If one wanted to study the triumph of style over substance, one who have to look no farther than the 2004 Presidential campaign. Lost in the spin, the issue ads, the 527s, and the cheap, unfounded, simplistic accusations are some actual, honest-to-God issues that have real bearing on the future of our country and it’s role in the world. It’s just too bad that none of these issues are getting any serious play in the press. How often do you see or read reports comparing Bush and Kerry on important issues? Not nearly as often as you’ll see or read stories about Vietnam, the National Guard, Bush’s dissolute years, or Kerry’s anti-war protests. None of these things have any impact on things that are important today. They are, in fact, only important if you are trying to discredit one or the other. Is it any wonder that they quality of Presidential candidates has fallen dramatically over the years? In this climate, why would good, capable people willingly subject themselves to this sort of character assassination?
When it’s easier, and more effective, to compare Bush to Hitler or Kerry to Hanoi Jane, why discuss issues? No one’s going to pay attention to issues, anyway.
Neither liberals nor conservatives hold a monopoly on truth, and I’ve seen enough smugness in right and left-wing blogs to be quite discouraged. Until the people here who see nothing but irredeemable evil or stupidity in the hearts of the other side realize the truth that you are all as human as each other, the prospects for the health of the American democracy is not good.
Though I understand the importance of this Presidential election to the future of our country, I am sick to death of the lies, the prevarications, the spin, and the energy wasted on “issues” and character assassination that ultimately doesn’t matter. Part of me wants to go to sleep and wake up on November 3rd, whereupon I will simply digest the results and move on. Somehow waking up and dealing with a fait accompli seems preferably to deal with six more weeks of this crap.
adj.: “Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry… Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded… Of, relating to, or characteristic of liberalism…Liberal Of, designating, or characteristic of a political party founded on or associated with principles of social and political liberalism, especially in Great Britain, Canada, and the United States.”
n.: “A person with liberal ideas or opinions…Liberal A member of a Liberal political party.”
adj.: “Favoring traditional views and values; tending to oppose change… Traditional or restrained in style…Moderate; cautious…Of or relating to the political philosophy of conservatism… Belonging to a conservative party, group, or movement… Of or relating to treatment by gradual, limited, or well-established procedures; not radical…resistant to change…opposed to liberal reforms…avoiding excess…unimaginatively conventional… conforming to the standards and conventions of the middle class; “a bourgeois mentality”.”
n.: “One favoring traditional views and values… A supporter of political conservatism…One who, or that which, preserves from ruin, injury, innovation, or radical change…a person who has conservative ideas or opinions.”
Even with these definitional differences in mind, there is one thing that all of us have in common. We are all Americans, and we all have a stake in the future of our country. The question from where I sit is whether we will take our future back or allow it to be held hostage by a collection of Neoconservatives who see political power as merely a means to further there Machiavellian agenda and fatten their wallets. That is neither Liberal or Conservative spin: that is the reality of what we as Americans face in this election season.
I do not pretend to have all of the answers, though I do have some strong opinions. Though my political leanings are stongly Progressive, I do believe that Conservatives have much to offer. Were I to be honest (and I’m trying to be here), I would state that the “Truth”, such as it is, lies somewhere in the middle. The real question, though, is how to back away from the anger and the rhetoric so that we can find that middle ground?
At this point in time, I am firmly convinced that Republicans will stop at nothing to ensure victory in November. The 2000 election provided the blueprint. This time around promises to be little different. The reality is that national politics has become a zero sum game- we win, you lose, so shut the hell up. If Niccolo Machiavelli were alive today, he would be all sorts of impressed with the Bush campaign machine. So much for finding that middle ground….
Of course, it’s not like Americans will be voting on the issues, anyway. In this day and age, victory in a Presidential election is achieved by the candidate who is best able to frame himself most positively and his opponent most negatively. Issues? Of course, you don’t want to ignore the issues, but in reality it’s about impressions and sound bites and cheap, unsubstantiated accusations. Presidential candidates are not about issues, they’re products to be packaged. It’s the political equivalent of Coke vs. Pepsi. The tastes are very similar, but the difference is in how they are sold to the American public.
In reality, this is not so very different from what has been occurring in Presidential elections since Nixon-Kennedy in 1960. However, with the advent of 24-hour cable news channesl and the Internet, things happen much more quickly, and our collective attention span has decreased to an almost infinitesimal level.
Besides, who wants to watch a Presidential campaign when The Apprentice is on?
