No one seriously expects that campaign coverage by the major U.S. media will focus on issues that actually matter to people. Health care, the environment, the economy, government-sponsored torture, war and peace, etc., are too boring for any extended debate, at least in the minds of the media. Instead, its about personality and scandal, real and imagined.
Anyone paying attention to public debate over the past month would have to wonder if the American political system has jumped off the cliff into a shitpile the size of the Rhode Island. This country is in very serious trouble. The environment has reached a tipping point that will destroy the ecosystem and make the lives of our children and grandchildren miserable and very, very difficult as global temperatures continue to rise and corporate interests further exploit and destroy our natural resources in the pursuit of profits. The war in Iraq will not end and no one knows how to get out of the castastrophic mess that George W. Bush and his foolish supporters in Congress dragged this country into. The economy is stuck in a shitpile the size of Long Island as jobs continue to move overseas for cheap labor and the price of gas reaches once-unimaginable heights.
A national referendum on these and other issues would require a serious look at where we are and how we got there. Things will probably only get worse if we can't stare at ourselves in the mirror and do something about the cancerous growth that is staring back at us. There will be no national referendum this time around, just as we had none last time around.
Instead, the media is focusing on Barack Obama's associations, real or imagined. His religious pastor has given some incendiary speeches over the years. Obama is being held responsible for this. Obama sat on a Board of Directors with a former member of the Weather Underground, a violent group during the days of rage of the late 1960's and 1970's. This is all bullshit. Anyone in American politics who has any aspirations to higher office is going to associate with questionable people, if only to reach out to the broader community. And prior to the "scandal" over Rev. Wright's speeches, did anyone ever give a damn about a candidate's religious mentors?
The issue over Obama's relationship with Rev. Wright is borderline racist. Why are only blacks held to answer for their associations? Why is it that only black candidates have to repudiate the views of Louis Farrakahn? Although Rev. Wright blamed the United States for the 9/11 attacks (he said the chickens had come home to roost), Republican candidates associate with the same cast of characters. Rudy Giuliani ran for president this year as a 9/11 hero, yet he happily accepted the endorsement of Rev. Pat Robertson, who blamed 9/11 on our society's acceptance of gays and lesbians, among other things. Giuliani did not have to answer for his association with this lunatic. John McCain solicited the endorsement of a nutjob, Rev. Hagee, who doesn't like Catholics and said that the hurricane decimated New Orleans because of our acceptance of gays and lesbians.
As I was writing this, a columnist for the New York Times focused on this theme, asking why Obama is being raked over the coals while Republicans get a free pass for their questionable associations. Describing a video of Rev. Hagee's speeches, columnist Frank Rich notes:
the Rev. John Hagee, lecturing in front of an enormous diorama. Wielding a pointer, he pokes at the image of a woman with Pamela Anderson-sized breasts, her hand raising a golden chalice. The woman is “the Great Whore,” Mr. Hagee explains, and she is drinking “the blood of the Jewish people.” That’s because the Great Whore represents “the Roman Church,” which, in his view, has thirsted for Jewish blood throughout history, from the Crusades to the Holocaust.
John McCain sought out Rev. Hagee's endorsement. The columnist Frank Rich says there is a double standard for black politicians, and there is. John McCain embraced a man whose unlawful war killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and over 4,000 American soldiers, President Bush. Isn't it worse to associate with a killer like President Bush than Rev. Wright? The shocking reality is that no one is asking this question.
The Times over the weekend further noted this campaign's resemblance to the 1988 presidential campaign. For those too young to remember, George H.W. Bush ran against Democrat Michael Dukakis by attacking his patriotism. In particular, as governor of Massachusetts, Dukakis, who went to Harvard Law School, would not endorse a law requiring school teachers to lead their children in the pledge of alllegiance. As the Times points out, "He did so on the basis of an advisory opinion from the state court, which said the legislation was unconstitutional." So the governor will not sign a law that violates the Constitution. No matter to the Republican establishment, which knows that most Americans will not appreciate the finer points of Dukakis' objections. Attack his patriotism, ignore the issues, get elected and allow the country to rot further. George W. Bush and the modern Republican establishment has learned a lot from their elders.
