Last week, I heard the following story on the radio: A woman asked a Republican senator if she could have some McCain signs for her yard. When the senator asked the woman if she would like to join the Republican party, she replied, "No way! I'm a Democrat!"
I really can't understand the woman's line of reasoning. She feels proud enough of her political affiliations to refuse to even consider changing sides, yet wants to encourage people to vote for a candidate who espouses political sentiments diametrically opposed to those of what she clearly considers "her" party.
The problem, if indeed it could be described thus, presumably lies in the American political system, which is extremely personalised. The presidential election and more particularly the primary selection procedure which precedes it are mainly to blame for this.
During the primaries, ordinary people vote for who should be the Democrat and Republican presidential candidate. Not only do would-be candidates spend tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars on their campaigns. Because they are from the same party - and are therefore on the same side of the political divide with very similar political leanings - as their party rivals, the main differences tend to be personal. This means that party candidates are chosen first and foremost on the basis of their (perceived) personal qualities, a very emotional assessment that leads to fervent passions that are whipped up into extreme animosity towards other candidates by the rallies, speeches and ads as the campaigning progresses. The intention is obvious: to rally support behind a given nominee. The unintended side-effect is that some people end up hating the eventual winner so vehemently that they would prefer to vote for the candidate of other political party come election time, as many disappointed Hilary Clinton supporters say they will do.
In England we call that cutting off your nose to spite your face. It's the sort of thing that my five-year-old son does when he doesn't get what he wants. It's not the reaction that should underlie an adult's decision on whom to elect as the leader of the world's most powerful nation.
I say depersonalise elections and get the politics back into politics.
I really can't understand the woman's line of reasoning. She feels proud enough of her political affiliations to refuse to even consider changing sides, yet wants to encourage people to vote for a candidate who espouses political sentiments diametrically opposed to those of what she clearly considers "her" party.
The problem, if indeed it could be described thus, presumably lies in the American political system, which is extremely personalised. The presidential election and more particularly the primary selection procedure which precedes it are mainly to blame for this.
During the primaries, ordinary people vote for who should be the Democrat and Republican presidential candidate. Not only do would-be candidates spend tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars on their campaigns. Because they are from the same party - and are therefore on the same side of the political divide with very similar political leanings - as their party rivals, the main differences tend to be personal. This means that party candidates are chosen first and foremost on the basis of their (perceived) personal qualities, a very emotional assessment that leads to fervent passions that are whipped up into extreme animosity towards other candidates by the rallies, speeches and ads as the campaigning progresses. The intention is obvious: to rally support behind a given nominee. The unintended side-effect is that some people end up hating the eventual winner so vehemently that they would prefer to vote for the candidate of other political party come election time, as many disappointed Hilary Clinton supporters say they will do.
In England we call that cutting off your nose to spite your face. It's the sort of thing that my five-year-old son does when he doesn't get what he wants. It's not the reaction that should underlie an adult's decision on whom to elect as the leader of the world's most powerful nation.
I say depersonalise elections and get the politics back into politics.
3 comments:
On that note, how about a post on your experience of the US media. What kind of things do you see on the news (and what not)?
To tell you the truth, I get all my news online from the BBC and only watch TV news for national issues like the election campaign. But we generally watch NBC, which is known to be liberal (in the American sense) and have so far steadfastly refused to tune into Fox.
Our newspapers here reported on just such cases and showed what the recipients of posters for the opposition did with them: turned them round for their own purposes, drew on them and altered the images - great fun some of them. We get a daily update, in great detail, of all your pre-election happenings.
By the way, the sum of money spent on Mrs. Palin's outfits is not that large ( apart from the fact that I don't like her style, anyway). Really good clothes from first rate sources cost the earth. If I were her advisor, I would make her stay clear of any fur or leather, though. She was seen lately, wearing a blood-red leather jacket. Hunting trophy?
All the best and who on earth watches Fox??? You have to be pretty desperate to do so!!!
Post a Comment