We live in a country where the third most popular daily “news” programs, Entertainment Tonight, probes hard-hitting topics such as whether Oprah Winfrey is on a new diet or Tyra Banks’ breasts are real – where more people watch Vanna White prance around the Wheel of Fortune than watch any nightly news program – where more people are concerned about the outcome of the vote totals for next season’s American Idol than for our political elections.
Maybe its no shock then that 48% of Americans still believe that Saddam Hussein was personally involved with the September 11th attacks. Forty Eight percent – that’s more than 140 million Americans. Chances are that one out of every 2 people that you pass in the street knows more about American Idol than they do about current events. It’s no wonder that Bush still has a double-digit approval rating.
America has been under assault by anti-intellectual forces that would like to dumb us down to a witless stupor of docility and fragility. A two-pronged attack is upon us. On the one hand we have the government’s propaganda and innuendo attempting to cower us into a constant state of fear, while on the other we have an amplification of that message by a media that is concerned more about pragmatism than journalistic integrity.
For almost six years now, those that questioned authority and spoke truth to power were shunned, disabused, insulted, and assaulted. In a nationalistic frenzy, we were deemed cowards and traitors, but the world still indicted us as accomplices. Now that truth finally is beginning to show through, we reach a most critical juncture in our party and nation’s history. Yesterday, a diarist wrote about the need for the de-Nazification of America. I whole-heartedly agree. We need to ensure that this manipulation can never happen again.
We are lucky to have so many excellent candidates vying for our party’s presidential nomination. I would argue that most, if not all, would easily beat such any opponent that the utterly broken Republican Party could nominate. What I hope is that we can support someone who will make the most of our opportunity to secure the long-term legitimacy of the Democratic Party by ushering back into this country a wave of intellectualism.
I was disappointed in the way the 2004 primary unfolded, not only because my candidate lost but also because I felt the party’s credibility lost out. During my caucus, Democrat after Democrat backed John Kerry because “we needed to rally behind our candidate” and “vote for the most electable Democrat”. It was a punch to the gut after all the time under Bush when we were told to “trust our president”, “rally behind him”, and “support the war”. The party nominated a candidate by using the same rhetorical style that so disregarded digestion in lieu of dictation. Don’t get me wrong; I thought Kerry would have made a great president. During the debates, I was so proud to call myself a Democrat as he ran circles around the chimp-ander in chief. But, as Bill Clinton said on the Daily Show, “if you’re a Democrat, you win when people think”. If we don’t do so ourselves when we nominate a candidate, then how can we ask the nation to do so in the general election? People talk about the lessons of Kerry’s candidacy - he ran a poor campaign or he didn’t fight back against the swift boat liars, but I think that the real lesson learned was expressed so simply by President Clinton, “if you’re a Democrat, you win when people think”.
What initially interested in me in a Wesley Clark candidacy was not his military credentials but rather his intellectual ones. After three years of a presidential administration that shunted discourse and disagreement and a president who couldn’t find two brain cells to rub together, here was a man who held multiple masters degrees, taught economics, was a Rhodes scholar, and an intellectual powerhouse. I felt that we needed brilliance to shake the anti-intellectualism of the past few years, (and even more so now). The more that I learned about Clark, the more impressed I became.
When Clark ran for president last cycle, his message was dissent is not only patriotic, but also necessary for a functioning democracy:
This New American Patriotism is not just about waving the flag and guarding our borders. It's about guarding what makes us distinctive as Americans - our personal liberties, our right to debate and dissent. We are not a country that manipulates facts, ignores debate, and stifles dissent. We are not a country that retaliates against people who criticize the government. We are not a country that disdains our friends and allies. We are not a country that sheds blood before every other option has been exhausted. And we can't have a government that stands for any of these things.
And that's why I'm running for President - to return America to the core ideals of our democracy: personal liberty; service to country; respect for others; the right to criticize and correct the government - in time of war, especially. Debate, dialogue, discussion, disagreement, dissent - that's not wrong - that's not unpatriotic, that's one of the highest forms of patriotism and love of country, and we need to say it.
I felt that this message addressed the most important failure of the Bush Administration. Without dissent and freedom of speech, everything else is moot. After the patriot act, free speech zones, media intimidation, and other numerous Orwellian tactics, this very necessary message from this very credible messenger was a boon to our democracy. It helped our party, our country, and other candidates speak truth to power and force people to accept their right in doing so.
As I’ve followed the political career of Clark for these past few years, I find myself to be continually amazed by the way that he espouses the concept in both theory and practice. Clark respects opposing viewpoints in such a rational manner while calmly tearing them apart at the seams. His opponents are often persuaded in such an effective way that they seldom feel that they have to lose face. As many of you probably know, Clark has been working for Fox as an analyst for the past year or so. While his stint with Fox has undoubtedly illuminated his progressive viewpoints in a positive light to a more conservative segment of society, I believe that the reason that Clark chose to work for Fox lies in his desire to challenge people to the best of their intellectual ability – to educate those 48%... those 28%.
Like so many other Clark supporters, I hope that Clark once again throws his hat into the ring. Returning intellectualism to the forefront of our country's attention is going to be a long term movement – one that will not only build the long term strength of the Democratic party, but also that of the entire country for years to come. I look forward to that discussion and movement stemming from a Clark candidacy and hopefully to eight strong years of a Clark presidency. I support Wesley Clark for president, but make no mistake, he should not and will not be immune from criticism and debate; that respect for opposing viewpoints and opinions is the foundation of the intellectual movement from which he has emerged and foundation for a revival of our country's greatness.