Column first appeared in Village Voices on October 28, 2008
At the Crossroads
By
Roland Tolliver
“Life is lived forward, but can only be understood backwards.” --Søren Kierkegaard
The nation is at a crossroads. Oil prices fluctuate and long lines at the gas pumps are happening in parts of our country. There is turmoil in the Middle East with continued concerns about Iran. The Republican candidate is a balding, white male, military veteran, who is trying to distance himself from a President with an abysmal approval rating. Saturday Night Live has lampooned a national candidate to the point of turning the party representative into a mockery. A vice-presidential candidate was selected to appease the conservatives. On the other side, a smooth talking liberal candidate is the nominee from the Democratic Party. He has little experience at the national or international levels, but has brought in a long-term U.S. Senator to cover his weaknesses. The economy is in the dumps with the possibility of inflation and depression both looming large. The Presidential election is just days away.
The year was 1976. Gerald Ford, the man who was appointed to the Presidency, was running against the upstart Democratic nominee, Jimmy Carter. The nation wanted to distance itself from Richard Nixon, and anybody associated with him. Walter Mondale, the long-time Democratic Senator from Minnesota, was nominated as the Vice-Presidential candidate, seen as someone who could shore up the party’s ticket. Gerald Ford was lampooned by Chevy Chase of SNL, who made a career out of his one-note comedic bludgeoning of a single misstep on a runway in Austria, dismissing the fact that Ford was probably the most athletic President in history. Senator Bob Dole was the V.P. nominee, who appealed to the more conservative constituency.
It was my first election. I had turned eighteen that year. I was a political junkie from the time I was in the fourth or fifth grade, even to the point of charting the Electoral College votes the night of the 1968 election. My parents thought I was prescient when I predicted that Nixon would name Gerald Ford from our home state of Michigan as his Vice President when it was apparent that the disgraced Spriro Agnew would be leaving office. I was also torn in trying to make my first major decision as a voting adult.
Today we find a number of parallels to 1976. We have a tested politician who has chosen a more conservative candidate to be his running mate. We have an untested, but smooth-talking candidate, who has chosen a long-term Senator as his running mate to balance his inexperience in foreign affairs. We have the coming inflationary economy that is in a recession. Gas prices are fluctuating on an almost daily basis. Iran is threatening Israel and there is continued instability in the Middle East. And not the least is America’s desire to distance itself from an unpopular President and the other party doing its best to connect the Republican Presidential nominee and the current President for their own political gain.
The four years of the Carter administration were most-likely one of the lowest points in the history of our country’s standing in the world. We were perceived as weak. Our military was decimated by the desire to try and be the anti-war nation, having been disillusioned by the Vietnam War. Our economy soured and gas prices skyrocketed with long gas lines and rationing. The one international event that stands above any other during that time was the Iranian Hostage Crisis with the subsequent tragedy in the ill-fated rescue attempt. “Carter’s Blackest Day” was the headline in the daily paper in Munich (where I was studying) on April 25, 1980, the day after the failed “Operation Eagle Claw” and the death of eight of our finest soldiers in Iran the day before. And now Senator Biden informs us that if his running mate is elected President, he will be tested with an international crisis within the first six months of his Presidency.
The parallels are many and we have been informed many times throughout the years by Winston Churchill and others that if we fail to learn from history, we are doomed to repeat it. Despite President Bush’s misgivings and shortcomings, there has not been another attack on U.S. soil since the tragic events of September 11, 2001. We have not located Osama Bin Laden and perhaps we never will regardless of who is elected President. We are in an unpopular war, but when is war ever popular? The current candidates want to stop genocide and other atrocities in other parts of the world, and that was accomplished to a large degree in Iraq with the capture and ouster of Saddam Hussein, but due to the misguided pretenses of attacking terrorists in Iraq, this fact is often overlooked.
There is still much work to be done with the economy, in fostering world peace, in protecting innocent lives here and abroad, and protecting our own shores. Despite the campaign rhetoric and baseless promises for change, the winner will still have to work with Congress to pass any sweeping changes. As a country, we move more at the rate of an ocean liner than a speed boat when it comes to change. There is no modern-day prophet or single individual who accomplishes all he or she sets out to do and definitely not in four years’ time.
