I have things to say about the first Presidential Debate held on October 3, 2012.
It was boring, for one, filled with an inordinate amount of political wonkiness that the average American viewer could not comprehend because 1) neither candidates opted to define the fancy terms they were using and 2) the moderator, Jim Lehrer, couldn't get a word in between President Barack Obama and Republican Presidential Nominee Mitt Romney to discuss with viewers what something like the Bowles-Simpson Commission was.
And two, the media has done a really ridiculous job on the debate's coverage. It has always been evident that American media treats the politics as if it's some sort of circus, a fact that's even more stark compared to the passive treatment by journalists of our government on this side of the border. But, this time it just was completely absurd. CNN was running "debate-eve" pre-game shows replete with political pundits and commentators churning out their partisan-based predictions. There was non-stop discussion about the importance and impact of debates on presidential races, a discussion that seems to replicate the illusion of placing two mirrors in front of each other to get endless reflections. It was -- without exaggeration -- a debate about a debate about a debate.
Remember, this is before the debate even started.
When it finally did, we were greeted with a lucklustre affair on both sides, not just one as much as the media likes to point out. Was Obama not as charismatic as he could've been? Yes. Was Obama faced with an abundant amount of opportunities to press Romney about his claims and mistruths? Yes. Totally. But, was Romney presenting the facts? Hardly.
I hate to say that Obama lost the debate so I won't. And, I hate to say that Romney won the debate so I won't either. What I will say is this: in the grander scheme of things, that is, a sprawling election campaign that is over a year old, the debates really don't matter anymore.
I'm not arguing that debates have never mattered since they undoubtedly have. There is the infamous case with Richard Nixon and his sweating upper lip during his debate with John F. Kennedy as an example. Not to mention, George H.W. Bush's response to a citizen about how the recession has been affecting him, personally. These were game-changers -- if I were to use that seemingly innocuous word now.
But now, with the over-saturated media climate we inhabit, debates don't matter anymore. It is mostly the fault of the over-saturated, 24 hour news cycle that constantly presents the viewer with a deluge of information -- some important, some not important -- within each broadcast. It also has to do with the emergence of social-media as a way to get news instantly and to talk about its ramifications on a platform that can reach audiences around the world. And of course, it has to do with the new class of punditocracy telling people what to think when to think.
The debates are also very late in the election cycle, when early voting is already underway and when most voters already know who they want to vote for. Now, are debates a great way in showing the contrast between the two candidates? Of course they are. But, debates aren't the only platform that do this. We've seen these two candidates on the stump, on the trail, and on the screen for over a year. We know them. We know where they agree and we know where they disagree on. All we're waiting for is something momentous to happen that may catapult one candidate to victory.
I have to object to the media's constant speculation as to what dampened Obama's performance. As I've stated before, Obama could've been better. He could've challenged Romney more and he could brought up things like Bain Capital or his "47% remarks." He could've brought up his record as Massachusetts Governor, he could've brought up the record of his running mate Paul Ryan. Yes, he could've done these things. What Obama chose to do instead was present the facts, unreservedly and unabashedly, something that Romney did not do at all.
To wit, here are some of the blatant mistruths in Romney's debate answers:
-First off, he is proposing a $5 trillion dollar tax cut which would include the wealthiest Americans which would then shift the burden onto the middle class. However, he denied this even though you can find it everywhere.
-He decried ObamaCare even though his model in Massachusetts is exactly identical. As Former President Bill Clinton said, "it takes a lot of brass to call someone out on something you did."
-He mentioned that ObamaCare made over $716 billion dollar in cuts when the plan proposed by his running mate would make the exact same cuts. Not to mention, it's always very odd when a Republican is criticizing a Democrat for making cuts to an entitlement program.
-And lastly, and this is important, Obama has done things that have started to put the American economy back on track. America is better off now than they were four years ago. The jobs report released on Friday only bolsters this claim as unemployment is now at its lowest level.
However, everyone still presses on saying the Romney won the debate decisively and that we've entered into a whole different ball game or horse race or another poorly attributed sports metaphor.
Debates only prove a sad reality: that you don't have to be right to win.
Showing posts with label Barack Obama. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Barack Obama. Show all posts
Sunday, October 7, 2012
Thursday, September 20, 2012
The Real Mitt Romney Has Stood Up
Mother Jones really does offer smart, fearless journalism. Earlier this week, the liberal magazine unearthed a video of Republican Presidential candidate Mitt Romney at a fundraiser dinner in May saying the following comments:
These are pretty damaging things for a political campaign, almost beyond repair. But, of course, for that to happen, the media needs to cover this story with enough fervor in order for the American public to grasp the magnitude of what exactly Romney is saying since he is, after all, writing off close to half of the US population.
This is going to be known as the week Romney lost the 2012 Presidential Election.
He's calling half of the American population free-loading moochers who want the government to do everything for them. Yes, these free-loading 47 percenters who don't pay income tax because their income is just too low or because they're elderly. These people who vote for Obama because they feel "entitled" to things like health, food, and housing. These people are wrong, Romney says, and he doesn't care about them. Why should he care about these poor people who don't take responsibility for their lives? This is only exacerbated by the fact that Romney said this among close, wealthy friends at a fundraiser dinner. The popular sentiment here is that Romney comes off as "a sneering plutocrat," clinking his wine glass as he hobnobs with the 1%.
Romney, not Obama, is the one being divisive by calling off and dismissing half of the American people.
In contrast, Obama has been the president of unity, in a way. His 2004 keynote address at the Democratic National Convention brilliantly stated that there is no black America, or white America, or Latino America, or Asian America, but the United States of America. He was the president of Yes We Can. Change We Can Believe In. In his presidency, Obama sought to bring both parties together in order to solve America's deepest problems, but to no avail. In fact, you have Republican House Leader Mitch McConnell saying that the number one concern for his party would be not to create jobs, not to repair the crippling economy, but to make sure Obama is finished. That notion, apart from being completely odious, is divisive and unpatriotic. In this sense, it is the Republicans who are dividing America by making a clear distinction between the President, who is out to destroy America -- literally destroy it since Romney/Ryan have focused on bringing America back, whatever that means -- and them, the saviours.
The popular Republican talking point is that Obama wants to start on war on those that are successful: class warfare. I think it was Deval Patrick who stated at this year's DNC that asking the wealthy to pay more in taxes isn't tax warfare, it's patriotism. It's the Democrats, it's Obama, who are actually saying We Built That -- together for everyone -- not the Republicans. If any party is engaging in class warfare, it's the GOP. Romney is demonizing those who receive entitlement programs, his running mate wants to end MediCare as we know it, and both of them are interested in shifting the tax burden onto the middle-class while the top 1% literally pay nothing. If this isn't war on the lower-class, then I don't know what is.
After these comments surfaced, the choice between the two candidates couldn't be more clear or more stark. On one hand, you have one candidate who wants to help everyone in America get a fair shot at success, whether that is starting and owning a small business or earning an education. You have a candidate who brought health-care to millions of Americans, 6.6 million young people alone. You have a candidate who made America a safehaven for 2.1 million undocumented young immigrants who wish to study in the United States. You have a candidate who made it easier for women to gain equal pay for equal work.
And then, you have a candidate who doesn't believe that Americans should be entitled to food.
There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That that's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what…These are people who pay no income tax.
