Sep 10, 2008
New Heights of Absurdity in Politics
You might have heard all of the gnashing of teeth by the McCain-Palin campaign over Obama’s use of a tired old metaphor.
Disregarding for a second that Republicans are the ones who YEARS ago decried the modern taste for “political correctness” and all of the immediate cries of offense that poorly chosen words would garner, I posit this question:
Which is more offensive?
Saying that the McCain-Palin campaign is more of the same and that you can put all the lipstick you want on a pig (or a pitbull?), and it’s still a pig.
OR
Ridiculing someone for making a deliberate choice to take a low-paying, extremely difficult job as a community organizer instead of the much more lucrative fast track that Obama could have taken to Federal Court clerkship or a six-figure salary at a BigLaw firm? (I have no illusions that Obama made his choice for purely altruistic reasons, just like McCain hasn’t stayed in public office for 30 years because he’s so in love with his country.)
Is using a tired old homily of the “lipstick on a pig” sort automatically sexist because the opposing campaign happens to have a woman on the ticket? Isn’t it just as sexist to ASSUME that she’d choose to wear lipstick and would automatically self-identify with a crack made in regards to lipstick?
To butcher a phrase from “Alice in Wonderland,” this whole thing just gets ridiculouser and ridiculouser … I was watching the news coverage of this latest non-event with my mouth wide open. Seriously? McCain’s camp REALLY thought Obama was calling Palin a pig? It’s flat-out embarrassing. I’m getting closer to calling all of them a bunch of petulant children and simply writing my dog’s name on the ballot.
She is a bit long in the tooth (way older than McCain in dog years), but she’s nonpartisan, has an excellent temperment for this sort of thing and is so smart that I’m convinced she’s going to talk soon.
That aside, I think it should be mandated that presidential candidates must run their campaigns alone, and then choose their losing opponent as their VP when the election wraps. That way, they will be forced to remain civil, cut the theatrics and strive to see BOTH (political) sides to their arguments …
We are 9.6 trillion dollars in debt, and the two candidates of The Bipartisan Party are filling the news cycle with pigs and lipstick.
The intent on the part of the McCain campaign was not to make sense, but to make the opposition hesitant and nervous, especially in debates. The other rationale is that no one is going to stop and calculate the equation “Bad Policy = Pig”, “Lipstick = Palin”, instead of the other way around. Like all fits of Politically Correct Outrage, the point is to intimidate.
And John, please allow me to (civilly) disagree with your premise….If I ever vote for another candidate who suddenly starts seeing the other side’s argument 1) after the primaries, or 2) after winning the election…..I’m in favor of impeaching the bastard.
I agree wholeheartedly with John C. in this regard: “I think it should be mandated that presidential candidates must run their campaigns alone, and then choose their losing opponent as their VP when the election wraps.”
That being said, digging in to the personal lives (17-year old preggos, snorting coke twenty years ago, interracial parents *gasp*), or comparing “executive experience” of running a political campaign to running a state, is just being dished out to make the campaign sexy.
This sort of pandering is sadly what it takes to grab the attention of the electorate these days. Just take a look at what is stuffed in the magazine racks at the grocery store. US Magazine (not US Today). Esquire Magazine, not The Economist.
Now, I’m not saying I condone this sort of activity…it’s just what the pundits know will sell a campaign.
There’s a difference between seeing the merits of the other side’s argument and completely switching stated positions. Nothing will get done if the major parties continue to polarize so completely to the point where both sides are convinced that there’s nothing valuable in either side’s perspective.
And, John, that was how things were done until the 12th amendment was ratified in 1803. I like the idea of going back to that.
I like even more the idea of going to a more representative “coalition-style” government like many of the older democracies in Europe. That way folks like Alan can vote for their third parties and maybe they’ll actually get somewhere.
(I’d much rather they get involved in the current process and change things from within, but I don’t see that happening any time soon.)