Air-slinging politics

So far, this is the worst presidential election I have ever seen.

Now, I know what you're thinking. You're thinking, I'm a college student. How many presidential elections have I seen? And the answer is, not many. But this is the worst one. And the explanation for that is simple. Meaningless scandals.

As rambling political hacks gleefully attack candidates with the scandal du jour, we've managed to have a presidential race that is almost completely devoid of actual issues. The biggest news on the presidential candidates has been disgraced pastors, slanderous rumor, and foolish one-liners. Let's go through a list, shall we? Obama is apparently a secret Muslim spy who thinks religious people are 'bitter' and who worships at a white-hating church. Hillary is billed as a racist pseudo-Southerner who dodges imaginary bullets and wants all those who oppose her to be assassinated. McCain is allegedly a shell-shocked loony who has affairs with lobbyists and who fathered an illegitimate child.

This isn't mud-slinging, it's air-slinging, because these insults are ultimately devoid of substance. Even the silliest fake scandal is enough to knock a presidential hopeful off his perch, as we've learned. Clinton's comment that "We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California," was foolish and weird and generally off-putting. But those who circulated it as proof that Clinton was unfit for the presidency were implicitly arguing that Clinton wanted Obama assassinated. Despite how you feel about the Senator, it's one thing to call her Machiavellian, it's another thing to argue that she actively wishes for the death of her enemies, like some kind of political voodoo priestess. The same goes for our preoccupation with McCain and Obama's theological endorsements: Yes, the candidates have had wacky religious people in their lives. But does anyone believe that Obama thinks white people are evil? Or that McCain believes Catholics are in the service of the anti-Christ? If not, then why do we spend so much time obsessing about which religious figure said what? Perhaps we are worried that these figures might have influence on the nominees. But if we want to know how Obama or McCain would act in a difficult political situation, we are better off studying their policies, not the character flaws of their friends.

Al Franken, the former Saturday Night Live comedian who is running for Minnesota Senate, has perhaps been hit worst of all by these tactless talking points. Republicans point to his 2000 interview with Playboy, where Franken discussed technology and joked about human beings have sex with robots. Now, Franken's opponents, in bringing this up, are trying to convince people that Al Franken believes that human beings should have sex with robots. Worse yet, they're implying that this would have an actual effect on how he conducted himself in the Senate. How? Would he dangerously modify some hypothetical Human-Robot Relations Act? In the last few elections, voters have increasingly decided their preference for president based on 'moral values'. But haven't we gone too far, when we believe that the antique joke of an ex-comedian might somehow impact his position on fiscal spending?

These talking points, which do nothing more than foolishly impinge on personal character, are an insult to democracy. And too seldom do we call such puerile attacks for what they are. One notable exception was when NBC anchor Chris Matthews listened to conservative radio host Kevin James wax infuriated on how Barack Obama was just like [former British P.M.] Neville Chamberlain, an appeaser and a coward. Chris Matthews asked Kevin James 24 times, "What did Chamberlain do?" that made him an appeaser [Answer: Give almost half of Czechoslovakia to Hitler without a fight]. Kevin James didn't know. His argument that Obama was like Chamberlain, then, was based on historical facts with which he had no familiarity. And that sums up all of these pointless attacks which we all follow so closely: They are completely disconnected from the issues.

But Kevin James's exposure as a loud-mouthed and ill-informed hack is an exception which proves the rule. We have few enough journalists who are willing to elevate the conversation (we just lost one with the passing of Tim Russert). And our political machines won't stop grinding out manufactured controversies. Instead, we have to stop enjoying ourselves whenever the opposing candidate to our personal views "slips up." When a serious politician meets a delusional character or makes a foolish gaffe, it's not news. It's not important. What's important is who we choose to lead our country for the next four years. If you want to feel self-satisfied and entertained at the inconsequential mistakes of others, pick up a celebrity magazine. If you want to make a meaningful decision for the future of your country, then ignore the spin. You're not missing anything.

James Tager is a Trinity senior. His column will run biweekly this Fall.