Friday, September 19, 2008
Political Transparency
Alot of the actions taken by politicians during election years are poll-driven as opposed to belief driven. Recently it has been brought to my attention that each candidate has made what I consider to be incredibly transparent decisions. Obama left the church that he has been a member of for decades, Palin has similarly abandoned a church she has been a part of since the age of two, and McCain has been appearing on a number of well-known women's talk shows. Neither Palin nor Obama want to be percieved as fanatical and McCain is intent on winning the women's vote particularly after Hilary's defeat. I would assume that most people are able to pick up on the strategy as well. However, if we know that candidates are only doing these things to get particular votes then why do we continue praising/condemning them for these kinds of actions. I have no problem admitting that I can find a justification for Obama's choice to leave the church but cannot find the same for Palin's choice. Clearly this is due to an extreme bias in my own opinions but it is also indicative of the way that alot of people think about politics. If women know that McCain is using a woman as a tactic to sway them into voting for HIM how could they allow themselves to be manipulated this way? If I know that Obama probably would not have quit his church had he not been in the running for president how can I not consider him a hypocrite? I don't know what it says about the citizenry that we are so easily persuaded by strategic actions that most of us can see through. I would honestly like comments if anyone has something to offer because this is a concept that I have a very difficult time understanding.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
This concept has been something that has always perplexed me too. If people discover they are being manipulated, do the effects of the manipulation get cancelled out? It does not seem like it. I'm sure this has something to do with how personal views and that very first opinion we form of a candidate influence how we interpret everything else about them. So, despite the evidence against many of Palin's popular catchphrases, she continues to use them because her audience responds to her general character and hears only the truthful parts of her speeches, editing in their own caveats, which seem acceptable to them.
I think this has a lot to do with what we were discussing in class regarding dissonance of the candidates behavior and their actions. Just like you stated that both Palin and Obama kind of neglected their religious binds yet you find justification for Obama's choice and not Palin's shows that we're biased because we're committed to certain issues, candidates, etc. I had also realized that McCain was definitely playing on the woman's vote yet he clearly opposed the Ledbetter Fair Pay Act and stated women need more "education and training" and that it's "hard for them [women] to leave their families when they don’t have somebody to take care of them." I thought these remarks were completely bigoted and portrayed him as this complete chauvinist. Being a woman, I was really annoyed by this comment yet I was/am able to kind of ignore it by justifying it with other issues I'm in accordance with. It sounds absurd, I know, but I agree that everyone does it when it comes to politics at least. What I don't necessarily agree with is that we're persuaded easily by these candidates, because I actually believe that he said that and I'm not persuaded otherwise, but I think the fact that we're all so diverse and know that we're not going to agree with everything alludes to the fact that there are certain things we can overlook. We're not going to agree with every single aspect a candidate stands for, but if there are some that mean more to you or several little ones that align with your beliefs, I think THAT is enough to persuade you that it's ok to discount certain blemishes.
I think that politics in America, or at least campaigning for office, has become less about the issues and more about inconsequential facts about a person's life style. Shouldn't the focus be on what a person can do for the country not just political stunts to get votes? I would hope that the public could see the stunts and plays for what they are, but for some reason they still have a big effect on people's opinion. Then again, one must also question the sanity of anyone willing to run for public office in this day and age, for the amount of negative campaigns and examination of a persons past indiscretions is enough to deter anyone. I even doubt that some of the greatest presidents throughout history--especially the founding fathers--would run for office today.
Post a Comment