Time to Jump Off the Bandwagon
by John Earp
Thanks for the invitation to zip off to you a “political” article. Let me begin by suggesting that in the current political climate there are far, far too many people who have danced giddily to the tune of the Media Piper and have jumped aboard the two political bandwagons without investing the necessary capital of critical thought. You can see the truth of this observation on the nightly news. The bandwagon is that mental and psychic place where the candidates trumpet their talking points, and the faithful gobble them up as if these daily political confections were indisputable verities handed down from Olympus. Talking points as political éclairs.
The bandwagon is that emotional state where political drums bang out slogans and sound bites, where the completely convinced and the mostly persuaded wrap themselves in the comforting sense of self-righteousness that comes from having made the “correct” political choice. The bandwagon is that state of numbed conviction where people cheer with an understandable but wholly unjustifiable passion for a person who wants to lead this country and, to a large degree, the world. “Obama is so charismatic! McCain is so experienced!” Hogwash.
I want to suggest that all of us jump off the bandwagon, and take another look at these people who are not only the unworthy recipients of our uncritical adulation, but who are fundamentally trying to fool us all. I know it’s a cynical point of view, but in the words of philosopher Bertrand Russell, “The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.” Maybe it’s time for a heavy dose of good old-fashioned wisdom-generated doubt about these candidates.
I think Russell is issuing an invitation to create a moment in which dispassionate rationality and a dose of cold doubt trumps triumphalism emotion. These last seventy-five odd days until the election could well be used by engaged voters to construct a time and place where wisdom is sought out and searched for, a time when we jump off the easy certainty of our own particular bandwagon and take an impartial, carefully weighed assessment of the candidates for president. And do it in a way that brings honor to not only the candidates for office, but which honors as well, in wisdom and in doubt, the process of choosing.
I’ve been a presidential campaign watcher since that day in 1952 when my Dad put me on his shoulders to see a balding, kindly faced man drive by in a limousine convertible. “Look now,” he said, “that’s General Eisenhower, the next President of the United States.” By the grace, or irony of God, I’ve lived under ten presidents and endured a baker’s dozen number of elections. In my lifetime, we Americans have elected a handful of crooks, a couple of dime-store political caricatures, and a granddaddy or two. Looking at the choices offered for our consideration by the two political parties, I can say with firmness and conviction that I fear this election will yield the country absolutely nothing to brag about. Neither of these guys qualifies as bandwagon material. At least not for me.
Regarding “substantive” issues: The Media gives you several to choose from: climate change, Iraq/Iran, education, the economy, illegal aliens, and a host of single issues: abortion, NAFTA, the Welfare State, to say nothing of the spider web of international affairs. Pick your favorite. For me every substantive issue begins and ends with the most substantive issue of all: character. And it seems to me that this issue is the one that gets ignored or downplayed.
Seems to me that the Media is the third, the unaccountable party in the country. While the Republicans and Democrats are scrapping for both acceptance and votes, the Media’s interest in all this is to make sure that the votes are split in as close to a 51-49 outcome as possible. This result is the one that generates the most controversy, the most division, the most drama, and therefore the most revenue for…the Media. It’s in their interest to load up both bandwagons as quickly as they can, and generate all the buzz their nightly cablecasts can handle. For the Media, it’s easiest to feed us pap about the so-called “substantive” issues. Character issues are too volatile, too personal, and not nearly as sexy and engaging as “how we ought to treat the Russians.”
Click here for (next column)
See, no matter what the candidates say during the campaign, none of it translates into a doable agenda. Whatever either candidate promises to deliver has to undergo the political meat grinder of Congress. Promises made in flyover country are simply irrelevant, except as they reveal the core of a candidate’s character. After a president’s proposals are written, submitted, debated, marked up, fought over and negotiated, by the time a proposal makes its way through the byzantine Rube Goldberg machine called Congress, every promise made in Iowa is busted into dust and left to blow away on the campaign trail. Only character remains.
But here’s the thing, we’re not electing a King who governs by fiat and fear, nor a wise counselor who governs by seeking compromise and consensus, nor a national therapist who rightly diagnoses the nation’s neuroses and who then leads us to national health, nor a glorified social worker whose goodwill toward all will raise the alabaster cities of the idealists. We elect a person whose only consistent resource for the duration of his presidency will be the core and content of his character. He places his hand on the Bible, swears to do his faithful best, and goes to work on Inauguration Day right after lunch. But nobody gives him a roadmap to follow or a magic wand to solve the problems of the world. It’s all about the man’s character.
But since you offered me this space, John, I’ll rant for a second about just one of the “substantive” issues that concerns me: taxes. This is the one that has the greatest effect on the largest number of people. I’m a Christian, and I pay fairly close attention to the few Commandments I approve of, at least most of the time. But Commandment Ten seems to be a message delivered to those who bend their energies so as to guarantee, via the Tax Code, the rise and flowering of the Gospel of Fairness across the land. It is directed to those well-intentioned socialists, to those intellectual egalitarians, to all those who believe that wealth and the fruit of an individual’s labor should be “fairly redistributed.” I think this message is, in the words of P. J. O’Rourke, “Go to Hell.”
Maybe a break from the bandwagon would be in the best interests of everyone concerned. The two candidates would be required to submit to Dr. King’s criteria: we would be treated to the refreshing experience of being exposed to the content of their characters. The electorate would be spared the vapid and frankly dishonest ways in which the two campaigns present their own positions and the positions of their opponents. And the country would have the rare opportunity to thumb its collective nose at the Media, demanding of them that a more substantive kind of debate be waged for the leadership of the free world. Seventy-five days or so. Come on down, voters, and take another look at these two.
|
Author of "Sweet Heavenly Daze", a lighthearted, witty, profound, and poignant
glimpse at religion that is a little different from popular faith. John's website: SweetHeavenlyDaze.com is a delight to explore. |
|
Thanks John for the Brassed Off openess... John Wolf
