Sunday, October 26, 2008
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Thursday, October 9, 2008
Counter Punch
October 9, 2008
The Polarization and Perversion of American Politics
Obama the Subhuman
By ANTHONY DiMAGGIO
John McCain's condescending reference to Barack Obama in the second debate as "that one" represents more than just a minor gaffe, or an insensitivity on the part of the Republican candidate. The comment, originally made in reference to Obama's voting record in the Senate, is actually representative of a larger, disturbing trend in Republican politics today. The party has grown increasingly more conservative in recent decades, to the point today where its authoritarian undertones are barely concealed. McCain's dehumanization of Obama in the debates is the most poignant, although far from the only example of this trend. Apparently, John McCain sees the Democratic presidential candidate as not worth addressing by name. While McCain downgraded Obama's status to the subhuman "other" in the second debate, he refused to even acknowledge Obama's presence in their first meeting. This should strike viewers as quite disturbing, considering that the whole point of a debate is for each candidate to directly engage the other's issues and stances.
Increasingly, right-wing conservatives and Republican political leaders are issuing dire warnings to the American public that they – and only they – are the legitimate rulers of the United States and the world. This basic contempt for anything but one-party rule is manifested in a number of dire threats repeated by the party, with its members promising the end of Western civilization as we know it if they lose their dominant status in government. A review of Conservative and Republican contempt for bi-partisan politics is in order:
- On the culture war front, Republicans and conservatives have been unrelenting in their religious fanaticism and racism. Residents of West Virginia and Arkansas have received mailings directly from the Republican National Committee warning that liberals will ban the bible if they have the opportunity. On the national level, Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Pallin warns of Barack Obama's alleged support for domestic terrorism (citing his ties with former Weather Underground member Bill Ayers, whom Obama repeatedly condemned for his violent activities). Fox News has run claims that Obama was educated in a radical Islamist school in Indonesia, despite the fact that the story was extensively debunked by CNN. The Republican Party and conservatives even go on the offensive against Barack Obama's allegedly fundamentalist name. They repeat the full name over and over, shamelessly and with a sort of racist pride. Presumably, simply being named Barack Hussein Obama is enough to prove you’re a terrorist, Muslim, fanatic, or all of the above (little distinction is made between these, sadly).
- Right-wing pundits, echoed by major conservative political leaders, have warned that a victory for Barack Obama will be a victory for Islam, radical terrorism, and anti-Americanism. Right-wing radio pundits such as Michael Medved warn that a vote for the Democratic Party is essentially a vote for Osama bin Laden. McCain and others repeat the claim that withdrawal from Iraq is tantamount to surrender to Al Qaeda. As the logic (or illogic) of this argument goes, since Democrats favor de-escalation in Iraq, and since Republicans are fighting Al Qaeda in Iraq, Democrats must be anti-American and in favor of terrorism since they oppose this necessary war. Obviously, such claims suffer from a basic lack of evidence, considering that Al Qaeda-affiliated groups were not operating in Iraq until after Bush invaded Iraq, and since reports have actually shown that the U.S. torture and illegal detainment of Muslims at Guantanamo has actually contributed to their radicalization and their support for Islamist terrorism, rather than preventing such a threat. Studies throughout the Middle East also find that the occupation is radicalizing the region's people against the United States. The American occupation is seen as the primary source of destruction in Iraq, rather than the "insurgency" or Al Qaeda (which is only a miniscule part of the resistance to the U.S.).
- Conservative legal officials have essentially declared war on the Democratic Party, not for violating the law, but due to their own ideological prejudices. Former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales was recently exposed for allowing politically motivated prosecutions against prominent Democratic political officials. One statistical study from the University of Missouri showed that the Justice Department had systematically engaged in "political profiling" against Democrats, including figures such as Alabaman Governor Don Siegelman. Federal prosecutors had essentially dropped the case against Siegelman in 2004 (due to a lack of evidence against him), when they were instructed by the Justice Department to proceed with bribery and fraud charges regardless. As one Justice Department attorney said to one of the lawyers representing a Democrat who had been charged: "I know your client thinks he's innocent. He's offered to take a lie detector test. I'm not interested in that. In fact, I'm sure he'd pass the test. And in fact I don't have the evidence to make out my case. No matter. I just plan to throw shit at the wall and sit back and watch as some of it drops on him. We'll get him."