[M]y job is is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives.But, it doesn't stop there. Romney goes on wishing that he had Mexican parents in order to secure the Latino vote. He talks about being born with a silver spoon in his mouth, something he claims could only be done in America. He calls Obama "corrupt" and "a disappointment." He brags about his consultants who have ties with Israel President Benjamin Netanyahu. He believes that Palestine is not equipped to bring peace to the table with their conflict with Israel. He claims that Iran will invoke a nuclear threat by unleashing a "dirty bomb," something that actually could be conceived without a strong nuclear program since it can be made from radioactive waste. He implies that President Barack Obama apologizes worldwide for the values America upholds as part of his foreign policy. He criticizes Obama for dividing the nation and proclaiming class warfare, when he himself just did by bringing up his 47% statistic.
These are pretty damaging things for a political campaign, almost beyond repair. But, of course, for that to happen, the media needs to cover this story with enough fervor in order for the American public to grasp the magnitude of what exactly Romney is saying since he is, after all, writing off close to half of the US population.
This is going to be known as the week Romney lost the 2012 Presidential Election.
He's calling half of the American population free-loading moochers who want the government to do everything for them. Yes, these free-loading 47 percenters who don't pay income tax because their income is just too low or because they're elderly. These people who vote for Obama because they feel "entitled" to things like health, food, and housing. These people are wrong, Romney says, and he doesn't care about them. Why should he care about these poor people who don't take responsibility for their lives? This is only exacerbated by the fact that Romney said this among close, wealthy friends at a fundraiser dinner. The popular sentiment here is that Romney comes off as "a sneering plutocrat," clinking his wine glass as he hobnobs with the 1%.
Romney, not Obama, is the one being divisive by calling off and dismissing half of the American people.
In contrast, Obama has been the president of unity, in a way. His 2004 keynote address at the Democratic National Convention brilliantly stated that there is no black America, or white America, or Latino America, or Asian America, but the United States of America. He was the president of Yes We Can. Change We Can Believe In. In his presidency, Obama sought to bring both parties together in order to solve America's deepest problems, but to no avail. In fact, you have Republican House Leader Mitch McConnell saying that the number one concern for his party would be not to create jobs, not to repair the crippling economy, but to make sure Obama is finished. That notion, apart from being completely odious, is divisive and unpatriotic. In this sense, it is the Republicans who are dividing America by making a clear distinction between the President, who is out to destroy America -- literally destroy it since Romney/Ryan have focused on bringing America back, whatever that means -- and them, the saviours.
The popular Republican talking point is that Obama wants to start on war on those that are successful: class warfare. I think it was Deval Patrick who stated at this year's DNC that asking the wealthy to pay more in taxes isn't tax warfare, it's patriotism. It's the Democrats, it's Obama, who are actually saying We Built That -- together for everyone -- not the Republicans. If any party is engaging in class warfare, it's the GOP. Romney is demonizing those who receive entitlement programs, his running mate wants to end MediCare as we know it, and both of them are interested in shifting the tax burden onto the middle-class while the top 1% literally pay nothing. If this isn't war on the lower-class, then I don't know what is.
After these comments surfaced, the choice between the two candidates couldn't be more clear or more stark. On one hand, you have one candidate who wants to help everyone in America get a fair shot at success, whether that is starting and owning a small business or earning an education. You have a candidate who brought health-care to millions of Americans, 6.6 million young people alone. You have a candidate who made America a safehaven for 2.1 million undocumented young immigrants who wish to study in the United States. You have a candidate who made it easier for women to gain equal pay for equal work.
And then, you have a candidate who doesn't believe that Americans should be entitled to food.
Saturday, September 8, 2012
Feminist-In-Chief: Obama, Empowering Women, and the DNC
To be blunt, the Democrats put on a successful convention, one better than the Republicans on most regards. Note when I say "most" because, to be fair, speeches given at the Republican convention were actually pretty good. As I pointed out in my post about the RNC, Ann Romney gave a truly moving speech about her husband and likewise Chris Christie gave a fiery address that prompted presidential buzz. But, speeches at the RNC were marred with inconsistencies and blatant lies. Speeches at the Democratic National Convention were not, at least not at the level the RNC was. In fact, not only were the speeches brilliant and rousing, but they were also substantive and focused on the main goal: convincing the American public that President Barack Obama deserves a second term.
The Jobs Report which was released Friday is, I think, the most fitting conclusion of the Democratic National Convention. The report shows exactly how much progress the Obama Administration made and will surely resonate more with Americans than a speech or tribute video. In August, the US economy added 96,000 jobs meaning that August is the 30th month of consecutive job growth. That's not bad considering the Republicans won't collaborate with Obama under any circumstances. That's not bad considering that the GOP shot down the Jobs Act last year which was estimated to create over 2 million jobs. However, 96,000 jobs are not enough to make a significant dent on the unemployment rate. That would take approximately 250,000 jobs to do that. But, the jobs report does prove that the Obama Administration does not hate the private sector since, according to Think Progress, 103,000 jobs were created. It also shows that Obama still has a long way to go to convince the American people that the economy will revive itself. The Jobs Report is not abysmal since it actually is an improvement from the US economy exactly 4 years ago, when it collapsed dramatically due to the stock market crash and the Lehman Brothers' bankruptcy. If anything, the Jobs Report is sobering to the Obama campaign and the Democrats amid the post-convention frenzy.
However, even after the tepid August Jobs Report, the Democratic National Convention may have been the factor that catapults Obama to victory.
However, even after the tepid August Jobs Report, the Democratic National Convention may have been the factor that catapults Obama to victory.
This is why.
The Convention did a great job of emphasizing the highlights of Obama's mandate and did an even better job of dispelling common myths propagated last week at the RNC. A number of speakers directly quoted speeches made in the week before in Tampa and then told the audience the truth. The truth being that the GM plant Vice Presidential candidate Paul Ryan was talking about actually closed in 2008 under Bush. The truth being that the Affordable Care Act cuts money away from corporations to cut fraud in the health care system, not remove solvency from MediCare as much as the Republicans like to tout. The truth being that Obama has created more private sector jobs than the GOP would like to admit. The truth being that Obama cannot solely be blamed for the economic calamity that is occurring in America but the work he has done as rectification has been impressive. The truth being that it doesn't take just 4 years to get America back on track, something that Obama himself said in his 2009 inauguration speech.
What the convention did most of all was to undergird the campaign with more optimism. The attacks on Ryan and Republican Presidential Candidate Mitt Romney were present, of course. They have to be. But, the overall direction of the campaign was more focused on supporting the President and Vice President opposed to attacking the other side. Unlike his opponent, Obama refrained from criticizing Romney by name. A wise move as most people have chided the Obama campaign time and time again for being largely negative.
But, of course, no political convention could be complete if there wasn't some speculation about potential presidential candidates for 2016. For the Democrats, they have a sizable playing field: San Antonio Mayor Julian Castro and Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick are some of the most prominent and qualified. However, instead of giving narcissistic speeches for the campaign in coming years, they gave gracious speeches that were autobiographical in tone but supportive for Obama in heart. Unlike Christie, the keynoter for the RNC, whose speech rife with 2016 hints.
