The
incessant wall-to-wall coverage of quest to find a challenger for Barack Hussein
Obama II annoys me.
Every action
apart from how the Republican candidates kiss their spouse has been scrutinized
by the mainstream, bloggers, pundits and voters alike. Sometimes these nuggets
of information reveal something about the elephants that they would rather have
us not know. In other instances, it’s just drivel that is used to drive ratings
and web hits.
This came to
mind when I heard about a comment surging candidate Rick Santorum made not too
long ago about social assistance. “I don’t want to make black people’s lives
better by giving them someone else’s money. I want to give them an opportunity
to go out and earn money.”
Yes, that is
a direct quote.
Yes, other
candidates might have said more inflammatory things. However, I also reminded a
friend that since Ron Paul is my congressman it is an occupational and personal
hazard to speak about him electronically.
And that is
my point. How many of us could win an election if many of our behind doors
comments are disseminated in public?
A college
classmate is a journalist who admits she doesn’t really like white people.
There are people in my family who call gay people “confused.” I have heard
colleagues speak about the perks and perils of “Obamacare. I have joked with
friends about the shortcomings of others in a far from politically correct
matter.
One person’s
humor is offensive to another person.
Had the
former Pennsylvania senator not used the word black, it would have been a
completely fair assessment, and one that millions of people would accept needs
to change about this country.
A candidate
can refer to “the blacks” and people are ready to call in Ben Jealous and the
rest of the NAACP. In this new age of endless political coverage just the
suggestion someone is a Mormon or Muslim can righteously offend people. Surely,
there is a gay person, or two, out there who doesn’t like Newt Gingrich’s
position on marriage — especially since the former Georgia congressman’s two divorces are the epitome of
irreconcilable differences.
The ease in
disseminating information, and in this case sound bites, provides a wealth of
information about candidates, whether they are running for local, state or
federal office. There are, however, pitfalls to this approach,
as Clay Johnson writes in The Atlantic.
“The problem stems from choice and selection. The democratization of media has made it so we can all be Howard Dean campaign staffers, or followers of Harold Camping. Anything we want to be true we can find online -- and who would choose to be informed when they can choose to be affirmed? You can see it start with our cable media, as Fox and MSNBC are scrambling to find new ways to affirm the beliefs of the right and left respectively, all the way down to the corners of the web, where you can find out why September 11th was a conspiracy, how vaccinations are responsible for autism, why our first black president must not be an American, and how the rapture is still coming soon. No matter the crazy thought in your head, there's a minor media outlet starting up just to serve you: the long-tail of affirmation.”
Johnson’s take is why I love reaction to my commentaries, comments on my published stories and sharing opinions with people — even if I don’t trust them, nor care for them that much. Constant reaffirmation of zany positions, in politics, or other arenas, can lead to lunacy.
At the end of the day politicians are people. The only difference between many of them, and the people Santorum highlights, is they enrich themselves off the government and call it work. People and politicos can and will make mistakes. It was probably a mistake to write an electronic essay picking primarily on Republicans while living in Texas.
Then again, Iowa offered a glimpse that misstatements are not instantly someone’s death knell. Even ones like Santorum’s that many would lead some to applaud and leave other apoplectic.
Laughs and liveliness,
-Wb