None of these right-wing hit jobs or smear tactics should strike voters as merely "more of the same" negative politicking in an election season. On major issues, Barack Obama has bent over backwards in his emphasis on the importance of bi-partisanship, cooperation between Democrats and Republicans, and the need for an end to negative campaigning. Obama and Biden, while making many critical statements of John McCain and Sarah Palin, have generally remained respectful and even tried to draw some comparisons between themselves and their Republican competitors. They've spoken of their deep respect and affinity for John McCain as a military man, and even voiced their support for the Republican's "surge" as succeeding in decreasing violence in Iraq.
The Democrats' attempt to appeal across party lines has clearly not been the preferred tactic of the Republican Party. Angry over their likely loss of power in the upcoming election, they have become increasingly desperate in their attacks on the Democrats and the legitimacy of the two party state. This is particularly disturbing at a time when it is becoming harder and harder to discern concrete or substantive differences in the economic policies of the two parties. In reality, Obama and Biden's vague references to "regulation" don't amount to a whole lot when they fail to follow them up with actual policy proposals. That these Democrats are demonized by Republicans as sub-human, dangerous, or terrorist is more a sign of the growing extremism of conservatives than of the moral weakness or treachery of the Democrats. The Democratic Party today may be morally bankrupt, spineless, and bland, but none of those are anywhere near as dangerous as the Republican Party's fundamentalist contempt for multi-party elections and bi-partisan politics.
The Polarization and Perversion of American Politics
Obama the Subhuman
By ANTHONY DiMAGGIO
John McCain's condescending reference to Barack Obama in the second debate as "that one" represents more than just a minor gaffe, or an insensitivity on the part of the Republican candidate. The comment, originally made in reference to Obama's voting record in the Senate, is actually representative of a larger, disturbing trend in Republican politics today. The party has grown increasingly more conservative in recent decades, to the point today where its authoritarian undertones are barely concealed. McCain's dehumanization of Obama in the debates is the most poignant, although far from the only example of this trend. Apparently, John McCain sees the Democratic presidential candidate as not worth addressing by name. While McCain downgraded Obama's status to the subhuman "other" in the second debate, he refused to even acknowledge Obama's presence in their first meeting. This should strike viewers as quite disturbing, considering that the whole point of a debate is for each candidate to directly engage the other's issues and stances.
Increasingly, right-wing conservatives and Republican political leaders are issuing dire warnings to the American public that they – and only they – are the legitimate rulers of the United States and the world. This basic contempt for anything but one-party rule is manifested in a number of dire threats repeated by the party, with its members promising the end of Western civilization as we know it if they lose their dominant status in government. A review of Conservative and Republican contempt for bi-partisan politics is in order:
- On the culture war front, Republicans and conservatives have been unrelenting in their religious fanaticism and racism. Residents of West Virginia and Arkansas have received mailings directly from the Republican National Committee warning that liberals will ban the bible if they have the opportunity. On the national level, Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Pallin warns of Barack Obama's alleged support for domestic terrorism (citing his ties with former Weather Underground member Bill Ayers, whom Obama repeatedly condemned for his violent activities). Fox News has run claims that Obama was educated in a radical Islamist school in Indonesia, despite the fact that the story was extensively debunked by CNN. The Republican Party and conservatives even go on the offensive against Barack Obama's allegedly fundamentalist name. They repeat the full name over and over, shamelessly and with a sort of racist pride. Presumably, simply being named Barack Hussein Obama is enough to prove you’re a terrorist, Muslim, fanatic, or all of the above (little distinction is made between these, sadly).