Although, that doesn't mean that the Democratic National Convention wasn't tact since it reaped the benefits from the oversights made in the RNC. For instance, the DNC are now unequivocally the party of gay rights. According to the Democrats, it's not about sexual orientation anymore. It's about "who you love," thereby spreading a much more positive issue that would render the topic of same-sex marriage as hard to refute. The Democrats seized and pounced on the opportunity to mention veterans and the troops fighting in Afghanistan, something that the Republicans didn't do at all. A military mom, Jill Biden gave a pleasant speech about her son in combat. Michelle Obama, whose speech was phenomenal, was introduced by a military mom as tribute to Obama and Biden's work for military families. Tammy Duckworth is now a Democratic Senatorial candidate who is placing military and veteran issues on the table.
And then there's women's issues. The Democratic National Convention hit a grand slam when it comes to reproductive rights, equal pay for equal work, and women's health. I mean, the amount of support and praise speakers gave to women was beyond encouraging. There were definitely more women speakers at the Democratic National Convention than at the Republican counterpart. The speeches given by women at the DNC either commented on the Democrats' position on abortion, same-sex marriage, equal pay for equal work, and healthcare. Female members of the Democratic caucus in the House of Representatives took centre stage at the convention to discuss issues of importance to them and to women everywhere. Reproductive rights advocates like Cecile Richards of Planned Parenthood and Sandra Fluke were riveting in their defense of contraception and pregnancy options. Of course, the Democrats have always relied on women voters for the bulk of their support. But in these times, where the Republicans are toying with the idea of removing women from the front lines in military combat, the Democrats are owning the idea that they are the party for women.
This idea couldn't be more apparent that in the president's own speech.
First, I have to say that Obama's speech was good but not great. Ryan Lizza of The New Yorker said that it was very vague and specious on future commitments which is a valid point. Lots of people have criticized Obama for making a weak plea to the American people for more time to restore the economy. I don't necessarily think his speech was "weak" since it's what incumbent presidents all say in their speeches, albeit not explicitly. They make the case for themselves that they're just not finished yet. Granted, Obama's speech was not as good as former President Bill Clinton's speech. Clinton probably stole the show. His no-nonsense, folksy approach was actually more substantive than any other speech at either conventions. It only took one word from Clinton to get the Democrats energized, mobilized, and ready to defend their positions against those of the Republicans: "arithmetic." Was Obama overshadowed by Clinton? It's hard to say. What we can say is that Obama needs Clinton more than any other person if Obama wants to win this election. Clinton is the perfect combination of "scholar" and "working Joe." Not only is he likable, he is revered as one of the best presidents in history. But still, Obama gave a brilliant oration. One of the greatest things in Obama's address has to be his unyielding and unrelenting support of women's rights.
Barack Obama is the Feminist-in-Chief.
As the son of a single mother, raised by his grandmother, and the father of two daughters, women's rights is an issue Obama truly and genuinely cares about. The very first thing he did as president was sign the Lilly Ledbetter Act granting women more accessibility to filing discriminatory workplace grievances, sending a message of equal pay for equal work. He appointed two women to the Supreme Court of the United States. The Affordable Care Act ensures that insurance companies can't deny care for the pre-existing condition of being a woman. Obamacare does so much for women's health by providing women with mammograms, contraceptive options and counselling, and support for domestic abuse victims, among other great things. Not only is the coverage more encompassing of the issues that affect women, Obamacare also gives women complete control of their insurance compared to the co-insurance that was previously held between a woman and her employer. He passed the Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit which benefited millions of women going through the recession. Obama created the White House Council on Women and Girls which helps protect women from unjust procedures in all matters of public policy. He has expanded funding of the Violence Against Women Act, an act created by his Vice President Joe Biden. Obama delivered the commencement speech at New York-based Barnard College and said the following things to the 2012 graduates:
And it seems like only one candidate in the race knows that.
And then there's women's issues. The Democratic National Convention hit a grand slam when it comes to reproductive rights, equal pay for equal work, and women's health. I mean, the amount of support and praise speakers gave to women was beyond encouraging. There were definitely more women speakers at the Democratic National Convention than at the Republican counterpart. The speeches given by women at the DNC either commented on the Democrats' position on abortion, same-sex marriage, equal pay for equal work, and healthcare. Female members of the Democratic caucus in the House of Representatives took centre stage at the convention to discuss issues of importance to them and to women everywhere. Reproductive rights advocates like Cecile Richards of Planned Parenthood and Sandra Fluke were riveting in their defense of contraception and pregnancy options. Of course, the Democrats have always relied on women voters for the bulk of their support. But in these times, where the Republicans are toying with the idea of removing women from the front lines in military combat, the Democrats are owning the idea that they are the party for women.
This idea couldn't be more apparent that in the president's own speech.
First, I have to say that Obama's speech was good but not great. Ryan Lizza of The New Yorker said that it was very vague and specious on future commitments which is a valid point. Lots of people have criticized Obama for making a weak plea to the American people for more time to restore the economy. I don't necessarily think his speech was "weak" since it's what incumbent presidents all say in their speeches, albeit not explicitly. They make the case for themselves that they're just not finished yet. Granted, Obama's speech was not as good as former President Bill Clinton's speech. Clinton probably stole the show. His no-nonsense, folksy approach was actually more substantive than any other speech at either conventions. It only took one word from Clinton to get the Democrats energized, mobilized, and ready to defend their positions against those of the Republicans: "arithmetic." Was Obama overshadowed by Clinton? It's hard to say. What we can say is that Obama needs Clinton more than any other person if Obama wants to win this election. Clinton is the perfect combination of "scholar" and "working Joe." Not only is he likable, he is revered as one of the best presidents in history. But still, Obama gave a brilliant oration. One of the greatest things in Obama's address has to be his unyielding and unrelenting support of women's rights.
Barack Obama is the Feminist-in-Chief.
As the son of a single mother, raised by his grandmother, and the father of two daughters, women's rights is an issue Obama truly and genuinely cares about. The very first thing he did as president was sign the Lilly Ledbetter Act granting women more accessibility to filing discriminatory workplace grievances, sending a message of equal pay for equal work. He appointed two women to the Supreme Court of the United States. The Affordable Care Act ensures that insurance companies can't deny care for the pre-existing condition of being a woman. Obamacare does so much for women's health by providing women with mammograms, contraceptive options and counselling, and support for domestic abuse victims, among other great things. Not only is the coverage more encompassing of the issues that affect women, Obamacare also gives women complete control of their insurance compared to the co-insurance that was previously held between a woman and her employer. He passed the Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit which benefited millions of women going through the recession. Obama created the White House Council on Women and Girls which helps protect women from unjust procedures in all matters of public policy. He has expanded funding of the Violence Against Women Act, an act created by his Vice President Joe Biden. Obama delivered the commencement speech at New York-based Barnard College and said the following things to the 2012 graduates:
Indeed, we know we are better off when women are treated fairly and equally in every aspect of American life — whether it’s the salary you earn or the health decisions you make.
After decades of slow, steady, extraordinary progress, you are now poised to make this the century where women shape not only their own destiny but the destiny of this nation and of this world.
My first piece of advice is this: Don’t just get involved. Fight for your seat at the table. Better yet, fight for a seat at the head of the table.
No woman’s signature graced the original document — although we can assume that there were founding mothers whispering smarter things in the ears of the founding fathers.
