Perhaps looking to politics to solve all of our country's most urgent and difficult problems is not an exclusive path to a solution... I'm not sure if you've ever heard the (Eastern, specifically Taoist) expression "I only know go" but it's a way of saying you don't have to know everything about every subject to know what is going on; if you work in a specific problem domain then you can usually understand what you need to know by focusing on that problem domain. I don't disagree with your comments about politics and how it tends to work but I do think the best way to affect politics (if that's what you really want to do or what really needs to be done) is to become a politician. As a software engineer I only know software - and I know both parties have all the wrong ideas when it comes to information, expression, and efficiency (i.e. business), which are the things that software deals with - meaning they'll either do gross harm or will never catch up to what really matters. Expecting people (or a given individual) to transcend that which makes them fallible (i.e. human) is expecting a lot, or, in other words, setting yourself up for disappointment.
I guess what I ultimately mean to say is that I'm not getting a lot out of this discussion since a subject like "Conventions are stupid" doesn't create a context in which a meaningful exchange of ideas can occur. Political conventions are history in the making irrespective of any given individual's ideology & persuasions; perhaps concluding that they're stupid only means you're not involved enough in the process?
-------
Sorry R, it was just a silly email title that was not intended to be the basis of discussion. If you're not getting a lot out of this discussion, that's unfortunate but not my responsibility. You have the ability to move the conversation in a better direction if you choose, or even start your own. I hope you recognize that half of this thread is just joking around and blowing off steam (Nike endorses Obama, Biden hoping for an assassination, remaking the government, etc.). If the Dems get to vent and bitch about Bush, McCain, and America's problems for 4 days at their convention, then we should be able to do it in cyberspace now and then. As you know, I write my emails to entertain, provoke, complain, or offer alternative viewpoints than the mainstream. Plus it's the only way I have left to interact with some of my friends who have moved away.
If I feel that conventions are "stupid", I don't think you can simply attribute that to my ignorance or detachment. We're more politically aware than 95% of Americans (that is not to our credit, but a criticism of the nation as whole). From what I know, I think that much of the conventions lack substance, spread misinformation or biased half-truths, and involve a lot of waste, hype, and busyness for little tangible gain for the Americans who are desperately seeking sound leadership and help from their elected government. So yes, that qualifies as "stupid" for me. We need more action, not lavish parties and cliched speeches. In NPR's words, conventions are "infomercials" (yet they still send many of their people to cover it). If you watch much off-hours TV, you know that most infomercials are stupid, long-winded, and unpersuasive.
Of course complaining about a situation from the outside does little good, especially from nobodies like us who don't lead think tanks or host TV shows. If we want to change politics, the most expedient way may be to participate in the process as you said. But most of us don't have the resources, credentials, and opportunity to do so. When you get accepted to medical school, there's a very good chance you'll become a doctor. When you want to enter politics, there's no guarantee you'll even get a foot in the door, much less achieve enough success to feed your loved ones and "make a difference". And participating usually means playing by their rules, so one risks becoming part of the problem. Many good people have entered politics to clean it up, and failed. I know I'm just listing a bunch of possible reasons why it won't work, and yes if we really wanted to, many of us could drop everything tomorrow and enter politics to try to help people. "Yes we can". A society's failings are ultimately the fault of the people not their government, though bad leaders (Nero, Hitler) can do much more damage than 1,000 apathetic citizens. But we have limits on us that politicians don't. And not everyone can work in politics. Even if we could, it would be chaos. America has about one doctor for every 50 people, but maybe we have one politician for every 1,000? Especially at the higher levels, politics are not intender for or open to everyone, hence all the buzz for the first woman and black to have a real shot at the presidency. Actually the bigger buzz should be for the first non-rich person or "everyday Joe" who has a chance of becoming president. So just because you or I are not involved in politics doesn't mean we've somehow shirked our responsibilities to try to solve the problems we complain about. If anything, it's very patriotic and American to talk about problems, rather than making excuses for them or pretending they don't exist. Sure action is better than talking (especially when we talk so much that we delay action, like Sacramento), but we have a limited ability to influence others.
