Greetings, out there. Allow me to introduce myself. I am an intelligent adult.
My political views may not match yours, but I try to look at the issues carefully and think them through for myself, instead of simply voicing a "party line" or choosing the candidate who seems the most like me. I would like to think that you, as another intelligent adult, try to do the same.
I am very, very disturbed by the recent news from out there in Campaign-Land, and I hope that you are, too.
We all know that politicians often turn to mudslinging and political poison as a way to discredit the opponent. We even expect it, as cynical as that view may be. No presidential campaign would be complete without it. But there's mud, and then there's mud with razor blades in it. I ask you, very seriously, to consider the difference.
Recently, in the wake of a negative-campaign claim that the opponent is "palling around with terrorists," a new and disturbing dynamic has been showing up. Cries of "Traitor!" and "Kill him!" are not exactly standard fare in your everyday political rally - at least, not here in the good old U. S. of A.
But even more troubling is when the speakers - presumably also intelligent and responsible adults, people whom we have elected, or might elect, to run our country - do little or nothing to contradict or even calm such an angry crowd. A crowd which is showing signs that, given the right stimulus, it could become a mob.
Pandora's Box has been opened, and a few late-spoken sane-and-soothing words, even if sincerely meant, will not shut it again.
Now, you may agree or disagree with John McCain's politics or Barack Obama's politics. That's fine. You may consider Sarah Palin to be the best hope of modern feminism or an empty-headed ditz; that's your call. But I ask you, please, look carefully at this particular dynamic, and at the question of whether an ethical line has been crossed.
The cry of "terrorists" has certainly been used before as a political tactic, and recently. It is arguably the reason why our current incumbent gained a second term; people's fears of a 9/11 repeat made them seek safety in the known, rather than risk an unknown. But in that case, the rallying cry was about who had the experience to deal with terrorism, who could best defend us from the treacherous Outsider.
This use of the "terrorist" card, however, is different, for this one implies that the political opponent IS the Outsider, a dark and dangerous figure who has somehow infiltrated our formerly secure boundaries to threaten all that we hold dear. This provokes a visceral reaction in us; the Outsider, the Other, becomes an object to be destroyed at any cost, a devil to be driven out by the sword, if we hope to preserve ourselves and our children and our way of life. This new game is no longer about which human being is most qualified to govern - because the opponent is now cast as somehow inhuman, not so much a person as an evil force.
Such demonization is more than just a convenient campaign tactic. It is a release of certain other demons that we haven't seen in mainstream politics since the days of the civil rights movement. It is a shift into territories where the mudslinger is no longer simply pushing the trigger of our general fears, but is now actually aiming the barrel of the gun at a human target.
Ladies and Gentlemen, we are the gun.
Please, no matter where you are on the political spectrum, consider the facts as we know them so far:
1. Candidate X accuses Candidate Y of being friends with a terrorist.
2. Candidate Y says that he knows the man in question, who was responsible for violent anti-Vietnam-war protests forty years ago, but has no particular ties to him.
3. A number of major newspapers investigate the issue, and find no actual evidence of any close relationship between the two.
4. Candidate X claims to know that the relationship is really much closer than everyone thinks - but offers no facts or evidence to support that claim.
5. Instead, this unsubstantiated claim is used to demonize Candidate Y, inciting a violent emotional reaction which is allowed or even encouraged to run its course in angry shouts and threats at rallies for Candidate X's campaign.
This, as it festers, is the stuff that assassinations are made of. It is already at the point where a verbal protest - too little and too late - only further incites the roiling emotions; belated attempts to stuff Pandora's demons back into the box, however earnestly intended, become merely part of the show. It is a superb show, a skilled display of human manipulation. And as such, it is very, very dangerous.
Whether you agree or disagree with the values that Candidate X talks about, please, look at the values that he has actually shown to us by these actions. Actions may not always speak louder than words, but they often speak more accurately, and they are harder to take back.
Sure, dirty politics is a fact of life in America. We accept it, even relish it for the gossipy fun it produces. But this isn't just "politics as usual" - and the difference is as clear as the difference between pointing the finger and pointing the gun. It's the difference between a suspension of politeness and a suspension of ethics. And it's a question of how such a dangerous tactic would play out, and against whom, when played not from the campaign trail but from the White House.
Dear Thinking People Everywhere, please don't legitimize that gun in the hands of the McCain/Palin campaign. Because if we allow this tactic to win, that gun could next be pointed... anywhere. Because, let's face it: whether you're a supporter of the Religious Right or a supporter of Gay Rights, chances are good that someone, somewhere out there, considers YOU to be the Other - the Outsider, a dark and demonic figure, a shadowy threat to all that is right and true.
No comments:
Post a Comment