The near endless critiques that pundits are casting in regards the two nominees’ are not without effect. In being absorbed by thousands of readers, public opinion is being shaped. But with such a plurality of ‘credible’ sources and an even larger plethora of candid writers, it’s easy to find yourself lost among conflicting thoughts.
Out of one eye you see
an article which says that “the Arizona senator is having trouble making news, or at least news that advances his campaign's goals,” while out of the other eye you see
a piece saying that “it is Obama and his campaign that has been refusing for months now to stand toe to toe with John McCain, in front of ordinary Americans, no teleprompters, and speak to (on the) issues.”
So McCain is incapable of saying intelligent things and Obama is afraid of talking to him.
Translation: they both are idiots. And while that is entertaining and all, it isn’t very productive.
If the purpose of such op-eds are to draw us, the reading audience, nearer to supporting one candidate over another, reporters ought to make substantive arguments beyond showing why an opposing candidate is an idiot or a coward, or something along those lines.
To be fair, it is hard to do such a thing. This is primarily due to the fact that it is only on rare occasions that the candidates say anything of importance. In fact, I am hard pressed to remember the last time a candidate gave an substantive speech on a contemporary issue. Equal in their inability to deliver meaningful speeches, it is no wonder that commentators have a difficult time producing positive articles.
And when it comes to gaffes, again they are on an equal level (though I find that McCain seems to make them more frequently, they aren’t as widely broadcast – which is fair considering that everything he does is less publicly broadcast in comparison to Obama). The only difference between meaningful speeches and noteable mistakes being that they make mistakes far more frequently than meaningful speeches.
In one ear
we hear McCain making an ass of himself by arguing that he has always supported MLK Day, when this clearly is not the case. In the
other ear, Obama stupidly brings up the issue of racial (in)tolerance within the Republican Party.
If this presidential race is anything like a pistol duel, they aren’t aiming their guns at each other – they’re both busy taking aim at their own feet.
And with reporters circling, staring at them, just looking for any point to attack, it is not surprising that we are flooded by anti-either-candidate information.
There are first-hand errors, criticisms of speeches, and heck, there are even critiques of critiques; one of which being the commentary of Robert Stacy McCain,
who said this on August 3rd, 2008:
“Ordinary Americans are smart enough to perceive that the elites are demanding that they vote for Obama to prove they're not racists. But the voters don't feel they have to prove any such thing, and they resent like hell the suggestion that they do have to prove it.”
So who are these ‘elites'? Maureen Dowd? Author of “Are Men Necessary?” and “Bushworld” Maureen Dowd? She’s the 'elitist' we’re talking about? (If you don’t feel like reading his article you’ll have to take my word that Dowd is the ‘elitist’ being talked about).
Again, the game is being played by both sides. If there actually are elitist’s trying to persuade the public to vote for one party or another, they play for both teams. I mean sure, Maureen Dowd throws her heavy weight punches in favour of Obama by comparing the democratic nominee to Fitzwilliam Darcy of
Pride and Prejudice (wait - that is a compliment, right?), but on the flip side we have the admittedly less powerful Wal-Mart corporation trying to get their
employees to vote Republican.
Heck, it was almost as though the author of the article proclaiming Dowd to be a pro-Obama elitist conspirator was related to John McCain… Oh shi --- (to be fair, distant cousins don’t really count).
In other words, it’s easy to be confused if you’re actually paying attention. There is so much information pointing in so many directions, each by an individual with a whole lifetime of experiences which have shaped how their commentary will come across and who it will support (whether directly or indirectly).
But the confusion can be eliminated to a certain extent; it is subsided if we keep in mind one critical point.
This almighty fact that can’t be forgotten was said best by Marty Linski, a political science professor at Harvard: “elections and governing are two different ball games, played with different objectives and rules (…). The purpose of elections is to win (…). The purpose of governing is to do the best for the country.”
Translation: everything we hear from the candidates, the campaigners, and the critics is idiotic. And again, while entertaining, it is not very useful, so let me elaborate.
As we get lost in the myriad of commentaries and exposés aiming to get us to vote one way or another (or more commonly, to discredit one nominee or another), what we need to keep in our minds is what Linski said. Getting votes and governing well are two different ball games.
What the candidates, campaigners, and critics have to say in the months, weeks, and days prior to November 20th does not reflect how they (the candidates) will govern; it doesn’t even serve as a microcosm. Who will be best in office may not be who is best at appearing fit for office. So think for yourself and vote for who will best govern the country, who will best represent the people, who will best serve your interests; whatever they may be.
This - oddly enough - is what Stacey-McCain and Kurtz and Belle and Ms. D were saying too (at least indirectly). There words essentially mean, in one way or another, that what we are seeing, hearing, and reading shouldn’t be taken to heart. Stacey-McCain was discrediting Dowd’s words, Kurtz was criticizing the ‘straight-talk express’, Belle was disproving McCain’s support of MLK Day, and Sue D. was arguing that Obama is afraid of talking with McCain in an open forum. If these words teach us anything, it should be that competing opinions are a dime a dozen. It should prove that, on the whole, we can't know for sure who will be the best president based on the lead up to election day.
This is not to say that there is no use in reading commentaries. Without reading you don’t know anything, and it is certainly better to be confused and in the know than uninformed and in the dark.
The point I am trying to make is that throughout this presidential race we are going to see dirt flung at both candidates; a lot of it. So as you decide who to support, keep in mind that the things you are seeing, hearing, and reading are nearly all without merit. They are the words of people who are trying to get you to vote one way or another. The exception to this rule is history - which has a lot of useful information to analyze - but speculation is nearly useless.
Although unfortunate, it is true that whoever campaigns the best will likely win the majority of the votes come November. But as we get nearer to judgement day 2008, keep in mind Linski’s invaluable words; think for yourself, because campaigning and governing are two completely different things, and all we will see prior to November 20th is the former.
Thanks for reading.
GRMM
