Dear World: You're Wrong About How to Judge Between Candidates

I received an email with an attached article by Will Manly entitled, "Dear Barack: You're wrong about small towns." Thinking it was witty and written reasonably well - and also knowing I had some friends/family who would enjoy it - I forwarded it on. I did attach a note, however, saying the article didn't reflect my thoughts on the issue exactly. Here's why:

I agree with much of what the author wrote concerning basic "why democrats' approach to government is wrong" stuff, but I think he fell victim to a common phenomenon in political writing: moving too quickly into the "why the opposition candidate is a bad person" area. Case in point, consider the hubbub about Obama not having his hand on his heart during the Pledge. Now, if he was fundamentally against putting his hand on his heart for some reason, or even if he just had a habit of not doing it, I think it'd deserve more attention. As it is... well, let me get back to the issue at hand.

As I was saying, the author makes good points - about Barack's positions on taxes, gun rights, the Iraq war, etc. He even concedes the candidate's speaking ability, which I think is an obvious strength. His main point, though, seems to be to protest a couple of quote snippets from Obama or his mother - and then construe disagreement with these statements to make judgments on Barack's quality as a person/candidate. Essentially, the author is saying "little by little who Obama really is has slipped out," and I take issue with that approach.

Anytime someone is under the microscope 24/7, you're going to find something you can twist to evoke an emotional response (particularly one that will increase existing biases). When Romney (my personal favorite) was still in the race, for example, it was easy to watch the Republican debates and pick out little quips I didn't like from the other contenders. This was an almost instinctive way to more deeply entrench my existing affiliation with Mitt. More than once I had to force myself to take a step back and consider the other candidates' actual track records and potential candidacies, rather than letting easy emotional responses run the show. (No matter how much it bothered me what McCain's mom said about members of the LDS church, for example, I had to realize it had little to do with her son's candidacy.)

No matter how much easier it'd be to just discount the guys I already don't like based on the controversial press that will (no doubt) come around, I have to ask myself things like: "Is it possible someone could have attended a church with a seemingly wacky pastor and yet still become an excellent President?" The answer, in my mind, is yes. So, I ignore all the junk floating around about the preacher and instead try to find details about Obama's health plan, voting record, etc. (most of which, I should note, is strangely difficult to find).

The small-time, emotional stuff just seems irrelevant (no matter how much it makes a good story).

Star This to Save in Your Profile