So think about what that means to a young Latina girl when she sees a Cabinet secretary that looks like her. (Applause.) Think about what it means to a young girl in Iowa when she sees a presidential candidate who looks like her. Think about what it means to a young girl walking in Harlem right down the street when she sees a U.N. ambassador who looks like her. Do not underestimate the power of your example.Those are just some of the things Obama said in his speech at Barnard. Now, for his speech at last week's Democratic Convention:
We believe the little girl who’s offered an escape from poverty by a great teacher or a grant for college could become the next Steve Jobs, or the scientist who cures cancer, or the President of the United States, and it’s in our power to give her that chance.
If you give up on the idea that your voice can make a difference, then other voices will fill the void ... [like] Washington politicians who want to decide who you can marry, or control health care choices that women should be making for themselves.
The young woman I met at a science fair who won national recognition for her biology research while living with her family at a homeless shelter, she gives me hope.Romney didn't have anything like this in his speech nor did any other speaker talk so candidly about advancing the rights of women. But, as Republicans are quick to point out, issues like women's rights "don't matter" since they're not as "important" as the economy. Well, the Republicans are not in the position to comment on the economy since they are, in fact, the party responsible for the calamity. Moreover, to dismiss women's issues is to dismiss issues that directly affect half of the US population. To say that prosperity only depends on finances is completely myopic and negligent. No longer do we live in a time where women's issues are contained in a box only to be opened when the debate is heated. Now, we live in a time where women's issues are everyone's issues.
And it seems like only one candidate in the race knows that.
Tuesday, September 4, 2012
The Globe and Fail: John Ibbitson on Mitt Romney for Canada
This past Wednesday, during the Republican National Convention, the Globe and Mail featured an interesting article written by one of their regular columnists John Ibbitson. The article was essentially making the case on why Republican Presidential candidate Mitt Romney would be a good president for Canadian interests. The wonderful blogger SixthEstate brought this article to my attention and used it to further dispel the myth of Liberal media in Canada. The Globe and Mail, to be frank, is not liberal. While it's true they have occasional bursts of insight, they mostly write incredulous articles like this one or this one.
Anyways, the piece starts off with an encouraging statistic, one that would give Ibbitson a difficult time convincing Canadians that Romney should win the top job: 66% of Canadians would vote for President Barack Obama compared to the 9% who would vote for Romney. Now, Ibbitson says that you, the 66%, should reconsider your position, a position that would prove to be inconsequential to the election since it's not the approval of Canadians that matters here. But, reconsider regardless!
Ibbitson then goes on to say that Romney would "know Canada more than any other president in history," even though there is speculation that Chester A. Arthur was born in Canada after his parents emigrated from Ireland to Quebec; even though Franklin D. Roosevelt had a home in Canada and traveled to Canada more than any other president due to relations during wartime. But, Romney spent his youth vacationing there and lived in Detroit therefore he must've gone to Windsor since the two cities are so close. This is a new trend I'm noticing among Republicans: that traveling somehow counts as foreign policy experience. On Meet the Press, Republican Governor Tim Pawlenty said that because Romney was involved in business transactions overseas and was once a Mormon missionary, he has enough foreign policy experience to be president. Traveling to a country obviously doesn't make you an expert on their political culture and style of governance. And yet, Republicans and the Globe and Mail it seems are quick to suggest otherwise since travelling gives you a "sense" of what that country is like. But, if people are going to run for president and claim that they will get America back on the world stage, then it would be useful for them to acquire more than just a "sense" of the rest of the world. Of course, this idea is more than just beyond noxious, it's also glowing proof of the misguided, myopic lens that Republicans and Republican-sympathizers like Ibbitson use to see the rest of the world.
In contrast, Ibbitson says, President Barack Obama has only visited the country a few times prior to being Commander-in-Chief and thought that the country is cold. While it is true that Obama has only visited Canada once as President and vetoed against the Keystone XL pipeline which would create dozens of jobs, to say that Obama doesn't "know" Canada is a little absurd.* Relations between the two countries are not at an all-time low, despite what two professors at Carleton argue. In fact, the two countries are increasingly growing similar, mostly due to the Conservative government we have in Canada.
The article progresses to briefly discuss the plans both candidates have for the economy, which is Romney's strength according to poll results. Unlike Obama, Ibbitson says, Romney actually has a plan even though it's "stupid." So, according to Ibbitson, a plan that is fiscally irresponsible is much better than what Obama has been doing, working without a budget. Well, that's not exactly true, Ibbitson. Obama has proposed a budget in the not-too-distant past, May 2012, which fell to humiliating defeats in both the House of Representatives (414-0) and the Senate (99-0). Obama's budget for the 2013 fiscal year was regarded as a fair, balanced, and responsible proposal, one that would help the middle class to drive the economy. There was a substantial amount of investment in education and clean energy while maintaining MediCare, Medicaid, and Social Security. Not to mention, Obama even tried to reach for compromise with the Republicans by tabling spending cuts and by preserving defense spending. These were things that are not mentioned in Ibbitson's article even though a healthy, robust American economy thought to be generated by this budget would likewise benefit Canada.
Ibbitson concludes by taking the opposite position, listing all the ways in which Romney would fail to deliver Canadian interests as President of the United States. His major flaw is that he's a Republican which means he believes in tax cuts for the rich, opposing gay rights, threatening military action in Iran, no abortions under any circumstance, and agreeing with Rush Limbaugh. Canadians take the exact opposite stance as Romney. We believe in higher taxes for the wealthy, equality for gays and lesbians, the women's right to choose, and a steadfast refusal to broadcast his show in Canada or for Canadian bands to have their music featured on his program. On Iran, we take the United States' approach to push for more sanctions, but Iran still views Canada more favourably than the US or UK.
After weighing the two sides, Ibbitson then refutes his initial position on Romney and said that there isn't a case for him after all! While this is the best sentence in the article, it renders the editorial pointless and Ibbitson sheepish for failing to take a proper stance. Is Ibbitson here trying to engender debate among Canadians on Romney by elucidating on his past and connections to Canada? Like I said, that debate is inconsequential to the actual result of the election. However, that doesn't mean it's not important for Canada to consider the policies of both candidates. We definitely should since we have economic, diplomatic, and military ties to the United States. And, it doesn't mean that Canadian Media should not cover the US election since it technically has nothing to do with us. The amount of coverage in the national newspapers has been adequate, with the Globe and Mail's "Canadians living in the US" feature and the regular dispatches in the National Post from star columnist Andrew Coyne.
Canadians need to consider the ramifications of both outcomes, either a second-term for Obama or a first mandate for Romney. But, it's best if they do it without the help of Ibbitson's article.
*Besides, Obama is believed to reconsider his original position anyways.
Anyways, the piece starts off with an encouraging statistic, one that would give Ibbitson a difficult time convincing Canadians that Romney should win the top job: 66% of Canadians would vote for President Barack Obama compared to the 9% who would vote for Romney. Now, Ibbitson says that you, the 66%, should reconsider your position, a position that would prove to be inconsequential to the election since it's not the approval of Canadians that matters here. But, reconsider regardless!
