A friend of mine sought legal action to end her marriage. As I recall, she had been married for a year or two, after a whirlwind courtship. The way my friend explained it to me, the judge eventually annulled her marriage, rather than granting a divorce. The judge's reasoning was that since the groom had badly misrepresented himself to my friend, she had never actually married HIM -- she had married some non-existent fictional character created by him, and therefore had never been married at all.
In a way, this illustrates my problem with the 2012 American Presidential Election, except that the non-existent, fictional character was created by President Obama and his campaign, and substituted for the real-life Mitt Romney. The voters who voted for President Obama were not choosing between the real Barack Obama and the real Mitt Romney -- they were choosing between Barack Obama and a character that Obama and his campaign had created. I believe that IF the voters had been presented with the choice of the REAL Barack Obama versus the REAL Mitt Romney, Romney would have easily won the election.
In support of my position, I offer up any of the three Presidential debates. During each debate, President Obama spent considerable time stating not HIS beliefs and plans, but the beliefs and plans of Mitt Romney. When Mitt Romney would attempt to intervene, and state his REAL beliefs and plans, President Obama would ignore him, and re-state what he had already said, arguing that only HE was capable of accurately stating the beliefs and plans of ... Mitt Romney. Incidentally, this tactic alone was enough to ensure that I would not vote for Barack Obama -- or anyone else who used this tactic. But, according to exit polls, many voters accepted Barack Obama's description of Mitt Romney, rather than Mitt Romney's.
Anyone who has followed my logic this far, and not quit reading in disgust, may respond that it was the real Mitt Romney's job to overcome Barack Obama's misrepresentation of him. This can be close to impossible, especially when most of the news media is participating in the deception.
Most of my family and friends supported and voted for President Obama, in both the 2012 and 2008 elections. I repeatedly observed a phenomenon that I have never seen before in politics. In both campaigns, when anyone expressed criticism of Barack Obama, or support for his opponent, the Obama supporters often responded with words to the effect of "I don't want to hear that!" or "I will not talk about that!" They did not defend their candidate or his positions -- they simply refused to engage in discussion, or listen to opposing views. This is a new and puzzling phenomenon, and it does not bode well for the future of political discourse in America. This was something that I observed personally -- perhaps it is not widespread.
My personal opinion of Barack Obama has always been based solely on Barack Obama. When he makes a speech, I listen -- to the entire speech -- and when he takes action, I pay attention. As the 2012 election approached, I noticed that when the people I was in contact with expressed criticism of Mitt Romney, it was almost never based on anything REAL -- not on his real past, or his real positions, or his real plans for America -- but instead on the lies spread by President Obama and his campaign.
I am not saying the recent election was illegal. Even if elections could be annulled, President Obama and his campaign would continue to run against their fictional creation, and they would likely win again. THAT's one of the biggest tragedies: now that the tactic has been successful, it will probably be used over and over in American politics.
Less than twelve years ago, George W. Bush became our forty-third President after an election that was too close to accurately count, and was, in the end, settled by the Supreme Courts of both Florida and the United States. Prior to the election, George W. Bush had proven himself capable of working successfully in a bipartisan manner with his opponents as he served as Governor of Texas. For his entire term as President, his opponents fought him tooth and nail, and then criticized him for his failure to win THEIR support. People maintained his election was "illegal". To this day, there are bumper stickers in my community referring to George W. Bush that proclaim "Not MY President!" And to this day, President Obama and his supporters blame George W. Bush for their current problems.
One of the most exasperating things about politics is double standards. For over twelve years, Democrats have fought, demonized, and ridiculed George W. Bush, and continue to do so. When Barack Obama was elected President, Democrats indignantly insisted that the nation must suddenly "unite" and "respect the Office of the President". Furthermore, they insisted, and continue to insist, that anyone NOT uniting behind President Obama is motivated primarily by racism. In fact, for the last four years I have TRIED to unite behind President Obama, but in every single speech, at every opportunity, he attacks and mocks me and my beliefs (well, not me PERSONALLY -- he has shown no evidence of caring about me personally, or my opinions). For four years, he has been unable to rise out of campaign mode, and shift into a mode of leadership.
It's a tricky and dangerous thing to accuse a politician of "divisiveness". Often, the charge is leveled by those who have spent years opposing the politician, and attempting to persuade others to join in their opposition. In the case of President Obama, he himself has led the opposition, by continuing to battle against the very people he is supposed to represent and lead.
In a perfect world -- the world of my dreams -- after an election, the opposing sides come together, agree that the voters have made their choice, and get down to the business of doing what is best for all. President Obama and his supporters -- NOT Mitt Romney, and NOT those who opposed President Obama -- have made this difficult. It remains to be seen whether they have made it impossible.
Truth is complicated.