- Right-wing pundits, echoed by major conservative political leaders, have warned that a victory for Barack Obama will be a victory for Islam, radical terrorism, and anti-Americanism. Right-wing radio pundits such as Michael Medved warn that a vote for the Democratic Party is essentially a vote for Osama bin Laden. McCain and others repeat the claim that withdrawal from Iraq is tantamount to surrender to Al Qaeda. As the logic (or illogic) of this argument goes, since Democrats favor de-escalation in Iraq, and since Republicans are fighting Al Qaeda in Iraq, Democrats must be anti-American and in favor of terrorism since they oppose this necessary war. Obviously, such claims suffer from a basic lack of evidence, considering that Al Qaeda-affiliated groups were not operating in Iraq until after Bush invaded Iraq, and since reports have actually shown that the U.S. torture and illegal detainment of Muslims at Guantanamo has actually contributed to their radicalization and their support for Islamist terrorism, rather than preventing such a threat. Studies throughout the Middle East also find that the occupation is radicalizing the region's people against the United States. The American occupation is seen as the primary source of destruction in Iraq, rather than the "insurgency" or Al Qaeda (which is only a miniscule part of the resistance to the U.S.).
- Conservative legal officials have essentially declared war on the Democratic Party, not for violating the law, but due to their own ideological prejudices. Former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales was recently exposed for allowing politically motivated prosecutions against prominent Democratic political officials. One statistical study from the University of Missouri showed that the Justice Department had systematically engaged in "political profiling" against Democrats, including figures such as Alabaman Governor Don Siegelman. Federal prosecutors had essentially dropped the case against Siegelman in 2004 (due to a lack of evidence against him), when they were instructed by the Justice Department to proceed with bribery and fraud charges regardless. As one Justice Department attorney said to one of the lawyers representing a Democrat who had been charged: "I know your client thinks he's innocent. He's offered to take a lie detector test. I'm not interested in that. In fact, I'm sure he'd pass the test. And in fact I don't have the evidence to make out my case. No matter. I just plan to throw shit at the wall and sit back and watch as some of it drops on him. We'll get him."
None of these right-wing hit jobs or smear tactics should strike voters as merely "more of the same" negative politicking in an election season. On major issues, Barack Obama has bent over backwards in his emphasis on the importance of bi-partisanship, cooperation between Democrats and Republicans, and the need for an end to negative campaigning. Obama and Biden, while making many critical statements of John McCain and Sarah Palin, have generally remained respectful and even tried to draw some comparisons between themselves and their Republican competitors. They've spoken of their deep respect and affinity for John McCain as a military man, and even voiced their support for the Republican's "surge" as succeeding in decreasing violence in Iraq.
The Democrats' attempt to appeal across party lines has clearly not been the preferred tactic of the Republican Party. Angry over their likely loss of power in the upcoming election, they have become increasingly desperate in their attacks on the Democrats and the legitimacy of the two party state. This is particularly disturbing at a time when it is becoming harder and harder to discern concrete or substantive differences in the economic policies of the two parties. In reality, Obama and Biden's vague references to "regulation" don't amount to a whole lot when they fail to follow them up with actual policy proposals. That these Democrats are demonized by Republicans as sub-human, dangerous, or terrorist is more a sign of the growing extremism of conservatives than of the moral weakness or treachery of the Democrats. The Democratic Party today may be morally bankrupt, spineless, and bland, but none of those are anywhere near as dangerous as the Republican Party's fundamentalist contempt for multi-party elections and bi-partisan politics.
CNN
updated 4:07 p.m. EDT, Thu October 9, 2008
Obama: McCain's mortgage plan shows 'erratic' leadership
(CNN) -- Sen. Barack Obama on Thursday slammed Sen. John McCain's new mortgage plan as "the latest in a series of shifting positions" and evidence of "erratic and uncertain leadership."