I voted in 1976 based on my enthusiasm of the moment. I went with the new guy, against my deeper gut feeling that I should vote for President Ford. I listened to the promises and the rhetoric. I was young and highly impressionable. I learned a valuable lesson that I have taken with me each subsequent election. I vote independent of party line locally, but have voted for a Republican for President since that impetuous decision in 1976. I have a feeling we may have another difficult lesson to learn in the next few years, but as a country we will survive either way.
Showing posts with label Elections. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Elections. Show all posts
Monday, November 03, 2008
Tuesday, October 07, 2008
House Call for the Spin Doctor
The following column appeared in The Freeport Focus on September 18, 2008.
House Call for the Spin Doctor
By
Roland Tolliver
“The political spin in Washington is revolting, just revolting. It’s a callous political game.”
--Rob Bishop
Two weeks ago I would have given odds that Senator Barack Obama would be the winner of the general presidential election the first Tuesday of November. A few years ago I coined a term, “politainment”, in which the new word was defined as being the melding of politics and entertainment. It has become ubiquitous in our society that the issues are only marginally brought forth, but the perception of a candidate’s personality is front and center when campaigning. This is primarily related to national politics where the “big money” is spent on television advertising and the faces of the candidates’ are ever-present.
When one goes back to 1960 for our general presidential elections there is a distinct pattern of the “better looking” candidate winning the elections. For those of you who recall the first presidential debates in 1960, those who were listening on the radio were sure that Vice-President Richard M. Nixon had won with more salient points, but as we know Senator John F. Kennedy won the general election. Many ceded that his election victory was sealed during that debate, which was also televised. He was photogenic, eloquent with his speech, and was not sweating like a pig (one without lipstick) during the debate. Nixon on the other hand lacked Kennedy’s charm and was sweating like a pig (his makeup was probably running, too). This was the start of the “politainment” period in American politics.
Each subsequent election has seen similar national predilection for the candidate that was perceived to have more camera appeal, though one could argue that Nixon vs. Humphrey or Nixon vs. McGovern was a “visual” wash and it could also account for the “hanging chad” closeness of the Bush vs. Gore election. One could argue those, but I won’t. Suffice it to say that the more photogenic candidates are typically the general election winners for president.
That leads us to this year. Here we have Senator Barack Obama, the thin, handsome, gifted speaker of a candidate, who came out like gangbusters during the primaries, only to almost lose what seemed like an insurmountable lead, but hung on for his party’s nomination. On the other side of the coin, we have the more “seasoned” candidate, Senator John McCain, who seems stauncher, less talented at conveying his message from a podium, and a trifle rougher around the edges.
America is always on the lookout for something new and exciting to come along. We give our television shows a few weeks to “wow” us and if it doesn’t grab enough ratings fast enough, the shows are yanked off of the air. We tend to be the same way about our politicians running for national office. We give them the opportunity to smooth talk us into believing that they are all about change or hope or reform or whatever buzz word is commissioned by the campaign managers and people pulling the candidates’ strings and then we try to decide who we like the best, or who we like the least.
This campaign season, however, has seen a wrench thrown into the boiler. While the one candidate has the GQ looks and suave demeanor going for him, he also has a long-winded, perennial politician without a hint of “change” in his profile as a running mate. The other candidate, who has served his country for fifty-some years, is trying to project an image of change, which alone he could not achieve. He has, however, changed the perspective of the race by asking a fresh new face to the national scene to be his running mate. Where one candidate says he is about change and didn’t back it up when he had a chance to make a distinction with a running mate, instead of highlighting his own shortcomings with his choice, the other made it clear that it is he who will be running the country if he wins, and that the vice-presidential nominee is there to support his leadership.
The fact that she is just as photogenic, if not more so, than the Democratic presidential nominee, is where the wrench comes in. America has not typically had an election season where a presidential candidate has spent so much time and energy in comparing himself to the vice-presidential candidate for the other party. Where experience is lacking, quite frankly in all of the candidates, the quality of leadership should fill in that void. So, the question becomes not who has the experience to lead, but who has the ability to lead, to make the tough decisions, and with whom to consult in order to make those decisions.
The next fifty days or so will be a blur to most of us. We will see political attack ads. We will hear enough spin to make our heads spin and we will in typical fashion most often hear only what we want to hear. The majority of Americans have already decided who they will vote for. The messages that will be sent over the next weeks will be geared at swaying those that are sitting on the proverbial fence. Many will vacillate depending on their personal stance on certain issues and how they perceive that the candidates match up with their positions. Others will see who appears to show the qualities they deem necessary for the leader of our country.
