The title that I’ve given this piece is, in my opinion, one of the main reasons that the US general election turned out as it has done. In addition to Barack Obama's ability to inspire and bring people to the polls, I believe that the approximate ten percent of the electorate that constitutes the “swing vote” that wins elections in recent years, voted for Obama in large part out of impatience with the simplistic. The “You’re with us or against us” style of campaign and communication, and of governance, has finally become tiresome enough to be mostly ignored by those that bridge the two major parties.
I’ve been participating in online political debate and discussion since the late nineties, along with my usual consumption of political news through newspapers, magazines, and radio. One of the significant and oft-repeated questions that I see across the web forums and that I’ve been seeing and hearing from conservative-leaning pundits, is some form of “How can anyone support Obama knowing that; (insert declaration about terrorism, religion, inexperience, guilty associations, etc.)…?”
The answer to that question, is that those who occupy the political middle are tired of simplistic and jingoistic statements of patriotism and policy that are, in actuality, attempts to divide and rule by segmentation and simplification. We will, as a group trend, no longer go along with simplistic fear-mongering, or accept the distortions created by simplifying every situation down to two options of action or two possibilities of perception in public issues.
Mr. Obama’s campaign, and that of those Democratic legislative candidates that won in states and districts that have recently been mostly Republican, and of those Republicans that saved their seats under adverse conditions, were mostly conducted with more nuance and attempts to deal with complex issues than has been the case too often in recent years. The attempts by some Republican legislative candidates and McCain supporters –particularly by the Sarah Palin faction of the McCain campaign, to boil this election down to the sort of simplistic fearful warnings and dire declarations that have worked so well lately, failed.
Witness Elizabeth Dole’s desperate attempt to paint her opponent as “Godless,” and how it backfired and contributed to her opponent’s margin of victory. Take a look at Senator Norm Coleman in Minnesota. His negative attacks on Al Franken were, combined with Dean Barkley’s entry as the Independence Party candidate, effective only in dragging him down in the eyes of those that were uncommitted to either of the parties. He has to be given credit for recognizing that his negative campaign had given Franken a small but significant lead in the final weeks’ polls, erasing the double-digit percentages lead that Coleman had in late summer. When he announced that he would halt the part of the nastiness that he could control, and began releasing ads and statements aimed at promoting himself and talking about the bipartisan issues that he has worked on, rather than disparaging Franken, it helped him to squeeze out the narrowest of victories. There will be a recount, but Minnesota’s history with recounts in the last two decades is that there is rarely a change of more than a tiny micro-fraction of a percentage point.
For the moment at least, America appears ready to move beyond its fondness for the simple and simplistic when considering its political future and policy needs. I hope that Mr. Obama and our other political leaders are able to make good use of this brief willingness in the electorate to discuss things in more complex terms than an “Us good, Them bad” dialogue, and to ponder things in terms of possibilities and responsibilities rather than in modes of fear and dogmatic repetitions, as has been the case in recent years.
Let’s enjoy it and be sure that we make it work for us, while it lasts. The politics of the fearful and simplistic will return to us from either or both ends of the political spectrum soon enough, I fear.
Kevin R. Carr (November, 2008)