"He's ended up with a plan that punishes taxpayers, rewards banks, and won't solve our housing crisis," Obama said at an event in Dayton, Ohio.
At the second presidential debate Tuesday, McCain suggested that the government buy up bad home loan mortgages and renegotiate at the new diminished value of those homes.
Under McCain's proposed $300 billion mortgage rescue plan, much of the burden of paying to keep troubled borrowers in their homes would shift to taxpayers.
McCain's original plan called for lenders to write down the value of these mortgages and take those losses.
Doug Holtz-Eakin, McCain's economic adviser, said Wednesday that the McCain plan could be put into place quickly because the groundwork and the authority for it already have been provided by last week's $700 billion bailout bill; the Hope for Homeowners program authorized by the housing rescue bill passed in July; and the government takeover of mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Read the details of McCain's proposal
In an e-mail to supporters, McCain said his plan would address "the very root of the failing housing market."
Obama charged that McCain's latest plan is "risky."
"I don't think we can afford that kind of erratic and uncertain leadership in these uncertain times. We need steady leadership in the White House. We need a president we can trust in times of crisis," Obama said.
In response to Obama's remarks in Dayton, the McCain campaign said Obama was "putting politics above the national interest."
"John McCain's home ownership resurgence plan represents absolutely no new expense to the taxpayer, but simply refocuses priorities to more directly assist the homeowners who are hurting instead of greed on Wall Street," spokesman Tucker Bounds said in a statement.
Earlier Wednesday, Obama's campaign launched a television ad that takes aim at McCain's proposal, saying "the same lenders that caused the crisis in the first place" would benefit from the plan.
As the candidates enter the final weeks of campaigning, they have been attacking each other more aggressively.
McCain's campaign has launched a string of new ads that question Obama's judgment and character.
The McCain campaign calls Obama "too risky for America" in a new Web ad that focuses on his political relationship with Bill Ayers, a founding member of the radical Weather Underground.
"Barack Obama and domestic terrorist Bill Ayers. Friends. They've worked together for years. But Obama tries to hide it," the announcer says in the 90-second ad.
"But Obama's friendship with terrorist Ayers isn't the issue. The issue is Barack Obama's judgment and candor," the announcer says. Watch analysts weigh in on the McCain attacks »
At a town hall meeting in Waukesha, Wisconsin, angry voters pleaded with McCain to get tougher on Obama.
One voter suggested that McCain bring up the Rev. Jeremiah Wright controversy.
"I am begging you, sir, take it to him," the voter said.
McCain did not specifically address the comment about Wright, Obama's former pastor who came under scrutiny during the primaries after clips of his sermons circulated on the Internet.
On Ayers, the Arizona senator said he doesn't care about a "washed-up former terrorist," but vowed to press Obama on his candor and judgment.
"We need to know the full extent of the relationship because of whether Sen. Obama is telling the truth to the American people or not. That's the question," McCain said.
Weather Underground was involved in bombings in the early 1970s, including attacks on the Pentagon and the Capitol. Obama was a young child at the time of the bombings.
Obama and Ayers, now a university professor, met in 1995, when both worked with a nonprofit group trying to raise funds for a school improvement project and a charitable foundation. CNN's review of project records found nothing to suggest anything inappropriate in the volunteer projects in which the two men were involved. Fact check: How close are Obama and Ayers?
Quoted in The New York Times, Obama called Ayers "somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago, when I was 8."
Michelle Obama brushed off the latest round of attacks in an interview with CNN's Larry King on Wednesday.
"I don't know anyone in Chicago who's heavily involved in education policy who doesn't know Bill Ayers. But, again, I go back to the point that the American people aren't asking these questions," she said.
Obama said her husband has been "thoroughly vetted" and said the Ayers allegations are a "part of politics."
The McCain campaign started pushing hard on the Ayers connection this past weekend when Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin accused Obama of "palling around with terrorists who would target their own country."
