This Always Happens

They always do this. Every time it seems. They start by being “different” and people get interested, motivated to hope once again. Folks start to believe, this time it will be different, this time, somebody is really getting it. And then of course, it happens. They, like a silly teenage girl sticking her toe in the pool and squealing and backing away, start moving toward the center. The center, that perceived land wherein “most American voters” supposedly live. The land of the uncommitted, that vast place where people sit with arms crossed and nod but remained unconvinced.

The perception is that this group of unknown, but of assumed large size,  is wary of the right and the left. They are believed to be suspicious of radicalism in general, liberal or conservative. They don’t want anything too awfully “different” at all, but some body they feel is “normal” whatever that means. And for a very long time in politics, once a candidate gets his party’s blessing, he (so far they have all been he’s)  starts to sniff around the heels of the great “middle.”

Of course, McCain has tried to do this a bit, mostly hoping nobody notices. He has a huge problem with doing so however because his base is so reactionary that it doesn’t leave him much wiggle room to court the ghostly middle. It makes him look down right radical to make any overtures. No, his only real way of doing so, has been to turn his back on legitimate liberal policies he has embraced in the past and move to the right, hoping his former liberal supporters won’t notice. Therein has been the place of his flip-flopping.

And to tell the truth, given what we know about McCain, we expected this. He is not at all the maverick he works so painstakingly to portray. He proved that with the infamous bear hug of joyous adoration he gifted one George W. Bush with in 2004. He made it clear at that moment in time that everything in terms of principles was up for sale to get what he wanted.

But, Obama, now we had come to think of him differently. He was not telling us what we wanted to hear, he was speaking truth as he believed it. No changing to embrace the supposed flowing tides of public opinion for him. Until he got the nomination sewed up. Then it began to change, imperceptibly at first. We told ourselves, well, it’s not really a change, it’s a refinement. We have to win the big one, after all.

But then, the issues started to be ones we really cared about, like FISA and the death penalty and gun control and NAFTA, and our boy, secure that he has us in his hip pocket, well now he’s wandering around salivating at the great “middle” of undecided America, convinced so it seems that he can’t win without attracting their fickle imprimatur.

Is that the case? Do people,  who are so totally uninterested in what is happening in this country that they haven’t made a choice yet, really matter at all? Are people this shallow not open to the last razzle dazzle they see before entering the voting booth? You get ‘em today and lose them next week to the newest slick ad. People this unsophisticated can’t tell the truth from a lie in the first place.

And what kinda price are you paying for this so-called middle? You are turning off the people whom you energized. You are losing those who for a moment thought you were different. They realize you aren’t and they opt out once more, a tad more cynical, a sad more cheated, and even more unlikely to ever bother again.

How does this happen? When did it start? I mean was there ever a time in our entire history when a candidate said, “This is who I am, this is what I stand for. If that’s what you stand for, vote for me.” Is that so politically naive that it must be met with gales of laughter and derision as the mere thought? Is it impossible to tell the damn truth any more? Do we have to incessantly make excuses and whisper “he’s not really changing, this is just to get the center vote, hint, hint, nudge, nudge.”

I’m tired of making the excuses frankly. I’m tired of explaining that in the real world one must make these kinds of compromises for the greater good– the greater good meaning getting elected. AT WHAT PRICE? Is this freaking price worth it? If this country is so shallow that it cannot clearly see that one candidate’s policies and platform is vastly superior to the other, then to hell with it. To hell with American politics, and the fact that we continue to look like idiots to the rest of the planet. Elect your moronic war-mongering dottering old man and I’ll spend my time in solitude in my meadow, ignoring the whole lot of you.

How dare you count on me, because I have no where else to go! I can stay home you know. I can say to hell with your realpolitik excuses and spend the rest of my days tending my flowers and sojourning with God. I am way too old to be continually slapped in the face with so-called “new politics” turned to “old politics” in the blink of an eye. As was said in the movie, “I’m mad and I’m not going to take it any more.”

Beware Mr. Obama, I’m growing tired of “change I can believe in” turning to the same old “change I have to compromise.” Remember who the hell got you where you are, and stop be seduced by the party hacks who think they know better. I think you are legit, but I suggest you better start proving that. Your election may depend on it.

4 Responses

  1. I agree with you.
    To answer your question about when did it become standard policy to move toward the middle after the primaries. The election season has been getting longer and longer in direct proportion to the speed the news is made available. Everyone know what James Monroe stood for. Kennedy gave a couple of speeches, a couple of debates, and the deal was done.
    By the time we got to Carter, it was a marathon. Now, with instant access to hundreds of pundits take on every little issue that comes up, it would be impossible for any candidate to win without “refining” their positions.

  2. I see your point about the length of the election cycle adding to this problem. I tend to think that people like Madison, and even Lincoln were pretty clear about their platform and saw no need to “shift” to the middle.

    It’s one thing to refine one’s position. I understand that. In relation to his supposed refining of his Iraq policy, the perfect answer would have been, “We’ve had 8 years of a man who will not deviate from his stated “principles” no matter how later facts prove him wrong.”

    But boy his FISA stand is not intelligible to me, nor frankly his gun stance on the DC case. I understand the perceived need, but I’m just not so sure in the end it gets you more votes, not at least when offset by those you end up losing. Time will tell, and my husband says, there is NO way you’re staying home on election day! LOL. so I’m more roar than bite perhaps?

  3. Politicians *will* play at ‘politics,’ one definition of which (according to Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary) is: “political activities characterized by artful and often dishonest practices.” I’m not saying that he’s dishonest, but I believe he is artful. I fear that Mr. Obama is not immune to the idea of doing/saying *whatever* it takes to get elected. Too bad!

  4. Yes Pat, I agree, it is too bad because I flat out believe it is unnecessary to win the election. John McCain is in some sense doing far worse, since he likes to be portrayed as a Maverick, however, he’s coming in line against his own previous stands on plenty of issues to stay in good stead with the reactionary right. I just hate to see Obama playing the game as it has come to be played by all. Really ticks me off.

Leave a Reply