the virtue of indecisiveness
Being that I have this week off, I've had a lot more time to consume
media than a normal week. And, on reflecting on all my sources of news
and information (70% internet, 20 percent radio (including internet
radio) and 10% TV), I've noticed something about people: they hate
stating what political candidates they would choose based off of
certain issues. Whenever any random Joe on the street is interviewed
(or they call in) it's always, "Well, we're going to have to see," or
"I don't like to choose because I don't vote in a hegemonic fashion,"
or "I think this candidate would be best, but he does not have my
support yet." Admittedly, the candidates out in the field now are the
lamest I think I'll ever see (but, then again, I thought the same
thing with Gore vs. Bush, back in the day), but don't people have
enough info to make a decision? We already know that Clinton is the
former first lady, manipulative, media-darling who stands in the
shadow of her husband. We know that Obama is a charismatic speaker who
has an uncanny ability to win people to his cause with words that mean
nothing. We know that McCain is the grumpy, realist, old timer,
republican maverick, who received the nomination because the
conservatives split their vote in the primaries. The only thing we've
learned about any of these people in the last month is that Obama's
pastor is a racist. Other than that, the characters are pretty well
established. So, do news agencies have an attraction to the indecisive
or are people really thinking that new information is going to appear
that will completely swing their vote?
I think part of it could be that they don't want to identify with one
party or another since they then think they have to always vote that
way. This is completely ridiculous though, since all being registered
means is that you can voe in the primaries and therefore have even
more say over who the next president will be! For myself, I agree with
most of what the Republican party supports, so most likely I'll mostly
agree with what any particular Republican candidate has to say. Yet,
that does not mean I have to vote the party line or can't be critical
of what is being done.
Perhaps people think they will be called on it later if they seem to
exuberant over a candidate, being blamed for all his faults. Perhaps,
it's reflective of a general fear of commitment in our culture. Or,
maybe people don't send that much time educating themselves.
What do you think?
--Todd
media than a normal week. And, on reflecting on all my sources of news
and information (70% internet, 20 percent radio (including internet
radio) and 10% TV), I've noticed something about people: they hate
stating what political candidates they would choose based off of
certain issues. Whenever any random Joe on the street is interviewed
(or they call in) it's always, "Well, we're going to have to see," or
"I don't like to choose because I don't vote in a hegemonic fashion,"
or "I think this candidate would be best, but he does not have my
support yet." Admittedly, the candidates out in the field now are the
lamest I think I'll ever see (but, then again, I thought the same
thing with Gore vs. Bush, back in the day), but don't people have
enough info to make a decision? We already know that Clinton is the
former first lady, manipulative, media-darling who stands in the
shadow of her husband. We know that Obama is a charismatic speaker who
has an uncanny ability to win people to his cause with words that mean
nothing. We know that McCain is the grumpy, realist, old timer,
republican maverick, who received the nomination because the
conservatives split their vote in the primaries. The only thing we've
learned about any of these people in the last month is that Obama's
pastor is a racist. Other than that, the characters are pretty well
established. So, do news agencies have an attraction to the indecisive
or are people really thinking that new information is going to appear
that will completely swing their vote?
I think part of it could be that they don't want to identify with one
party or another since they then think they have to always vote that
way. This is completely ridiculous though, since all being registered
means is that you can voe in the primaries and therefore have even
more say over who the next president will be! For myself, I agree with
most of what the Republican party supports, so most likely I'll mostly
agree with what any particular Republican candidate has to say. Yet,
that does not mean I have to vote the party line or can't be critical
of what is being done.
Perhaps people think they will be called on it later if they seem to
exuberant over a candidate, being blamed for all his faults. Perhaps,
it's reflective of a general fear of commitment in our culture. Or,
maybe people don't send that much time educating themselves.
What do you think?
--Todd