Ibbitson then goes on to say that Romney would "know Canada more than any other president in history," even though there is speculation that Chester A. Arthur was born in Canada after his parents emigrated from Ireland to Quebec; even though Franklin D. Roosevelt had a home in Canada and traveled to Canada more than any other president due to relations during wartime. But, Romney spent his youth vacationing there and lived in Detroit therefore he must've gone to Windsor since the two cities are so close. This is a new trend I'm noticing among Republicans: that traveling somehow counts as foreign policy experience. On Meet the Press, Republican Governor Tim Pawlenty said that because Romney was involved in business transactions overseas and was once a Mormon missionary, he has enough foreign policy experience to be president. Traveling to a country obviously doesn't make you an expert on their political culture and style of governance. And yet, Republicans and the Globe and Mail it seems are quick to suggest otherwise since travelling gives you a "sense" of what that country is like. But, if people are going to run for president and claim that they will get America back on the world stage, then it would be useful for them to acquire more than just a "sense" of the rest of the world. Of course, this idea is more than just beyond noxious, it's also glowing proof of the misguided, myopic lens that Republicans and Republican-sympathizers like Ibbitson use to see the rest of the world.
In contrast, Ibbitson says, President Barack Obama has only visited the country a few times prior to being Commander-in-Chief and thought that the country is cold. While it is true that Obama has only visited Canada once as President and vetoed against the Keystone XL pipeline which would create dozens of jobs, to say that Obama doesn't "know" Canada is a little absurd.* Relations between the two countries are not at an all-time low, despite what two professors at Carleton argue. In fact, the two countries are increasingly growing similar, mostly due to the Conservative government we have in Canada.
The article progresses to briefly discuss the plans both candidates have for the economy, which is Romney's strength according to poll results. Unlike Obama, Ibbitson says, Romney actually has a plan even though it's "stupid." So, according to Ibbitson, a plan that is fiscally irresponsible is much better than what Obama has been doing, working without a budget. Well, that's not exactly true, Ibbitson. Obama has proposed a budget in the not-too-distant past, May 2012, which fell to humiliating defeats in both the House of Representatives (414-0) and the Senate (99-0). Obama's budget for the 2013 fiscal year was regarded as a fair, balanced, and responsible proposal, one that would help the middle class to drive the economy. There was a substantial amount of investment in education and clean energy while maintaining MediCare, Medicaid, and Social Security. Not to mention, Obama even tried to reach for compromise with the Republicans by tabling spending cuts and by preserving defense spending. These were things that are not mentioned in Ibbitson's article even though a healthy, robust American economy thought to be generated by this budget would likewise benefit Canada.
Ibbitson concludes by taking the opposite position, listing all the ways in which Romney would fail to deliver Canadian interests as President of the United States. His major flaw is that he's a Republican which means he believes in tax cuts for the rich, opposing gay rights, threatening military action in Iran, no abortions under any circumstance, and agreeing with Rush Limbaugh. Canadians take the exact opposite stance as Romney. We believe in higher taxes for the wealthy, equality for gays and lesbians, the women's right to choose, and a steadfast refusal to broadcast his show in Canada or for Canadian bands to have their music featured on his program. On Iran, we take the United States' approach to push for more sanctions, but Iran still views Canada more favourably than the US or UK.
After weighing the two sides, Ibbitson then refutes his initial position on Romney and said that there isn't a case for him after all! While this is the best sentence in the article, it renders the editorial pointless and Ibbitson sheepish for failing to take a proper stance. Is Ibbitson here trying to engender debate among Canadians on Romney by elucidating on his past and connections to Canada? Like I said, that debate is inconsequential to the actual result of the election. However, that doesn't mean it's not important for Canada to consider the policies of both candidates. We definitely should since we have economic, diplomatic, and military ties to the United States. And, it doesn't mean that Canadian Media should not cover the US election since it technically has nothing to do with us. The amount of coverage in the national newspapers has been adequate, with the Globe and Mail's "Canadians living in the US" feature and the regular dispatches in the National Post from star columnist Andrew Coyne.
Canadians need to consider the ramifications of both outcomes, either a second-term for Obama or a first mandate for Romney. But, it's best if they do it without the help of Ibbitson's article.
*Besides, Obama is believed to reconsider his original position anyways.
Thursday, August 30, 2012
Grand Old Party
So, the end is nigh for the Republican National Convention. Today, they wrapped things up at the historic 40th nomination of the Republican presidential candidate and say goodbye to Tampa, Florida, hilariously nicknamed "The Big Guava." Exactly 2,286 delegates and 2,125 alternate delegates were present at the convention, mostly throwing their support behind the-now official Presidential candidate Mitt Romney. However, it wasn't a Republican convention without some thunder-stealing from the Ron Paul contingent, who voiced their dissatisfaction at the RNC for cancelling Paul's speech. A telling example of their vocal frustration was a sign fight between a Paul supporter and a Romney supporter during the roll call of the States.
But, back to the actual convention. The first day was impulsively thrown awash due to fears of then-Tropical Storm Isaac disrupting the convention and causing the previously mentioned cancellation of Paul's speech. Other speakers were likewise cut from the itinerary, like Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal and reality TV star/entrepreneur/Birther Donald Trump.
The rest of the convention followed the structure of encompassing themes, most notably the Day 2 theme of "We Built It." This theme is in direct reference to remarks made by President Barack Obama, which many cite were taken out of context by the GOP. This theme, above others, is especially telling and problematic and unfortunately will be the theme everyone will remember the most once this political circus is over. By using this theme, the GOP are trying to convince everyone that they are the party of builders, builders like Mitt Romney. According to his wife Ann, he built his business, Bain Capital, and built it all by himself. Most of the convention, in fact, focused on Romney's role in Bain Capital and his role in the 2002 Salt Lake City Winter Olympic Games. There was but mere mentions of his tenure as Massachusetts Governor -- which was pretty disastrous.
Of course, I'd be remiss if I didn't mention New Jersey Governor Chris Christie's speech on Day 2, which was the keynote address. To put it bluntly: it had 2016 all over it. According to various news reports (I first heard it at CNN), Christie mentioned the word "I" 37 times and "Mitt Romney" 7 times. Lots of people hailed the speech as being a show-stomper, a spectacle, and pure, vintage Christie. But, there are a lot more critics then admirers. Christie's speech was overblown, pompous, and narcissistic. His speech did not sell Romney even in the slightest and was probably written to advance his own political career and standing within the Republican Party.
The third day was the big day for VP Pick Paul Ryan, who delivered a rousing speech that needed to be sorely fact-checked. I mean, the blatant lies and mistruths Ryan told in his speech were astronomical. Fact-checking websites and sources were going haywire with all the misleading claims Ryan made in one speech. Here are some of the most significant:
-Ryan claimed that Obama is responsible for a GM plant closing in Jainesville, Wisconsin. That plant closed in 2007, when George W. Bush was president.
-Decrying Obama for voting against the Bowles-Simpson commission when Ryan himself voted against it, too.
-Blaming Obama for the downgrading of the United States which was ultimately caused by the Republicans' stonewalling to raise the debt ceiling. Ryan, being a Republican Congressman, is partly to blame.
-Chiding Obama for the MediCare cuts that would add 8 years of solvency to the program when he himself is proposing the same cuts in his plan.
-Calling Obamacare "government-controlled health care."
-Criticizing the President for the stimulus package (which was actually successful) despite the fact that he accepted stimulus money to support his district.
