The tireless and tiresome gyrations of the presidential campaign has left me hugely unsatisfied. And has led me to question everything.
Here we have two guys beating each other's brains out, and we're doing the same to each other, when neither is an ideal choice to lead this country out of the dank thicket we're in.
No, it's more than that: I am confident as I can be that neither of them is the BEST choice to lead.
Let's think about this…
When we roll down the cereal aisle at the supermarket, we're assaulted with a pulsating kaleidoscope of choices—from bland and arid shredded wheat to colorful candy you eat with milk. At the ice cream parlor, we have scores of flavors and options; we study the menu with Talmudic intensity.
Why is it that in politics, our menu of meaningful options is limited to only two—Republican or Democrat?
To revert to the food imagery, what kind of ice cream parlor gives you only vanilla and chocolate? (Draw any parallels and read in any symbolism you like here.)
Years ago, when I was teaching my daughter to how to dress herself, she would argue with me about what she would wear. I learned to put out two outfits and let her choose one. That way she was happy to think she had freedom to choose, but I had controlled the range of choice to two acceptable outcomes.
This election leads me to wonder why I've been given the same narrow choice as a three-year old—between two arguably UNacceptable outcomes. We're not voting for one guy, we're voting AGAINST the other guy. This is the best our win-lose, scarcity-centric culture can do.
This endless national embarrassment has been heaped with unconscious yet apparent relish onto the fetid effluent of the past eight years, delivering repetitive and bruising insults to instinct and intelligence. As Pogo once said, "We have met the enemy, and it is us."
From here, it looks like Rocky Road.
2 comments:
I couldn't agree more with some of what you say. As I said in my blog, I am more voting against Obama than for McCain. I am far from crazy about him. The reason there are just Democrats and Republicans is because they are safe, like vanilla or chocolate. If there were a bunch of groups, there could potentially be a minority radical group of any political bent that could take theh reins of power. This would be democracy, true, but not a good outcome for most people. But I do hate to see these same two boring flavors all the time. It doesn't seem like much of a choice. I really like your analogy.
Anyway, thanks for commenting on my blog. It's nice to know that I'm not talking to the wall and that someone out there is reading my words. I know I use a lot of hyperbole - it's just a literary tool I use to get across basic points. You write really well and make some very good insights in your blog.
On to the election, which needs to end before we all go insane. You're right - McCain did give himself that moniker of "Maverick" - at first, maybe it was cool, but now it's tired and annoying, to me anyway. Obama may have never said he was the Messiah or anything, but his "We are the ones we've been waiting for" mantra and his followers in the public and media's absurdity (including an angelic aura on the cover of Rolling Stone and his appearance on a religious votive of some sort), etc. is my reasoning for such language (HORRIBLY worded but I'm too lazy to fix it - it's been a loooong day). It is also tied to my penchant for hyperbole.
You're right again - Obama is running circles around McCain, just like he did around Hillary Clinton. I would and could never dispute that. He runs a good campaign. McCain's campaign has been pretty inept, and trying to use Ayers or any other subject of conversation at the eleventh hour is not going to help him. I don't really hold Obama's (lack of)experience against him, but when people try to throw out that Palin has no experience it's something that I just have to get on. I doubt that running a campaign, however complex, can even approach the difficulty of every day problems the President faces.
Nonetheless, while Obama speaks of reconciling the country and the world and bringing forth hope, etc, I can't help but think that it's just a bunch of blather to get elected. All politicians do it, I know, but he does so more effectively than most. I know some people who practically deify this man and when I ask why they have no clue. That worries me. Everyone has been obsessed with this guy in mind-boggling fashion since his DNC speech in 2004.
Obama does seem open-minded and love-based, but that to me is it - he seems to be. He has been to the left on every issue I can think of off the top of my head, suggesting that he is ideologically wedded to the left. If that is who he is, then fine - but admit it. McCain, on the other hand, has veered left on crucial issues - immigration, campaign finance reform, torture, etc. He is not ideologically welded to anything, which can be seen as positive or negative, I suppose. And I'm sure Obama is a good guy but based upon everything he has done - a do nothing post at the Harvard Law Review, not leaving a trace at the University of Chicago, hardly ever voting in the State or U.S. Senate - he seems to be driven mostly by a love of power. I'm not saying he's going to be a dictator, that's absurd, but the man has thrown his acquaintances and even his reverend under the bus when they have become politically inexpedient. He has been running for President since law school. Every post he has taken has been just a step toward the eventual presidency which is why he never bothered to make much of an impact while at any one of them. In a large sense, I think people are voting for what they hope he is rather than who they know, or think, he is.
Love,
Jared
Thanks for taking the time to write...I know you're having a horrid week.
As for the Obama aura, I can remember when John Kennedy was running for President. He was 43 years old, the junior senator from Massachusetts, born from huge (and dubiously obtained) wealth and--God fobid--a Catholic!
He'd never run anything except perhaps his trust money or the household staff at Hyannis, but was an outstanding orator who connected with people.
JFK started running for President before he could walk.
He was charismatic, beloved, deified.
He won by a whisker over Nixon; what was the decider? Well, some people simply didn't like the way Nixon came acrosss on TV--dark, sullen, grumpy, he'd sweat above his top lip during the debates.
JFK is remembered fondly as one of our great Presidents, a transformational figure.
I honestly don't recall if his legacy is about the sizzle or the steak.
This election stikes me as similar. Obama offers sizzle (fingers crossed on the steak).
McCain? I'm seeing what once might well have been steak, but left in the pressure cooker too long. He's looking like curdled crusty old bacon.
These are the choices.
Love,UG
Post a Comment