Is anyone else completely obsessed with the Democratic primaries?

Visions of the Rewilding Renaissance
#1

I realize that who the president is won’t actually change very much at all, but at the same time… I am completely riveted by the Democratic primaries. Partly because having Clinton in power would require Jason and me by law to buy health care (by garnishing our wages if necessary), which would completely fuck up our rewilding plans, whereas Obama’s plan wouldn’t. Partly because Obama’s not a total corporate whore like Clinton is. (Guess where she got her start, way back when she was just a brand-new lawyer? Defending Wal-Mart and Monsanto. Seriously.) Partly because Clinton is basically a Republican in Democratic clothing, given how much she loves compromising her principles (although, given how often she compromises with Republicans, can you even say she has liberal principles?) on pretty much every single issue, especially ones involving personal freedom. It helps that Obama’s the only candidate still in the running who’s even so much as mentioned Peak Oil. I realize that this is all rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic, but, you know, sometimes it does help a little to get those chairs into a place where there’s a little more shade. :wink:

Hey, wait a minute. I will not apologize for being obsessed with the election! This can actually mean something, I think. It makes a difference whether we’re going into the collapse the way we’ve been going (kicking and screaming, trying to hold on to our wasteful way of life for as long as we can, invading Middle Eastern countries to get our hands on the last drops of oil) or trying to ease into it with at least an attempt at a powerdown. Now, I don’t believe that alternative sources of energy can keep us going at this rate - or at any rate - and at this point, I don’t think a painless powerdown is possible. But hell, we can try. I think Obama’s got a better chance at making the transition a little easier than Clinton or certainly McCain.

I really, really hope he wins Ohio and Texas. I’m looking forward to voting for him, although Pennsylvania doesn’t vote until way after this whole “do-or-die” showdown on March 4th. If Clinton’s still in the running by then, I’ll be seriously pissed off.

#2

I wouldn’t call myself obsessed but I have been following it somewhat. Ran Prieur’s perspective on why he supports Obama has really made a lot of sense to me. So much that this is the first year I have ever voted for a Democrat!

It helps that Obama's the only candidate still in the running who's even so much as mentioned Peak Oil.

Really. Where did he say this? I just assumed that any of the candidates left wouldn’t touch the Peak Oil issue.

Hey, wait a minute. I will not apologize for being obsessed with the election! This can actually mean something, I think. It makes a difference whether we're going into the collapse the way we've been going (kicking and screaming, trying to hold on to our wasteful way of life for as long as we can, invading Middle Eastern countries to get our hands on the last drops of oil) or trying to ease into it with at least an attempt at a powerdown.

This is a good point! Having the help of the government to powerdown will make things much easier.

Take care,

Curt

#3

I keep it up on radar, but I wouldn’t call it an obsession. The majority of my concern went out with Rudy, and while Clinton is worse than every other nominee (except Rudy, of course), I think she wouldn’t do too much damage (at least, in relation to the other nominees. I’m still not conviced Obama is “another Kennedy”, and I’m not sure how much difference it would make if he were).

just my 2 cents

#4

I see that Ralph Nader has anounced he will be running again, perhaps on the Green Party ticket. I checked out his website to see where he stands on some of the issues. For alot of people, I think what he has to say just seems to good to be true. Maybe if he would get as much time on television as the rest of the candidates the political climate would change real fast.

Curt

#5

I am a Nader traitor. It’s true. :smiley:

#6
I think she wouldn't do too much damage (at least, in relation to the other nominees.

Well, her & Obama differ in their health plans on only one point: in Clinton’s you must have health care.

That makes things sticky for people like us who want to rewild. We can’t just treat ourselves with herbal medicine? It reminds me of Brent Ladd’s account, and the ridiculous troubles his people encountered with social services. I think he simply noticed more air traffic because he started to feel paranoid, but the blindness of the government can hurt us a whole lot more than any kind of active conspiracy.

Social Services once threatened friends of mine, who were residing in a wigwam with their children, that the children would be taken away unless they were in a house that met zoning codes. This meant they had to have tar paper on the roof, a wooden floor, no open fire, and a thing called a "rat wall."

I can definitely see the threat that if Clinton got her way, we’d find ourselves forced to become outlaws sooner, rather than later. I imagine that our rewilding will eventually force us into that territory, but I hope to put it off until after collapse has drained the venom from law enforcement’s bite, and the law becomes more theoretical than real, anyway. Clinton might force us to choose between rewilding and playing it safe a lot sooner than I’d like to. In that sense, I see her plans as much more threatening than even Rudy “Freedom is the right of every individual to cede his decision-making to rightful authority” Giuliani.

