Ye shall know them by the fruits ... of their followers
Here's an ABC news article about the waves of bigoted outbursts from McCain-Palin devotees I mentioned in my last post. (The Washington Post covers the same phenomenon here, and the Politico covers it here.)
Now, I'm a big believer that a candidate's leadership starts with the tone they set in their campaign. So the question arises -- how much of this can be blamed on "a few random loons", and how much of this is a bigger trend that has been inspired by, and should be called out by, the candidates themselves?
Well, I think it's a fair question.
And for me, it's answered when we notice that all week long the outbursts went completely unchecked by McCain, Palin, or any campaign officials -- until the media started pointing out the bigotry. Then suddenly McCain started discouraging it, which of course made him look like a grownup for the first time.
And we know McCain and Plain were hearing them -- in some cases they were even (albeit nervously in McCain's case) agreeing with them.
My point is this: When your speeches and your surrogates' speeches are clearly aimed at exciting hatred and division -- based on the sound of a candidate's name (especially his MIDDLE name) and vague, unprovable assertions of "he's not like you" -- what else should you call it but inciting bigotry?
And of course these low-road appeals to bigotry and ignorance only work with a certain crowd, right? -- notoriously referred to by the Republicans as their "base".
I've been reading a book about Nixon, and I think he or somebody who worked for him first started using this technique: It's called "dog-whistle" politics, and it involves using loaded phraseology that will appeal to the worst instincts of your base (xenophobia, racism, anti-semitism ... whatever) -- but on the other hand has just enough semantic wiggle-room that you can play innocent and deny any accusations, saying "that's not what I meant!"
Watching the second debate last week, it was extremely illuminating how, despite going exclusively personal and negative in his on-air ads and in his rallies, McCain didn't bring up a single one of his character-assassination issues in the debate. Why? Because it was to a mixed crowd, and he knew he couldn't back up his bogus claims in front of a less gullible audience.
So the McCain-Palin recipe is: throw mud (and/or feces) at Obama when your easily-angered base is looking, appeal to their basest prejudices, then act "above all that" when your audience is made up of more sophisticated people.
But from an historical perspective, there's a reason leaders in the past have tended to shy away from the kind of overtly vicious campaigning like McCain-Palin have recently indulged in -- first of all, in the eyes of intelligent people, it lowers their campaign to an adolescent, sixth-grade reading level at the least, and at the worst, it creates the appearance of endorsing bigotry and in some cases violence (supporters have clearly yelled "Kill him!" at Palin rallies and Ms. Palin plowed ahead with no objections).
But from a governing standpoint, IF you do happen to win -- now you've debased yourself and lost the trust of a large portion of your electorate (as Bush did in 2000 and 2004). The result being that it makes for a county that's very hard to govern. And who among us doesn't understand that we're entering a period when we need to pull together?
This example isn't the most egregious one, but I found an article about a GOP party chairman from Bethlehem, PA who recently indulged in the kind of vaguely bigoted tear on Obama that has become so common as to be ignored by the media -- which doesn't make it any less childish, or any less un-American in my book:
"The number one most liberal senator in the United States of America was, you guessed it, the ambassador of change, Barack Hussein Obama," he added. "This election is about preserving America's past and protecting the promise of its future."
Oh boy. That "most liberal senator in the senate" canard again. Funny how four years ago they were saying it was John Kerry. Which is it, guys?
The sage Platt had more information to disclose. "Barack Obama refused to wear an American flag on his lapel," he said of the man who, at the presidential debate the night before, was wearing a flag pin on his lapel. The audience booed. "Barack Obama, a man who wants to be president of the United States of America, removed the American flag from his chest because it was a symbol of patriotism. Perhaps Barack Obama doesn't put country first, but he puts fashion first."
And now some people in the media are praising McCain for disagreeing with the woman who said Obama was "an Arab". Really? As if he had a choice? Has the bar been set that low?
Listen to the reaction of the crowd when he dares to change course for a second with one man and say they "shouldn't be afraid of" Obama and that he is "a decent man". Some people applaud, but a big contingent feels bold enough about their hatred to actually "boo".
So, like I said, I'm a big believer in judging a politician by the quality of their followers -- not of a few crazies, but of this huge trend brought on by their "he doesn't love this country like you do" horseshit. An honorable man (and/or woman) would abstain from this kind of sleazy rabble-rousing, and if they disagreed with it, would condemn it immediately when they see it happening. It's been going on all week in front of their faces, and they only started reigning it in when the media started pointing it out -- and then of course damage has already been done.
This is very cynical campaigning, and, to me, a disgusting way for a senator and war hero to behave.
Come on everybody, lets show these people and the rest of the world that we're not the bunch of superficially patriotic, easily manipulated, mildly ignorant pseudo-bigots they're playing us for.
