The cyclone of Republican campaign spin is carrying the house of political discourse to the Land of Oz, a land richly entertaining because it is nothing at all like our humdrum Kansas reality.
The original straight-talking McCain told people the environmental damage of offshore drilling wouldn't be worth the amount of oil extracted.
But he learned people won't make you Wizard if you don't promise easy answers. So now he lets them yell, "Drill, baby, drill!" even though he knows that any offshore drilling started today would not reduce gas prices until AFTER a baby born today finishes college--and then only by a nickel or so.
As L. Frank Baum's Wizard of Oz complained, "How can I help being a humbug . . . when all these people make me do things that everybody knows can't be done?" John McCain is a good man--but a bad wizard.
McCain the man knows Governor Sarah Palin never returned the money for the "Bridge to Nowhere" and that she only stopped building it because it might hurt Alaska's ability to get future federal appropriations. McCain the Wizard repeats just enough of the story to create the false illusion that Palin has rejected earmarks in the past.
McCain the man knows Barack Obama voted for age-appropriate sex education to help protect children from sexual predators. McCain the Wizard knows running an ad accusing Obama of promoting "comprehensive sex education" for kindergarteners will scare some people into voting against Obama.
McCain the man knows that Obama had nothing to do with the chain emails and internet postings about Palin that FactCheck.org assesses as "false" and "misleading." McCain the Wizard knows that if he places FactCheck.org's words on top of Obama's photo in an ad, many people will wrongly blame Obama for the rumors.
McCain the man knows that Obama's tax plan cuts taxes overall almost as much as McCain's plan. He knows Obama's plan cuts taxes eight times as much as his own plan for Americans making less than $38,000 (40% of us) and three times as much for the middle 20%. He knows that only those who earn more than $200,000 a year will pay more taxes under Obama's plan. McCain the Wizard can't spin this, so he just denies it and claims the opposite, trusting that people will not search out the facts.
McCain the man knows Obama was not even thinking of Sarah Palin when Obama called McCain's proposals "putting lipstick on a pig." McCain the Wizard demands an apology, even as ABC Nightline airs video of McCain calling Hillary Clinton's healthcare plan "putting lipstick on a pig." Did McCain intend to call Clinton a pig? Did he apologize? PAY NO ATTENTION TO THAT MAN BEHIND THE CURTAIN!
McCain does not have to create all the illusions himself. The Emerald City in Baum's The Wonderful Wizard of Oz is beautiful and unique mostly because everyone entering the city must lock green eyeglasses onto their heads. Most conservatives and liberals today eagerly lock on their red or blue eyeglasses.
If you wear the red eyeglasses:
You are unable to perceive any of the detailed proposals behind the mantras of "Hope," "Change," and "Yes, we can!"--but the red eyeglasses also block even the desire for specific definition of the slogans "Country First" and "Service."
Obama's ability to thoughtfully assess our nation's problems and craft a motivating speech is trivial; Palin's punchy delivery of a speech written by others before she was selected shows leadership.
Obama's pastor cursing the U. S. for its racism is unforgiveable; Palin's pastor saying the U. S. will not escape God's punishment is understandable.
Obama's not wearing a flag pin all the time proves his lack of true patriotism; Sarah Palin's speaking to the convention of the Alaskan Independence Party (whose primary goal is to lobby for a vote on secession from the U. S.) of which her husband was a seven-year member shows her open-mindedness.
McCain's original refusal to fall in line with right-wing orthodoxy on issues like permanent tax cuts for the rich, torture, immigration reform and offshore drilling is deeply disturbing, but when he concedes to pressure and GIVES UP these independent positions, you hail him as "OUR (tamed) maverick."
If you wear the red eyeglasses, Cindy McCain is a generous crusader for the good, but Teresa Heinz Kerry is an elitist heiress. If you wear blue eyeglasses, reverse that.
Voters will have to decide if they are going to demand impossible things of their leaders, if they enjoy being told diverting and comforting election-time stories, or if they want to come home to Kansas. In Baum's book, Dorothy decides she "was glad she had not gone up in a balloon;" it would have been a mistake to leave the ground with an untrustworthy guide. Dorothy learned to use her own power to solve her problems. If we want to be free and powerful, we will unlock our red and our blue eyeglasses, pull back the curtain, and see what's really there.
Cindy, everything in your article, as far as I am familiar, is true. But, the article participates in the same kind of one-sided partisan politics as McCain's ads do, less the obvious distortions. Your article commits the deception of omission.
You omit any objective critique of Obama's ads like the one posting 5 dates of votes for funding for education saying McCain voted against funding for education. The truth was, McCain vote against on one of those dates, for funding on another of those dates, and something else on the other three, I forget, perhaps no vote.
The list of Obama's ad distortions is rather lengthy as are the refutations of Obama's ads by Fact Check. I support Obama's candidacy. Yet, an objective overview of both campaigns ads reveal what is arguably more outright lying and greater distortion on the McCain side.
