An interesting thing about going abroad: America is big, important, aggressive, imperialistic, and all-present enough that no matter where you go, people will know American politics, culture, and basically just know American life (even if it is a flawed or incomplete view of it). Traveling, you meet other cultures, and knowledge of them (China in my case) isn't a cultural norm for Americans, so everyone I meet knows something about me and where I am coming from. Not just history or popular music, but how people live. It doesn't work the other way around. I have studied Chinese history and politics and international issues and stuff, but what do I know about the average Chinese person's life. How can I know about social issues in China, the kind of issues that can't be learned from a book but can only be learned through experience? 不可能. (meaning: impossible) This knowledge imbalance with all the Chinese friends I meet and interact with is really interesting.Another student's roommate just came in and interviewed me about Obama, American politics, and institutionalized racism in America. THAT WAS SOO COOOL! First, I felt a little silly knowing so little about the policies, views and stances of our future president, but I felt like I was explaining so much when we started talking about institutional racism and American politics. Just explaining the differences between 'the majority of the people' and 'the majority of those with political power,' explaining how large corporations (which are not subject to election, public oversight, or a limited term) can control the path of politics much more than individual Americans, leftover social structures from a time when racism was more widely accepted and how these structures negatively affect both blacks (see footnote) in America and the public perception of blacks in America, and the vast majority of media images of blacks being strong, dominant, aggressive, violent, male, uneducated, unintelligent role models, and the effect this has on black (and non-black) youth in America. There were a couple classes I took that had info that vaguely related to this (my Freshman seminar mostly), but also talks I have had with my sister, parents, and friends made me feel like I had a lot to say on this topic. I wish I had studied it more though, for there were so many times I wanted to keep going, but I was about to venture into speculation rather than fact (I must admit, a few times I did speak speculations with an authoritative air, 不好意思 {embarrassed})
Also talking about why Obama was elected was interesting. His questions were well aimed (he is an English major, so they were well-worded too!). He asked why Obama was elected president, and what are the requirements for being president, and for both of these answers I think I gave interesting questions. As for why, I eventually decided that it was mostly a situational thing, and the main factor was that Obama was a not-Bush, not-McCain, not-Republican. I think that Hilary would have won too if it was her vs McCain. I'm not say that Obama as an individual doesn't matter at all (although with all the Buddhist reading that I've been doing lately I could go on for a while about how he really ISN'T an individual), his education, (at least perceived, I sure hope it is genuine) integrity and sincerity, and desire for change did matter, but I think that any desire for change in a more liberal (read: Democratic, since the terms are practically synonymous now) direction would be widely appreciated and accepted. I decided that change was the major factor (no wonder he stressed that), since a large number of Americans seem to be fed up with Bush, Neo-Conservatism, Republicans, and America's recent aggressive foreign policy which ignores other countries. Any change in the opposite direction would be appreciated and (I believe) voted for.
We also talked about the requirements for being president. I think that age is the only official one, and I can't remember if it is 35, 40 or 45. I don't think it is 50... But I decided on a few other unofficial requirements as well: money, education, and alignment with one of the two major American political parties. If you don't have cash, you can't campaign, period. (isn't it ludicrously repetitive to both type the word 'period' and then to type a period[.]? Saying it out loud makes even less sense, since we don't vocalize most other punctuation, although I have been known to verbally say 'question mark' from time to time when I want to comically emphasize a question) Mike Gravel and Dennis Kucinich are a good examples of this. They were well-educated, experienced (Gravel is the guy that made the pentagon papers public!), intelligent men, and their policies were of benefit of the American people. Both well-intentioned, but both lacking the funds (also read as: sponsorship) to be a serious competitor. Gravel tried to do the grassroots thing, but it didn't get to enough people. He even tried to convince people not to drink sodas and to donate the money to his campaign fund. I liked the guy, but at that point he was already lost. He was officially excluded from later television debated because he has failed to raise sufficient funds, and if you aren't in the TV debates (broadcast by the major new networks) you might as well not be running. Next up: education. I think that this one is pretty obvious, and bring to mind the fact that these factors are all interconnected (there's the Buddhism again!). If you haven't graduated from college, is anyone gonna vote for you? Even just an understanding of how campaigning works, how the American political system works, and the current problems facing America, as well as potential solutions to those problems require a lot of education. Even outside of attending (most) colleges, you'd have to do you good amount of reading and research on your own to learn about these issues, not to mention a lot to stay up to date of the constantly changing course of international events, and even just domestic economics. Such an education, even just to have the leisure time to thoroughly self-educate yourself about these issues, takes a certain amount of money. Finally, affiliation with a major party. Have we ever had a non-democratic, non-republican president? Okay, okay. Let me rephrase: when was the last time? A quick bit of research tells me that it was... Millard Fillmore, who took office in 1850, associated with the Whig party. (I am passing over Andrew Johnson, possibly one of the greatest slaughterer of native Americans, because his National Union party was just an attempt at a combined Republican and Democratic Party, and fell apart after a mere four years) 好久没有 (roughly: long time don't have). If in this election, a person tried to run as an independent, or as a socialist, green (probably the best chance), libertarian, feminist, or any other party, I don't think they would have made it to the top. The funding, both in terms of corporate sponsorship and in terms of individual donations, between the Dems/Repubs (my fingers are getting tired of my rant/lecture/catharsis) and all other competitors, there is basically no comparison of the amount of money raised for campaigns. An independent or third-party candidate would have to either be a part of, or have support from a (or multiple) major corporations, and although I can't think of a good reason right now (if you know one please let me know!), I don't see this happening right now.
Okay, I have class tomorrow, I have hardly done ANY research today, it is late (here, it is like 10am back home), and I still haven't written my oral test. Man, even in China I don't have enough time for all the stuff I wanna do.
No comments:
Post a Comment