What many will not do, will be to see beyond the political spin, to dig deeper into a candidate’s qualifications and to make an informed decision. Many will look at the candidates’ appearances on the television screen, listen to the pundits, and vote based on the presentation of the packaging of the candidates. The polls will be like watching to see how well a movie is doing at the box office or a television show in the ratings. Many will jump on a bandwagon depending on any given day’s results. This is the type of political entertainment that has been perpetuated since 1960 and now has grown with the advent of 24/7 news coverage into the “politainment” monster that everyone knows, but few want to recognize.
Politics shouldn’t be about which candidate comes across best on television. It should be about who is best suited to lead our country. Alas, that seems to be a forgotten factor.
House Call for the Spin Doctor
By
Roland Tolliver
“The political spin in Washington is revolting, just revolting. It’s a callous political game.”
--Rob Bishop
Two weeks ago I would have given odds that Senator Barack Obama would be the winner of the general presidential election the first Tuesday of November. A few years ago I coined a term, “politainment”, in which the new word was defined as being the melding of politics and entertainment. It has become ubiquitous in our society that the issues are only marginally brought forth, but the perception of a candidate’s personality is front and center when campaigning. This is primarily related to national politics where the “big money” is spent on television advertising and the faces of the candidates’ are ever-present.
When one goes back to 1960 for our general presidential elections there is a distinct pattern of the “better looking” candidate winning the elections. For those of you who recall the first presidential debates in 1960, those who were listening on the radio were sure that Vice-President Richard M. Nixon had won with more salient points, but as we know Senator John F. Kennedy won the general election. Many ceded that his election victory was sealed during that debate, which was also televised. He was photogenic, eloquent with his speech, and was not sweating like a pig (one without lipstick) during the debate. Nixon on the other hand lacked Kennedy’s charm and was sweating like a pig (his makeup was probably running, too). This was the start of the “politainment” period in American politics.
Each subsequent election has seen similar national predilection for the candidate that was perceived to have more camera appeal, though one could argue that Nixon vs. Humphrey or Nixon vs. McGovern was a “visual” wash and it could also account for the “hanging chad” closeness of the Bush vs. Gore election. One could argue those, but I won’t. Suffice it to say that the more photogenic candidates are typically the general election winners for president.
That leads us to this year. Here we have Senator Barack Obama, the thin, handsome, gifted speaker of a candidate, who came out like gangbusters during the primaries, only to almost lose what seemed like an insurmountable lead, but hung on for his party’s nomination. On the other side of the coin, we have the more “seasoned” candidate, Senator John McCain, who seems stauncher, less talented at conveying his message from a podium, and a trifle rougher around the edges.
America is always on the lookout for something new and exciting to come along. We give our television shows a few weeks to “wow” us and if it doesn’t grab enough ratings fast enough, the shows are yanked off of the air. We tend to be the same way about our politicians running for national office. We give them the opportunity to smooth talk us into believing that they are all about change or hope or reform or whatever buzz word is commissioned by the campaign managers and people pulling the candidates’ strings and then we try to decide who we like the best, or who we like the least.
This campaign season, however, has seen a wrench thrown into the boiler. While the one candidate has the GQ looks and suave demeanor going for him, he also has a long-winded, perennial politician without a hint of “change” in his profile as a running mate. The other candidate, who has served his country for fifty-some years, is trying to project an image of change, which alone he could not achieve. He has, however, changed the perspective of the race by asking a fresh new face to the national scene to be his running mate. Where one candidate says he is about change and didn’t back it up when he had a chance to make a distinction with a running mate, instead of highlighting his own shortcomings with his choice, the other made it clear that it is he who will be running the country if he wins, and that the vice-presidential nominee is there to support his leadership.
The fact that she is just as photogenic, if not more so, than the Democratic presidential nominee, is where the wrench comes in. America has not typically had an election season where a presidential candidate has spent so much time and energy in comparing himself to the vice-presidential candidate for the other party. Where experience is lacking, quite frankly in all of the candidates, the quality of leadership should fill in that void. So, the question becomes not who has the experience to lead, but who has the ability to lead, to make the tough decisions, and with whom to consult in order to make those decisions.