Former Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice spoke at the convention too on Wednesday night. In fact, she probably gave the best speech of the night since Ryan failed to capture the same excitement as Former Alaskan Governor Sarah Palin did 4 years ago. However, there were still major problems in her speech. She failed to address the wars the Bush Administration (the one she was a part of) started. And, failed to mention how Obama has ended and is currently ending both of the wars. An interesting thing to note is her message about America being the land of immigrants which was in direct contrast to the remarks made by Arizona Governor Jan Brewer made shortly before.* Rice was successful and many were abuzzing about the possibility of Rice running in 2016 or were mourning the fact that she wasn't the VP pick despite her capabilities.
Finally, tonight marked the close of the convention with Romney formally accepting the nomination for President of the United States. People associated with the Romney family (and the Romney church) gave truly touching anecdotes about how Romney consoled and helped them in their times of need. Olympic athletes came on stage to express how Romney's contributions to the 2002 Olympics were significant moments in their lives. Former Florida Governor Jeb Bush gave a speech pleading for educational reform, where parents and students have "a choice." What was most telling about Bush's speech were his tributes to his grandfather, father, and brother, all of which had careers in public service, the latter two being Presidents. Bush said that "I love my brother" and that Obama should stop blaming him for the wrong turn of the economy. Furthermore, Bush said that his brother "kept the country safe." Both of those comments were completely incredulous. The Bush Tax Cuts, which had a big hand in causing America's downturn, still affects the American people even in 2012. Starting two wars also has tremendous cost (duh) which were never put on the books until now. Senator Marco Rubio gave a blistering speech about America being the "land of opportunity," where "dreams are impossible everywhere but America." But, before I get to discuss Romney's speech, I simply must talk about Hollywood actor Clint Eastwood, the mystery speaker. If you didn't catch it, you really should view it. It was spectacularly bad. Eastwood staged a mock interview with Obama, replete with a chair to which Eastwood would face and talk to. To put it simply, it was just weird. And, this is a problem from the Romney campaign. Odds are, more people will talk about Eastwood's bizarre behaviour then they will about Romney's speech.
Now, Romney's speech was replete with misleading claims and half-truths, just like his running mate. Romney didn't show that much exuberance, charisma, or candor to convince the average American person that he's right for the top job. And to emphasize my point, Romney failed to do this because the average American was probably too busy watching the TLC show, "Here Comes Honey Boo Boo." The only policies Romney provided are his 5-point economic plan which would allegedly "create 12 million jobs." However, Romney only gave the bullet points and didn't go into depth as to how exactly he would do that. He said he would make America energy independent again, but how? Presumably by drilling, of course. But, since America has exacerbated their oil wells, they'll probably have to settle for "tough oil" which lies miles below sea surface and was how the BP oil spill was caused. Romney said that he wants to give parents "a choice" for where their children study and learn. What does he mean by "choice," since we know he isn't pro-choice? Essentially, this means dismantling the public education system in America and replacing it with more private schools. Romney said he would protect the sanctity of life and honour the institution of marriage. Both Republican codes for no abortions, not even in the case of rape, incest, or the health of the mother, and no recognition for same-sex marriages. For a complete dissection of Romney's speech, check out ThinkProgress's wonderful live-blog.
The Republican Convention could have had potential in giving Romney that sorely needed boost he's been pining for. They had great opportunities, especially this evening with the personal speeches. But, they lost it completely. The attention is now diverted away from Romney and his humanity to Eastwood and his incoherence. The Republicans are claiming that they are the party that can lead and restore America's greatness again. Well, if they can't even pull together a 4--no--3-day convention, then what chance does America have?
I'll close with a quote from the incomparable Paul Begala: "Seems like Republicans are as good at staging conventions then they are at winning wars."
*Information can be found here.
**In fact, there were many contradictions in the Republican National Convention in regards to rhetoric. Ann Romney stressed that she wanted to talk to the public about "love" whereas Christie stated that "we choose respect over love." Perhaps they did this on purpose to keep in line with the Romney flip-flopping tradition.
But, back to the actual convention. The first day was impulsively thrown awash due to fears of then-Tropical Storm Isaac disrupting the convention and causing the previously mentioned cancellation of Paul's speech. Other speakers were likewise cut from the itinerary, like Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal and reality TV star/entrepreneur/Birther Donald Trump.
The rest of the convention followed the structure of encompassing themes, most notably the Day 2 theme of "We Built It." This theme is in direct reference to remarks made by President Barack Obama, which many cite were taken out of context by the GOP. This theme, above others, is especially telling and problematic and unfortunately will be the theme everyone will remember the most once this political circus is over. By using this theme, the GOP are trying to convince everyone that they are the party of builders, builders like Mitt Romney. According to his wife Ann, he built his business, Bain Capital, and built it all by himself. Most of the convention, in fact, focused on Romney's role in Bain Capital and his role in the 2002 Salt Lake City Winter Olympic Games. There was but mere mentions of his tenure as Massachusetts Governor -- which was pretty disastrous.
Of course, I'd be remiss if I didn't mention New Jersey Governor Chris Christie's speech on Day 2, which was the keynote address. To put it bluntly: it had 2016 all over it. According to various news reports (I first heard it at CNN), Christie mentioned the word "I" 37 times and "Mitt Romney" 7 times. Lots of people hailed the speech as being a show-stomper, a spectacle, and pure, vintage Christie. But, there are a lot more critics then admirers. Christie's speech was overblown, pompous, and narcissistic. His speech did not sell Romney even in the slightest and was probably written to advance his own political career and standing within the Republican Party.
The third day was the big day for VP Pick Paul Ryan, who delivered a rousing speech that needed to be sorely fact-checked. I mean, the blatant lies and mistruths Ryan told in his speech were astronomical. Fact-checking websites and sources were going haywire with all the misleading claims Ryan made in one speech. Here are some of the most significant:
-Ryan claimed that Obama is responsible for a GM plant closing in Jainesville, Wisconsin. That plant closed in 2007, when George W. Bush was president.
-Decrying Obama for voting against the Bowles-Simpson commission when Ryan himself voted against it, too.
-Blaming Obama for the downgrading of the United States which was ultimately caused by the Republicans' stonewalling to raise the debt ceiling. Ryan, being a Republican Congressman, is partly to blame.
-Chiding Obama for the MediCare cuts that would add 8 years of solvency to the program when he himself is proposing the same cuts in his plan.
-Calling Obamacare "government-controlled health care."
-Criticizing the President for the stimulus package (which was actually successful) despite the fact that he accepted stimulus money to support his district.
Former Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice spoke at the convention too on Wednesday night. In fact, she probably gave the best speech of the night since Ryan failed to capture the same excitement as Former Alaskan Governor Sarah Palin did 4 years ago. However, there were still major problems in her speech. She failed to address the wars the Bush Administration (the one she was a part of) started. And, failed to mention how Obama has ended and is currently ending both of the wars. An interesting thing to note is her message about America being the land of immigrants which was in direct contrast to the remarks made by Arizona Governor Jan Brewer made shortly before.* Rice was successful and many were abuzzing about the possibility of Rice running in 2016 or were mourning the fact that she wasn't the VP pick despite her capabilities.