P.S. I was looking forward to writing about something OTHER than politics. Maybe next time.
Thursday, November 15, 2012
Monday, November 5, 2012
Romney for President
Each of us has strengths and weaknesses -- areas in which we are skilled, strong, or knowledgeable, and areas in which we are not so skilled, strong, or knowledgeable. If you want a job done well, the key is not to find the best person, but to find the best person for the job. Even more, the best person for that PARTICULAR job under those PARTICULAR circumstances at that particular time.
I suspect that historians will look kindly upon the Obama Presidency, if for no other reason than that he was the first black President. Objectively, I believe his Presidency should be viewed as one of the worst in the history of the United States -- not because he is intrinsically a bad person, or a bad President, but because he was uniquely ill-suited for this particular job under these particular circumstances at this particular time.
People will differ on their views of the biggest challenges facing the American President at any precise time, but President Obama has failed on most of them. Again, not because he is necessarily a bad person, or a bad President, but simply because he was ill-equipped to face those particular challenges.
America, at this time, needed a President who could deal with rising debt and out-of-control spending. President Obama responded by increasing spending and dramatically increasing the debt.
Most of all, at this time America needed a President who could bring together the deeply polarized and divided populace. This is contrary to President Obama's personal style. The number one weapon in his arsenal is to divide, vilify, and blame. He seems to lack the ability to make a speech without using it as an opportunity to attack those who disagree with him. Rather than attempting to build consensus and to understand those who oppose him, he attacks them and misrepresents their positions. He is considered by many -- on both sides of the political spectrum -- to have been the most divisive, polarizing President in American history. This is not necessarily a bad thing -- but it was precisely the opposite of what was needed NOW.
Four years ago, as a candidate, Barack Obama seemed to understand what was needed, promising a new era of bipartisanship and transparency, and even vowing that all legislation would be published on the internet three days before it was passed. Instead, we have Obamacare, passed so quickly that not a single person even a chance to read through the entire bill before voting on it. Obamacare, President Obama's flagship "accomplishment", passed at a time when the country was desperate for more jobs, is perhaps the largest piece of job-killing legislation ever passed in America. This is not to say Obamacare is without merit -- it may slightly improve the health insurance system -- but it was the wrong legislation for this particular moment in history. Perhaps ten years ago, or ten years from now, it would have been the right thing to do. It was the wrong thing to do NOW.
If President Obama is re-elected, I will view it as the triumph of misrepresentation over honesty, of divisiveness over unity, of brute force over consensus, and of anger over hope. Some might claim that is precisely what is needed at this time -- crush the opposition, using whatever means necessary -- but I believe they are wrong.
In many Presidential elections, the voters find themselves displeased with all of the candidates, and ultimately choosing the lesser of evils. It has been many election cycles since I voted FOR a candidate rather than AGAINST the poorer candidates. Finally, in Mitt Romney, I believe I have found a candidate I can vote FOR. Mitt Romney may not be the best person ever to run for President, and he may not objectively be a better person than Barack Obama, but he is the best person for this particular job under these particular circumstances at this particular time.
America needs a uniter rather than a divider, a job-builder rather than a job-killer, and someone who will cut spending and debt rather than expand it. Mitt Romney is skilled, strong, and knowledgeable in exactly those areas that America needs at this moment in time.
No one can predict the future. Perhaps the challenges facing America at this time will be too much even for Mitt Romney. I know they have been too much for Barack Obama.
Postscript: This will be my last blog entry posted prior to the 2012 Presidential election. I have not yet found the words to write about the Obama administration's response to the Benghazi attacks of September 11, 2012. IF President Obama is re-elected, I believe he will either be impeached or forced to resign over his role in the response to the Benghazi attacks. If President Obama is removed from office, Joe Biden would become President. I cannot predict the future, and I cannot say whether Joe Biden would be equal to the challenges facing the American President.
Truth is complicated.
I suspect that historians will look kindly upon the Obama Presidency, if for no other reason than that he was the first black President. Objectively, I believe his Presidency should be viewed as one of the worst in the history of the United States -- not because he is intrinsically a bad person, or a bad President, but because he was uniquely ill-suited for this particular job under these particular circumstances at this particular time.
People will differ on their views of the biggest challenges facing the American President at any precise time, but President Obama has failed on most of them. Again, not because he is necessarily a bad person, or a bad President, but simply because he was ill-equipped to face those particular challenges.
America, at this time, needed a President who could deal with rising debt and out-of-control spending. President Obama responded by increasing spending and dramatically increasing the debt.