But, you see, that is the slippery slope Obama stepped onto the first time he let his ads go negative instead of factual. For all intents and purposes, the public will view Obama's ads as no better, nor worse, than McCain's as far as truth and fact are concerned.
Obama would do well at this point to use the facts against McCain, leave Palin out of it except as she can be used against McCain's record and policies as president.
Obama needs to have faith in the youth cell phone vote which isn't polled, and the fact that women are not dumber than men, and when Nov. 4 rolls around, they will pull the lever for the candidate MOST likely to support their roles as mother, worker, home keeper, and caring citizen. Women want desperately to stand tight with the sister-hood where power is concerned and that is all too understandable.
But, there is no woman on the ticket to become president in this election except Cynthia McKinney, (Cynthia Who?). They will vote in their own best estimated self-interest for the next 4 years, and Obama should have confidence that this will translate into far more women voting for him than currently do in the polls.
As for your concern for McCain's ads, to give them voice is great. To give them objective and even handed treatment with Obama's ads, would be far more persuasive, unless the goal is to sing to the choir, of course.
I agree with you that Obama should stick to the facts in any advertising he does against McCain. However, "negative" and "factual" are not necessarily opposites; Obama's current ad listing the powerful Washington lobbyists running McCain's campaign is negative but true and relevant; it's something voters should know.
I thought about balancing my post with examples of Democratic missteps, but my post is over 800 words long. For example, I actually agree with McCain that "the fundamentals of our economy are strong;" it depends on how you define "fundamentals" and "strong." It's easy but unfair to use that statement against McCain, but also weaselly of McCain to announce, "The economy is in crisis" the next day.
If I analyzed Obama's ads and campaign speeches in addition to the recent McCain ads, the post would not only be too long to read but it would lose the coherence of the frame of John McCain as the Wizard of Oz. As you mention, Obama has not embraced the strategy of deceiving the public the way McCain has. Conservative New York Times columnist David Brook admitted on PBS' NewHour that McCain's ads were "more egregious."
I did mention blue eyeglasses and gave one example; I'm hoping another writer attempting to see clearly will provide more so we can learn from each other. Thanks for the reply and for mentioning the education ad; I have not seen that ad and was not aware of the distortion/error.
Cindy, not quite. None of his campaign people are, at this time, Lobbyists. The law prohibits lobbyists from holding such positions in a candidate's campaign. They WERE lobbyists.
This is what I am talking about. Obama gains very little more by stretching the truth with the word "are" instead of the word, "were". But he concedes much to the McCain campaign in giving them legitimacy in attacking Obama's ads as not accurate.
And I would have to debate you on the statement that our economic fundamentals are strong. There are a very few fundamentals that still have strength, but, even they are poised to wane in coming months and years.
$53 Trillion dollars in national debt obligations is not strong. A global recession is going to weaken one of the stronger fundamentals going forward, our exports. Bankruptcies, corporate and personal are on a steep rise. The housing valuation losses and foreclosures are gutting the asset wealth of the consumer class in growing numbers and now analysts are estimating it will be 2010 before we see a turnaround. There is a global liquidity crisis occurring at a time when our government is having to go into the global lending market hat in hand to borrow in order to spend a billion dollars in reconstruction efforts in the Nation of Georgia adjacent to Russia. The opportunity cost of the interest on our debt of 1/2 trillion dollars this next fiscal year, which starts Oct. 1st, is mind boggling, and represents 1/2 trillion dollars in lost health care, education, road and bridge maintenance, and small business loans so vital to fend off our rising unemployment rate.
No, a large host of our economic fundamentals are weak, and the handful which aren't, are about to weaken as we go forward and the recession and liquidity crisis spreads in emerging third world nations, our primary export markets save for airplanes.
I back your choice, and commend it, even though I have some issues with Obama that I have written him about. Still, it is a very narrow field of choice, Barr, Nader, McKinney, McEnulty, McCain and Obama. And only two of them have any real potential of being elected. So, choosing Obama is very much a no brainer for me considering McCain's historical ideology and absence of education or learning in economics.
Hard to believe McCain voted to spend trillions of dollars of our tax dollars over the many years, and never thought to pick up an economics 101 book to learn the least bit about what he was doing. But, its true, enough. He wasn't even bright enough to avoid volunteering to the public his ignorance of economics, and during a race for president at that. Hard to tell who is the greater dullard here, Bush or McCain.
Oh, btw, I will soon have the software configured to permit you to upload your photo or graphic on your own archive web page for your articles here.
True. McCain is all messed up.
He will say and do anything to get elected.
His voting record alone is truly pathetic.
The extended analogy of OZ really rings true. It is SO appropriate in terms of how the politicians are speaking to the voters and how voters are responding. Sometimes I do feel like we're in the land of OZ. And it's not a good thing. Ouch.
I also like how well this essay addresses rhetorical strategies of both sides. I teach a rhetoric class and I think I'll use this as a sample.
Thanks again for posting this piece!
AmySimpson,
I see there is fad and craze out there for many women buying glasses and wigs to look just like Sarah Palin. Perhaps good looks and feistyness is all that is required to run a nation in peril, eh?