The Obama campaign retaliated Monday with a 13-minute documentary Web video detailing the Arizona senator's involvement in the Keating Five scandal in the 1980s.
Cindy McCain, McCain's wife, lashed out at Obama earlier this week, telling a Tennessee newspaper that the Illinois senator has waged the "dirtiest campaign in American history."
Obama's running mate, Sen. Joe Biden put the blame on the McCain campaign Wednesday, saying the attacks on Obama are "beyond disappointing."
Obama: McCain's mortgage plan shows 'erratic' leadership
(CNN) -- Sen. Barack Obama on Thursday slammed Sen. John McCain's new mortgage plan as "the latest in a series of shifting positions" and evidence of "erratic and uncertain leadership."
"He's ended up with a plan that punishes taxpayers, rewards banks, and won't solve our housing crisis," Obama said at an event in Dayton, Ohio.
At the second presidential debate Tuesday, McCain suggested that the government buy up bad home loan mortgages and renegotiate at the new diminished value of those homes.
Under McCain's proposed $300 billion mortgage rescue plan, much of the burden of paying to keep troubled borrowers in their homes would shift to taxpayers.
McCain's original plan called for lenders to write down the value of these mortgages and take those losses.
Doug Holtz-Eakin, McCain's economic adviser, said Wednesday that the McCain plan could be put into place quickly because the groundwork and the authority for it already have been provided by last week's $700 billion bailout bill; the Hope for Homeowners program authorized by the housing rescue bill passed in July; and the government takeover of mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Read the details of McCain's proposal
In an e-mail to supporters, McCain said his plan would address "the very root of the failing housing market."
Obama charged that McCain's latest plan is "risky."
"I don't think we can afford that kind of erratic and uncertain leadership in these uncertain times. We need steady leadership in the White House. We need a president we can trust in times of crisis," Obama said.
In response to Obama's remarks in Dayton, the McCain campaign said Obama was "putting politics above the national interest."
"John McCain's home ownership resurgence plan represents absolutely no new expense to the taxpayer, but simply refocuses priorities to more directly assist the homeowners who are hurting instead of greed on Wall Street," spokesman Tucker Bounds said in a statement.
Earlier Wednesday, Obama's campaign launched a television ad that takes aim at McCain's proposal, saying "the same lenders that caused the crisis in the first place" would benefit from the plan.
As the candidates enter the final weeks of campaigning, they have been attacking each other more aggressively.
McCain's campaign has launched a string of new ads that question Obama's judgment and character.
The McCain campaign calls Obama "too risky for America" in a new Web ad that focuses on his political relationship with Bill Ayers, a founding member of the radical Weather Underground.
"Barack Obama and domestic terrorist Bill Ayers. Friends. They've worked together for years. But Obama tries to hide it," the announcer says in the 90-second ad.
"But Obama's friendship with terrorist Ayers isn't the issue. The issue is Barack Obama's judgment and candor," the announcer says. Watch analysts weigh in on the McCain attacks »
At a town hall meeting in Waukesha, Wisconsin, angry voters pleaded with McCain to get tougher on Obama.
One voter suggested that McCain bring up the Rev. Jeremiah Wright controversy.
"I am begging you, sir, take it to him," the voter said.
McCain did not specifically address the comment about Wright, Obama's former pastor who came under scrutiny during the primaries after clips of his sermons circulated on the Internet.
On Ayers, the Arizona senator said he doesn't care about a "washed-up former terrorist," but vowed to press Obama on his candor and judgment.
"We need to know the full extent of the relationship because of whether Sen. Obama is telling the truth to the American people or not. That's the question," McCain said.
Weather Underground was involved in bombings in the early 1970s, including attacks on the Pentagon and the Capitol. Obama was a young child at the time of the bombings.