Most of all, at this time America needed a President who could bring together the deeply polarized and divided populace. This is contrary to President Obama's personal style. The number one weapon in his arsenal is to divide, vilify, and blame. He seems to lack the ability to make a speech without using it as an opportunity to attack those who disagree with him. Rather than attempting to build consensus and to understand those who oppose him, he attacks them and misrepresents their positions. He is considered by many -- on both sides of the political spectrum -- to have been the most divisive, polarizing President in American history. This is not necessarily a bad thing -- but it was precisely the opposite of what was needed NOW.
Four years ago, as a candidate, Barack Obama seemed to understand what was needed, promising a new era of bipartisanship and transparency, and even vowing that all legislation would be published on the internet three days before it was passed. Instead, we have Obamacare, passed so quickly that not a single person even a chance to read through the entire bill before voting on it. Obamacare, President Obama's flagship "accomplishment", passed at a time when the country was desperate for more jobs, is perhaps the largest piece of job-killing legislation ever passed in America. This is not to say Obamacare is without merit -- it may slightly improve the health insurance system -- but it was the wrong legislation for this particular moment in history. Perhaps ten years ago, or ten years from now, it would have been the right thing to do. It was the wrong thing to do NOW.
If President Obama is re-elected, I will view it as the triumph of misrepresentation over honesty, of divisiveness over unity, of brute force over consensus, and of anger over hope. Some might claim that is precisely what is needed at this time -- crush the opposition, using whatever means necessary -- but I believe they are wrong.
In many Presidential elections, the voters find themselves displeased with all of the candidates, and ultimately choosing the lesser of evils. It has been many election cycles since I voted FOR a candidate rather than AGAINST the poorer candidates. Finally, in Mitt Romney, I believe I have found a candidate I can vote FOR. Mitt Romney may not be the best person ever to run for President, and he may not objectively be a better person than Barack Obama, but he is the best person for this particular job under these particular circumstances at this particular time.
America needs a uniter rather than a divider, a job-builder rather than a job-killer, and someone who will cut spending and debt rather than expand it. Mitt Romney is skilled, strong, and knowledgeable in exactly those areas that America needs at this moment in time.
No one can predict the future. Perhaps the challenges facing America at this time will be too much even for Mitt Romney. I know they have been too much for Barack Obama.
Postscript: This will be my last blog entry posted prior to the 2012 Presidential election. I have not yet found the words to write about the Obama administration's response to the Benghazi attacks of September 11, 2012. IF President Obama is re-elected, I believe he will either be impeached or forced to resign over his role in the response to the Benghazi attacks. If President Obama is removed from office, Joe Biden would become President. I cannot predict the future, and I cannot say whether Joe Biden would be equal to the challenges facing the American President.
Truth is complicated.
Friday, November 2, 2012
Big Tent
There is a surprising truth in American politics today -- a truth that few talk about, and that those on both the left and the right wish to deny. The truth is that, over the last few decades, the Republican Party has quietly become the "big tent" party, the party of diversity of viewpoints -- especially when it comes to "social issues".
This truth is denied by both sides. Those on the far right of the Republican Party want the world to believe that the rest of the party agrees with them, and find comfort in telling themselves that they speak for the majority of Republicans. Those on the left want the world to believe that the Republican Party is made up of extremists, while the Democrat Party is more moderate and reasonable.
I am referring mostly to divisive controversial issues such as abortion, same-sex marriage, and gun control, though the diversity extends to things like war and environmental issues. The extremists would have you believe that all Republicans oppose abortion and same-sex marriage and gun control, favor war as opposed to peace, and give no regard to protecting the environment. Though it is hard to gather honest, accurate statistics about the personal beliefs of millions of Americans, there are large numbers of Republicans on both sides of all of these issues -- while it is much harder to find large groups of Democrats on both sides of these issues.
I hasten to acknowledge that it is currently difficult for a vehemently pro-choice, pro-same sex marriage, pro gun control candidate to win the Republican nomination for President. This simply reflects the fact that the extremists exercise inordinate control over both major parties, and probably over all political parties. One of the weaknesses of the American system of government is that a well-organized and/or well-funded minority can easily wield disproportionate power.
To those who would disagree with me, I offer this true example: A few months ago, I attended my "neighborhood caucus". Theoretically, all power within the political party proceeds upward from the caucus level. Among the tasks of the caucus was to elect delegates to the county convention, and also name members of the local "central committee". In both cases, we were unable to fill the available slots. That is, we were supposed to hold an election to narrow down our slate of delegates to eleven, but only nine would agree to serve. We were supposed to elect six people to serve on the "central committee", but only five would agree to serve. This means that any extremists who wished to have THEIR views heard could proceed unopposed to the county convention and central committee -- and technically represent the hundreds or thousands of eligible voters in my "neighborhood". That is truly how the system works. At the most basic, local level, power comes not from "the majority" but from those who desire power. At the present time, most of the members of my local "Republican Central Committee" are probably anti-abortion, anti-same sex marriage, and anti-gun control. This offers NO indication of the beliefs of local Republicans on these issues, despite the fact that extremists on both sides would like to believe that it does.
