As predicted, John McCain's popularity ratings sank even lower after his two-fisted, tough-guy performance in the last McCain-Obama debate. The Republican Party misses what seems obvious to most of us -- i.e., "the American People" don't want another cowboy president, nor do we value "looking tough," to each other or to other nations. The entire culture of confrontation is outmoded -- we don't want a "strong leader" as exemplified by over-use of the first person singular pronoun, nor a leader who takes cheap shots, or attempts to verbally "defeat" his opponent by being more aggressive and negative, employing character assassination rather than staying on topic.
The reappearance of "Scrappy McCain" is a poignant example of the mid-20th century thinking of the Republican Party -- we'll show 'em, just let 'em try, why I oughta...and like that. The scrappy, independent Everyman who loves his country -- it's a cliche from a WW II era propaganda film starring, say, Jimmy Cagney. This is the older end (1945-1952) of the Baby Boom Generation at its worst -- smugly convinced that they are the revolutionaries, while they cling to traditional values their Depression-era parents would have endorsed.
The younger Boomers (1953-1959), Generations X and Y, and those who follow, think differently. Maybe the Early Boomers (1945-52) were the trailblazers who paved the way to Social Change in the US. The problem is that, with the exception of a few visionaries, the vast majority of them could never quite shake off the mantle of Depression-era thinking handed on by their parents. The Younger Boomers grew up after the revolution -- that is, us. Honestly, we weren't part of the Revolution, we were the recipients of it. By the end of 1964, desegregation was a fact, and we were at war with Vietnam -- I was 8 years old. I grew up listening to the Beatles, the Stones, Jefferson Airplane, the Doors, Cream, the Dead, and so on. They were fixtures in my young life--no longer the cutting edge, but more a part of the background. The fact that my parents either disapproved or were tolerantly dismissive of that music and the counterculture it represented was more than outweighed by the fact that it defined my cultural experience as I grew out of the 1960's and into the 1970's -- into my teen years and young adulthood. My identity was forged in the context of that counterculture. To me, it wasn't "counter" at all -- it was my reality, my culture.
So my belief system about the world contains ingredients absent from that of the Early Boomers. Thanks to growing up witnessing the daily horror of the Vietnam War on television (and as I approached the age of 18, my increasing fear of ending up a part of it), nationalism wasn't as pure an ideal for me as it was for kids ten years older than me. Thanks to the way our government dealt with civil unrest during the riots in Watts, Detroit, and Chicago, and the National Guard's handling of student demonstrations at Kent State, my faith in Authority was not unwavering, and I did question it; I did not trust my own government. Thanks to the consecutive assassinations of JFK, RFK, and Martin Luther King, I grew up not believing what the media told me, unconvinced that "lone nuts" could be solely responsible in a country where "the government" wielded so much power. I was influenced by counterculture gurus like Ken Kesey, whose views on protesting the Vietnam war were even more radical than those of the protesters -- his view was, if you engage with them (authority), you're playing their game and you've already lost, "So just say F*** it..." Later, I listened to what John Lennon said in "Imagine," and really thought about it. A lot. What are the roles of nationalism and religion in a world that has grown so small? Are they just an excuses for imposing your will on others? "Imagine" and the billboard ads Lennon purchased saying "War is over if you want it" made me believe that we really can change the world for the better, into a new kind of world not defined by the old rules. Someplace kinder, freer, and more intelligent. These opinions earned Lennon a prominent place on Nixon's "Enemies List," and I vividly remember the day that Lennon was shot and killed by a "lone nut" in 1980.
All of these views and values somehow never made it into the consciousness of my Older Boomer counterparts. They continued on in the path laid down by their Depression-era forbears, clinging desperately to material gain for security, and ironically, destroying the economy in the process. They continue to beat the drum of national pride while looting other nations; they talk a lot about being Christians, but somehow forget what Jesus said about a rich man's chances of getting into heaven, or how we should treat each other. They use their religious beliefs instead as some kind of bludgeon, to impose their will on others and tell them how they should live their lives. They kill for profit and justify it with jingoism.
