Royal Purple

Issue date: 10/15/08 Section: Opinion

Hauck [Click to enlarge]

This year's presidential election is an enigma for undecided voters like myself. On one hand sits McCain's military service, his ability to reach bipartisan solutions and his years of senatorial experience, and on the other sits Obama's disapproval of lobbyists, his respectable vice presidential candidate and his charisma and charm.

It's a tough decision to make. There has never been a larger wealth of knowledge for a voter to account for. Although the quantity has increased, the accuracy of a piece of information has become more difficult to verify as the internet allows anyone to say whatever they like. A willing reader could spend an entire day on their computer, going from the Drudge Report, Slate Magazine, the Huffington Post and others to obtain more than enough election information.

Watching the debates also provides a sensory overload; an endless supply of name-calling "he said," "she said," or "he voted for," "she voted for," quotes that combine with empty rhetoric designed to build a candidate's image instead of providing a clear picture of their policies.

Some examples of this type of rhetoric include McCain and Palin constantly referring to themselves as "mavericks" and both campaigns' attempts to corner the market on the idea of "change." These titles and ideas only obscure the truth by pretending to have meaning while remaining useless.

The usage of the term maverick when referring to a presidential candidate does nothing to convey the way in which they are different from everyone else. It is a form of macho posturing; a term meant to suggest a new direction for the Republican ticket, because being associated with President Bush is political suicide.

Instead of styling themselves mavericks, McCain and Palin could tell people that they're aware that nobody wants things to keep going in the direction that Bush took them, so they will do things differently. Their reassurance should not be a word that hints at an idea, it should be an explanation of how things will change under their leadership.

Both campaigns have committed crimes of abstraction with their slogans that use "change," including Obama's campaign slogan "Change you can believe in." The word functions as nothing more than an unqualified idea, displaying displeasure at the state of the nation but failing to say what should be changed or how to change it.

Continued...

Page 1 of 2 next >

Article Tools