Most of the political headlines are taken up with campaign tactics rather than campaign platforms. It's a competition over who can be more outraged at the other -- Obama's "playing the race card;" McCain is "going negative." Each wants to paint the other as a shameless politician, pulling for our sympathy. And, really, both make a good case. This week, McCain compared Obama to Britney Spears and Paris Hilton -- Mrs. Hilton is absolutely right, a waste of money. Obama valiantly called for full inclusion of Michigan and Florida -- too bad he didn't mention anything three months ago when it could have mattered.
But how does the endless debate over politik help us choose a president? James Bowman has a good post over at The New Criterion blog, Arma Virumque. "An Affair of Honor" discusses the effect of calling into question the other candidate's honor:
To question an opponent’s good faith is not to engage in debate but to put an end to debate. The only honorable recourse to such a charge is a violent one, which is why accusations of lying or cowardice were once thought automatically to require a challenge by the man so impugned to mortal combat with his accuser...
There is a reason why that will never happen, alas. It is because the culture of authenticity which has succeeded the honor culture in this country and which believes that, much more shameful than a mere lie, is insincerity and a refusal publicly to air what one really believes. Or feels to use the common and telling idiom of the day. Paradoxically, the result of this cult of sincerity is that hardly anyone ever does say what he really believes — unless there is a calculation that the scandal of it will fall more on one’s opponent than upon oneself.
Maybe that's what the politician's want. No debate, just name-calling. Read the whole thing.
No comments:
Post a Comment