A Weblog of Centrist Voices in American Politics
|
|
|
A Weblog of Centrist Voices in American Politics | |
|
June 26, 2004Making Someone UnacceptableFor several decades now, a prominent strategy in the presidential race has been to make your opponent fundamentally unacceptable. That strategy has always struck me as odd -- a symptom of something being wrong somewhere in our system. You would thing both parties, at a minimum, would offer a candidate who met the minimum qualifications for the job. Someone acceptable, whether they're good or not. So the debate would focus more naturally on who's good and who's not -- not whether someone is totally beyond the pale. Somehow, the acceptability quotient becomes a major theme. By the end of the 2000 election, Bush was stupid and Gore a liar. The things said about John McCain in the 2000 primary were remarkably ugly, with no discernable connection to reality. Clinton was accused of corruption, treason, and murder -- even, at times, on the editorial pages of the Wall Street Journal. I bring this up because I wonder if something similar is underway right now with regards to our current president. It's harder to do with a sitting president, but maybe not impossible. I'm thinking about the ads being run for Michael Moore's new movie. Far more people will see the ads than the actual movie -- so they represent a problem for the president moreso than the substance of the film. They keep playing that one snippet of footage with Bush on the golf course. It got a little play a while back, when it happened. But now it's all over the TV. I see an odd kind of parallel, perhaps, with the footage of Michael Dukakis riding around in the tank that got such heavy play in the 1988 campaign. Neither snippet has any content. Looking awkward in a tank doesn't say much about how Dukakis would perform as commander-in-chief. In the Bush snippet, he doesn't say anything substantive that either side would object to. Yet both pieces are humiliating. Dukakis just seems wrong riding around in that tank -- he must be some kind of military-loathing liberal. The golf course piece says Bush is callous and arrogant. Michael Moore understands this game pretty well, it seems. He realizes that odd little golf-course snippet will speak to people on a gut level, and mean more, ultimately, than any facts or arguments he might offer. Posted by William Swann at June 26, 2004 05:34 PMComments
Will, Like always you hit at the very center of what bothers me about politics today. Like the left has Michael Moore, the right has Rush Limbaugh. I don't think that either Presidential candidate is ideal, but I also do not think that Bush is the evil, corrupt, and stupid bastard that the liberals portray him as; nor is John Kerry a weak, liberal elitist who would do anything to win the White House. Furthermore, I am sickened by the way his wife is treated. In large part, I believe them to both be good men, who I just happen to disagree with on a lot of different issues. The main problem with the ugliness in politics is I think it makes good people stay away from it. I am afraid talented and well qualified people think twice before running for office, and as a result the American people are losing out. I actually watched Faranheit 911 today and am shocked by my reaction to it. I went it waiting to be offended and apalled and came out with a much more subdued reaction. When I have time later I will post a more detailed review, but I think you are on track.
Thanks, Mathew. I'm very interested in your reaction. It's kind of a natural outgrowth of the polarization of politics in our country. More and more, each side sees the other as wrong on a personal level, rather than a policy one. I'm also not sure we can back down from this style of politics until we have strong candidates. It takes confidence, and perhaps a genuine determination to pursue your own agenda, to run a substantive rather than personal campaign. Posted by: William Swann at June 26, 2004 08:30 PMI think the nastiness relates to the change in the political spectrum dating back to the sixties. There are a lot more issues that go to people's self-identity and a wider range of opinion. For example, at one time there was little difference of opinion on homosexuality. Both liberals and conservatives to a large degree saw it as a perversion. That obviously has changed. As the spectrum of opinion has widened (and as people are less exposed to different viewpoints because of their ability to choose their locales), it's become much easier to take politics personally. This also has another effect. It has made elections much more important and high-stakes. One of the reasons I think western democracies have been so stable is that, for the most part, the elections don't mean too much. By that, I mean that losers didn't have to fear that there would be unacceptable change if they lost. Now, with the rise of social issues that define identity, that is much less true (plus the rise of a much more conservative Republican party). Both sides really fear what the other side will do, so this makes politics nastier. Posted by: MWS at June 28, 2004 05:21 PM |
Archives
March 2006
February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003
Recent Entries
Dubai Out
Why So Long Between Democracies? Round One, Centrism Rock Lobster? Blackwell Releases "Worst-Treated" List "IRV" used in Burl., VT for mayor election. Great idea! Random Thread Election 2006: Round One A Proper Multiculturalism Bush proposes line item veto act - what's changed?
|
