A reader wrote in to Andrew Sullivan today, expressing an experience that closely matches my own:
This is my first election year without a TV or local radio. I have been completely dependent on the internet and print media for my electoral news.
Instead of bulleted paragraph points in a brochure or snippets of speech chosen for me by an editor or the oddness of my brain, I have read (and reread) or watched (and rewatched) entire speeches and election platforms online.
The result of all this exposure dawned on me when I glanced at my ballot. Instead of the straight Republican ticket of previous years, my ballot this year is a jumbled, bi-partisan alphabet soup of R’s, D’s, and I’s. I feel so much hope and delight about this!
Now, the fact is, I do have a TV, and there’s plenty of radio coverage where I live. But, in sharp contrast to my life of four years ago (and even sharper contrast with eight years ago), I simply don’t watch any broadcast TV these days. My TV is there for movies and select TV shows on DVD. And the occasional World Series or Super Bowl.
This is the first time in my entire life that I’ve listened — from beginning to end — to each of the speeches given at the Republican and Democratic conventions. It’s the first time I have completely circumvented the mainstream media filter. Whether or not there is an overarching bias on ABC or CBS, Fox News or MSNBC, I would have no clue. Of course, I do see snippets of Hannity and Olbermann on YouTube, so it’s pretty clear to me that these biases not only exist, but they’re pretty strong. But I have, quite honestly, been craving the straight dope, with which to make my own goddamned decision. I have seen, in my lifetime, people I love dearly, swinging into a complacency that takes the responsibility of decision-making out of their hands, and placing it into the hands of opinion-givers, no matter how tattered their credibility may be. That is compromise, and I’m sick of being manipulated like that.
Yesterday, I saw an excerpt video from a speech that Barack Obama gave in Colorado Springs this summer. Someone I care about immensely shared it with me. The entirety of the brief video is quoted below:
“We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we’ve set. We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well funded.”
This statement is alarming. It caused a red alert. People all over the internet saw it as an ultra-left-wing slip of the tongue, heralding the creation of a Gestapo-style security force. I must admit, when I saw this video, I got a little concerned: I’ve been assuming my information was rather complete, yet here was this phrase that totally caught me off-guard. When Googling the phrase “obama civilian national security force,” the entire first page of results were blog entries by really scared folks. Some authored by the usual band of conspiracy theorists and nut-jobs, but some were also written by normally-rational conservatives and liberals alike. The first “un-biased” story I could find on the subject was in the AARP Bulletin Today. I know it’s a little catty of me, but I always assume older folks to be a bit more conservative, and therefore a bit more sensitive to extremely liberal ideas. I may be right or wrong on that prejudice, but the truth of the matter is, the folks at AARP Bulletin Today actually took the time to either read, listen to, or watch the whole speech. And they weren’t concerned…they lauded the speech and the ideas within it.
So I watched the whole speech. And context makes a world of difference. It’s the difference between hearing “Civilian National Security Force” and hearing “civilian national security force.” The man at the podium was talking about John F. Kennedy’s Peace Corps, and Bill Clinton’s AmeriCorps, as well as the Foreign Service and all the other ways of serving your country, from your local community up to the military and federal government. Obama was speaking to an enormous collection of veterans and active-service men and women in Colorado Springs, and he was getting enormous cheers and even preemptive clapping for all of the efforts he was suggesting. To think, for even one minute, that the people in that audience were somehow hoodwinked, or simply not listening is, quite frankly, a radical assertion.
Now, I need to understand, as every Obama supporter does, that comparing him to John F. Kennedy is a ridiculous endeavor. But the fact of the matter is, Kennedy made a clear call to action. He believed in service, and he had the momentum, the support, and the persuasive skills to put it in a way that motivated the masses. None of us, liberal or conservative, Republican or Democrat, can deny that Barack Obama’s campaign has not only gotten the masses motivated and involved, but that the effort has moved people.
One night, on the way home from work, I made a slight detour over to Berkeley, and peeked into the local Obama campaign headquarters. The place was bursting at the seams, and almost everyone was on the phone. People were laughing, walking around, passing phones back and forth, and generally just interacting with Americans, as Americans. One lady near the door was on the phone with someone who was clearly voting McCain. After a brief and entirely ineffective attempt to convey the benefits of voting Obama, she expressed her respect for the person’s decision, and reminded them to make sure they do get out and vote, not only for the president, but for the ballot measures and other propositions on the ballot. And I know: this is Berkeley. You don’t have to tell me how feel-good Berkeley is. But the fact is, stories like this seem to be coming from all over the country. There is not only an ethic of service in the Obama campaign, but there is a sense of cooperation. Disagreements are welcomed…that’s what makes America great.
The tone of this presidential campaign has had an extremely bipolar attitude. That fact came into sharp focus for me in the form of a Twitter post from John Gruber: “Did anything get booed during Obama’s speech?” The entire Republican National Convention was absolutely peppered with slamming and booing. Each speaker used dramatic pauses and accusatory rhetoric to egg the crowd on. During the Democratic National Convention, the feeling was much more about insight and outlook. Sure, most of the speakers cast a critical eye upon their opponents, and they got pretty damned heated about the shortcomings of McCain’s promise for change, as well as the record he’s got behind him. But they did not use the lectern to encourage animosity. The goal seemed to be to present the problem, and to swiftly present the candidate’s proposed solution, without dwelling on anger about the past. The same structure is used on the issues pages of Obama’s website.
This is what puts Obama ahead in the polls. It’s not just his speeches, and it’s not just his tendency to limit the anger in his audience (and divert it into more effective pursuits), and it’s not just the enthusiasm and engagement that’s present in his campaign workers. All of these things add up to something inspiring, and it’s the first such phenomenon I’ve seen in my lifetime that feeds itself, and isn’t built on fear or hate. It has snowballed, but it is very much in control.
The challenge now, and it’s one to which Obama seems committed, is to keep that momentum going after today. To continue to ask our nation to get involved, to realize their part in the betterment of this nation. You don’t have to be a Democrat, or even an Obama supporter to hear that call and make it personal. For me, during this election, it has meant taking my head out of the sand. I’ll own that, as I know that’s my first step. What’s yours?