Sometimes you can understand more from what a person doesn’t say than from what they tell you. This seems to be particularly true of politicians, especially since campaigning has evolved from candidates telling us why they are the best choice to warning us about the shortcomings of their opponents. Ideas can easily be misrepresented by substituting negative, emotional words for more accurate ones, thus changing the focus for the listener. It’s a matter of rhetoric, which often boils down to nothing more than a lot of hot air.
Too many campaign “speeches” are nothing more than strings of emotion-laden slogans offering no new ideas, plans, or insights for our enlightenment or consideration. There has been a lot of disagreement over WOKE. One candidate tells us that schools “should be teaching the ABC’s instead of CRT,” and infers that preparing our children for life in the 21st century is “depriving them of their innocence” while at the same time falsely hinting that schools are not teaching the basics. As far as preserving innocence is concerned, as a member of a generation whose innocence was protected to the point of absurdity, I learned that innocence isn’t all it’s reputed to be and leads to a lot of regrettable mistakes. Knowledge is a lot more reliable and helpful. Referring to protesting groups and organizations as “mobs” instantly labels them as crazed crackpots rather than people supporting a legitimate cause or protesting a questionable change. We should discount such negative labels which are meant to prevent us from concentrating on the actual issues. One sneering candidate dismisses the subject by treating it as a joke and doesn’t actually address the issue.
One man’s views on international trade are cleverly twisted, in a way which only an expert at pure bunk can manage. “We should be selling oil to our allies, not buying it from our enemies.” Sounds good, doesn’t it? “Be generous to your friends and don’t have anything to do with the bad guys.” I wonder if, perhaps, buying from our so-called enemies doesn’t keep them a bit financially dependent on us, thus giving us a measure of power over them and preserving our own resources while consuming some of theirs. Cutting back on our own production doesn’t mean we are discarding a resource – it’s still there waiting until we may need it.
It seems that many candidates believe that, if they can get us to accept some non-controversial statements, we will trail along and support any prejudicial or hare-brained statement they choose to tack onto them. Take this obvious example of that sort of balderdash; “If you’re able-bodied, you work; if you commit a violent crime, you go to jail (so far, not too controversial); if you’re a man, you play sports – with men.” Out of left field, totally unrelated, is it the notion that men shouldn’t play tennis or golf with their wives? Or enjoy a game of croquet with their nieces or daughters? Of course that’s not what he’s saying. What he is saying comprises pure prejudice against the LGBTQ reality, for too long reviled, hidden and abused because of ignorance. He knows better than to come right out and admit his prejudice, so he tries to nullify it by wrapping it up in Old Glory. And just whose family is it that sets the theoretical standard for “family values”?
These particular quotes aren’t the only ones employing this nefarious approach to campaigning. They are just such obvious examples. There seem to be no rules and no way to prevent misquoting and distorting the words of opponents. Even television images of candidates are manipulated and distorted to make them appear malicious, insincere, incompetent or just plain stupid. There seem to be a number of good, honest, capable contenders out there, but it is impossible to clearly identify them amid all the rhetorical hokum that has taken over American politics. Is it the candidates themselves, their campaign managers or ad agencies who are responsible? Or is it the rest of us who let them get away with it? Our best, maybe our only, weapon seems to be the ballot box.