But why would I want to get involved in a convention process whose purpose I don't agree with? In my limited view, political conventions don't seem to be worth the effort, and don't really serve to address the goals set forth by the speakers. Does the Oscars ceremony help make Hollywood films better? And not many voters even watch or care about the Conventions. The major networks barely cover them on prime time because "Heroes" makes them more money (but cable news picks up the slack). Simplistic and/or inaccurate propaganda like "flip-flopper" 4 years ago and "Bush-McCain administration" today do a disservice to the political process and insult voter intelligence (though sadly it is effective on some people). Maybe conventions are more of an occasion for party big shots and VIPs to network, cut deals, and discuss strategy behind the scenes, while the masses chant and cheer to nonsense, as L's article suggested.
--------
There are some qualities of Obama and the Dems that I still like, and maybe they will be able to "renew the promise of America". Though the Dem's track record in Congress has been abysmal since they won control in 2006, especially since they promised us the moon. I really don't expect politicians to "transcend their human failings", but sometimes their language suggests that they intend to, which is insincere because we all know they can't. I guess you can't inspire people with, "I'm going to let you down sometimes and maybe we won't be able to deliver on some of these proposals". It's like they don't trust the voters with the truth, unless it can be condensed into a bumper sticker. I just expect them to level with us, work hard, and make decisions thoughtfully and justly, with our collective best interests in mind. Isn't that what our bosses expect from lowly workers like us? I hope I'm not asking for too much.
But conventions are so uber-partisan that it makes me gag (Zell Miller at the RNC in 2004 was the low point). No one party or leader is right all the time. Dems have failed where the GOP has succeeded, and vice versa. Obama and McCain are great men and leaders in some ways, and bozos in other ways. Republicans love this country too (though they sometimes express it in bizarre ways), and they endorse some sound ideas/policies. If the Dems were so right and GOP so wrong, how could millions of intelligent, patriotic Republicans be so stupid to not see the light? Of course this applies doubly for the ultra-right, since they equate liberals with Al Qaeda. We have to be able to give credit, tolerance, and respect to our opponents, especially when they're our fellow citizens. It is good and right for us to criticize each other and our leaders, but also to acknowledge when the other side has a point. I try to do that in all my contentious emails ("try" means I fail sometimes). Isn't that the first step to compromise and cooperation? Obama's camp claims that he can bring people together like no other leader today. But his rhetoric has been quite pejorative and divisive at times, no different than his competitors.
In fact it's hard to even speak of political parties in generalities. America is complex, large, and diverse, and our politics are even more so. It's unnatural to try to enforce unity and homogeneity. Obama's people are so paranoid of him appearing inept to "control" his own party and get the Hillary supporters in line. They don't want their house to look disorderly on prime time. So what? Politics are disorderly. Have you ever seen footage of the British Parliament (and they are supposed to be all genteel and polished)? Previous US conventions had fights and riots, and took a long time to decide on a nominee. I hope there is no way that the better candidate can lose an election just because his or her convention didn't go smoothly. Not all Dems think the same. And if we do, it's time to get our heads examined. There's no harm in some delegates expressing their preference for Clinton, Kucinich, or whomever as the best candidate. They will be overruled, but they shouldn't be censored or forced to change their minds. Even Clinton's aides say she still privately fumes and mourns her defeat. Maybe they haven't "healed" 100%, but the party is still moving forward in a positive manner towards November. The handlers don't have to micromanage everyone so that the party appears flawless and harmonious. That's not real, and in fact it arouses suspicion when they have made so much effort to choreograph everything (like China and the Olympics). What are they hiding from America?
Conventions themselves are not a bad thing, and can serve a good purpose. But they way they are conducted now is stupid.