To a certain extent, this same process may extend to the Democrat Party, which is probably also dominated by those who agree to serve. However, there are specific, organized Republican groups on both sides of these issues. That is, there are specific organizations of Republicans who are pro-choice, and Republicans who are pro-same-sex marriage (though offhand I am unaware of any large Republican "pro-gun control" group). I do not believe there are large, organized "Democrats against abortion" or "Democrats against same-sex-marriage" groups. The Democrat Party has simply become less diverse than the Republican Party, and less tolerant of diversity.
As I stated at the outset, this truth is denied by both sides. I consider this deeply dishonest, and deeply troubling.
Truth is complicated.
Monday, October 22, 2012
Obama and Race
As I type this in 2012, ANY discussion of "race" is dangerous -- especially for someone "white" like me -- and ESPECIALLY any discussion linking the subject of "race" with President Obama. However, it seems likely that ANY discussion of President Obama, now or in the future, will include the subject of "race". President Obama will always be viewed as "America's first black President", and will always be mentioned that way in the history books, no matter what else transpires during his Presidency.
The title of "America's first black President" was destined to be complicated and troubling, regardless of who held it. On the one hand, I had always thought that part of the entire IDEA of having a black President would be to prove that their race did not matter -- but then of course it DOES matter if you are excited about them being "the first black President".
A week or two after President Obama was elected, I heard a discussion on National Public Radio that illustrates the problem. Several people, including pollsters from both the Obama and McCain campaigns, were discussing the election results, and especially focusing on the information gained from "exit polls". They were also taking phone calls from listeners. One of the callers brought up the issue of people who voted based primarily on race. The pollsters agreed that some voters had based their votes primarily on this issue. Then the pollster for the Obama campaign made an interesting statement. He said that everyone feared that people would vote AGAINST Barack Obama due to his race -- and some people DID vote against Barack Obama due to his race -- but their data indicated that even MORE people had voted FOR Barack Obama due to his race, and in fact, he would not have won the election WITHOUT the people who voted for him mostly BECAUSE of his race. So, while they had feared that his race might prevent him from being elected, in fact it had CAUSED him to be elected. His final comment was the most curious of all, as he stated, "And isn't that a wonderful thing!"
As I listened to the discussion on the radio, I was struck that it was NOT necessarily a wonderful thing for someone to be elected BECAUSE of their race. Clearly, most people would have felt that if John McCain had been elected BECAUSE of his (white) race, it would have been a BAD thing. I continue to be troubled by the roll that race played in the election. By the way, I am simply repeating what I heard on National Public Radio. I personally do not have the expertise or data to say what roll race played in Obama's election. Still, I question whether it is truly any better to SUPPORT someone because of their race than it is to OPPOSE them because of their race.
I must confess that from the moment Barack Obama became a candidate for President, I was troubled by the idea that anyone who opposed him, or disagreed with him on ANY issue, risked being branded a "racist". This has turned out to be even more true than I had feared. Even today, almost four years into his Presidency, there are those who insist that the ONLY reason anyone EVER opposes President Obama is due to his race. I suppose this was predictable, but it is still troubling, and it tends to interfere with honest debate over the true issues. Years ago, I heard someone on television -- and I wish I could recall who it was -- who stated, "I disagree with President Obama on almost every issue, and am troubled by all of his positions EXCEPT his race. I do not care about his race one way of the other." I believe many people fall into this camp, yet all are routinely labeled "racist".
For me, labeling all of those who oppose President Obama as "racist" shows disrespect not only for them, but also for President Obama. It is as if he has no ideas, and no positions, and has done nothing as President -- all that matters is his race. If, as I believe, he HAS ideas and positions, and has taken actions as President, then clearly there are going to be people who disagree, just as there are people who agree with him. It sells him short to label all opposition "racist".
I cannot completely ignore the fact that in many ways America NEEDED to have a black President, and the fact that we HAVE a black President is, in many ways, a good thing. At the same time, I consider Barack Obama to have been a bad President, and bad for the country, and bad for the entire world -- but NOT because he is black ... in my opinion, his "blackness" is perhaps the only good thing about his Presidency. (But of course, since I believe Barack Obama has been a bad President, many will simply label me a racist, and ignore my opinions beyond that.)
Barack Obama had a unique opportunity to unite America, and serve as President for ALL Americans. He has squandered that opportunity, choosing* to be one of the most partisan Presidents -- ignoring, demonizing, or ridiculing all with differing ideas, rather than attempting to build consensus, and tossing aside his 2008 campaign promises of a transparent administration ("the most transparent administration in history!"). One of Barack Obama's biggest failings as a President has been his failure to ever rise out of "campaign mode", and represent not only those who voted for him, but the entire country. Instead, he can never resist an opportunity to praise his supporters, and attack his opponents. As America's first black President, this is especially tragic.
