I tried to watch the RNC last night. I believe in giving the "other side" their chance to make their case. But I just couldn't. I'd last about 5 minutes and then I would literally run screaming from the room. It wasn't the speeches that got to me. It was the commentary, either from "professional" pundits or delegates or call-in supporters. Politicians actually temper what they have to say, appealing to the broadest swath of constituents. Pundits and delegates, on the other hand, just flat out endorse their preferred candidate and devil-may-care who they insult in the process. Politicians are (somewhat) constrained by facts in the claims they make; pundits and "average joe" supporters will seemingly say anything.
Okay, so I couldn't stomach it. But that doesn't mean I didn't learn from the stomach churning. Similar exuberance during the DNC didn't disturb me. It lifted my spirits. It gave me hope. I realize that that is the function (if not the purpose) of the unbridled advocacy at the RNC for its supporters. However much I might disagree with the current administration and the GOP in general, they have support. Democrats (and others) ignore that at their peril. They have support because they have a plan, a world-view, an ideology. It is a world-view that scares the crap out of me. But then, I realize that my world-view scares the crap out of many of them. We are, in short, a country divided -- perhaps evenly.
Unfortunately, that division is, I think, being exploited. By whom? Well, it's easy to point the finger. I could claim that our current administration has turned out to be more adept at being dividers rather than uniters. I could argue that similar DNC polemics are reactionary survivalism in response to the unprecedented success of divisive tactics in the GOP. But really, such arguments serve primarily to exacerbate the finger-pointing and cheering for "our team." For the moment, let's not go there.
The real lesson of the conventions is that I think America has been conditioned to treat politics like sports. The national party conventions have the feel of pep rallies, don't they? But see, I think politics is not a sport and shouldn't be treated like one. That is dangerous, all the more so for being gratifying. Who wins matters in sports, I guess, but what really are the consequences of winning? Product endorsements? Increased salary for the victorious players? Some ephemeral sense of pride for the supporting fans, I suppose? Who wins this election matters significantly more than a sports victory. Blind, "fan-atical" support of a candidate and his "team" is problematic; the degree to which both parties support and encourage this kind of support is reprehensible. And yes, it clouds the issues.
Right. So what's the answer? Perhaps it involves taking the triteness out of the call for candidates to debate the issues and for voters to critically weigh the two party's policies and platforms. For me, it involves finding another way to engage speakers' messages absent the punditry and fanatical support that masquerades as analysis. I do so mainly by reading the transcripts of their speeches. Sure, transcripts will lack the cheers and balloons. But they will also be free of endless commentary and the tactic of various media outlets to cut away from the speeches to tell us "what really matters." I highly recommend reviewing what candidates and their podium supporters are saying by looking for the transcripts of their speeches at web sites like http://www.presidentialrhetoric.com/ and the like.
Finally, I take this pledge: No matter how often the claims and arguments of supporters for President Bush make my blood boil, I will not call them (or their candidates) stupid. I will honor that they have reached their opinions thoughtfully. Their conclusions come at the end of a careful thinking process, even though I might disagree with the premises that lead them to those conclusions. I need to hear what they have to say and respect that they have points I should consider. I am not weak, overly liberal, or a "flip-flopper" for listening and demonstrating that I am listening by being able to articulate the "other side's" positions. This attitude is at the heart of what it means to be liberal.
The world -- particularly the world of policy and politics -- is a complicated place. The most patriotic thing we can all do is to not participate in its over-simplification, to not reduce it to a game, a sport, or a popularity contest.
