It's easy to get wrapped up in the small stuff. Primary season is heated, and we're all entranced to some degree by polls, the horse race, the snubs and the flubs. Trivia and the politics of perception. I'm there too.
But when it comes to finally choosing among the alternatives, we need to think of something greater than the shadowboxing and the spin room. We need to think of the others who lack the fortune of our leisure.
When I vote, I think about the great tragedies and misfortunes of the past two decades...our generational moments where millions of lives hung in the balance, and were lost to criminal neglect and the failure of political will to rescue them. To save their lives, and thus testify to our character.
I think of Iraq. I think of Rwanda. I think of Sudan. I think of lost opportunities in Cuba. And I think of Kenya...and what may or may not become the next great horror there.
And when I think of political will and personal judgment...and who among our presidential aspirants has the greater supply to address or avert the greatest tragedies of our era, the choice couldn't be clearer.
Healthcare is important. There are convincing arguments on both sides, and the fact that unquestionably progressive economists like Robert Reich and Paul Krugman can disagree suggests that neither side is really gaming this question. It's a hard question to answer. It's an important conversation to have. But the discussion of mandates or no mandates essentially boils down to competing arguments of incremental cost and political process: Does the cost of those who would game the system under Obama's plan exceed the cost of enforcing mandates under Clinton's plan? Will Obama's plan move us incrementally further faster than Clinton's plan, or will political compromise give us less than what we need?
Elsewhere, what we need pales in comparison to what they need. Not just healthcare, but potable water. Staple foods. Clothes. Basic shelter. AIDS & smallpox vaccines. Anti-malarial medication.
When I vote, I think of the fact that in the last debate, one of the few places Senator Clinton sought to distinguish herself from Senator Obama was on the question of foreign aid, where Clinton subtly needled Obama on costs of his ambitious plans to give assistance to foreign countries.
That rose alarm bells for me. One, because as ineffective as Bush has been in distributing aid to Africa, his commitment to the continent still has greatly exceeded that of Bill Clinton over his two terms. Bush still hasn't committed enough, and there are real problems with the loan conditions and ridiculous family planning provisions on his foreign assistance, but the fact that he has more than doubled Africa aid over our last Democratic president is something to consider. To quote Bob Geldof: ""Clinton was a good guy, but he did fuck all."
It's notable that Susan Rice, the most forceful advocate within the Clinton Administration for increased African aid, left the Clinton circle frustrated, and is now one of Senator Obama's chief foreign policy advisers.
Bill Clinton repeatedly has said that the greatest mistake of his presidency was not having the political will to address the Rwandan crisis, where as many as a million Africans lost their lives, and the great majority of the remainder were displaced. It is a noble sentiment in retrospect, but only so noble, as it would have taken relatively little to save many of them had Clinton acted in the present tense:
The US government was reluctant to involve itself in the "local conflict" in Rwanda, and refused to even refer to it as 'Genocide', a decision which President Bill Clinton later came to regret in a Frontline television interview in which he states that he believes if he had sent 5,000 US peacekeepers, more than 500,000 lives could have been saved.
...
According to Samantha Power, author of A Problem from Hell: America and the Age of Genocide, the United States referred to and applied the concept of genocide selectively and narrowly. She argues that the United States government "set the bar for genocide too high."
It is again notable that Samantha Power is one of the strong humanitarian leaders who have joined the Obama campaign's inner circle on foreign policy.
When I think of the subsequent tragedies of Darfur and Sudan, I can think of no stronger advocate for foreign intervention in the past five years than Senator Obama, who early in his term reached as far across the aisle as possible to enlist Sam Brownback of all people to address the genocide in Sudan. Between Obama and Clinton, only Obama traveled to Africa to visit the Darfurian refugees in Chad. His commitment has been unwavering. And why not? Two million people were lost in Sudan's civil wars, and nearly half a million lost in the Darfur region alone.
Then I think of Iraq. Some estimates have the population of Iraq three million fewer than it was five years ago, due to death, displacement and exile. The UN has estimated as many as five million displaced. We all know that these destroyed lives were eminently preventable, and that even though the political costs of two blue state politicians may not have been terribly high in standing against the rush to war, only one of them did.
Rwanda. Sudan. Iraq. Our past mistakes.
But we are still making them.
Our Cuba policy is ridiculous. The embargo has never worked, and we contribute to poverty and a crumbling Cuban infrastructure to act tough against the "Red Menace" and flatter a small fraction of Cuban emigrants who themselves are now spilt on Cuban trade normalization. Between Clinton and Obama, only Obama seeks to end sanctions, liberalize family visits and normalize relations. Clinton sticks to the Bush policy, covetous of that small South Floridian voting bloc, even as it becomes increasingly economically insensible for the US to continue this policy, let alone sensible from a humanitarian viewpoint.
And then Kenya. More than a thousand dead already, and post-election violence so high that even the Peace Corps has suspended operations there. None of us know what will become of the situation there, but many of us know of Senator Obama's efforts to bring parties to the table, decrease violence, and encourage reconciliation. If Kenya becomes the next monstrous international crisis, there is no American voice more authoritative to deal with it than that of the son of a Kenyan like Obama.
These are not small things. These are the largest of things. Even if the voices behind them are small or quiet. Theirs are the voices we need to listen to.
Some think that there can be nothing more momentous or historic for this nation than electing the first woman or the first African-American to the presidency. But for me, I think a simple vote on whether or not to allow the US military to use cluster bombs on foreign populations is far more historic and momentous. When the next child loses her face or her arm as a result of picking up a small bomblet that looks like a toy, it is not because Senator Obama did not try to prevent that possibility. He did, and Senator Clinton did not.
Ask yourself if this is a small thing! Ask yourself if the symbolism of a female or black president matters so much as the real emergencies felt by those elsewhere.
In the end, when I think of the next president of this country, it's not my fortunate country I think about. It's the countries where a bit of American political will would have made, or can make, all the difference. When I think of Africa, the Middle East, the Caribbean...it's eminently clear to me which of our alternatives is likely to combine political will, good judgment and the best counsel to have the greatest salutary effect on the regions and peoples that need it most.
That's why I voted for Senator Barack Obama this morning.
We can talk about our lives. We can talk about whether an effective technocrat can maneuver governmental bureaucracy well enough to make our already fortunate lives incrementally better. I can talk of my life, and whether Senator Clinton is likely to keep my Social Security contribution steady, or regulate financial markets reasonably to encourage domestic growth.
But as a humanist, these things should matter less to me. And they do. When I cast my vote today, it's their lives I thought about. The millions of destroyed, displaced and tormented lives lost to political compromise. And the lives still remaining to rescue, and elevate, with just a modest amount of hope, resolve and commitment from us.