 |
Super Tuesday
I've been loathe to comment on what's going on in the US primaries because of my personal beliefs regarding non-citizens influencing democratic elections. I'm not an American citizen, so while I agree that American politics is world politics, and that broad-stroke political discussions are appropriate -- Left versus Right partisan politics exist outside of America -- I don't think it's appropriate for me to be 'endorsing' candidates in the primary stages. I'm not sure I feel that any media personality should be endorsing candidates in the nomination stages. The hyperbole required in the process creates a lingering awkwardness that lasts far beyond the primaries and caucuses, as Oprah Winfrey and her ilk will soon find out.
So I've been trying to figure out how to present some relevant thoughts on trends and processes without putting too fine a point on the candidate(s) I "support"; "support" is in quotations because it's a passive act. I can't caucus.
The frenzy that is primary season is a baffling one for those of us living under parliamentary governments. Here, nominations of party leaders are internal matters, so unless one of us is intensely and directly involved in politics... or someone does something amusingly and incredibly stupid... we don't get our bonnets full of bees about it.
So I've been an upset and horrified spectator to this Clinton/Obama/McCain/Romney/Paul/Huckabee/Jabberwocky/Frankenstein... thing that's been happening. I included the fictional references because I can't help but feel like a monster is being created here.
America has a history of internal strife. In a country that geographically big, it's bound to happen. That America has held itself together is nothing short of a miracle by design. Other countries have split apart that have had similar tensions and such varying levels of civil war of both hot and cold varieties. But WOW does America love to fight itself.
Even though I know that politics is a dirty and bloody game, I still believe that this current cycle has gone far beyond what was necessary, practical or useful. While the politics of personality is an old and common theme, this period has been more the politics of 'hey! Look at me! I matter!' I'm not talking about the candidates. I'm talking about the voters.
People cry foul when talk of voting along racial or gender lines emerges, but recent statistics seem to point to people voting the way girls pick out dolls: they tend to go for the one that looks the most like them, or the one they'd like to look like. When that's questioned, people have lashed out. Because it took too long for people to realize that when an individual declared which candidate they supported, they were trying to affirm themselves, and things became too personal for a national debate reported to an international audience. Foreign news sources started throwing in their two cents, and the Western Hemisphere lost its Reason. (capital R, apologies to Kant)
It's tragic that a campaign that began with so many sources and themes of hope has ended in so much metaphorical bloodshed. But in retrospect, I'm not sure it could have ended any other way: the narrowing down of political candidates involves analysis and deconstruction, but this time, we weren't tearing down people. We were flaying dreams.
The process defamed a romantic, handsome upstart with big dreams from a long-oppressed people; it bludgeoned a scrappy, determined, long-suffering-yet-devoted feminist love interest; it impugned a tell-it-like-it-is war hero; it demonized a dashing millionaire, devoted family man, and man of the church; it humiliated a fearless leader who brought the country through its darkest hour in modern history... and it all but completely ignored Ron Paul.
Well, that's how their supporters see Barack Obama, Hillary Rodham Clinton, John McCain, Mitt Romney, and Rudy Giuliani. In Rudy's case, all five that remain still think he's swell. Of course, every single one of these shining lights was surrounded by an army of campaign workers whose mission it was to make they're opponents look as downright evil as they possibly could. Cries of racism, illegitimate children, cult-like religious practices, and conspiring with slumlords rang out. Everyone had too much of a checkered past, or not enough experience; was too old or too young; was too liberal, too conservative, or too much contact with the other side.
And voter after voter complained that they wanted to hear about the issues, but poll after poll indicated that what they wanted was personality and celebrity. They wanted someone who would make them feel good about themselves.
That's not new, really. That was the underpinning of George W. Bush's early popularity as well. The side-effect of his fall from grace is that this time around, it's anyone's race to win, and that's created an unexpectedly bumper crop of good candidates. But who's the BEST candidate? I don't think the process has allowed anyone to determine that with any certainty.
At some point it became the general consensus that, at least on the Democratic Party's side, Obama and Clinton were essentially identical on the issues. Which would be great, except it's not true. In terms of their health care platforms, there are clear distinctions in their programs, as have their been in their comments regarding certain foreign policy events, such as the assassination of Benazir Bhutto. The Republican side, despite their more discernible shades of grey on key issues, still line up similarly in terms of broad strokes, but there ARE differences.
But who gives a damn about issues and subtlety when there's a rip-roaring popularity contest going on! It makes me think about when I was running for student president in the fifth grade. All the 'candidates' were supposed to make speeches about how they'd make the school better, despite the oldest of us being all of twelve. I guess it was a good lesson though, because the girl who won was the prettiest and most popular, even though she barely spoke above a whisper. No, that girl wasn't me.
So as "Super Tuesday" looms, I lament that the process has brought America closer to electing a popular leader instead of a competent one. That doesn't mean that a candidate can't be both, but the selection criteria has nothing to do with actual ability to govern. All the cheers of 'it's time it's time' make me wonder 'time, for what, exactly?' Time for the first black president? The first woman president? A truly compassionate conservative?
Maybe it's time for America to finally truly come to terms with its own prejudices and myths, things that have been writ large during this campaign. Until it does that, the skin colour or the gender of the president is little more than illusion in a country of myths with a tendency to eat its own.
4 Comments:
-
OzBob said...
-
Hmmm, I think America has got the democracy it deserves over the years, or maybe the democracy it was ready for at the time. The mix is certainly wider these days (a white woman, a black man, a 71 yr old man) but will the ability to choose different be exercised at crunch time? Methinks the fuss will die down when the woman or black gets passed over for the "comfortable decision" of the white male.
One thing that seems ironic - there was mention in the blog about celebrity having political power. Aren't politicians also celebrities these days?
Share and Enjoy! OzBob
- February 5, 2008 6:07 PM
-
People Power Granny said...
-
Super Tuesday: Will it change America for the better? Read my thoughts at http://peoplepowergranny.blogspot.com. You can also vote in my poll or comment. Let me know.
- February 5, 2008 10:53 PM
-
canadian coat said...
-
What I find interesting about the U.S. primaries is that within the two separate parties they spend half their campaign talking about what they will do and how great they are, and the other half (or maybe more) saying how bad their opponents are and why no one should vote for them. Now that’s not what I find interesting, because that ALWAYS happens. What I find interesting is that after the party has picked a leader, that leader will probably pick one of their now previous opponents as their running mate. (IE: Kerry and Edwards). So now you have a “great” leader running with a person who, months prior, was this bad person that no one should want, or had bad ideas about how to run the country…yet now its ok for the public to vote for him/her because they’re running with them (the party leader). To me that is like a bully on the school yard turning most of the school against one kid, then the next day the bully says their best friends.
This is one of the many things that makes me be grateful I live in Canada.
- February 6, 2008 9:16 PM
-
Joe said...
-
This has nothing to do with what's mentioned in your blog. But I thought you'd be interested:
http://www.redhotphones.com/inbybareddep.html
- February 8, 2008 6:26 PM
|
|
|
|