The next fifty days or so will be a blur to most of us. We will see political attack ads. We will hear enough spin to make our heads spin and we will in typical fashion most often hear only what we want to hear. The majority of Americans have already decided who they will vote for. The messages that will be sent over the next weeks will be geared at swaying those that are sitting on the proverbial fence. Many will vacillate depending on their personal stance on certain issues and how they perceive that the candidates match up with their positions. Others will see who appears to show the qualities they deem necessary for the leader of our country.
What many will not do, will be to see beyond the political spin, to dig deeper into a candidate’s qualifications and to make an informed decision. Many will look at the candidates’ appearances on the television screen, listen to the pundits, and vote based on the presentation of the packaging of the candidates. The polls will be like watching to see how well a movie is doing at the box office or a television show in the ratings. Many will jump on a bandwagon depending on any given day’s results. This is the type of political entertainment that has been perpetuated since 1960 and now has grown with the advent of 24/7 news coverage into the “politainment” monster that everyone knows, but few want to recognize.
Politics shouldn’t be about which candidate comes across best on television. It should be about who is best suited to lead our country. Alas, that seems to be a forgotten factor.
Thursday, August 28, 2008
Who Can it Be Now?
The DNC is at the end of the festivities. The coronation of the emperor is about to take place and everyone is wondering ... who is McCain going to choose as his running mate? He'll apparently take the high road tonight and congratulate Barack on his historical achievement, especially given that this is the 45th anniversary of the "I Have a Dream" speech of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. That is bound to be a major tie-in tonight as he is outlined by the columns on the stage in a 21st Century re-enactment of the speech given on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial. But, like most Hollywood movies (or Oprah-produced events) the setting is all style and of questionable substance. Can he sell himself to middle-America? Will the cowboys of Texas or Montana or Wyoming say, "Now that is someone I can get behind and support." Or will the great event ring hollow like a motivational speaker who revs up the crowd, counts his cash, and never has any follow-through? So far, I have only seen the latter in the rhetoric. There is a division that still exists between the Barackians and the Clintonians and no words of Bill or Hillary will be enough to satisfy the disaffected, the disgruntled and the disengaged.
Back to McCain. I look at three possible choices and know that I will most likely be wrong. McCain will want someone with broad appeal, who doesn't vary greatly from his stance on the abortion issue, and who has the chutzpa to put the long-winded, plagiarizing senator from Delaware in his place. So, look for someone who is respected and known well-enough to Americans that they don't need a phonetic dictionary in order to pronounce the name or a Who's Who book to recognize. Most likely it will be someone like Minnnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty (though Minnesotans have failed to do well in national elections, see Mondale, Humphrey, albeit they were Democrats), Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison ( could have wide appeal among discouraged Hillary backers), Mitt Romney (though he comes across as too much like Dan Quayle and that may not fly), or my personal favorite choice, Secretary of State,Condoleeza Rice. She is not a politician. She has vast international affairs experience. She would be able to appeal to all races and while she carries the baggage of President Bush and the boisterous media's incessant chattering about all-things negative for America, she can hold her own in any situation.
We'll find out tomorrow when the GOP and Senator McCain meet in Dayton, Ohio. And I'd be willing to bet against 3:00 a.m. text messages to alert the party's faithful. McCain probably doesn't text message, anyways.
Back to McCain. I look at three possible choices and know that I will most likely be wrong. McCain will want someone with broad appeal, who doesn't vary greatly from his stance on the abortion issue, and who has the chutzpa to put the long-winded, plagiarizing senator from Delaware in his place. So, look for someone who is respected and known well-enough to Americans that they don't need a phonetic dictionary in order to pronounce the name or a Who's Who book to recognize. Most likely it will be someone like Minnnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty (though Minnesotans have failed to do well in national elections, see Mondale, Humphrey, albeit they were Democrats), Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison ( could have wide appeal among discouraged Hillary backers), Mitt Romney (though he comes across as too much like Dan Quayle and that may not fly), or my personal favorite choice, Secretary of State,Condoleeza Rice. She is not a politician. She has vast international affairs experience. She would be able to appeal to all races and while she carries the baggage of President Bush and the boisterous media's incessant chattering about all-things negative for America, she can hold her own in any situation.
We'll find out tomorrow when the GOP and Senator McCain meet in Dayton, Ohio. And I'd be willing to bet against 3:00 a.m. text messages to alert the party's faithful. McCain probably doesn't text message, anyways.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)