OPINION & EDITORIAL
Finding philosophy dichtomy
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Kate Flick:
- Protect environment locally (December 3, 2004)
- Considering e-waste disposal (November 19, 2004)
- Alternative participation (November 15, 2004)
- Environment on the back burner (November 5, 2004)
- Strange news an ill omen (October 29, 2004)
Related Stories:
- Religion, morality should be separated (December 5, 2007)
- New dean needs new philosophy (January 22, 2002)
- Democrats cringe at recovering economy (November 5, 2003)
- French election may improve relations with U.S. (April 26, 2007)
- Jewish vote was not homogenous (December 10, 2004)
by Kate Flick
Friday, September 17, 2004
It is my job herein to present an attitude that is not only well founded and based on good evidence but that has also been derived from an open-minded approach and solid reasoning. On the subject of the impending presidential election, however, I find it increasingly difficult to play this role accordingly.
Why?
Because the stage has been set as a showdown between candidate Bush and candidate Kerry.
So?
This seemingly natural duel between foes zeroes in on the individual candidates, tunes into the human heuristic of man versus man (a woman not yet thrown in there) and seduces the average opinion-maker to draw a conclusion based not on the issues that surround the future of the United States but on the individual person who will be in charge.
So far ingrained into the norm is this man versus man dogma, which probably forming its way into your brain synopses right now is a simple “So?” This narrow lens focuses so closely on the candidates that it blurs actual national and international issues into the distant background. More specifically, jabs at each candidate flower the language of much of the election discourse, yet meaningful discussion of problems and solutions that the nation faces remains on a secondary level.
While an opinion on who is the best presidential candidate most certainly may be formed purely on the basis of the mudslinging propaganda that spews from the candidate-focused setup, such an opinion lacks the solid reasoning and substance of one procured from the examination of domestic and world affairs.
In fact, the overwhelming focus on the candidates — and not political issues — has caused this race to digress into something all too similar to a hotly contested prom competition. Reports of John Kerry looking French and having French ancestry (somehow this implies that Kerry will favor the French) or of George W.’s dubious military record that was “sugarcoated” by evaluating officers and then, oops, it wasn’t (who’s kidding who, it was pretty clear Bush’s National Guard tenure wasn’t ever his strong point) have displaced discourse on their platforms that might offer clear stances and perspectives on the nominees.
Meanwhile, while the banter that unrelentingly tries to degrade or enhance the candidates’ characters persists, the nominees’ actual positions on the political issues become more and more shrouded in ambiguous language with few clear aims on courses of action.
Both candidates seem intent on building a “stronger America” and “a safer world” that sounds great in theory. But the “how” of these claims remains hazy. Instead of demanding the candidates pick apart these issues, however, we nod our heads and cheer in acquiescence.
Of course we all want a better place to live, so it remains all too appealing to take a passive seat, listen to their vague proclamations of a great future, and form an opinion of the candidates based upon a heuristical assumption of a character analysis fed by spatting sides.
In this process, the voting public has strayed from a logical assessment of the issues that the candidates are supposed to embody in favor of character judgments based on insubstantial personal traits and recondite promises left open-ended.
I confess, I too am guilty of falling victim to the man-versus-man squabble. So embedded is this banter in the way our political system functions, it’s easy to become wrapped in the finger-pointing and rash personal appraisals that besiege the presidential race. Consequently, the mind closes to rationality because of the quick character judgments that brush over the political issues.
Instead, look beyond the superficial character contests and demand something more concrete than promises of a better world. Use this to form an opinion. Rather than focusing on the candidate, see clearly the issues that make up the picture.
Kate Flick (kflick@badgerherald.com) is a junior majoring in sociology.
Anonymous (September 20, 2004 @ 4:05pm):
Maybe people would be able to focus on the issues when making their decision if the media spent some time covering...surprise....the issues!
