Blah vs. Blah

It’s hard to ignore the plethora of coverage of the run-up to the presidential election, no matter how hard I try. But amidst the coverage of bloggers at the DNC, bloggers at the RNC, Michael Moore being dissed at both events, and the Swift Vet controversy, something is missing from the coverage. What could it be? Hmmm…oh, that’s right – actual examination of the issues!

Here’s something that I’ve noticed: no one seems to have done any serious analysis of either the Democratic platform or the Republican platform. That seems a little weird – or it would, if you hadn’t looked at the contents of either platform and already concluded that to the average person, they’re virtually identical.

A cursory review of the table of contents reveals the common themes (noted in Democrat-speak v. Republican-speak): Defeating Terrorism v. Winning The War on Terror, Strong Healthy Families v. Protecting Our Families, A Strong American Community v. Strengthening Our Communities.

Whoopee! Tell me something I don’t know! Then again, what else would you expect? It’s not like any politician stands up and says, “Hey everybody! I’ve been giving it a lot of thought, and I’ve decided I’m for less funding for education and healthcare!”

And therein lies the problem – everyone’s for everything before the election. Hell, just look at the size of these platforms – forty-one pages for the Democratic platform, and ninety-four pages for the Republican platform. It’s ironic that the Republicans, always pointing fingers at the “ivory tower” Democrats, have to spend twice as many pages on explaining their positions.

Who has the time to read this crap? The Republican paper is flowery, dense, soppy prose that reads like someone caught between a post-near-death-episode rediscovery of God and an overdose on Prozac. And while shorter, the Democratic platform doesn’t seem to be able to get to its point any more directly either. These things should fit into a page of bullet points, or five pages of printed text total – if the average voter can’t read a party’s platform in less than half an hour, then the platform is a failure.

But then, isn’t that the point?

If you could actually consume and ponder the entirety of either party’s stances, you might actually be informed. But voting isn’t about being informed anymore – the issues are complex, and the machinery of government obscure and untrustworthy in the average voter’s eyes. The proceeding devolve to name-calling and muck-raking, reducing the voter’s decision to which candidate is less despicable/or has better hair. In short, it becomes the same variety of popularity contest most people are more likely to associate with high-school elections.

Then again, what do I care? It’s not like I can vote in this country. Nothing to do but sit back, and listen to well-informed strip-club waitresses hold court on the political shenigans at the RNC.

Jarvis On NewsNight

The following is the text of a comment I posted to Jeff Jarvis’ blog, Buzzmachine, on his recent appearance on CNN NewsNight to discuss the recent Michael Moore film. His viewpoint has received quite a bit of criticism – unfairly, I believe.

Though I am a fan of Moore, if only for his attempt to try to change something (I do believe he is genuinely interested in having a positive impact on society), I do have to agree with Jeff’s assessment of the film and Moore’s style of film-making. Moore’s films do appear to resort to the same selective use of facts on their issues as the targets of their scrutiny (the NRA, big business, Bush and the Republicans).

However, I would argue that without resorting to an extreme viewpoint (not only in this film, but also in Bowling for Columbine), Moore would never be heard. Period. I’m not saying that’s a good thing – just the way it appears to work with US media audiences.

Speaking as a Canadian who only recently moved to the US, I have found the news and the viewpoints presented in the US media to be very insular, internally-focused. I didn’t have access to the CBC for four months and basically didn’t hear about anything except for local news, Washington news, or Iraq news. I’m pretty sure there was other stuff going on in the world that was just as bad, just as important, just as worthy of my attention.

The viewpoints being presented in the media are extreme, and complex issues are often distilled to sound-bites that depict difficult issues in black-and-white terms with no room for thoughtful consideration or analysis. They are not conversations. I don’t think I’ve ever heard anyone in the media present their viewpoint in a fashion that suggests they are interested in creating solutions or negotiating – no one has the guts to say “You know what, I’ve reconsidered what you’re saying, and I think you might have a point. Maybe I’m wrong on X.”

I am reminded of Moore’s segment in Bowling for Columbine, where he interviewed one of the producers of Cops. The producer said he couldn’t produce a similar show focusing on white-collar crime, because no one would watch it – it wouldn’t be interesting enough for the audience. Perhaps Moore came to a similar conclusion early in his film-making career – he freely admitted to putting his own spin on the facts on The Daily Show earlier this week. There is no doubt he is intelligent and creative, but perhaps providing a fair and balanced examination of the issues would win him no audience at all, no opportunity to shock us into thinking, to perform a cerebral resuscitation. Without resorting to extreme views, we would be left with only one point of view to consider.

That leaves the responsibility for thoughtful consideration up to us, the public. We have two extreme viewpoints – I believe the truth lies somewhere in between. If we’re going to talk, let’s talk – not just shout at each other.