Discourse
I did not watch the presidential debates because 1. I've already made up my mind, 2. I think there have already been plenty of opportunities to find out about these two men, and 3. I had other projects to work on. However, my understanding is that the debates are for the undecided, although the two men's positions, backgrounds, and temperaments are so distinct that I can't imagine why someone would be undecided at this point. Some come to the game late, I suppose, whereas others of us were following it over a year ago. And how it has changed. A student announced to me twelve months ago that Hillary would be the next president, as if it were inevitable. Ha! to quote McCain, nothing is inevitable; that is my new mantra (although everything in the Christian faith is opposed to the concept of a mantra, so I suppose I need a better term.) It has been fun to watch this election, but enough is enough already.
Having been a collegiate debate coach in my pre-motherhood life, I disdain these forums because they aren't really debates, just a chance for Q and A and for the candidates to be on the same platform. It seems from the press reports that it was a tie; no knockouts on either side, really.
But they do a service to the country and they are important. McCain has been criticized for almost backing out to try to save the economy. The left, of course, says that is a political stunt; actually, I appreciate someone drawing attention to the discussion and being willing to look like the bad guy. In one way, a president is like a father; the buck stops at this desk, and if the kids whine, he gets to be the whinee and absorb the blame. McCain, political stunt of not, was trying to do his job as a senator; that is what he gets paid for, not that he needs the money. The bailout was wrong, is wrong, but at least there should be ways to protect us, and I hope the final bill does that. It's all quite complicated, complicated enough to ensure the average joe doesn't understand it.
The debates are also, I think, an opportunity for the discourse to cool down and for there to be some degree of civility in the messages coming out of the campaigns, even if just for ninety minutes, four times. Obama doesn't have to be vitriolic; he lets his toadies do it, and even if Obama says don't touch Palin's family, the wingnuts will do it beyond all that's unholy. Not to be outdone, there are enough extremist groups on the right in that no-man's land of the campaign contribution laws (again, something the average joe doesn't understand, and I'm in that group), to batter back with some pretty nasty stuff on Obama. The question is, which of the nasty stuff is true, on either side? Sure, McCain's wife is rich, from her father's business; Kerry married into wealth, so was he also some sort of kept man? Obama seems to have two lovely daughters and a wife that the media adores, although she keeps a lower profile than, say, Hillary. Obama smokes--not well known, but he does. He is not a Muslim; someone would have caught him at mosque if he was, or praying five times a day. His mother was a disaster and I think he has risen above a pretty shoddy upbringing. Yes, McCain left his first wife. I think that was all pretty sordid, and I can see why an individual voter might have a hard time with it. I do, but we don't know all the circumstances. Three of the four candidates have children in Iraq, an amazing fact.
And, to quote Linda Ellerbee, so it goes. As a student of discourse, I watch this with fascination and (sometimes) an objective eye. Recently we were introducing ourselves to the President of our College, and for some reason the first person said he was a liberal, so the rest of us felt obligated to proclaim our affiliation. I said I was a conflicted conservative. I believe in conservative principles; I do not believe in conservative spokespersons or politicians. Thus, the conflict. Case in point: Ann Coulter. I read her column every week. She absolutely cracks me up with her outrageousness. Sure, there's truth there; there's also some wild exaggerations, to say the least. But she's not my spokesperson, nor is Rush or Sean Hannity (both blowhards, whereas I consider liberal pundits twits.) We conservatives suffer from a lack of spokespersons whom we can trust, who use logic instead of smart remarks, who believe an argument can be made for conservative policies without sarcasm or innuendo or outright lying and insults. Not to say I don't laugh at them, but I'm crying on the inside for the death of something that probably never existed--civil discourse.
Having been a collegiate debate coach in my pre-motherhood life, I disdain these forums because they aren't really debates, just a chance for Q and A and for the candidates to be on the same platform. It seems from the press reports that it was a tie; no knockouts on either side, really.
But they do a service to the country and they are important. McCain has been criticized for almost backing out to try to save the economy. The left, of course, says that is a political stunt; actually, I appreciate someone drawing attention to the discussion and being willing to look like the bad guy. In one way, a president is like a father; the buck stops at this desk, and if the kids whine, he gets to be the whinee and absorb the blame. McCain, political stunt of not, was trying to do his job as a senator; that is what he gets paid for, not that he needs the money. The bailout was wrong, is wrong, but at least there should be ways to protect us, and I hope the final bill does that. It's all quite complicated, complicated enough to ensure the average joe doesn't understand it.
The debates are also, I think, an opportunity for the discourse to cool down and for there to be some degree of civility in the messages coming out of the campaigns, even if just for ninety minutes, four times. Obama doesn't have to be vitriolic; he lets his toadies do it, and even if Obama says don't touch Palin's family, the wingnuts will do it beyond all that's unholy. Not to be outdone, there are enough extremist groups on the right in that no-man's land of the campaign contribution laws (again, something the average joe doesn't understand, and I'm in that group), to batter back with some pretty nasty stuff on Obama. The question is, which of the nasty stuff is true, on either side? Sure, McCain's wife is rich, from her father's business; Kerry married into wealth, so was he also some sort of kept man? Obama seems to have two lovely daughters and a wife that the media adores, although she keeps a lower profile than, say, Hillary. Obama smokes--not well known, but he does. He is not a Muslim; someone would have caught him at mosque if he was, or praying five times a day. His mother was a disaster and I think he has risen above a pretty shoddy upbringing. Yes, McCain left his first wife. I think that was all pretty sordid, and I can see why an individual voter might have a hard time with it. I do, but we don't know all the circumstances. Three of the four candidates have children in Iraq, an amazing fact.
And, to quote Linda Ellerbee, so it goes. As a student of discourse, I watch this with fascination and (sometimes) an objective eye. Recently we were introducing ourselves to the President of our College, and for some reason the first person said he was a liberal, so the rest of us felt obligated to proclaim our affiliation. I said I was a conflicted conservative. I believe in conservative principles; I do not believe in conservative spokespersons or politicians. Thus, the conflict. Case in point: Ann Coulter. I read her column every week. She absolutely cracks me up with her outrageousness. Sure, there's truth there; there's also some wild exaggerations, to say the least. But she's not my spokesperson, nor is Rush or Sean Hannity (both blowhards, whereas I consider liberal pundits twits.) We conservatives suffer from a lack of spokespersons whom we can trust, who use logic instead of smart remarks, who believe an argument can be made for conservative policies without sarcasm or innuendo or outright lying and insults. Not to say I don't laugh at them, but I'm crying on the inside for the death of something that probably never existed--civil discourse.
Comments