After approx 15K doors (including blinds, and the primary), I'll be hanging up my canvassing shoes tomorrow - at least until '10.
(To be fair: my third pair of sneakers, is being "hung up." However my first pair was on its last legs, and the second pair was really cheap. The Mad Canvasser recommends "Dr. Scholls" ... and no, I don't work for them or own any stock :) I'm just a 50 y.o. who's walked and talked a lot, since March!
One of the things I've noticed among vol.s in the three diffo. IN towns where I've knocked for Barack (Lafayette/WL, Monticello, and Logansport), is that we have a lot of Obama vol.s who don't seem to be terribly inclined to help downticket Dem.s.
So-o let's talk about what it means to back Barack, and what it means to be a Dem, shall we?
1. WHY I BACK BARACK
Yes, he's had an exemplary life, appears to be an amazing transformative leader, orator, totally brilliant hardworking super-boring "nerd" guy, etc. etc. (IMO being boring and a nerd are compliments :D And I hope "boring" will be taken in stride by my fellow Obamaniacs. I mean he's consistent and predictable, okay?
(So-o not to denigrate any of those points. But I want to cut to the chase.)
The principal reason why I back Barack's policy is that he's applied the concept of "community" (and community organizing) to his campaign, and to his policy.
As a computer geek, and former mathhead, that appeals to me on the grounds of Bachian (yes, I mean JS!) elegance. The Brandenburgs and the Violin Concertos (etc.) may not rock but Barack does, for generalizing that "community (organizing)" model to the nation, human race, and ultimately - the planet. (That's a strong claim, please read on :)
=========
2. WHY I'M A DEMOCRAT (domestic policy)
Yeah, my whole family (at least those here in the States) are Democrats, and yes, I was raised as a Democrat, etc., etc. That's not the point.
Let's refocus this discussion in terms of systemic ideals. In fact, I'd like to go farther - look at where social policy may err, and let's accept as a given that there's no such thing as perfect social policy. On which side of many divides do we wish to err?
I'll also take it as a given that there's a fundamental opposition between capitalism and democracy/labor. I.e.: there's a tension between "government by the people" and "economic freedom." That line is highlighted by the notion of neighborhood effects - viz., positive and negative external costs and benefits. (If you don't know what those are, here's a quick intro. External costs and benefits are costs and benifits which are not borne by - or which accrue to the actors. For ex.: pollution, and education, respec. That's about as much of an explanation as I'm going to give. If you're confused, please Google, and try adding "Milton Friedman.")
Another way to to look at the dynamic in the context of domestic policy is to simply appreciate the adage: democracy can't exist in a company town. (I'll leave you - Dear Reader - to consider whether Democracy itself is an external benefit, in the Friedman sense.)
So-o, let's get down to business. Where do Democrats' preferred social policies err - according to Yours Truely? I'll focus on just two points.
[A] Overregulation, overprotection, overassistance are better than underregulation, underprotection, underassistance.
To see the significance of this point, ask yourself the following question: would you rather help 50 people who are in genuine need, and live with the fact that 50 folks who are not in genuine need are gaming the system - as opposed to assisting none of them? If you're a Democrat, you'll probably say "yes," and if you're a Republican (or Libertarian/Constitutionalist), you might just say "no." In short, being a Democrat is basically believing that "There, but for the Grace of God [or circumstances] go I."
(Of course I realize that a number of folks will view this as an argument for socialism. Sorry - but if you're blinded by ideology to that extent, then I'm not even going to bother to address your comments ... esp. on the grounds that you haven't read what I said above.)
[B] Too much cooperation between government and the private sector in order to attain socially-desireable ends is better than too little.
You can see this in the tax code, you can see it in the role of both the Fed'l gov't and state gov'ts when it comes to investment in education, and in other infrastructure of various types. (Again: think positive externalities according to Friedman's theories.)
Let me address this point in the context of transportation infrastructure, and energy policy. Who among us thinks that the role of gov't in creating the Interstate system, or the (post-WWII) G.I. bill (regardless of the initial rationales) was a bad thing? And to be more au courant ... as a Democrat, I strongly believe that the gov't has a role to play in dealing with climate change, and moving the nation towards green energy - in order to stabalize the economy against the volitility of "energy price shocks." (SUV sales are going to be increasing, now that gas is down, right?). C.f. tax policy w.r.t. "going green" - many downticket Dem.s are embracing this.
=========
3. WHY I'M A DEMOCRAT (foriegn policy)
I'll give you just one bullet point.
[C] America is the world's oldest Democracy, and the only nation built upon an idea - as opposed to an ethnic group, or a region, or a religion. Hence we must lead the world by engaging it - in ways that are primarily positive, and cooperative.
There are a zillion things that I could say here, with regards to past and present wars, treaties (military, political, and economic), and trade/market issues.
So-o, I'll just say one thing: we are an explicitly diverse (multiethnic, multireligious, multicultural, etc.) society, and it therefore follows that we must follow our destiny (at least for the present time) as the first among equals in a multiethnic, multireligious, multicultural world.
(Please contrast this to the NeoCon vision of foriegn policy. Just kiddin' :)) Well, not.)
=========
4. OBAMANIAC ... OR DEMOCRAT?
If you've read this far, you've probably already guessed the "punch [bottom] line."
The bottom line is that Obama's message of "change" is simply what it means to be a Democrat.
So-o, I must say, I'm baffled as to why there are so many folks out there who are inclined to donate to, or volunteer for the Obama campaign, but who aren't interested in helping downticket Democrats?
Makes no sense to me.
Signed,
--The Mad Canvasser of Indiana
P.S. During the last six months of knocking doors for Obama, I've found tremendous inspiration from posting occasionally on this site. BTW, this diary is dedicated to NWTerriD, who helped our office during the "second comig" of Rev. Wright. I've discussed this point in several previous diaries, so I shan't repeat it.