Finally, tonight marked the close of the convention with Romney formally accepting the nomination for President of the United States. People associated with the Romney family (and the Romney church) gave truly touching anecdotes about how Romney consoled and helped them in their times of need. Olympic athletes came on stage to express how Romney's contributions to the 2002 Olympics were significant moments in their lives. Former Florida Governor Jeb Bush gave a speech pleading for educational reform, where parents and students have "a choice." What was most telling about Bush's speech were his tributes to his grandfather, father, and brother, all of which had careers in public service, the latter two being Presidents. Bush said that "I love my brother" and that Obama should stop blaming him for the wrong turn of the economy. Furthermore, Bush said that his brother "kept the country safe." Both of those comments were completely incredulous. The Bush Tax Cuts, which had a big hand in causing America's downturn, still affects the American people even in 2012. Starting two wars also has tremendous cost (duh) which were never put on the books until now. Senator Marco Rubio gave a blistering speech about America being the "land of opportunity," where "dreams are impossible everywhere but America." But, before I get to discuss Romney's speech, I simply must talk about Hollywood actor Clint Eastwood, the mystery speaker. If you didn't catch it, you really should view it. It was spectacularly bad. Eastwood staged a mock interview with Obama, replete with a chair to which Eastwood would face and talk to. To put it simply, it was just weird. And, this is a problem from the Romney campaign. Odds are, more people will talk about Eastwood's bizarre behaviour then they will about Romney's speech.
Now, Romney's speech was replete with misleading claims and half-truths, just like his running mate. Romney didn't show that much exuberance, charisma, or candor to convince the average American person that he's right for the top job. And to emphasize my point, Romney failed to do this because the average American was probably too busy watching the TLC show, "Here Comes Honey Boo Boo." The only policies Romney provided are his 5-point economic plan which would allegedly "create 12 million jobs." However, Romney only gave the bullet points and didn't go into depth as to how exactly he would do that. He said he would make America energy independent again, but how? Presumably by drilling, of course. But, since America has exacerbated their oil wells, they'll probably have to settle for "tough oil" which lies miles below sea surface and was how the BP oil spill was caused. Romney said that he wants to give parents "a choice" for where their children study and learn. What does he mean by "choice," since we know he isn't pro-choice? Essentially, this means dismantling the public education system in America and replacing it with more private schools. Romney said he would protect the sanctity of life and honour the institution of marriage. Both Republican codes for no abortions, not even in the case of rape, incest, or the health of the mother, and no recognition for same-sex marriages. For a complete dissection of Romney's speech, check out ThinkProgress's wonderful live-blog.
The Republican Convention could have had potential in giving Romney that sorely needed boost he's been pining for. They had great opportunities, especially this evening with the personal speeches. But, they lost it completely. The attention is now diverted away from Romney and his humanity to Eastwood and his incoherence. The Republicans are claiming that they are the party that can lead and restore America's greatness again. Well, if they can't even pull together a 4--no--3-day convention, then what chance does America have?
I'll close with a quote from the incomparable Paul Begala: "Seems like Republicans are as good at staging conventions then they are at winning wars."
*Information can be found here.
**In fact, there were many contradictions in the Republican National Convention in regards to rhetoric. Ann Romney stressed that she wanted to talk to the public about "love" whereas Christie stated that "we choose respect over love." Perhaps they did this on purpose to keep in line with the Romney flip-flopping tradition.
Tuesday, August 28, 2012
Destroying Things Is Much Easier Than Making Them
Current affairs magazines are probably the most widely-sought after publications for lengthy political commentary and interesting viewpoints from engaging and familiar columnists. One of the most interesting -- and probably the most palatable -- features of the magazine happens to be the magazine cover. Throughout this election season, there have been great magazine covers depicting the race as a physical aggression between foes. Popular magazines such as The Atlantic and Newsweek have given their own interpretation of the blood-thirsty competition that is the Presidential Election.
Instead of a civil discourse on the political process, we now have The Hunger Games in which opponents foist schemes to take out each other for the ultimate glory -- survival. Speaking of The Atlantic, this week's cover invokes that same idea. Republican Candidate Mitt Romney and President Barack Obama are depicted as boxers, engaged in a heavy bout in the ring. The headline reads, "Obama Vs. Romney: Who Will Be The Greatest?" Like I said, this magazine cover and the article itself propagates this idea of physicality, of hook punches and low-blows exchanged between opponents all for the sake of victory.This boxing idea isn't really new. But, it does a fine job of emphasizing the one-on-one, man-to-man, domineering and masculine aggression that is fuming at the seams. Beneath all the ads and speeches as to why the other candidate is not the right choice for America, there is a genuine mutual dislike for the opponent behind the words. A mutual dislike that might erupt in a bar fight if it were between two average men.
This type of behavior isn't limited to the candidates, though. The "audience" has a stake in this, as well. A very telling example of this would be when Republicans cheered for the death of an otherwise healthy man who simply did not have health care insurance.
This new turn in the political process and how the media covers is only emphasizes the essence of the concept of 'politics.' Politics is messy. Politics is a struggle. And, politics is seldom pleasant.
However, it's crucial to discuss the media's role in all of this. The Atlantic and Newsweek didn't have to depict the two candidates that way. The media doesn't have to sensationalize the race this way. Coupled with the other factors I mentioned such as the candidates and the audience, we face the fundamental problem in media: does the media influence the culture or does the culture influence the media? Another related question would be "how did this turn in politics come about?"
It didn't just come about. It was always there.
Besmirching the name of the opponent is nothing and new. And, the coverage by the media on the bitter rivalry has always been there. For your amusement and for contextualization, I offer a brief history of nasty campaigns throughout the ages! To wit:
-The 1797 election was probably one of the first examples of a bitter campaign between competitors. John Adams was accused of being a hermaphrodite who was going to "marry the American presidency to the British Crown." Thomas Jefferson, on the other hand, was labelled an atheist and a supporter of incest.
-During the 1892 election, Andrew Jackson was accused of being a murderer by John Quincy Adams.
-The New York Times, who thew their support behind William McKinley, ran an article entitled "Is Bryan Crazy?" using the information of an anonymous source to derail the success of William Jennings Bryan.
-The 1964 election between Republican Barry Goldwater and Democrat Lyndon B. Johnson was infamous for its use of negative ads on television. The most memorable attack ad was from the Johnson campaigned that shows a little girl picking at a daisy, counting, then faced with the ominous countdown of an atomic bomb.
-Both the 1992 and the 2008 elections were riddled with accusations of candidates -- Bill Clinton and John McCain -- with fathering out-of-wedlock children.
-And, speaking of the 2008 election, who can forget about the disgraceful indictments made about Obama?
Anyone of these campaigns could've been depicted as a physical match, either in the stage, arena, or debate hall in the media. Odds are they were. And that's because that's what politics is.
This year, both Newsweek and The Atlantic took the political race, either the Republican primaries or the general election, and turned it into a vicious battle between enemies and translated it onto their covers. In a way, this is perfect.
Instead of a civil discourse on the political process, we now have The Hunger Games in which opponents foist schemes to take out each other for the ultimate glory -- survival. Speaking of The Atlantic, this week's cover invokes that same idea. Republican Candidate Mitt Romney and President Barack Obama are depicted as boxers, engaged in a heavy bout in the ring. The headline reads, "Obama Vs. Romney: Who Will Be The Greatest?" Like I said, this magazine cover and the article itself propagates this idea of physicality, of hook punches and low-blows exchanged between opponents all for the sake of victory.This boxing idea isn't really new. But, it does a fine job of emphasizing the one-on-one, man-to-man, domineering and masculine aggression that is fuming at the seams. Beneath all the ads and speeches as to why the other candidate is not the right choice for America, there is a genuine mutual dislike for the opponent behind the words. A mutual dislike that might erupt in a bar fight if it were between two average men.
