where the writers are
Blurred Lines and American Votes

Barack Obama has not won. He just defeated the traditionally bad guy, like burning the symbolic Old Man year after year to herald a new beginning that would arrive anyway.

We had been saturated with analyses in the run-up, and the ones after the elections are not much different, except perhaps for the trivia and the jokes. For example, the one about Ann Romney heaving a sigh of relief that now she wouldn’t have to live in a smaller house.

Indeed, Mitt Romney was too rich for his own good. He could have been Donald Trump. In fact, he could have been so many things.  Even Sarah Palin, if one goes by his performance in the discussion on foreign policy. Or, at least, how the debate was perceived.

In an incisive piece in the form of a note to the Republicans asking them to cheer up because they’ve just elected a moderate Republican, William Saletan wrote in Slate:

  • “Remember how Democrats ridiculed George W. Bush’s troop surge in Iraq? Obama copied it in Afghanistan. He escalated the drone program, killing off al-Qaida’s leaders. He sent SEAL Team 6 into Pakistan to get Osama Bin Laden. He teamed up with NATO to take down Muammar Qaddafi. He reneged on his pledge to close Guantanamo Bay. He put together a globally enforced regime of sanctions that is bringing Iran’s economy to its knees. That’s why Romney had nothing to say in last month’s foreign policy debate. No sensible Republican president would have done things differently.”

The good thing about the American system is that it has two political parties. For those of us who have to deal with so many conflicting choices, this appears focused. The debates also tend to reveal a level of transparency. The ‘no more than two terms’ rule is also great.

However, what happens when the lines get blurred between the two major parties? Would people not have other options – independents are, well, independent? Aren’t the debates essentially reality TV, and a charade for the most part? Do people really decide based on banter?

President Obama has talked about finishing his work: “the best is yet to come”. While it is true that no political leader can complete the work, it does also imply an element of failure. It may be attributed to circumstantial factors, stubbornness or an attitude of trying to please some or please too many. This sort of optimism is a straw to hang on to when the winds are harsh.

Romney in his concession speech said:

  • “The nation, as you know, is at a critical point. At a time like this, we can't risk partisan bickering and political posturing. Our leaders have to reach across the aisle to do the people's work. And we citizens also have to rise to the occasion. We look to our teachers and professors. We count on you not just to teach, but to inspire our children with a passion for learning and discovery.”

Think of the months when the two leaders were flinging accusations at each other, of the lies that were tabulated, and of the humongous amount of money spent to prop up much-raking instead of anything concrete and you know that the people vote for what they think is their belief. It is this belief that will bring them out to celebrate, to stand up for what is good, to protest and to occupy, to get beaten up. Because, casting their vote is only the start of the battle. Promises do not ensure rights. For those, it is an ongoing fight.

© Farzana Versey

Comments
6 Comment count
Comment Bubble Tip

Analysis After the Election

Thanks for an interesting post. I liked your concluding remark about how voting is not the end but only a beginning.

Here's an article written by E.J. Dionne Jr. an American journalist and political commentator, and a long-time op-ed columnist for The Washington Post. He is also a Senior Fellow in Governance Studies at the Brookings Institution, a University Professor in the Foundations of Democracy and Culture at Georgetown Public Policy Institute, a Senior Research Fellow at Saint Anselm College, and an NPR, MSNBC, and PBS commentator. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._J._Dionne

"The voters who re-elected the president knew what they were voting for. They also knew what they were voting against. Romney paid a high price for his comments suggesting that "47 percent" of the electorate was hopelessly dependent on government. Writing off nearly half the potential voters is never a good idea. On Tuesday, a clear majority rejected that notion. It rejected as well Rep. Paul Ryan's categorization of the country as made up of "makers" and "takers." http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2012/11/barack_obamas_victor...

Comment Bubble Tip

Post...

Kim:

I am inclined to believe that Romney's 47 % remark could not have been the reason for the alienation, simply because certain stands are well-entrenched. Or, there can be a sudden turnaround.The 53 % made their decision irrespective, because any labeling is not composite or complete.

However, Romney was too blatant about his stand, and that was the problem.

Thanks for sharing the link, and for reading.

~F

Comment Bubble Tip

Blurred Lines and American Votes

Farzana,  your entire essay:  I couldn't have said it better myself!

However, what happens when the lines get blurred between the two major parties? Would people not have other options – independents are, well, independent? Aren’t the debates essentially reality TV, and a charade for the most part? Do people really decide based on banter?

Viable independent candidates -- how we long for them at times!  And I wonder if  the parliamentary system with multiple parties and the need to form coalitions would teach us what we seem to have forgotten in the U.S. -- how to stop throwing sand in each other's faces and to play nicely together.  Oh, wait -- we learned that in kindergarten!

Jeanne

Comment Bubble Tip

Playing in sand

Jeanne:

Thank you, but although I put the coaltion politics out for airing, the parliamentary system just spreads the mud around more. Besides, there is no assurance that the party candidate you vote for will not form an alliance with a party whose views you abhor. It happens all the time, and the citizens cannot do a thing about it.

Having said that, our parliamnetarians throw slippers and chairs right in the House when in session!

~F

Comment Bubble Tip

Playing in Sand

Farzana,

Yes, indeed, I forgot those vivid images on American news programs, showing MPs in Japan, Israel, the Ukraine and elsewhere throwing punches and furniture at each other when discussion did not make the point otherwise.  I think there is a newspaper in the UK which rates the most entertaining of the parliamentary brawls around the world, with photographs on the Internet!

There was a famous caning on Capitol Hill in 1857, when Congressman Preston Brooks severely beat Senator Charles Sumner during a debate about slavery.  Brooks stalked him in the Senate chamber for a couple of days before finding a opportunity to "cane" Sumner when the senator was seated and unable to defend himself; he took three years to recover from the beating.  Brooks was removed from the House of Representatives. 

Good grief!

Jeanne

Comment Bubble Tip

and more sand

Jeanne:

I think of some truly memorable barbs by Churchill...

Here's a picture of a journalist attacking the Indian Home Minister with a shoe:

 

Not quite the same as ministerial brawls. Loss of intelligent debate.

~F