Truth is complicated.
*Despite what President Obama or his supporters might claim, dominating rather than uniting IS a choice, and cannot be blamed solely on one's opponents.
The title of "America's first black President" was destined to be complicated and troubling, regardless of who held it. On the one hand, I had always thought that part of the entire IDEA of having a black President would be to prove that their race did not matter -- but then of course it DOES matter if you are excited about them being "the first black President".
A week or two after President Obama was elected, I heard a discussion on National Public Radio that illustrates the problem. Several people, including pollsters from both the Obama and McCain campaigns, were discussing the election results, and especially focusing on the information gained from "exit polls". They were also taking phone calls from listeners. One of the callers brought up the issue of people who voted based primarily on race. The pollsters agreed that some voters had based their votes primarily on this issue. Then the pollster for the Obama campaign made an interesting statement. He said that everyone feared that people would vote AGAINST Barack Obama due to his race -- and some people DID vote against Barack Obama due to his race -- but their data indicated that even MORE people had voted FOR Barack Obama due to his race, and in fact, he would not have won the election WITHOUT the people who voted for him mostly BECAUSE of his race. So, while they had feared that his race might prevent him from being elected, in fact it had CAUSED him to be elected. His final comment was the most curious of all, as he stated, "And isn't that a wonderful thing!"
As I listened to the discussion on the radio, I was struck that it was NOT necessarily a wonderful thing for someone to be elected BECAUSE of their race. Clearly, most people would have felt that if John McCain had been elected BECAUSE of his (white) race, it would have been a BAD thing. I continue to be troubled by the roll that race played in the election. By the way, I am simply repeating what I heard on National Public Radio. I personally do not have the expertise or data to say what roll race played in Obama's election. Still, I question whether it is truly any better to SUPPORT someone because of their race than it is to OPPOSE them because of their race.
I must confess that from the moment Barack Obama became a candidate for President, I was troubled by the idea that anyone who opposed him, or disagreed with him on ANY issue, risked being branded a "racist". This has turned out to be even more true than I had feared. Even today, almost four years into his Presidency, there are those who insist that the ONLY reason anyone EVER opposes President Obama is due to his race. I suppose this was predictable, but it is still troubling, and it tends to interfere with honest debate over the true issues. Years ago, I heard someone on television -- and I wish I could recall who it was -- who stated, "I disagree with President Obama on almost every issue, and am troubled by all of his positions EXCEPT his race. I do not care about his race one way of the other." I believe many people fall into this camp, yet all are routinely labeled "racist".
For me, labeling all of those who oppose President Obama as "racist" shows disrespect not only for them, but also for President Obama. It is as if he has no ideas, and no positions, and has done nothing as President -- all that matters is his race. If, as I believe, he HAS ideas and positions, and has taken actions as President, then clearly there are going to be people who disagree, just as there are people who agree with him. It sells him short to label all opposition "racist".
I cannot completely ignore the fact that in many ways America NEEDED to have a black President, and the fact that we HAVE a black President is, in many ways, a good thing. At the same time, I consider Barack Obama to have been a bad President, and bad for the country, and bad for the entire world -- but NOT because he is black ... in my opinion, his "blackness" is perhaps the only good thing about his Presidency. (But of course, since I believe Barack Obama has been a bad President, many will simply label me a racist, and ignore my opinions beyond that.)
Barack Obama had a unique opportunity to unite America, and serve as President for ALL Americans. He has squandered that opportunity, choosing* to be one of the most partisan Presidents -- ignoring, demonizing, or ridiculing all with differing ideas, rather than attempting to build consensus, and tossing aside his 2008 campaign promises of a transparent administration ("the most transparent administration in history!"). One of Barack Obama's biggest failings as a President has been his failure to ever rise out of "campaign mode", and represent not only those who voted for him, but the entire country. Instead, he can never resist an opportunity to praise his supporters, and attack his opponents. As America's first black President, this is especially tragic.
Truth is complicated.
*Despite what President Obama or his supporters might claim, dominating rather than uniting IS a choice, and cannot be blamed solely on one's opponents.
Wednesday, October 17, 2012
Magic tricks
Decades ago, while far from home, I found myself seated next to a magician -- a talkative magician. Like most modern-day magicians, he did not claim any actual magical powers. He was an entertainer, a performer who made a living by doing things that APPEARED to be magic -- that appeared to defy a logical explanation. Things like making an object appear to be broken, and then whole again, or making objects seem to vanish and reappear. (As I recall, this particular magician liked to work with doves, making them vanish and then re-materialize.)
