Fear and Loathing in America

Keep the American people fearful and angry.  

This is the unfortunate consequence of the last two successful Republican presidential election campaigns.  President Bush, Dick Cheney and Carl Rove crafted this strategy, dabbling in it in 2000: 

• "Can't vote for McCain - he's got an illegitimate black child!" (Reference)

and perfecting it in 2004:

• "You can't vote for the Democratic nominee - the terrorists will have a field day!" (Reference)
• "You can't allow same sex marriages - everyone will do it!"(Reference)
• "Polls are slipping - time for the Orange threat level!"(Reference)

 Ironically, 8 years after being the target of this sort of campaign, McCain has latched onto the "fear is good" approach.  His TV spots are classics of the genre and keep pushing the "fear" points:

• "You can't trust this guy - he's too young/inexperienced"
  
• "He has fanatical followers - listen to that chanting!"
  
• "Europe loves him - certainly can't be trusted"
  
• "Celebrities like him - he definitely can't be trusted!"
  

In addition, the commercials are alarmingly "dumbed down".  Now I know that no one has gone broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public, but come on!  Using Paris Hilton and Charlton Heston as Moses to make your point?  

Of course  there's a large segment of the population that need the message simplified - they are the same folks that voted for Bush because they thought they'd be comfortable sharing a six pack with him.  Given that fact, you do have to hand it to McCain's strategists - a simple message with a subtle (or not so subtle) fear subtext may just do the trick.  I guess I'm just hoping against hope that it doesn't work.  If the strategy somehow backfires or fails, perhaps we can evolve toward a more rational discussion of the relevant issues.  Maybe, just maybe, we don't have to walk around fearing our shadows.

But I fear that may never happen...

I am a flip-flopper

I find myself absolutely fascinated by the national pre-occupation with "flip-floppers". The media will carefully track everything a candidate says and any indication that there has been a change in his or her view of an issue will trigger a flurry of articles, interviews, and condemnations.  Furthermore, the public seems to have bought into this activity - I hear it every day:  "I can't trust him - he's a flip-flopper!"

To me the idea that changing your mind is a sign of weakness or something that should be scorned is completely bizarre. Should you hold fast to your idea or opinion when presented with evidence or a good argument to the contrary?

Consider that a few years back our president was presented with evidence that there was no real threat from Saddam Hussein, no weapons of mass destruction, and no tie between Irag and Al-Qaeda. Yet, he stood fast to his idea and refused to "flip-flop". Still think "flip-flopping" is wrong?

To be clear, in a lot of instances, I find myself not agreeing with the change of view.  However, I don't think I can condemn someone for the process of changing their minds or consider them weaker or less trustworthy for doing so.  They are entitled to change their opinion, and I am entitled to disagree with their new stance.  

Further, I am not condoning changing your stance solely for political reasons.  I am not completely naive!  What I am focusing on here is the process of evolving a new opinion based on facts or arguments.  I believe it is this latter process that is getting grouped into the "flip-flopping" category.  That simply should not be the case, especially in a democratic society.  

So, for the record and in the interest of full disclosure, I would like to proclaim myself a proud "flip-flopper". I change my mind almost on a daily basis! Whether I'm at work, watching the news, reading the newspaper, or reading a good book - when presented with a compelling reason to change my point of view, I generally do.