Build-A-Meme Project:  The broadening field

In case you haven’t noticed, I support Howard Dean’s campaign.  I think he’s got the right credentials for the office of the presidency: finance education and experience, healthcare background, public office.  I’m sure he must have had some relations with Canada as governor of a state bordering that nation, meaning he’s also got some experience dealing with at least one foreign government.

However, my second choice is Wesley Clark.  Although he doesn’t have experience in public office, he does have the right background to help us recover from this Administration’s horrific chain sawing of foreign policy and pre-emptive abuses.  His management skills and southern roots also help tremendously.

So what do I do, now that Clark's thrown his hat in the ring?  My options are shaped by the path here as well as by the road ahead.

Here’s what I think happened to encourage Clark to run.  You’ll recall there was some buzz about Bill Clinton and Al Gore advising Clark recently as he explored the idea of running.  You’ll also recall Bill has encouraged Democrats, both candidates and constituents, to stay together and not attack each other.

With that strategy in mind, I think Clinton and possibly Gore persuaded Clark to run versus agreeing to accept the VP position with the Dean campaign.  This prevents Dean from steamrolling over the other candidates (which would be highly devisive at this point of the campaign), allows the other candidates’ campaigns to emerge as issues develop, all the while encouraging the American public to learn more about Clark.  At the same time, Clark’s entry into the race does not detract from Dean as much as it makes the Democratic Party appealing to a larger portion of the American public.  Having both Dean and Clark running at the same time means cutting a wider swath through centrist and swing voters; chances to win back the White House are improved with a broader, deeper field.

At some point, the weakest candidates will drop by the wayside; the strongest candidates will emerge.  My guess is they will be Dean and Clark – they will become the natural ticket.

Will we have a Clark/Dean ticket or a Dean/Clark ticket?  I don’t know yet.  The Democratic constituency will choose over time and I’ll support whichever ticket it is.  I’ll support whichever Democratic candidate can win over a critical mass of constituents.  I’m sure they’ll have their trial by fire between now and the nomination; I’m sure the critical mass will be convinced by that point that their nominee will be up to the job and more.

As Bill Clinton said this week,

"Go ahead, fall in love, be for somebody," Clinton said. "But when the primary's over, let's fall in line and bring the White House back to our party."

Yeah.  What he said, in spades.

2:30:07 PM    comment []

Sci-Fi:  the end of the road?

I’ve been reading a number of commentaries recently that maintain science fiction has ended.  There is no more written, the genre is dying or dead – we’re living the future and we’ve nothing more about which to dream or speculate.

What do you think?  Is there more ahead about which we should be writing?

Or are we really at the end of history, the end of all our aspirations?  Do we really have no drive to do or be anything more?

There must be more about which to write, surely.  Futurists are still able to make many projections which should give us pause.  Even if all of humanity’s stories could be winnowed down to either love stories or heroic journeys, there would be more about which to write.

For example, imagine a time in which convicted criminals’ emotions are monitored and regulated by embedded electronics.  Futurists have projected this capability by 2030.  What would the repercussions be on a criminal who falls in love – before the chip, after the chip, during the embedment?  What of a heroic figure in this position?  What would happen to development of emotion-chips if we elected another Bush-like figure in 2030, who in turn appointed another Ashcroft-like figure to public service?

Good God.  Should we not write about this?

Many of our finest pieces of science fiction have served us well, not as entertainment or examples of the exploration of language arts, but as warnings and prescriptions against future mistakes in judgment.  Fahrenheit 451, A Handmaid’s Tale, 1984, Brave New World, 2001: A Space Odyssey are a few excellent examples from an enormous field of work.  Many of the visions in each of these books have come to pass or remain concerns for our world.  Without these works we might not have a common place from which we can begin a dialogue about choosing our future.  There are more concerns lying ahead of us about which we’ve not read, not thought out; we need science fiction to help us focus upon and explore that which we are unwilling to imagine and discuss even in an open society.

(I didn’t mention The White Plague; it’s not on everybody’s favorite sci-fi list, but the premise is prophetic and timely.  Only too.)

Just as there are disturbing visions that remain in the ether, there are dreams of health and prosperity that are unwritten.  (We are yet so far from achieving health and prosperity about this globe!)  Without concretion in words, it will be difficult to bring our dreams to fruition.  We will have nothing to point to as a goal, nothing on which to center our attention.  We must write about the possibility of leaving this planet to explore; we must write about the possibility of salvaging this planet. 

There is so much yet to be done; surely sci-fi cannot be dead.

10:12:23 AM    comment []