Monday, February 19, 2007
coded speech
Our local newspaper featured an article yesterday purporting to help readers discern the real meaning of candidates' statements, on account of most of it being encoded, they said. There were large head shots of Obama, Clinton, Guiliani and McCain and interpretations from, among others, Christopher Dodd, whose should not be taken seriously about anything. The article's contention was that candidates feel it necessary to hide what they really think rather than say so out-and-out, in order to woo voters on all sides. Hillary, for example, wants both those who oppose the war and those who don't, so she utters ambiguous statements that leave it up to readers/listeners to decide what she means and therefore decide she agrees with them. Guiliani, for another example, has said he personally supports abortion choice but is unsure of a public position, and, hoping to gain favor with those who want abortion banned altogether, expressed admiration for Chief Justice Roberts and Judge Alito because that supposedly was code for expressing support for future right-wing agendas. (In fact, Dodd stated that much of what McCain and Guiliani say is meant to ingratiate themselves with right-wingers.) Candidates certainly do want to be seen in a favorable light by absolutely everyone, since they need lots of votes, but occasionally one or two of them do mean what they say. Sometimes a cigar comment is just a cigar comment.
The U.S. electorate is comprised of millions of people, most of us intelligent and entirely capable of understanding complex ideas. I know it's hard to trust millions of people whom you never see eye-to-eye, but that's too darn bad since it's how our system works. I don't want anyone talking to me as if I'm not quite up to the task of understanding what's being said and I'll probably run the other way if they do. Insulting voters doesn't seem like a good way to earn their interest or support, does it? And while it's hard to imagine anyone ever matching the Clintons' agile ability to be chameleons when they present themselves and their viewpoints, I guess it's not a bad idea to stay alert lest we vote for someone who says 'down' but means 'up'. All of which presupposes that anything they say matters at all, of course.
The U.S. electorate is comprised of millions of people, most of us intelligent and entirely capable of understanding complex ideas. I know it's hard to trust millions of people whom you never see eye-to-eye, but that's too darn bad since it's how our system works. I don't want anyone talking to me as if I'm not quite up to the task of understanding what's being said and I'll probably run the other way if they do. Insulting voters doesn't seem like a good way to earn their interest or support, does it? And while it's hard to imagine anyone ever matching the Clintons' agile ability to be chameleons when they present themselves and their viewpoints, I guess it's not a bad idea to stay alert lest we vote for someone who says 'down' but means 'up'. All of which presupposes that anything they say matters at all, of course.
Labels: 2008 election, politics
Post a Comment