Obama and Ayers, now a university professor, met in 1995, when both worked with a nonprofit group trying to raise funds for a school improvement project and a charitable foundation. CNN's review of project records found nothing to suggest anything inappropriate in the volunteer projects in which the two men were involved. Fact check: How close are Obama and Ayers?
Quoted in The New York Times, Obama called Ayers "somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago, when I was 8."
Michelle Obama brushed off the latest round of attacks in an interview with CNN's Larry King on Wednesday.
"I don't know anyone in Chicago who's heavily involved in education policy who doesn't know Bill Ayers. But, again, I go back to the point that the American people aren't asking these questions," she said.
Obama said her husband has been "thoroughly vetted" and said the Ayers allegations are a "part of politics."
The McCain campaign started pushing hard on the Ayers connection this past weekend when Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin accused Obama of "palling around with terrorists who would target their own country."
The Obama campaign retaliated Monday with a 13-minute documentary Web video detailing the Arizona senator's involvement in the Keating Five scandal in the 1980s.
Cindy McCain, McCain's wife, lashed out at Obama earlier this week, telling a Tennessee newspaper that the Illinois senator has waged the "dirtiest campaign in American history."
Obama's running mate, Sen. Joe Biden put the blame on the McCain campaign Wednesday, saying the attacks on Obama are "beyond disappointing."
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
CORD Weekly
Canadian politics more relevant than US
Devon Butler
Oct 08, 2008
Though every citizen should be well-rounded and informed on international affairs, their main focus should be on their own country.
On Thursday, October 2, the Canadian Party Leaders’ Debate was held. This heated night on television also included the American Vice-Presidential debate. Unfortunately, they both aired at the same time; so which one did you watch?
To Canadian politicians, the feedback seems discouraging. Many Canadians remain ignorant to their potential leaders’ promises and policies. These eligible and even non-eligible voters were more preoccupied with the personality of Sarah Palin than the “boring” debate between five potential leaders of our own country. Though every citizen should be well-rounded and informed on international affairs, their main focus should be on their own country. Is it Canadian to prefer watching a debate for the Vice-President of America, who will be second-in-command, as opposed to the debate for the next prime minister of Canada?
Regardless, the American election has surpassed the Canadian election in both ratings and interest among Canadian viewers. This would not be the first time that American media and culture have dominated Canada. It is no wonder we seem to be lacking a unified interest in our country’s politics when we are now in a world where over 90% of television shows in Canada are American-produced.
How did this happen? We all recognize America’s power to dominate on the world stage, but Canada, resting on its doorstep, is affected the most.
Indeed, to some Canadians, US media and culture deliver that “je ne sais quoi” entertainment value.
However, in a world where Canadians choose to watch Stephen Colbert over Rick Mercer, we have to start placing boundaries on how much we will let America influence us. The American influence is applicable to the hype surrounding the US election. The hype America has created revolves primarily around the charm of the candidates, but not what they stand for.
Almost anyone can tell you that the candidates are historic due to McCain’s age and Obama’s skin colour, yet neither of these factors center on either candidate’s ability to perform as president.
The recent introduction of Sarah Palin, John McCain’s running-mate, has created a media frenzy, exemplifying America’s tendency to aggrandize all things, including their politicians.
The United States has now set a trend in what an election should be, where the common citizen is more interested in the candidates’ personal lives as opposed to their platforms or policies.
This trend has begun to leak into the Canadian election. Those who follow the election in our backyard can see it is slowly becoming more about charisma than policies. Canada appears to be trying American tactics in an attempt to gain more attention.
Stephen Harper’s entire campaign seems to be an example of this, with his main focus being on Stéphane Dion’s leadership abilities rather than any concrete issues.
It is possible that this lack of interest in Canadian politics is due to Canadians taking their government for granted. We are blindly assuming that job loss, the war in Afghanistan and our failing education system will work themselves out.
The main explanation for this ignorance is that, for the past few years, we as a nation have been reasonably lucky in having such a stable government.
