, and other unnecessary accoutrements. She implied through her word choice that she is somehow unique because she is "opinionated" and she hopes that one day women will all feel the freedom to be so. Maybe she was talking about the women in the middle east, because I think Hillary feels that freedom. Sandra Day O'Connor, Ruth Ginsberg, and Condoleeza Rice must all feel the same freedom. The list could go on and on, but really, who wants me to spell all those names and list them?
Perhaps it is because Mrs. Kerry wishes that we were able to live in a "democratic, free society"--another throwback for me. Shouldn't someone have debriefed her first? I was embarrassed for her when she said this, whatever her intention may have been. We DO live in a democratic, free society. Period. That is why her husband is able to run for president. Our country has been democratic since its inception. George W. Bush being president hasn't changed the fact that our country is free. It has changed the fact that millions of people in the middle east are able to experience some freedom for the first time in decades, or at least the hope of freedom.
It is not right wing propaganda that since Hussein's Iraqi dictatorship, over one million people have been needleesly slaughtered. I realize that in Rwanda and Sudan, the numbers are the same. I realize that we let these people die and did not send our troops. I realize that women, Christians, Muslims, Jews, the poor, and countless others around the world are slaughtered every day. I realize the tragedy of our limitations and that our political motivations affect many decisions we make.
What usually disturbs me about this political season every four years has been drastically different this year. I can easily get riled up over specifics. Usually, it is easy for parties to stick to issues and that is often how Americans decide who they will vote for. This year, it is interesting that there are no issues to get riled over, as Kerry is able to cater to everyone's personal opinions and convictions. And his wife is able to be freely opinionated too--such a revolutionary! John Kerry is pro-choice, and he also consistently votes in support of partial-birth abortion, and yet he is personally opposed to abortion because of his faith. He is now a Vietnam war hero, yet he burned his medals upon returning and trash-talked the war for years. He supported the war in Iraq, and then after the support-o-meter shifted across party lines and in the media, he changed his stance and now says we need to do it "right". He supports serious gun control, yet makes sure he is pictured with a nice shot rifle in his TV ads to show he is an avid "hunter." How can anyone not find something they agree with here? When he knows there are people who will not vote for a candidate for one specific issue (gay marriage, abortion, the war, etc...) he either avoids it or plays both sides to get the vote. A man of faith, a hunter, a fighter--an "everything but the kitchen sink candidate". The media describes him as the "people's candidate". John Kerry is the "people's candidate" as much as I am the next quarterback for the New York Giants.
Despite the Bush family money, nothing can compete with the husband of the Heinz heiress, or the boy who attended boarding school in Switzerland and whose teachers worried about his "excessive amounts of self-confidence". John Kerry is no more "Of the People" than George W. is "Of the Prairie" (I credit this observation to the Orlando Sentinel). Many people I know are Democrats because they feel the party best represents the lower class, the middle class, and the working man/woman. Thanks to Michael Moore, the world has gotten to see a skewed view of the Bush Administration and yet I also credit him with showing George W. to be a real person who still does yard work, makes silly comments, and is really just a cowboy. It is refreshing when people who have seen his movie have told me that it made Bush seem more accessible and authentic. (Check a multitude of sources debunking his claims about the links between the Bush family and Osama, as well as many sources who were shocked at the editing of the movie--as any consumer knows, editing can tell an infinite amount of stories).
Yes, George W. has a real problem with authenticity. Too much of it. He says the wrong thing sometimes. He hesitates when he speaks, searching for a word. He uses simplistic language with a southern drawl. He makes funny hand gestures. He looks perplexed. God forbid a president ever look any way other than confident when he wags his finger at the camera and says that he NEVER did a certain naughty thing with a certain naughty intern. Clinton was definitely convincing in his charisma and persona, and more accessible than Kerry. But, no one can compete with the unabashed humanness of W.
A fabulous editorial I read today in the Post has said of Edwards' anticipated speech tonight, "though he can speak down-home, he can't singlehandedly solve the Democrat's authenticity problem. You simply can't fake authenticity. Bill Clinton was a lot of things, not all so admirable, but he was the real deal when it came to The People. He didn't have to fake the schmooze or ask directions in the trailer park, while Kerry is the awkward white boy who whiffs on the high five. Americans love theater as much as anyone and expect a little choreography with their conventions. But they also possess a highly evolved sense of malarkey and know when something's phony. In the end, authentic anger may play better in Peoria than pretend populism. At least it's real."
I am called to authenticity as a woman, a person who wants to live in the way of Jesus, and as an American. That doesn't mean I agree with everything happening in our country and around the world right now. I never will. But, I respect a man who is authentically himself more than his competition and who doesn't have to be "everything but the kitchen sink" in order to get my very authentic vote in November. He just has to be W.