It’s an important day today, mid-term election day, and for the life of me I cannot figure out how the democratic process that built this great country has slid so far, so fast, without the Marx brothers somehow being involved. And I mean Groucho and Harpo, not Karl and kin.
I am beyond embarrassed by the devolution of our election process. “Campaigning” no longer involves a shred of integrity; candidate “strategy” is now a relentless feed of negative distortions tied by a thread to a sliver of fact. The goal is to create disdain for the other candidate, rather than trusting the truth about a candidates true stand on relevant issues.
Albeit an effective sales technique — sowing the seeds of negative consequence and preying on voters’ worry circles — I despise this approach. It is a distasteful reminder of high school, where hall whisperers intentionally destroy the self-esteem of classmates. Today our politicians have put that meanness on steroids and flex their evil muscles. Their goal is personal gain of the very worst kind: low-pay, high-influence.
Where is the joy from “winning” an election based on gutter politics, distortions, and deceptions? Or from a campaign where the character assassins are allowed to hide in the fog of newly-created organization names?
A couple months ago I decided I would vote for no one (and no cause) that featured a campaign built around negativity. If someone has thirty seconds to sell him or herself and spends all of it slamming their opponet, why would I vote and reward that?
Can you imagine Thomas Jefferson or Abraham Lincoln talking exaggerated, distorted smack in dramtic intonations about John Adams or George McClellan? I cannot and shudder at the thought.
Voters struggle to differentiate candidates now because no one running will define what he or she stands for. The reason for this ostrich approach is simple: We are in a recession. And we are in it because it’s a latent price that must be paid for a enjoying a generation of endless appetites for largess, greed, and lazy shortcuts. We took and grabbed and hoarded as much as we could instead of earning things based on equity and fair trade.
Now, because it’s time to fork over borrowed cash to pay to the bagpiper, complex problems with no obvious solution set mean that people must pretend they know the answers when, in fact, no one does. If Warren Buffett is guessing wrong, what chance does a C student running for office have?
But lack of knowledge impedes no man or woman’s braggadocio (note: see Vanity Fair’s October feature on Sarah Palin). Today’s modern American political strategy combines a porcupine defense and teflon quills with a strong offense and sound bit attack. Attack, attack, and attack some more. Bury them with noise. Force your opponent to swordfight without a potty break. Welcome to the Election of Deflection; where the new American way is to force your opponent to defend him or herself against of a non-stop, whirlwind attack of half-truths and mis-truths.
If I weren’t so healthy this would all make me sick.
I have also had my fill with whiny voters who undermine current elected officials. To me, subverting the efforts of those in office is the root of treason. Want to change things? Take the high road and work to build toward positive change. In the meantime, shut up.
This past weekend I watched with amusement Jon Stewart’s publicity stunt in Washington. Days after it’s over even the people who attended still don’t know what it was. Afraid to wobble the invisible tightrope straddling both parties his viewers support, Stewart took a stand on nothing.
Jon’s concept, however, was long overdue: Is anyone out there sick and tired of the confetti of idiocy fluttering around us? If so, show up and use free port-a-johns while we mill around and do a whole lot of nothing.
For that I award Jon two loud finger snaps.
What’s my solution? Vote anyway. I voted early and tossed out all party affiliations. I based my choices on how loud the attack dogs barked; and I voted for victims. Whoever attacked his or her opponent the most lost.
And on the issues, I read every one of them several times in order to have a snowball’s chance in a sauna of understanding about what the heck I was asked to vote on. The legalese and lawyerese with which these things are written is an embarrassment. Next time world news decides we need to stone someone I don’t think we should pick a Middle East adulterer. Pick an American lawyer who can’t explain a simple question using words a pro wrestling fan can understand.
Questions that seek a Yes or No answer should be explained simply with one and two-syllable words. Call me old fashioned but open-minded: I believe both Americans and illegal aliens should be able to understand what’s being asked on a ballot. Want to earn my vote? Ban run-on sentences.
Sundown will fortunately portend the end to this suited charade of post-Halloween costumery, and I can turn my focus to more important things — like how to exact revenge on automated phone callers who blatantly interrupt my dinner.
For them I’d vote yes on the death penalty.
Tom Simendinger says
November 2, 2010 at 2:56 pmI had a discussion with my dad after the Jon Stewart rally about its relevance and message. Being a regular viewer of his show, nothing that Stewart said at the end of the rally was any revelation to me. I feel his main message was that the twenty-four hour cable news networks have become an obstruction to American progress. By developing polarizing opinions and storylines within their networks, they prey on the fears of the American public and that same public cannot help but continue to tune in to see if the “good” guys or the “bad” guys win. Stewart’s most important point was that outside of these networks, the American public, in normal, everyday life, does not view one another as the opposition. We try to work together to solve problems as we rely on each other for the success of one another. He used driving on the highway as a metaphor for this point, illustrating the fact that we work together to get where we are going. We let people with all sorts of bumper stickers and opinions merge into our lane and they allow us to do the same. Occasionally, we may meet a jerk that does not abide by these customs but they are the exception and not the rule. The audience, some members of my family included, may have become side-tracked by this metaphor but I feel it served its purpose to illustrate Stewart’s point of cooperation. In an era when reality television has become as common as high-fructose corn syrup, we have become numb to these talking heads (i.e. Hannity, Beck, Maddow) that are more akin to the frightening prediction of the classic film Network than to the example set by great newsmen from the early years of television (i.e. Cronkite, Murrow). As a member of America’s “youth”, I reject twenty-four hour cable news and I am glad that there are people like Stewart and Colbert who are exhausted by the saturation of the news medium. Stewart may be criticized for being just a comedian, appealing only to “stoners”, or unwilling to get off the “tightrope” between comedy and social commentary but should he have to? Why can’t he poke fun and by doing so, point out truths? Isn’t that what political satire has been ever since Thomas Nast drew cartoons over 100 years ago? Why should Nast be studied in high schools yet Stewart and Colbert are ridiculed for doing something extremely similar? I feel Stewart’s rally brought a lot of awareness to these aforementioned issues with the news media that people may not always be thinking of when they turn on Fox News or MSNBC and for that, I found it to be a very admirable event.