#7

Yeah, if you don’t want health care under Clinton, it seems like you’ll have to drop your ID/US citizenship, SS, etc. (not always a bad thing, you just can’t really get a ‘normal’ job like that…)

#8

When it comes to Brent Ladd’s friends, it makes you wonder if it would’ve made any kind of difference if a bureaucrat with a “changed mind” (In the Quinn sense, I suppose) would’ve appeared on the scene. Probably not, rules are rules within the authority structure.

Curt

#9

While I’ve considered myself an anarchist (more the tolstoy / thoreau type, not the state-smashing kind), a primitivist, and an off-and-on-again rewilder for a lot of years now, I still vote and follow electoral politics to some small degree. While I’m no believer in politics, there are certainly things politicians can do to hinder or help us as anarchists, primitivists & rewilders. For instance, the Teaching Drum Outdoor School (one place I’ve lived and worked over the years) has lobbied to keep various roads into their primitive camp from being “improved” since that would have brought in more auto traffic to the area and degraded the wildness that community needs both for their lifestyle and their (non-profit) “tribal business”. Unseating a town board official and electing one who was sympathetic to the cause became part of one such campaign. In the process they’ve kept the local townships from cutting down thousands of trees (trees the community knows personally). The location of the TD itself is a factor of past electoral politics, since the school’s primitive camp wouldn’t be there if it weren’t for the federal national forest and wilderness designation in that area. Interestingly enough, the communal/tribal aspect of the TD (as well as the fact that a lot of ex activists find there way there) makes them quite effective when they do get involved in local politics…they become an affinity group to be reconed with.

I’ll probably either vote Nader of Obama…I figure it only takes an hour or so, and I’ve wasted more time than that this year watching South Park. When I think of all the things I waste time on in civilization (i.e. when I could be outdoors instead), I can’t reasonably put voting at the top of my list yet. :slight_smile:

#10
When I think of all the things I waste time on in civilization (i.e. when I could be outdoors instead), I can't reasonably put voting at the top of my list yet.

Hahaha. Totally.

Could you maybe start a thread on lobbying to stop roads from being “improved”? That really intrigues me. What does that entail. I know virtually nothing about that kind of thing.

#11

Here’s the blog we put up during one campaign…it details a lot of the history of the actions we took along the way.

I’ll go ahead and post it to start a new thread as well, since then folks can ask questions and continue the discussion. Btw Scout, what section of this site do you think would be most appropriate for such a discussion?

#12

Awesome! Thanks. I guess the “land” section would work… or maybe grief and praise? Go ahead and choose where you feel it would fit.

#13

Here’s the new thread:

http://www.rewild.info/conversations/index.php?topic=767.0

#14

I’m obsessed, yes, because basically if Hillary or McCain win, I’m leaving the country. I don’t intend to stick around here during a slide into facism. There are plenty of better places out there to wait it out until it’s safer to come back. Or not, depending on how well I like New Zealand or the Scandanavian countries.

#15

A lot has changed since this thread was started.

I voted for Obama today! First time in 16 years I voted Democrat.

Anybody else vote today?

Curt

#16

Yeah, a lot has changed. I haven’t voted (yet), but I’m going to queue up after work.

And, I’m voting for Obama.

#17

Yeah, I voted for Obama as well. I don’t put much stock in elections, but I was already out of the house on another errand, stopped in and filled in some bubbles. I voted for Obama largely because I have the sense that under McCain there’d be a big push to build nuclear plants, drill off the US coast, and do more with coal (coal-to-liquids stuff), whereas with Obama there’s been this underlining thread that coal is not a part of his strategy (he just said a couple days ago that building a coal plant now would bankrupt a company under his administration).

While I don’t root for any plan to save civilization – whether they propose coal and nuclear or “green” tech – I definitely see the coal/nuke camp as the most dangerous and destructive way for civilization to fall, perhaps even staving off significant declines by decades (coal to liquids kept the nazis afloat as well as apartheid south africa). So I voted for Obama because I think it’ll mean that this civilization takes a route down that may be a little less destructive.

#18

am i wrong in thinking that obama supports nuke tech?

#19

he does. he also supports “clean” coal and offshore drilling.

#20

i get the sense that he’s less zealous than mccain on coal, nuclear power, and offshore drilling. his recent rhetoric includes a good deal of play for “green jobs” which, presumably, are about neither of those things. but what do i know?