So I guess it should be no surprise that behavior dictated by this outmoded thinking keeps popping up in the McCain campaign, even after many of us make broad commentary about how outdated it is, and predict how disastrous the outcome will be. It is rather sad, in a way. The RP doesn't see that life has passed them by. They are an historical artifact. They just don't know it yet.
Friday, October 17, 2008
Monday, October 13, 2008
Why McCain is Losing the Election
John McCain is losing the election for himself. Barack Obama is not overwhelmingly out-debating him, or out-strategizing him, or even out-mud-slinging him. McCain is losing the election all on his own, simply because he and his advisors are out of touch with mainstream America. Apparently, they just don't see the big picture.
Part of the big picture is the failure of the economy. McCain hasn't adequately distanced himself from the Bush administration, whose decisions he has historically supported an overwhelming percentage of the time. Even McCain and Palin's figurative constituent, Joe Six Pack, is seeing it that way, and to some extent, the timing of the market collapse is dictating the outcome of this election. McCain's economic plan as he states it is to change nothing, and make some cutbacks in spending (which remain unspecified). McCain also believes in the Trickle-Down Theory of unregulated corporate growth, and his policies are all about promoting that agenda. Joe Six Pack sees that none of this deviates from the current economics got us into this mess; not changing them hardly seems like a viable solution. I know that this is a gross simplification of McCain's economic plan, but to the majority of voters, this is what it looks like, and McCain's presentation (e.g., in the last debate) reinforces that impression.
Another part of the big picture is cultural change. McCain and Palin oppose it, Obama and Biden promote it. There is always resistance and fear in response to cultural change (or any pradigm shift), but pretending that it isn't changing only makes the transitions more painful than they need to be. In the 21st Century, America is becoming increasingly diverse, racially, ethnically, religiously, and in all matters of personal choice. Electing an African American man as president represents an acknowledgement of that change. I know that has nothing to do with the man's politics, but it is meaningful to those of us looking for a sign of movement, change, and hope.
In contrast, although Sarah Palin is a woman, she is a pro-life Creationist whose fundamentalist beliefs are far to the right of the mainstream, and represent a return to early twentieth century values. Palin's reliance on the use of one- and two-syllable words, homey terminology ("You betcha"), references to Reagan ("There you go again..."), corny jokes and gestures (winking and pointing) appear to be intended to appeal to "the masses." However, they come across as insincere, calculated, and patronizing. Even worse, in recent public appearances, Palin has begun to resort to the ugly rhetoric of character assassination. One wonders how she envisions working in the future with a political colleague she has labelled a "terrorist." Leaving aside for the moment that her recent behavior is morally reprehensible, it reflects political short-sightedness, either by Palin, her handlers, or both. Even if we set aside her politics and religious practices, Palin's inability to speak extemporaneously in interviews and her weak command of information relevant to foreign and domestic policy are painfully embarassing to witness, even to those of us who are not among her supporters. I think that the Republican Party made a terrible mistake in choosing her as running mate to McCain, and horribly misjudged voters (i.e., assuming disenfranchised Hillary supporters would support Palin simply because she is a woman). That error in judgment in itself is blatantly sexist and offensive. It was such a bad call, and I think emphasizes how out of touch the Republican Party has become with what is current and relevant to most voters.
I know the argument the Right will make in response to this: that current and relevant doesn't mean right, and maybe we need to return to old values, etc., but that is just a hardening of position and in many ways a refusal to enter into a dialogue (analogous to the problem with McCain's foreign policy: requiring preconditons be met before he will agree to enter dialogue with the leaders of "unfriendly" nations).
Much of the cultural change we are experiencing is simply generational. The Boomer generation has become the older generation. We Boomers just don't know it yet. We are still the biggest segment of the population, and as such dictate policy through our elected officials, and continue to control the vast majority of the nation's financial resources. We continue to believe that we are forward-thinking and agents of change. Our behavior however suggests that the opposite is true: we are now the establishment, and as we age, we are increasingly terrified of losing our grip on our material wealth, whatever the cost to the nation or our children. Like the archetypal bad parent Saturn, we would consume our own children rather than see them displace us. Nonetheless, the country (first or not) is changing, and McCain's refusal to acknowledge the change -- as evidenced by his choice of fundementalist Palin as running mate -- is denying aspects of the big picture that seem obvious to most of the public, especially to voters under age 50. What kind of a world we leave to our kids is, for me personally, The Issue.We Boomers have become the problem. We need to get out of the way.
