Paul J. Balles explains why “listening to America's presidential candidates debate has been akin to getting too close to a compost heap that has only evolved to a rich dung heap”.
Why do political candidates insist on talking rubbish? I know, "rubbish" isn't a nice, sophisticated descriptive term, but it fits. "Nonsense" is too generous, and there are a few others that really shouldn't get into print.
Let me cite some more sophisticated reactions to the same experience:
Max Fraad Wolff, an instructor at the Graduate Program in International Affairs at the New School University, points to a disconnect between the economic crisis and the lack of meaningful discussion in the presidential race: "We are still talking tax cuts – despite a forecast of a 1-trillion-dollar budget deficit. We are still talking energy independence – despite the fact there is no chance of that."
Mario Murillo, associate professor of Communication at Hofstra University in New York, faults John McCain who "...talks about the [Alvaro] Uribe regime [in Colombia] as 'the best ally of the US in the hemisphere' that deserves a free trade agreement with Washington, demonstrating quite clearly how disconnected he is from the reality on the ground".
Murillo also notes that Obama "...needs to be updated about the major contradictions surrounding the Uribe government, including its links with paramilitary death squads on the US State Department's terrorism list. The popular movement is screaming out as we speak, and nobody up north seems to be listening!"
One might expect American presidential candidates to be adequately informed about what's going on in South American countries.
Before the last debate, Barack Obama prodded McCain to raise an issue the McCain camp has been using to attack Obama's character by trying to identify him with one-time terrorist activities of the "Weatherman" group. Obama responded:
“Bill Ayers is a professor of education in Chicago. Forty years ago, when I was eight years old, he engaged in despicable acts with a radical domestic group. I have roundly condemned those acts,” Mr. Obama said. “Ten years ago, he served and I served on a board that was funded by one of Ronald Reagan’s former ambassadors and close friends, Mr Annenberg.”
Instead of doing his homework, McCain and his vice-presidential candidate, Sarah Palin, going into "rubbish" mode, saw an opportunity to attack.
What a waste of time and effort by two candidates for the next president of the US. While the candidates have given only brief lip service to the issue of the economy – American and not much world economy – they have hardly dabbled with other important issues. While wasting time repeating the mantras they've been preaching for months, they haven't even taken up the serious issues related to the financial crises.
They repeat and repeat "what my tax programme will do, what my position is on health care, what we should do about developing renewable energy", without ever revealing important details of what they will do.
What they say they will do and what they can do are two different things. Most of the positive measures either candidate has proposed would require legislation by the US Congress.
If McCain truly followed up on his promises to reform Washington, he would run amok of the majority of the US Congress. If Obama kept his promises, he would have to double everyone's taxes rather than giving tax breaks.
Too much of American presidential politics is repetitious rubbish that eventually turns listeners off. People stop listening. TV pundits deceive themselves into believing that viewers still care after 19 months of campaigning with the same worn slogans and updated personal attacks.
Listening to America's presidential candidates debate has been akin to getting too close to a compost heap that has only evolved to a rich dung heap.
Paul J. Balles is a retired American university professor and freelance writer who has lived in the Middle East for many years. For more information, see http://www.pballes.com.
