As the general pandering, back-and-forth cheap shots, and borderline idiotic media coverage has rolled mercilessly on during this election season, I have been wondering what I have learned from this whole experience. Sitting and watching Democratic and Republican Primary campaigns, both parties' Conventions, and now this so-frustrating-it-is-almost-boring General election campaign has forced me to ask myself what I have learned from watching our country live out this part of our fundamental belief of what makes us a Democracy. Granted, this has all probably been much more interesting to someone who has studied Political Science, or one who is in some way more connected with the campaign or governing process; but, as an average citizen, I am led to believe that my opinion is just as valuable.
So, what have I learned?
I've learned that Campaigning seems to bring out the worst in the candidates. The individuals campaigning for office are under unbelievable surveillance and scrutiny, that any word uttered in good faith is a potentially campaign-breaking scandal. The News industry is hungry to report it, and we are just as hungry to receive it. Senator Clinton and Senator Obama had a disgusting in-fight, appealing to what I thought was the most primitive of our decision-making instincts. That is, until I watched the campaigns run by the General election candidates. The arguments made by both McCain/Palin and Obama/Biden do not appeal to an intellectual, ethical, philosophical standard by which I assumed the general American voting public lived. The campaigns I have seen have only appealed to our most primitive of natures: self-protection, insatiable competition, gang-mentality. We are not choosing candidates who are most capable of governing our hugely influential (and hugely problematic) government, we are Choosing Sides. And the unfortunate part (for us middle-class people) is that the sides we are choosing are in many ways just False Loyalties. While Democrats and Republicans are the two most influential decision-making Political Parties, the "Party" that they both subscribe to is Wealth. Wealth drives both parties, disallows the un-wealthy to participate in governing at the same level, and hides truth from us behind false partisan loyalties. So the fighting we see between Senator McCain and Senator Obama is not the polarized dichotomy we think it is: it is Wealthy in-fighting, and the disillusionment of the candidates themselves only hides what is Best and most Capable about them. We are left with the emptiness of Poll-responsive public speeches, partisan pandering, and ugly verbal cruise missiles cowardly sent from campaign HQ to campaign HQ. I see the public appearances, I read the statements, I watch the debates, and as a general voting citizen, I think to myself, "This is the best they can do?"
To draw off of what I wrote earlier, I have to say that I have learned that Politicians (or, at least their campaign managers) believe that the American voting public, in general, will behave based on our most primitive of decision-making instincts. The last week or two I have been thinking aloud, "Maybe they just think we are not very smart?" But these are not the most precise words. I doubt that our intellect is disregarded, because many voters (probably myself included) are plenty intelligent and still are swayed by appeals away from our intelligence. It is not a case of our lack-of-smarts, it is that we have shown campaigns in the past--and the present--that we are willing to use our primitive instincts to elect candidates. We our hungry for campaign gossip, and fuel to add to our negative fires we ignite in conversation about "opposing" candidates. Plenty of intelligent but insatiable voters still believe that Barack Obama favors Moslem Terrorism, and John McCain wants to Re-Invade Vietnam. To be fair, these are not accusations made by the campaigns themselves, but I think that just goes to show the campaigns even more assuredly that they do not need to appeal to our sense of intelligence, social development, decency, and philosophy of governance.
That leads me to the last thing I am learning--it is the last because it is the hardest for me to accept:
They are Right about Us. We are not interested in being appealed to on an intellectual level. We are not interested in candidates who do not entertain us. We are not interested in electing the most capable, most sound, most experienced, most diplomatic, most intelligent, most ethical, Best candidates. We are willing to vote for whoever we "like," whoever we think is "most like me," whoever is "the least scary," and we are not willing to give a second (or at times, first) thought to anyone who takes an oppositional stance on an issue we feel is important.
We are unwilling to challenge the brightest, the most creative, the most scholarly, the most diplomatic, the most humble, the most fair of citizens in our land to come and govern it. We choose Charm and Spark over Diplomacy and Depth.
I guess what I know now that I didn't know a year ago is that we are easily convinced, and not so easily challenged. I have respect for our imperfect system though, and our imperfect citizenry, because I think this American Democratic Experiment is not close to finished. We are doing something that has a very ambiguous definition of Success, and that leaves us with countless ways of how to achieve it.
Regardless of who I vote for this November, I'll remember that I, too, have power over who I allow to influence me, that I have a right to demand a more fair election system, and a right to demand an appeal to our sense of intelligence, decency, fairness, diplomacy, and philosophy. If I do not exercise my rights to demand these things, I am just another whiny, ungrateful suburbanite with regrets.
Thanks for reading. I hope we all take the time to muster the courage to think for ourselves this election, and vote with humble conviction rather than vindictive oblivion.
-HVC
