Trading Faces

Here I sit, snug in my living room, the only sound being the tapping of keys on the computer and the tumbling of the clothes dryer just outside the door (I live in a basement apartment; the upstairs neighbour must be finishing her laundry). It is on this day, the second-to-last day of an entire year of arduous campaigning and base name-calling that seemed to span an eternity, that it has finally registered with me: America is having an election. Yes, I knew all along what was to happen and when; perhaps I simply habituated to the pre-electoral hype, not caring much that it was to culminate in a coronation of some sorts.

Though not an active participant in these proceedings, I do live only about fifty kilometres from America's closest shoreline, and am under the auspices of a free-trade agreement that gives America a more than generous helping of our precious natural resources, so you might say I have somewhat of an interest in the goings-on of American politics. Once again, as is customary every leap year in the Gregorian calendar, two cardboard cut-outs of dapper men take centre stage and vie for the keys to the kingdom; however, this year's competition has an added twist, as one of the contenders has brown skin.

Paul Mooney recently provided a telling synopsis: for the first time in the Presidential election, race is an issue among White voters. Of course, he says, it has always been an issue among non-White voters, forced to decide between White male contenders, wondering which one is the most liberal, the least racist. Mind you, Mr. Mooney failed to mention the gender line - women have always been forced (er, um, "asked") to decide between male candidates, if memory serves me correctly - but I cannot fault him for (a) being swept up in the current hoopla, and (b) being a man. Last year, he did predict America would be saying "Madam President" (I trust you can find the interview clip yourselves to see how deep he delved into gender and politics), and, for a while, it appeared as though he was correct, until the dapper young knight stirred the mob into a frenzy with his steely demeanour, letting it be known that the Face of America was far too daunting a responsibility for a hysterical woman, as many men seemed to believe (and the spin doctors led us to perceive).

As Mr. Mooney was saying, race is now an issue with the White voter, forced to decide if s/he is ready for the Face of America to be a few shades darker. A lot of folk, in America and abroad, believe this individual worthy of the mantle, feeling he will foster the change necessary to restore virtue to the Nation. Still even more folk believe this will finally be the day when the non-White will stand on equal footing with her/his pale-faced oppressor. From reading the news today, it seems this Barack Obama has a healthy lead on his chief rival, thereby rendering his coronation a safe prognostication. Or White America will step into that voting booth, and it will finally register, that stinging, burning sensation on the back of its neck, and a once promising forecast will whittle away, and King John will have his day because, at the end of the day, Barack Obama is still Black - not Black enough, say many, but still Black enough not to be President.

What will happen if he does succeed in ascertaining the office of President of the United States? The more I learn about this Barack Obama, the more I wonder if the only thing changing is the Face of America, if the change in which we are to believe will be merely skin deep. Granted, he may be more warm to renewable energy and affordable health care than his counterpart, but he seems to be all about America the Empire and the preservation of its hegemony - here, I insert an aside, and tell you about how I cringe every time I hear it suggested that, because the decisions of America's President affect the entire world, the entire world should decide who is to be President, for it is precisely this repressive hegemony responsible for such an effect - true, he may favour a reduction of operations in Iraq, but America's interest in the region still comes first, and America has no intention of ever relinquishing its foothold in the region, with this newly-found muscle no doubt being put to work elsewhere. Last I heard, he favours aggrandizing the already gargantuan military budget, and, rather than act as mediator for a peaceful resolution, has drawn his line in the sand in the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Barack Obama can, and has, whisper sweet nothings about "change" into our ears for as long as it makes us swoon: ultimately, he answers not to his voters, but his handlers, and his handlers, with maybe a few tweaks here and there, want nothing more than for him to maintain the status quo while their burgeoning profit margins bring them to orgasm. So why do we continue to choose A or B, knowing their promises to be as vacuous as... well, I'm sure you can conjure a most apt analogy. Why not consider an alternative candidate, like Cynthia McKinney or Ralph Nader? Sadly, as much as I would like to see one of these two emerge victorious, given where the "power" lies, would either of them be permitted to govern?

This extravaganza seems to me like a clever ruse: voters, sensing nothing has been done, grow weary of the incumbent and lend their support to a most convincing challenger, who does nothing over the course of the next term, and so continues the cycle. The Red Team and Blue Team take turns reaping the benefits of the highest office in the land (it happens here, too, and the colours are the same!), while you and me still have our jobs to work, and our bills to pay, and our mouths to feed, and our myriad worries to address. Perhaps I'm too pessimistic for my own good, but I can't say hearing the word "change" emanating from the mouth of a politician makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside.

Decrying the system might be well and good for placating my own ego, but it doesn't offer much hope for anyone, so it is my hope (there's that passive voice again!) that I can end this on a more sanguine note. We cannot expect to sit and wait for change to come from A or B (or even C or D, given the conditions in which they have to work); no, we must realize it ourselves. The power lies not within the dollars that rest in the hands of the few who stage this cavalcade and gleefully watch as we swallow every last morsel, but within the hands of the women and men who turn the cranks and pull the levers that make the wheels of this economy spin, who work themselves to death hoping their children will have a more comfortable life. This power is not exercised through tihs farce we call "election", in which it is systematically surrendered to the highest bidder, but rather through their contributions to their society, the joy they bring into the lives of the people they meet, the help they offer those in need. We won't need anyone to keep this dying economic model on life support, for a new one will emerge, one not requiring arbitrary numerical values for everything or silly slips of paper to denote one's so-called worth.

All being said, I'm still a sucker for entertainment, thus I imagine I will be watching tomorrow to see who wins. Some revolutionary I am.