Election unwords

With the presidential election finally over, Chads throughout the United States are breathing a collective sigh of relief that they were not left hanging or even pregnant this time round. And although Floridians once again took three days longer than everyone else to count their votes, they did not hold the entire country to ransom as they had back in 2000.

We may not have had a Sarah Palin or a George "Dubya" Bush to mangle their words, but this election cycle spawned its own set of neologisms and odd terms, which I would like to take this opportunity to share with you:

• Job-creators: A euphemism coined by the right-wing Republicans to describe the rich in a more positive light;
• Soon-to-haves: No longer is America a country of haves and have-nots. Republican spin-doctors also recast the poor in a bald-faced attempt to win them over to pro-business ideologies;
• Historian: The job-description preferred by would-be Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich to refute claims that the millions he had earned from the pharmaceutical industry were the fruits of lobbying;
• Clean coal: A tautological concept dreamt up by the coal industry to counter the backlash against fossil fuels and moves to search for cleaner sources of energy, the suggestion being that you could burn coal without producing all that environmentally unfriendly soot;
• Caucus (v): I think this means to canvas for a caucus, though it could mean to hold a caucus. Confused? So am I;
• Mainstream media (MSM) or elite media: A favourite expression of Sarah Palin back in 2008, this resurfaced again as a quasi-swearword to describe the non-conservative media - in other words, all media bar Fox News;
• Washington insider: Another "four-letter word" used to dismiss any politician except yourself. Used, bizarrely enough, especially by those who have held political office for decades to put down their opponents. Although this expression was used more widely in '08 and by the TEA ("Taxed Enough Already") Party movement during the 2010 mid-term elections, it featured particularly during the Republican primaries.
• Forcible/legitimate rape: Terms used by senatorial candidates Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock, who vehemently oppose abortion, even following incest or rape. Makes you wonder what the opposite is - consensual rape? Their controversial views on the topic resulted in both men being soundly defeated at the polls;
• Romnesia: A neologism coined by Barack Obama (or his speech-writers) to describe a person's ability to forget what he stated one day and espouse views often diametrically opposed to these when seeking the backing of a different group of voters. Think Mitt Romney's "flip-flopping" on abortion, gun control, coal, immigration, healthcare reform, welfare, the auto-industry bailout ...

Campaign Spending

America goes to the polls next Thursday, 4 November. And although these are only the "mid-term" elections rather than a presidential one, the Center for Responsive Politics, a non-partisan research group based in Washington, has calculated that the political parties, candidates and so-called "outside groups" will spend an estimated $4bn - I repeat, four billion dollars - on campaigning.

Just thought I'd share that figure with you.

Full Disclosure

It's a well-known fact that Americans donate millions to election campaigns. Thanks to FundRace, you can find out not only whether your friends and acquaintances made campaign donations, but also how much and to whom.

The system is brilliant: you can either search for donors by name or you can zoom in on the map of the US and search for donors by neighbourhood - even those in your street.

Frighteningly, FundRace lists not only the name of the donor, but their full address and occupation. But this also makes for interesting research.

For instance, George Bush sr. gave money to the McCain campaign, but "Dubya" did not. Bill - that is, William Jefferson - and Hillary Clinton both donated $2300 to Barack Obama's election campaign, yet neither spent (wasted?) money on Hillary's campaign.

What I really don't understand is that Barack Obama donated $6900 to the campaign of rival Hillary Clinton, while Michelle Obama donated $2300 to the Clinton campaign but a mere $399 to her husband's.

Former Alaskan governor and would-be vice-president Sarah Palin made no campaign donations whatsoever.

Election "Unwords"

With the US presidential election well and truly over, and Barack Obama on his way to the White House, I feel the time has come to call for the banning of words and terms that were overused, misused and occasionally abused to the point of infuriation during campaigning.

In the style of the German "Unwort des Jahres", I would therefore like to present my nominations for "Unwords of the Election", some of which I sincerely hope are consigned to the dustbin of history for all eternity:

• I approve this message
• Pork barrel
• Lipstick
• Endorse
• Maverick
• Change
• Joe the Plumber (he was neither called "Joe" nor was he a certified plumber)
• Swing states
• Pundant (which I heard Obama, McCain, Palin, Hillary Clinton and others use incorrectly for "pundit")
• Sarah Palin

President Obama

Well, the votes have all been cast and counted, and the results are clear: Barack Obama has been elected President of the United States by a landslide.

No, you haven't slept through the entire 4th of November. This was the outcome of the mock election held at my children's elementary school today.

Party Colours

I was recently surprised to learn that the American Democratic Party, the marginally more left-wing of the two major political parties in the United States, is associated with the colour blue, while the more conservative Republicans have red as "their" colour despite the fact that it is typically associated with socialism, communism and other left-of-centre causes.

I was even more amazed to discover this weekend that neither political party had a standard colour until as recently as eight years ago (indeed the colour-coding is still unofficial). It wasn't until the 2000 election that NBC journalist Tim Russert decided at random to refer to "red states" and "blue states" when talking about traditionally Republican and Democratic strongholds respectively - and the classification has stuck.

Ironically, therefore, there must be right-wing extremists across America who are hoping the country will go red tomorrow, while diehard Democrats live in fear of the red peril.

Celebrity Come Dancing

What if, instead of all the campaigning, commercials and speeches, Obama and McCain went head-to-head on the dancefloor?

Get 'Em While They're Young

Barnes & Noble has slipped even further down in my estimation. In its children's section, right next to the reading area and within easy reach of inquisitive kids' hands, our nearest Barnes & Noble prominently displays the following blatantly political made-for-children's books:

(Barack Obama: Son of Promise, Child of Hope)

(My Dad, John McCain)
(Hillary Rodham Clinton: Dreams Taking Flight)

Don't get me wrong. I have nothing against political literature. People should be free to buy whatever they want to read about. What I don't like is when political propaganda is fed undiluted to impressionable minds that cannot differentiate between reality and convenient fiction (i.e. "spin").

I was amused, however, to discover that the book "The Rise of Barack Obama" is now 50% off:

Election, Schmelection

As the BBC site reports today, the presidential election campaign entered a new phase this week.

The Democrats have launched a campaign, entitled "The Great Schlep", to encourage young Jews from around the United States to travel to Florida and other "swing states" (i.e. those in which neither presidential candidate is more-or-less secured victory) to nudge their grandparents into backing Obama in November's election.

This being America, a whole lot of hard-donated election money is being thrown at the project. And apart from the usual t-shirts, badges, and what-not, there's even a special site with its own rallying video (very funny it is too):

President Me

I guess all the campaign talk, reporting and election speeches have started to affect me.

Last night I dreamt that the President of the United States (my psyche wasn't clear about whether or not it was the current incumbent) had died suddenly. But that's not all. By some bizarre chain of circumstances reminiscent of the prologue to King Ralph, I was the next in line to the presidency, just weeks after arriving in the US. As I woke up, we were making preparations to move into the White House.

Given my new-found status, I'd like a bit more respect from now on. And remember to address your e-mails to "Mr President".

Endorsement

According to Wikipedia, "McCain has gained the endorsements of many high profile figures, including President George W. Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, former President George H. W. Bush, and former First Lady Nancy Reagan."

Somehow I can't see any of the above endorsing (let alone hugging) Barack Obama.

Political Allegiances

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.

All Change

"If Obama becomes the President of the United States, will they repaint the House?"


Reader's letter to Télérama magazine