There are also intangibles deciding the outcome of this election: the flavor, or taste, conveyed by the candidates. John McCain's clear dislike of Obama is translating into what viewers of the debates perceive as rudeness; in the last debate, at least McCain looked at Obama when he spoke (sometimes), but McCain also got up and paced around when Obama was speaking, referred to him as "that one," which came across as incredibly disrespectful, and made a number of unnecessary (and unconstructive) verbal jabs that felt ugly (e.g., made reference to Joe Biden's hair plugs).
In the last debate, McCain tried to take Obama to task on the economy and on foreign policy, but ineffectively, arguing the same points as he did in the first debate and relying on "scrappiness" to impress the American people. I believe this is another misread of the public. I don't think the American people want a "scrappy" president. The impression it leaves is, "Is that the best he can do? Ball up his fists and take pot shots?" I think Americans want a president who appears intelligent, diplomatic, and confident; calm and statesmanlike. Again, this may all be eyewash, but Obama looks more like that guy. When discussing his plans or policies, Obama rarely uses the pronoun "I," using instead "we" or "us." McCain repeatedly uses "I," insisting (with escalating desperation) that he knows how to "fix" the economy, "win" the war in Iraq, and solve our other problems. McCain's use of pronouns, and his unwillingness to sit down to talk with foreign leaders without requiring that they first meet specific demands, reflects a lack of "emotional intelligence," considered for much of the last decade to be a necessary ingredient for competent leadership. Are McCain or his advisors even acquainted with the term "emotional intelligence?" It appears not, and that makes them look so very out of touch with the 21st Century.
Another important perceptual piece is McCain's disdain of Obama. McCain clearly despises Obama, and can't seem to contain his feelings, even during public debates. One has to wonder how McCain would behave in difficult negotiations with the president of Iran, or Vladimir Putin. If McCain is so incapable of putting aside his personal feelings for an hour and a half to do business in a debate, can he do it as president? It does not appear that he can.
Ironically, the farther behind he falls behind in the polls, the more desperate and rageful McCain appears to be. McCain is looking increasingly like a frustrated and angry old man who somehow just can't get his point across. That perception won't get him elected.
Part of the big picture is the failure of the economy. McCain hasn't adequately distanced himself from the Bush administration, whose decisions he has historically supported an overwhelming percentage of the time. Even McCain and Palin's figurative constituent, Joe Six Pack, is seeing it that way, and to some extent, the timing of the market collapse is dictating the outcome of this election. McCain's economic plan as he states it is to change nothing, and make some cutbacks in spending (which remain unspecified). McCain also believes in the Trickle-Down Theory of unregulated corporate growth, and his policies are all about promoting that agenda. Joe Six Pack sees that none of this deviates from the current economics got us into this mess; not changing them hardly seems like a viable solution. I know that this is a gross simplification of McCain's economic plan, but to the majority of voters, this is what it looks like, and McCain's presentation (e.g., in the last debate) reinforces that impression.
Another part of the big picture is cultural change. McCain and Palin oppose it, Obama and Biden promote it. There is always resistance and fear in response to cultural change (or any pradigm shift), but pretending that it isn't changing only makes the transitions more painful than they need to be. In the 21st Century, America is becoming increasingly diverse, racially, ethnically, religiously, and in all matters of personal choice. Electing an African American man as president represents an acknowledgement of that change. I know that has nothing to do with the man's politics, but it is meaningful to those of us looking for a sign of movement, change, and hope.
