The other day at a John McCain rally in Cincinnati, Bill Cunningham served as the warm-up speaker. His job was to get the crowd revved up in anticipation of McCain, and rev them up he did. For those unfamiliar with the story, Bill Cunningham is a conservative radio talk show host. He spent much of his time trashing liberals in general, and on the topic of Barack Obama, insisted on using his full name, Barack Hussein Obama, with the emphasis on the Hussein part. The implication was obvious: Obama shares a name with Saddam Hussein, and therefore it's okay to associate all the negativity we've been conditioned to feel towards the Muslim world with Barack Obama. This "guilty by association" premise has been used by other conservative radio and television pundits in recent weeks, and more frequently as Mr. Obama emerges as the Democratic frontrunner. It is a despicable tactic, exploiting the ignorance and prejudice of the American voter.
What interests me about this particular episode of hatemongering is what happened next: McCain came out and addressed the media, saying that Bill Cunningham's disrespect for Senator Obama did not reflect his own feelings, and that he wanted to treat both Senator Obama and Senator Clinton with the respect they deserve as United States senators. He made it a point to both distance himself from the negative remarks offered by Cunningham, while accepting responsibility for the unfortunate incident.
His willingness to be accountable for the blowback despite his apparent ignorance of it in advance, to me, hearkens back to the days of Harry Truman. On Truman's desk in the Oval Office was a sign that read simply, "The Buck Stops Here". The idea that a President (or a presidential candidate) is ultimately accountable for the actions of his administration is one we have sadly not seen much of since the days of Truman. To be clear, I have no intention of voting for John McCain, but it comforts me to know that if elected, there are signs that he would display integrity and accountability.
But an even larger issue is the genial atmosphere. Politics, especially in an election year, is an ugly business. From the general mudslinging to the underhanded Swift boat tactics of 2004, the notion seems to be "vote for me, because the other guy is a weasel". I've stated previously my aversion to the notion of voting for the lesser of two evils. Call me idealistic, but I think it's nobler to build a platform around the idea that you're the best choice for the job, not that the other guy is a bum. That, to me, is using distraction. I want to vote for a candidate that I believe in, not vote against the candidate I hate more.
I know all politicians are, to some degree, sellouts. I've made peace with that. They pander, the promise, they choreograph the photo-ops to show them kissing the babies. It's the way the political machine works, especially in the era of YouTube and the 24-hour news channel - always smile. Shake hands until your arm goes numb. Talk tough about the issues. Speak in sound bites. Demonstrate that even though it's been years since you had anything less than a six-figure income, you can still feel for and relate to the working poor. Add to all this, the idea that the easiest way to get elected is not by promoting yourself, but by assassinating the character of your rivals.
By conservative radio and talk show estimates, we’re to believe that if elected, Obama will reveal himself to be a closeted radical Muslim. We’re to believe that Obama (and Clinton) can’t wait to get into office if only to declare defeat in the war on terror and expose America's soft underbelly to the hordes of bloodthirsty savages around the world. We’re to believe that if elected, the two Democratic frontrunners will waste no time opening the borders to all manner of criminals. Then the thought occurs: these guys are supposed to be stumping for the other guy. Why are they giving so much air time to the opposition, especially when any intelligent person knows that these media hacks are in the business of skewing the truth. Wouldn’t it make more sense to focus on why McCain is a better choice? Shouldn’t they be exploring the promises, the policies, and the record of their own candidate, rather than the opposition’s?
Right about then is when I remember one of the great axioms of modern journalism: if it bleeds, it leads. People don’t tune in to the news to hear about what went well, what went smoothly and according to plan. Just ask NASA about that. No, the American public surfs the channels like sharks trolling for the scent of blood in the water. When we catch wind of scandal, of disgrace, of those in high places being brought low, we focus with rapt attention. Just ask Roger Clemens and Britney Spears.
So politics is more interesting when the candidates go for blood, is that it? We watch them circle one another like gladiators. We place our bets and root, root, root for the home team. During the twenty or so debates between Obama and Clinton, the press has lamented the “love fest”, openly wishing the claws would come out. To watch the debates is a lesson in civility. To hear the commentators in the aftermath, commenting on the two trading body blows, I wonder what debate they were watching. To be fair, these two do manage to take the occasional swipe at one another in stump speeches, but when brought together, they always seem to arrive at the same conclusion: we’re not so different, you and I.