This type of behavior isn't limited to the candidates, though. The "audience" has a stake in this, as well. A very telling example of this would be when Republicans cheered for the death of an otherwise healthy man who simply did not have health care insurance.
This new turn in the political process and how the media covers is only emphasizes the essence of the concept of 'politics.' Politics is messy. Politics is a struggle. And, politics is seldom pleasant.
However, it's crucial to discuss the media's role in all of this. The Atlantic and Newsweek didn't have to depict the two candidates that way. The media doesn't have to sensationalize the race this way. Coupled with the other factors I mentioned such as the candidates and the audience, we face the fundamental problem in media: does the media influence the culture or does the culture influence the media? Another related question would be "how did this turn in politics come about?"
It didn't just come about. It was always there.
Besmirching the name of the opponent is nothing and new. And, the coverage by the media on the bitter rivalry has always been there. For your amusement and for contextualization, I offer a brief history of nasty campaigns throughout the ages! To wit:
-The 1797 election was probably one of the first examples of a bitter campaign between competitors. John Adams was accused of being a hermaphrodite who was going to "marry the American presidency to the British Crown." Thomas Jefferson, on the other hand, was labelled an atheist and a supporter of incest.
-During the 1892 election, Andrew Jackson was accused of being a murderer by John Quincy Adams.
-The New York Times, who thew their support behind William McKinley, ran an article entitled "Is Bryan Crazy?" using the information of an anonymous source to derail the success of William Jennings Bryan.
-The 1964 election between Republican Barry Goldwater and Democrat Lyndon B. Johnson was infamous for its use of negative ads on television. The most memorable attack ad was from the Johnson campaigned that shows a little girl picking at a daisy, counting, then faced with the ominous countdown of an atomic bomb.
-Both the 1992 and the 2008 elections were riddled with accusations of candidates -- Bill Clinton and John McCain -- with fathering out-of-wedlock children.
-And, speaking of the 2008 election, who can forget about the disgraceful indictments made about Obama?
Anyone of these campaigns could've been depicted as a physical match, either in the stage, arena, or debate hall in the media. Odds are they were. And that's because that's what politics is.
Sunday, August 19, 2012
We're Not Going to Take It Anymore
The American election has taken a nasty turn, focusing on personal attacks, harsh -- and sometimes inaccurate -- advertisements decrying the other candidate. What was once a campaign of 'Hope' and 'Change' now is something else entirely for President Barack Obama. However, is Obama's new direction necessarily a bad thing?
Since 2000, when Al Gore ran for President, the Democrats have been the soft party, not boasting any of their achievements nor emphasizing the flaws of their opponents, the Republicans. A good example of this was when the Affordable Care Act first got passed in 2010 and there was speculation among liberals as to whether or not the Democrats will boast and pride over this accomplishment. One instance in which liberals did boast was the killing of Osama Bin Laden, to which critics say that Obama "spiked the football." They've also been the party who just passively took false attacks without a second thought (eg. accusing John Kerry of being a war-dodger during the Vietnam War and all of the heinous attacks on Obama accusing him of being, to wit: a Muslim, a terrorist, a socialist, a nazi, a fascist, un-American, un-Christian, and the Anti-Christ).
As previously mentioned, both campaigns have placed the negative attacks at the forefront of the election so far. Recently, an Obama SuperPAC released an ad showing a widowed husband, mourning the loss of his wife, whose illness was exacerbated by lack of health insurance after the husband got laid off from his job. Now, why did he get laid off? Republican Presidential Candidate Mitt Romney and his company Bain Capital took over the business he worked for and forced the company into bankruptcy, with sizeable profits going to Romney's pocket. Critics said that the ad implies that Romney killed the man's wife.
The criticism around this ad is mostly absurd. First, the ad was not released by Obama or his campaign, but a SuperPAC whose money gives those running the PAC agency to say whatever they want. Obama did not say "I am Barack Obama and I approve this message" at the end. Unlike Mitt Romney, whose campaign released an egregious advertisement stating that Obama would end work requirements for welfare and would oppose the "Welfare to Work" program in the United States. This is just plain false. Second, the advertisement isn't on TV and those on Obama's campaign, including Chief Strategist David Axelrod, don't think that the Romney killed the man's wife. And, that's because he didn't. What the ad does show is the kind of vulture capitalism that goes on in America -- that large corporations seize small, faltering businesses all to make a buck at the expense of others. That's it. Lastly -- and this is my biggest criticism -- this ad and other attack ads from the Obama campaign or SuperPACs do not even come close to the criticism hurled at Obama during this campaign, the 2008 campaign, and everything in between. For once, the Democrats are not going to "curl up in the fetus position and take it" anymore, as famously said by Dana Milbank in the Washington Post.
The Democrats are finally playing tit for tat. And, I salute them for it.
Since 2000, when Al Gore ran for President, the Democrats have been the soft party, not boasting any of their achievements nor emphasizing the flaws of their opponents, the Republicans. A good example of this was when the Affordable Care Act first got passed in 2010 and there was speculation among liberals as to whether or not the Democrats will boast and pride over this accomplishment. One instance in which liberals did boast was the killing of Osama Bin Laden, to which critics say that Obama "spiked the football." They've also been the party who just passively took false attacks without a second thought (eg. accusing John Kerry of being a war-dodger during the Vietnam War and all of the heinous attacks on Obama accusing him of being, to wit: a Muslim, a terrorist, a socialist, a nazi, a fascist, un-American, un-Christian, and the Anti-Christ).
As previously mentioned, both campaigns have placed the negative attacks at the forefront of the election so far. Recently, an Obama SuperPAC released an ad showing a widowed husband, mourning the loss of his wife, whose illness was exacerbated by lack of health insurance after the husband got laid off from his job. Now, why did he get laid off? Republican Presidential Candidate Mitt Romney and his company Bain Capital took over the business he worked for and forced the company into bankruptcy, with sizeable profits going to Romney's pocket. Critics said that the ad implies that Romney killed the man's wife.
The criticism around this ad is mostly absurd. First, the ad was not released by Obama or his campaign, but a SuperPAC whose money gives those running the PAC agency to say whatever they want. Obama did not say "I am Barack Obama and I approve this message" at the end. Unlike Mitt Romney, whose campaign released an egregious advertisement stating that Obama would end work requirements for welfare and would oppose the "Welfare to Work" program in the United States. This is just plain false. Second, the advertisement isn't on TV and those on Obama's campaign, including Chief Strategist David Axelrod, don't think that the Romney killed the man's wife. And, that's because he didn't. What the ad does show is the kind of vulture capitalism that goes on in America -- that large corporations seize small, faltering businesses all to make a buck at the expense of others. That's it. Lastly -- and this is my biggest criticism -- this ad and other attack ads from the Obama campaign or SuperPACs do not even come close to the criticism hurled at Obama during this campaign, the 2008 campaign, and everything in between. For once, the Democrats are not going to "curl up in the fetus position and take it" anymore, as famously said by Dana Milbank in the Washington Post.
The Democrats are finally playing tit for tat. And, I salute them for it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)