In contrast, although Sarah Palin is a woman, she is a pro-life Creationist whose fundamentalist beliefs are far to the right of the mainstream, and represent a return to early twentieth century values. Palin's reliance on the use of one- and two-syllable words, homey terminology ("You betcha"), references to Reagan ("There you go again..."), corny jokes and gestures (winking and pointing) appear to be intended to appeal to "the masses." However, they come across as insincere, calculated, and patronizing. Even worse, in recent public appearances, Palin has begun to resort to the ugly rhetoric of character assassination. One wonders how she envisions working in the future with a political colleague she has labelled a "terrorist." Leaving aside for the moment that her recent behavior is morally reprehensible, it reflects political short-sightedness, either by Palin, her handlers, or both. Even if we set aside her politics and religious practices, Palin's inability to speak extemporaneously in interviews and her weak command of information relevant to foreign and domestic policy are painfully embarassing to witness, even to those of us who are not among her supporters. I think that the Republican Party made a terrible mistake in choosing her as running mate to McCain, and horribly misjudged voters (i.e., assuming disenfranchised Hillary supporters would support Palin simply because she is a woman). That error in judgment in itself is blatantly sexist and offensive. It was such a bad call, and I think emphasizes how out of touch the Republican Party has become with what is current and relevant to most voters.
I know the argument the Right will make in response to this: that current and relevant doesn't mean right, and maybe we need to return to old values, etc., but that is just a hardening of position and in many ways a refusal to enter into a dialogue (analogous to the problem with McCain's foreign policy: requiring preconditons be met before he will agree to enter dialogue with the leaders of "unfriendly" nations).
Much of the cultural change we are experiencing is simply generational. The Boomer generation has become the older generation. We Boomers just don't know it yet. We are still the biggest segment of the population, and as such dictate policy through our elected officials, and continue to control the vast majority of the nation's financial resources. We continue to believe that we are forward-thinking and agents of change. Our behavior however suggests that the opposite is true: we are now the establishment, and as we age, we are increasingly terrified of losing our grip on our material wealth, whatever the cost to the nation or our children. Like the archetypal bad parent Saturn, we would consume our own children rather than see them displace us. Nonetheless, the country (first or not) is changing, and McCain's refusal to acknowledge the change -- as evidenced by his choice of fundementalist Palin as running mate -- is denying aspects of the big picture that seem obvious to most of the public, especially to voters under age 50. What kind of a world we leave to our kids is, for me personally, The Issue.We Boomers have become the problem. We need to get out of the way.
There are also intangibles deciding the outcome of this election: the flavor, or taste, conveyed by the candidates. John McCain's clear dislike of Obama is translating into what viewers of the debates perceive as rudeness; in the last debate, at least McCain looked at Obama when he spoke (sometimes), but McCain also got up and paced around when Obama was speaking, referred to him as "that one," which came across as incredibly disrespectful, and made a number of unnecessary (and unconstructive) verbal jabs that felt ugly (e.g., made reference to Joe Biden's hair plugs).
In the last debate, McCain tried to take Obama to task on the economy and on foreign policy, but ineffectively, arguing the same points as he did in the first debate and relying on "scrappiness" to impress the American people. I believe this is another misread of the public. I don't think the American people want a "scrappy" president. The impression it leaves is, "Is that the best he can do? Ball up his fists and take pot shots?" I think Americans want a president who appears intelligent, diplomatic, and confident; calm and statesmanlike. Again, this may all be eyewash, but Obama looks more like that guy. When discussing his plans or policies, Obama rarely uses the pronoun "I," using instead "we" or "us." McCain repeatedly uses "I," insisting (with escalating desperation) that he knows how to "fix" the economy, "win" the war in Iraq, and solve our other problems. McCain's use of pronouns, and his unwillingness to sit down to talk with foreign leaders without requiring that they first meet specific demands, reflects a lack of "emotional intelligence," considered for much of the last decade to be a necessary ingredient for competent leadership. Are McCain or his advisors even acquainted with the term "emotional intelligence?" It appears not, and that makes them look so very out of touch with the 21st Century.
Another important perceptual piece is McCain's disdain of Obama. McCain clearly despises Obama, and can't seem to contain his feelings, even during public debates. One has to wonder how McCain would behave in difficult negotiations with the president of Iran, or Vladimir Putin. If McCain is so incapable of putting aside his personal feelings for an hour and a half to do business in a debate, can he do it as president? It does not appear that he can.
Ironically, the farther behind he falls behind in the polls, the more desperate and rageful McCain appears to be. McCain is looking increasingly like a frustrated and angry old man who somehow just can't get his point across. That perception won't get him elected.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