Would that this trend continued through November and beyond: to see civility trump nastiness, mutual respect trump character assassination. Hopefully, we have seen the last of the Karl Rove-style of politics, which is to spend more time trying to dig up dirt on the other guy. I would just love to have the candidates simply say: “I respect my opponent, I think they have the country’s best interest at heart, but I believe my plan is a better one, and I’ll tell you why.”
What interests me about this particular episode of hatemongering is what happened next: McCain came out and addressed the media, saying that Bill Cunningham's disrespect for Senator Obama did not reflect his own feelings, and that he wanted to treat both Senator Obama and Senator Clinton with the respect they deserve as United States senators. He made it a point to both distance himself from the negative remarks offered by Cunningham, while accepting responsibility for the unfortunate incident.
His willingness to be accountable for the blowback despite his apparent ignorance of it in advance, to me, hearkens back to the days of Harry Truman. On Truman's desk in the Oval Office was a sign that read simply, "The Buck Stops Here". The idea that a President (or a presidential candidate) is ultimately accountable for the actions of his administration is one we have sadly not seen much of since the days of Truman. To be clear, I have no intention of voting for John McCain, but it comforts me to know that if elected, there are signs that he would display integrity and accountability.
But an even larger issue is the genial atmosphere. Politics, especially in an election year, is an ugly business. From the general mudslinging to the underhanded Swift boat tactics of 2004, the notion seems to be "vote for me, because the other guy is a weasel". I've stated previously my aversion to the notion of voting for the lesser of two evils. Call me idealistic, but I think it's nobler to build a platform around the idea that you're the best choice for the job, not that the other guy is a bum. That, to me, is using distraction. I want to vote for a candidate that I believe in, not vote against the candidate I hate more.
I know all politicians are, to some degree, sellouts. I've made peace with that. They pander, the promise, they choreograph the photo-ops to show them kissing the babies. It's the way the political machine works, especially in the era of YouTube and the 24-hour news channel - always smile. Shake hands until your arm goes numb. Talk tough about the issues. Speak in sound bites. Demonstrate that even though it's been years since you had anything less than a six-figure income, you can still feel for and relate to the working poor. Add to all this, the idea that the easiest way to get elected is not by promoting yourself, but by assassinating the character of your rivals.
By conservative radio and talk show estimates, we’re to believe that if elected, Obama will reveal himself to be a closeted radical Muslim. We’re to believe that Obama (and Clinton) can’t wait to get into office if only to declare defeat in the war on terror and expose America's soft underbelly to the hordes of bloodthirsty savages around the world. We’re to believe that if elected, the two Democratic frontrunners will waste no time opening the borders to all manner of criminals. Then the thought occurs: these guys are supposed to be stumping for the other guy. Why are they giving so much air time to the opposition, especially when any intelligent person knows that these media hacks are in the business of skewing the truth. Wouldn’t it make more sense to focus on why McCain is a better choice? Shouldn’t they be exploring the promises, the policies, and the record of their own candidate, rather than the opposition’s?
Right about then is when I remember one of the great axioms of modern journalism: if it bleeds, it leads. People don’t tune in to the news to hear about what went well, what went smoothly and according to plan. Just ask NASA about that. No, the American public surfs the channels like sharks trolling for the scent of blood in the water. When we catch wind of scandal, of disgrace, of those in high places being brought low, we focus with rapt attention. Just ask Roger Clemens and Britney Spears.
So politics is more interesting when the candidates go for blood, is that it? We watch them circle one another like gladiators. We place our bets and root, root, root for the home team. During the twenty or so debates between Obama and Clinton, the press has lamented the “love fest”, openly wishing the claws would come out. To watch the debates is a lesson in civility. To hear the commentators in the aftermath, commenting on the two trading body blows, I wonder what debate they were watching. To be fair, these two do manage to take the occasional swipe at one another in stump speeches, but when brought together, they always seem to arrive at the same conclusion: we’re not so different, you and I.
Would that this trend continued through November and beyond: to see civility trump nastiness, mutual respect trump character assassination. Hopefully, we have seen the last of the Karl Rove-style of politics, which is to spend more time trying to dig up dirt on the other guy. I would just love to have the candidates simply say: “I respect my opponent, I think they have the country’s best interest at heart, but I believe my plan is a better one, and I’ll tell you why.”
No comments:
Post a Comment