While my new friend was reluctant to give away the particular secrets behind HIS tricks, he enthusiastically gave away the secrets behind OTHER magician's tricks. As a general rule, he explained that magic was heavily dependent on distraction and misdirection. The observer must be made to focus on something other than what was important, at least momentarily. If the magician needed to do something important with his left hand, he needed to direct the observer's attention to his right hand. If something crucial was about to happen in the center of the stage, the observer needed to be paying attention to the sides of the stage. The magician explained that, if done well, this was almost impossible for the observer to overcome. When he himself was watching another magician, and KNEW precisely where the important thing was about to happen, his attention was STILL successfully diverted from that spot, at least for the crucial moment it took for the other magician to appear to do something "magical".
This seems to be precisely the method that President Obama's campaign is using in an attempt to win his re-election: Keep the observers' attention focussed on unimportant areas, at least at crucial moments. Rather than honestly discussing the differences between President Obama and Mitt Romney, or discussing President Obama's accomplishments and future goals, the Obama campaign has successfully directed attention to things like Mitt Romney's wealth, or his tax returns, or at one point to some unfortunate absurd comments made by a Senatorial candidate -- comments having nothing to do with the Presidential contest.
One of the problems with analyzing a modern Presidential campaign is that so many people are involved. There is no way for an outsider to know what campaign decisions are being made by the candidate, and what decisions are being made by professional campaigners. From my position, I have no idea what Mitt Romney himself wants to do, or what Barack Obama wants to do, with regard to their respective campaigns. I can only observe what is actually being done. SOMEONE has apparently decided that the best way for President Obama to win re-election is to avoid honest discussion of his record, his accomplishments, his future goals, and his differences with Mitt Romney. SOMEONE has decided on a strategy of distraction and misdirection. And, as my magician friend explained, since they are doing it well, it is almost impossible to overcome. Even those wishing to honestly examine the differences between the two candidates find themselves focusing on irrelevancies, like Mitt Romney's tax returns, or the comments of a previously-unknown Senatorial candidate.
Even if I knew nothing about the two candidates, and had no opinions about their positions or qualifications, this strategy would make me suspicious, and would make me tend to favor Mitt Romney. Apparently, the Obama campaign believes that if the voters honestly compare Mitt Romney to Barack Obama, President Obama will be found lacking.
Please note that I am not stating whether I believe President Obama SHOULD be re-elected, or which candidate would make a better American President for the next four years. I am simply observing the direction of President Obama's campaign, which, incidentally, is a direction that I do not like. I would prefer a legitimate, open discussion of the differences between the candidates.
The last few weeks have introduced two new elements to the Presidential campaign -- a series of debates, and the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2012. With regard to the terrorist attacks, the Obama campaign has once again attempted to engage in distraction and misdirection, at some points seeming to blame the attacks themselves on Mitt Romney, and certainly attempting to turn the focus to Romney's response to the attacks, rather than the attacks, or the administration's response to the attacks. With regard to the debates, slight-of-hand is proving to be somewhat more difficult -- though both sides have displayed a tendency to engage in "spin" rather than absolute truth.
Truth is complicated.
Monday, October 8, 2012
Agreeing with Obama
The subject of "honesty" gets a bit complicated. Living among others in polite society, sometimes total honesty is simply rude.
Amazingly, there is even debate about what constitutes "honesty". In my mind, stating an opinion as an established fact is a LIE, even if it turns out that the opinion is correct. The precise wording is crucial in these situations.
For me, honesty is one of the most important qualities in a leader or elected official. It does not matter so much to me whether I AGREE with someone's ideas, as long as they are fundamentally honest.
I disagree with President Obama on many issues, but there is one thing he does, over and over and over, that especially irritates and aggravates me. In his speeches, he regularly makes statements that begin with phrases such as "I think we can all agree that ..." or "Experts are in agreement that ..."
When I hear President Obama say, "I think we call all agree ...", I can be fairly certain that he is about to say something with which I strongly disagree, and with which I am certain many others -- sometimes a majority of Americans -- also strongly disagree. I would not mind if he said, "I believe that ...", but he seems to feel it necessary to erroneously claim that there is widespread AGREEMENT on what he is about to say.
To me, this constitutes a blatant LIE, regardless of which side of the issue you are on, or which side is "correct". Ironically, he rarely uses these phrases UNLESS he is about to say something controversial. He does not say, "I think we can all agree that water is wet," or "Experts are in agreement that two plus two equals four." Instead, he says, "I think we can all agree that income redistribution is a noble goal, " or "Experts are in agreement that my approach is good for the American economy."
