I am alarmed by this election. Not because of the news of continued Russian interference. It was expected, but, Americans who deny such interference exists are more frightening.
And not because of the lying. After all, old dogs are immune to new tricks.
I am afraid of gerrymandering along party lines and the purging of voter rolls by race and of the Supreme Court having turned a blind eye to these threats to democracy and to choice, the root of democracy. I fear a Senate that fails to pass bills meant to protect the polls.
I am more afraid of the Americans who create false websites to lure the unsuspecting.
I am most afraid of the conversations that average people have. Several obsessions seem to be gripping the population. One is to insist that “my” current favorite candidate is the only person who can beat the White House occupant. Another is that only a political moderate can triumph.
Being impressed by a person, whether it is by their thoughts, or their speech patterns, or even by their physical appearance is just that: a first impression. A conversation with a candidate might be enjoyable, even enlightening, but it does not mean that person should be president. Thoughtfulness, wit, being informed and empathy are all traits we want to see in our chief executive but are not the complete package.
More importantly, because a voter likes/admires/is excited by a candidate is not a reason to tell others how to vote. Nor does it give license to ridicule another’s favorite. Listening to WAMC’s program, “The Round Table,” I heard political analyst Libby Post remind us that we are voting for a candidate and not a saint.
When I walked into the classroom for a course on voter obstruction, a stranger said something I thought inappropriate. I dodged, she laughed and labeled me a lover of a certain candidate. Three days later, another stranger, speaking outside the context of politics, accused me of hating that same candidate, who I neither love nor hate, who hadn’t entered my thoughts.
What makes a moderate seem guaranteed to win? The most repeated answer is an “extremist” candidate will frighten middle-of-the road Democrats; the next is a moderate will draw in disaffected Republicans. Once in a while, the answer is, “I’m a moderate.” Does that mean only those who self-describe as moderates have the right to speak?
I’m not trying to negate First Amendment rights. Discussion is enriching. I use social media as a digest because I can not afford subscriptions beyond the New York Times online and PBS’ Passport. Nor can I read and watch that much in a day. It helps me when a friend posts something that I would not have otherwise encountered. I welcome their article recommendations, which generate a greater understanding of a candidate and/or an issue.
But advertising one’s favored candidate might cause a head-first leap onto a bandwagon. Information is valuable. Strictly speaking, one voter’s perception of a candidate is not information about the candidate, but, about that voter. Why should I take the word of a person I “know” only through social media? Or of a college friend I haven’t seen in years? Of a cordial neighbor with whom I never had a deep conversation?
So, what is a moderate? I’ve asked people on social media but never received an answer. I pointed out that, during the 20th century, voting patterns in the western democracies swung, from left to right and back again. Swings could mean that the current administration now bores or frustrates the populace. It may show that people’s political philosophies are flexible or have changed, or that a cherished governance no longer works.
The definitions of conservative, liberal and moderate have changed over the centuries. One of the United Kingdom’s most famous politicians, the conservative Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli, brought an end to laissez-faire economics because he saw a need to protect the working class. Can you hear part of our population screaming, “Socialism”?
Finally, there is a fear of candidates’ proposals. Before the nominating convention, a politician’s idea is only a statement. It is not a plank. However, even a platform is not a bill. Crafting a bill could take years, during which input from the public and legislators could create an entirely new concept.
Change happens. Technology has a push-pull effect not only on the economy but on ethics and law. Crises arise which must be addressed by sweat, by thought and by law. Tensions stir within a population. Today, there is a new version of the generation gap because the millennials are confronting problems their parents and grandparents fail to understand.
Change, if constructive, will improve lives. However, solutions and peace among us will only be possible if we consider the good and the bad of each candidate and every issue.
A native of Michigan, Susan Wozniak belongs to three alumni associations with at least one other woman named Susan Wozniak in each. She can be reached at columnists@gazettenet.com.