Bob Herbert begins:
While watching the Sarah Palin interview with Charlie Gibson Thursday night, and the coverage of the Palin phenomenon in general, I’ve gotten the scary feeling, for the first time in my life, that dimwittedness is not just on the march in the U.S., but that it might actually prevail.
How is it that this woman could have been selected to be the vice presidential candidate on a major party ticket? How is it that so much of the mainstream media has dropped all pretense of seriousness to hop aboard the bandwagon and go along for the giddy ride?
The whole thing is well worth reading.
That last line is particularly resonant with me. I cannot escape the feeling that most movers and shakers in the media are either numbed by the endless campaign, and so display the same sort of remove as paramedics do at crash sites, or that they know, deep down, that their lives are so safe and secure that it really doesn't matter to them who's running for president or what the candidates actually stand for. All they care about is the latest triviality, the latest shiny object. With apologies to the poet, the freak show will be televised.
It is beyond belief how much coverage has been devoted to the horse race, with so little real information having been delivered. It has reinforced a sense in too many casual voters' minds that qualifications and policy positions and the current state of the nation don't matter, that there aren't major differences between the candidates, and that there's nothing wrong with giving no thought at all to who will be the next president of the United States.
6 comments:
I would propose that, through some clever advertising, the Obama camp start driving home the point that no, in fact, your beer buddy SHOULD NOT be president. Unfortunately, I can’t think of a way for that not to come off as, or, at the very least, be spun as, elitist. I don’t think people REALLY look in the mirror or look at the guy next to them at the bar and think either of them should be president? So why do their own or their drinking buddy’s qualities showing up in a candidate make people want to vote for that candidate? Is the drive not to feel or admit inferiority so strong that people actually resist feeling inferior to the PRESIDENT? To the point where that resistance decides their vote? It’s one thing to want to feel like a candidate understands you and your plight. It’s another thing entirely to want a candidate to be like you. I, for one, really WANT our president to be so intellectually superior that I could not possibly feel even mildly intelligent after having a conversation with that individual. I truly WANT our president to make me feel like an idiot. I have no interest in someone I consider my equal running our country.
I almost have to applaud the mccain camp for recognizing the level on which a great majority of people function, and taking absolute advantage of that. The answer to Obama’s, “what, does John McCain think you’re stupid?” question is, sadly, yes. Yes, and he’s counting on your stupidity to win the presidency. Obama is counting on the intelligence of Americans for his win and, for that, he’s seriously at risk. Terrifying, isn’t it?
-RL
Someone -- might've been Jon Stewart -- once said, about the Current Occupant, "I don't want the President to be my drinking buddy. I want him to be the designated driver."
Unfortunately, I agree with you -- there's no way to spin this in a way that will resonate with anybody except those of us smart enough to want a president smarter than us.
Actually, though, the current GOP nominee is not "the guy you want to have a beer with" in his supporters' minds. That applies more to his running mate.
Following from that, I'd rather see us hammer on the theme that John McCain's image of "hero" and "honorable" and "straight talk" is a complete sham. Perhaps the way we'll be able to win over some of the mouthbreathers is to make them think that they can no longer trust the old guy they used to know.
As I was reading anonymous (RL) comment, I was being reminded that this is exactly what I think about every time I hear that Americans want someone "like them" in government. I want to add an international perspective on this. I can't think of any other country that would share that view. Of course, I don't know about each country, but for the most part, in every culture, it is understood that you want to have people who have extraordinary competence leading the country.
And I can't really accept that Americans would naturally want to have someone "just like the average person". They may want to have someone who has average values. They may feel more comfortable with someone who is warm and down to earth when addressing an audience. But in the intelligence and skills department they would want someone above average. The problem is that people may not be able to discern who is above average and who is not.
One of the most important aspects of success in political campaigning is to be able to deliver a message that is clearly understood and that contains something that is of extreme value to people. Because people get mobilized by fear and anger (sadly so), whatever people are angry about has to be the core of the message.
Make no mistake. The American public is profoundly stupid and deeply ignorant. The trick is to use small enough words and to speak them loudly and slowly enough that the relevant information seeps through.
And yes, I'm an elitist.
Ocean: Sadly, I think your observation of the difference between Americans and voters in other countries contains a lot of truth. There is a streak that runs through much of America, that has been reinforced by decades of right-wing noise, that government can never do anything right, so you might as well pick someone who you like, or who shares your values, and in any case, avoid like the plague anyone who reminds you of those smart people you grew up resenting.
JJ is right -- you've got to dumb down the message to get through to a lot of these people. Unfortunately, only the right has been consistently good at this lately.
JJ: Never apologize for being an elitist, as long as you keep in mind what Dawkins has said: "What's wrong with being elitist, if you are trying to encourage people to join the elite rather than being exclusive? I'm very, very keen that people should raise their game rather than the other way around."
Post a Comment