Up until recently, we’ve had a period of good economic growth and overall improvement in quality of life. As a result, we have become complacent about our politics. Is this the real issue then; that Canadians have become overconfident in our leaders and ourselves as a nation? Or is it simply just another case of the rapid decrease of interest in Canada and preference to America?
Informing ourselves of international activities, especially those of our neighbours to the south, is crucial.
Their election outcome will no doubt affect us, but it should not be overshadowing what will be directly affecting you in your own backyard.
The United States election is not until November, whereas our election is only a week away. Though it may be easier to follow two politicians instead of five, I think it is fair to suggest that Canadians stay informed with Canadian politics.
Devon Butler
Oct 08, 2008
Though every citizen should be well-rounded and informed on international affairs, their main focus should be on their own country.
On Thursday, October 2, the Canadian Party Leaders’ Debate was held. This heated night on television also included the American Vice-Presidential debate. Unfortunately, they both aired at the same time; so which one did you watch?
To Canadian politicians, the feedback seems discouraging. Many Canadians remain ignorant to their potential leaders’ promises and policies. These eligible and even non-eligible voters were more preoccupied with the personality of Sarah Palin than the “boring” debate between five potential leaders of our own country. Though every citizen should be well-rounded and informed on international affairs, their main focus should be on their own country. Is it Canadian to prefer watching a debate for the Vice-President of America, who will be second-in-command, as opposed to the debate for the next prime minister of Canada?
Regardless, the American election has surpassed the Canadian election in both ratings and interest among Canadian viewers. This would not be the first time that American media and culture have dominated Canada. It is no wonder we seem to be lacking a unified interest in our country’s politics when we are now in a world where over 90% of television shows in Canada are American-produced.
How did this happen? We all recognize America’s power to dominate on the world stage, but Canada, resting on its doorstep, is affected the most.
Indeed, to some Canadians, US media and culture deliver that “je ne sais quoi” entertainment value.
However, in a world where Canadians choose to watch Stephen Colbert over Rick Mercer, we have to start placing boundaries on how much we will let America influence us. The American influence is applicable to the hype surrounding the US election. The hype America has created revolves primarily around the charm of the candidates, but not what they stand for.
Almost anyone can tell you that the candidates are historic due to McCain’s age and Obama’s skin colour, yet neither of these factors center on either candidate’s ability to perform as president.
The recent introduction of Sarah Palin, John McCain’s running-mate, has created a media frenzy, exemplifying America’s tendency to aggrandize all things, including their politicians.
The United States has now set a trend in what an election should be, where the common citizen is more interested in the candidates’ personal lives as opposed to their platforms or policies.
This trend has begun to leak into the Canadian election. Those who follow the election in our backyard can see it is slowly becoming more about charisma than policies. Canada appears to be trying American tactics in an attempt to gain more attention.
Stephen Harper’s entire campaign seems to be an example of this, with his main focus being on Stéphane Dion’s leadership abilities rather than any concrete issues.
It is possible that this lack of interest in Canadian politics is due to Canadians taking their government for granted. We are blindly assuming that job loss, the war in Afghanistan and our failing education system will work themselves out.
The main explanation for this ignorance is that, for the past few years, we as a nation have been reasonably lucky in having such a stable government.
Up until recently, we’ve had a period of good economic growth and overall improvement in quality of life. As a result, we have become complacent about our politics. Is this the real issue then; that Canadians have become overconfident in our leaders and ourselves as a nation? Or is it simply just another case of the rapid decrease of interest in Canada and preference to America?
Informing ourselves of international activities, especially those of our neighbours to the south, is crucial.
Their election outcome will no doubt affect us, but it should not be overshadowing what will be directly affecting you in your own backyard.
The United States election is not until November, whereas our election is only a week away. Though it may be easier to follow two politicians instead of five, I think it is fair to suggest that Canadians stay informed with Canadian politics.
Thursday, October 2, 2008
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