I do not know what to make of this. There are at least two separate aspects to consider. First, I am fairly certain that President Obama uses these statements more often than any other recent President -- more often than either President Bush, or President Clinton, or President Reagan, or President Carter. Secondly, I believe he generally uses them to precede ideas that LACK widespread agreement, whereas some people might make such statements with regards to subjects where there truly IS widespread agreement.
I may be wrong on either or both of these points. Perhaps this is all just my perception. However, if I am correct, and President Obama habitually uses such statements to introduce ideas about which we do NOT agree, then he ends up alienating me at precisely those moments when he is attempting to persuade me. Then again, perhaps this is just me. Perhaps the technique is an effective way to persuade other people.
Some might say this is just a question of personal style, rather than substance. Sometimes we just do not like another person's "style". I disagree. In this case, President Obama insists on, and persists in, LYING. For me, dishonesty IS a matter of substance rather than style -- though his routine use of these terms also constitutes an issue of style, and I do not like this style.
Truth is complicated.
Monday, October 1, 2012
A Campaign Story
In college, I devoted considerable time and energy working for the election of a candidate for the United States House of Representatives. I met this candidate during his first campaign -- which he lost -- and continued to work for him during his second campaign -- which he won -- and also during many of his later campaigns. During those first campaigns, I became very well-versed in his background and positions, and I supported him totally.
My tasks included visiting undecided voters. In the idealistic world of college politics, students would actually fill out cards requesting additional information on our candidate. If you filled out a card, you got a visit from ME.
As one student invited me into his dorm room, he explained that he was from a distant city, and knew nothing about our local candidates ... but he intended to vote in our local election, so he wanted to educate himself. He and I proceeded to have a long, pleasant discussion. As he explained his views, and I explained the views of my candidate, I realized that the student had much more in common with the opposing candidate -- and I told him so. Eventually, I simply advised him that he would be better-served by voting for the opponent.
The student was incredulous. "Wait a minute! You are working for this guy, but you are telling me to vote for his OPPONENT?"
I repeated the idea that, given the similarity between the student's positions and the positions of the opponent, he personally would be better-represented by the opponent.
He continued to voice his amazement. Ultimately, he said something to the effect of, "If your guy has people working for him who are SO honest that they would tell someone to vote for his OPPONENT ... then I am going to vote for your guy. You cannot stop me from voting for him."
I told the candidate this story decades later, after he had been in office for a long time, and he seemed pleased. At the time of my college encounter, it did not seem notable. Recently, when I tell people of the incident, they seem to find it unique. Some even say I was wrong, and that I should have encouraged the student to vote for my candidate, no matter what his beliefs.
This incident SHOULD not be unique. At most, I perhaps should have attempted to persuade the student that his views were wrong, and that my views, and the views of my candidate, were correct. But, in my mind, I truly was there strictly to provide information to the student -- NOT to debate him, or to gain his vote. I had so much confidence in the appeal of my candidate that I believed the only thing necessary for him to win the election was for the voters to have honest information about both candidates.
In the real world -- unlike the idealized political world of a college dorm -- most political campaigns are about winning and losing elections, rather than about trying to accurately reflect the will of the voters. That is, people and candidates do not so much care whether the voters share their views -- they simply want them to vote the way they want them to vote. And if misrepresenting the views of the candidate -- or especially the views of the opponent -- helps to gain votes, then misrepresentation is acceptable strategy.
The politicians and political campaigns of today, at least in America, totally embrace distortions and oversimplifications and "spin" and outright misrepresentations of both their own positions and the positions of their dreaded opposition. If someone is so bold as to point this out, the response is merely, "That's just how the game is played. Both sides do it."
I would love to do a poll. I would ask people, "If you had it in your power to change the outcome of an election, so the result reflected YOUR will rather than the will of the majority of the voters -- and no one would ever find out -- would you DO it?" I suppose you could even ask some sub-questions, such as making the election an exceptionally close one. The trick, as with all polls, would be in getting people to respond honestly. In a perfect world, I suspect most people would wish that the majority of voters would truly agree with them. In the real world, I suspect many people would be perfectly happy subverting the outcome of an election. Assuming you could somehow force people to respond honestly, the most interesting thing, for me, would be to delve into the differences between those who were willing to subvert the will of the voters, and those who insisted on abiding by the will of the majority. My guess is that many people would choose NOT to alter the outcome of an election, and that most of those people would be from the same party -- but that's a TOTAL guess, and just my unsubstantiated opinion.
I sometimes try to imagine a political system based on total honesty and clarity, where all sides did their best to fully illuminate and clarify both their own positions and plans and the positions and plans of their opponents, and any sort of distortion, oversimplification, "spin", or misrepresentation was viewed as the ultimate sin. There are a number of reasons why this is unlikely to happen. For one thing, as people vilify their opponents, they come to truly BELIEVE many of the things that are said, no matter how far they depart from the truth.
