Grumpy. Condescending. Scolding. Troll.
Are these the attributes Americans want in a President? If so, they found their man in John McCain during last night's first Presidential debate. As the pundits and pols openly struggled to call a winner (as if national politics were a bloodsport, presided over by a toga-clad Joaquin Phoenix), the above interesting, honest reactions to McCain's demeanor escaped many lips. While most agreed the night marked McCain's best debate performance to date, most also did so with a crinkled face, pursed lips and the not-so-subtle suspicion that words aside, just like in past performances marred by sighs and sweaty brows, perception would matter more.
McCain did not look at Obama more than twice during the entire 94 minutes. Those two times came before and after the debate when, seemingly to his chagrin, he had to greet Obama center-stage and shake the whipper-snapper's hand. For the remainder of their shared time on the national stage, McCain stood, stone-faced, and, at times, seemingly more than a little angry, facing Jim Lehrer, speaking to or about Obama as if Obama weren't there. He seemed more than a little put-out to even have to be there, deigning to explain himself beside, and answering the same questions as, someone so clearly "naive," and out of his league. Obama, meanwhile, took some flak for being too kind to McCain, offering praise when it was due, showing respect in tone, content and body language. The whole affair looked like a couple on the verge of divorce, with Obama playing the role of doting, committed husband, McCain the furious, passive-aggressive wife constantly pointing out what her partner "doesn't understand," and Lehrer the befuddled therapist just trying to get them to talk TO EACH OTHER.
How does such a scenario play out, to those accustomed to watching these sorts of dramatic scenes more often on "Grey's Anatomy" than CNN? My guess is that by the end of the debate, most viewers had a sense that one of the two men on that stage did not want to be there and had no respect for the other and that such petulance, condescension and derision is exactly what they want to see less, not more, of in the political sphere. (Not to mention, the sight of an old, white man failing to acknowledge the presence and contributions of a young, black man will rightly push buttons all its own.)
We live in a world where the ability, and desire, to talk through our differences is not only something for which we thirst, but something upon which our most basic needs rest.
By that angrily dismissing Obama, and the concerns he raised about the past eight years, McCain was dismissing an American electorate that is growing increasingly angry itself. What McCain doesn't understand is that it is no longer "morning in America," as Reagan famously said back in the decade when children played with trolls; it's long past high noon, and it's time to put away our childish things.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Mr. Polk, I understood the concept of the debate as the two candidates dabting and discussing issues for the benefit of the American people. I for one would not want to watch 94 minutes of two men talking at each other. In most debates you do not talk directly at your opponent you talk at his/her point to the moderator and in this case to the tv and studio audience. I am more put off by the striking similarities in both candidates policy and campaign goals than I was by their so called demeanor. Of course that may just be me. Unless of course it is entirely out of control and overtly disrespectful. I did not notice any of the negative aspects you mention about Senator McCain; I thought both McCain and Obama conducted themseleves properly. I am surprised that these two candidates striking similarites are not touched on more by the media. Honestly I found the debate to have as much substance and depth as an inflatable swimming pool.
In Liberty,
Mr. Jefferson
As I agree almost entirely with your assessment of Mr. McCain's performance in Friday's debate, Mr. Polk, I will reserve my comment for Mr. Jefferson's commentary. Though it is distressing to see so little dissimilarity between the two candidates' policy proposals - an observation deserving far more analysis and elucidation - policy proposals alone do not a statesman make. They're not even the bulk of that which is required to make an effective politicians. It is a failure of logic to discount the effect of the process of interpersonal communication on both the content of the message communicated and, more importantly, on how that message is heard. As has already borne out in the impressionistic commentary surrounding the debate, very few people speaking have noted Mr. McCain to be anything other than caustic; there is little rehashing of the actual content of his speech, but much more about the intention conveyed in his actual manner of speaking. This, I believe, has far more serious implications in anticipating his possible presidency and engagement as a statesman in affairs both foreign and domestic. Our world leaders, just like the rest of us, are far more apt to acknowledge, consider, and work with those individuals who are able to and are readily willing to convey respect and understanding in both attitude and speech, than they are with those whose very presence in a room conveys disdain and poor judgment.
Policies will necessarily come and go as our civic needs change. This I think is a expected and respectable concession to living in a world where time can only move forward in a game with many, many players. However, no game benefits from that player who, when he does not get his way, throws the ball into the woods and stomps off the field.
Post a Comment