There is another quieter, darker reason why people are reluctant to embrace political honesty. Many Americans -- perhaps most -- harbor deep-seated doubts about the will of the "majority". That is, each of us tends to believe that WE know what is "best". The majority opinion is fine, as long as it matches OUR opinion. In order to achieve this, the majority opinion must be guided and molded by whatever means necessary. Though I am making this sound somewhat sinister, it is totally understandable and perhaps even defensible. IF we know what is best for the country and the world, then we should do our best to make it happen, regardless of the will of the majority. The problem is, no one truly KNOWS what is best.
Truth is complicated.
My tasks included visiting undecided voters. In the idealistic world of college politics, students would actually fill out cards requesting additional information on our candidate. If you filled out a card, you got a visit from ME.
As one student invited me into his dorm room, he explained that he was from a distant city, and knew nothing about our local candidates ... but he intended to vote in our local election, so he wanted to educate himself. He and I proceeded to have a long, pleasant discussion. As he explained his views, and I explained the views of my candidate, I realized that the student had much more in common with the opposing candidate -- and I told him so. Eventually, I simply advised him that he would be better-served by voting for the opponent.
The student was incredulous. "Wait a minute! You are working for this guy, but you are telling me to vote for his OPPONENT?"
I repeated the idea that, given the similarity between the student's positions and the positions of the opponent, he personally would be better-represented by the opponent.
He continued to voice his amazement. Ultimately, he said something to the effect of, "If your guy has people working for him who are SO honest that they would tell someone to vote for his OPPONENT ... then I am going to vote for your guy. You cannot stop me from voting for him."
I told the candidate this story decades later, after he had been in office for a long time, and he seemed pleased. At the time of my college encounter, it did not seem notable. Recently, when I tell people of the incident, they seem to find it unique. Some even say I was wrong, and that I should have encouraged the student to vote for my candidate, no matter what his beliefs.
This incident SHOULD not be unique. At most, I perhaps should have attempted to persuade the student that his views were wrong, and that my views, and the views of my candidate, were correct. But, in my mind, I truly was there strictly to provide information to the student -- NOT to debate him, or to gain his vote. I had so much confidence in the appeal of my candidate that I believed the only thing necessary for him to win the election was for the voters to have honest information about both candidates.
In the real world -- unlike the idealized political world of a college dorm -- most political campaigns are about winning and losing elections, rather than about trying to accurately reflect the will of the voters. That is, people and candidates do not so much care whether the voters share their views -- they simply want them to vote the way they want them to vote. And if misrepresenting the views of the candidate -- or especially the views of the opponent -- helps to gain votes, then misrepresentation is acceptable strategy.
The politicians and political campaigns of today, at least in America, totally embrace distortions and oversimplifications and "spin" and outright misrepresentations of both their own positions and the positions of their dreaded opposition. If someone is so bold as to point this out, the response is merely, "That's just how the game is played. Both sides do it."
I would love to do a poll. I would ask people, "If you had it in your power to change the outcome of an election, so the result reflected YOUR will rather than the will of the majority of the voters -- and no one would ever find out -- would you DO it?" I suppose you could even ask some sub-questions, such as making the election an exceptionally close one. The trick, as with all polls, would be in getting people to respond honestly. In a perfect world, I suspect most people would wish that the majority of voters would truly agree with them. In the real world, I suspect many people would be perfectly happy subverting the outcome of an election. Assuming you could somehow force people to respond honestly, the most interesting thing, for me, would be to delve into the differences between those who were willing to subvert the will of the voters, and those who insisted on abiding by the will of the majority. My guess is that many people would choose NOT to alter the outcome of an election, and that most of those people would be from the same party -- but that's a TOTAL guess, and just my unsubstantiated opinion.
I sometimes try to imagine a political system based on total honesty and clarity, where all sides did their best to fully illuminate and clarify both their own positions and plans and the positions and plans of their opponents, and any sort of distortion, oversimplification, "spin", or misrepresentation was viewed as the ultimate sin. There are a number of reasons why this is unlikely to happen. For one thing, as people vilify their opponents, they come to truly BELIEVE many of the things that are said, no matter how far they depart from the truth.
There is another quieter, darker reason why people are reluctant to embrace political honesty. Many Americans -- perhaps most -- harbor deep-seated doubts about the will of the "majority". That is, each of us tends to believe that WE know what is "best". The majority opinion is fine, as long as it matches OUR opinion. In order to achieve this, the majority opinion must be guided and molded by whatever means necessary. Though I am making this sound somewhat sinister, it is totally understandable and perhaps even defensible. IF we know what is best for the country and the world, then we should do our best to make it happen, regardless of the will of the majority. The problem is, no one truly KNOWS what is best.
Truth is complicated.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)