Like many other people across Europe and around the world, I stayed up all night last Tuesday to watch the results of the US elections. Barack Obama‘s landslide victory was thrilling to watch; the first black President (elect) in a country that had been riven with seemingly insurmountable racial prejudice only a few decades ago. This was history in the making.
And yet, in spite of all the tears and declarations of tectonic shifts in the Western political landscape, I found that one of the most striking and moving moments of the night was, in fact, Senator John McCain‘s concession speech.
f
f
McCain was incredibly gracious and well-spoken. He radiated nobility in the face of crushing defeat. He had the air of a wise old man who, happy that he had been given “a fair hearing” by the American people, accepted his loss with admirable grace and magnanimity.
And yet, what was most surprising, to me at least, was that McCain seemed utterly different from the man we had watched in the Presidential debates and almost all of the media coverage of the electoral race. Indeed, up until Tuesday night, McCain appeared a man bent on employing lowbrow tactics, both in terms of how he addressed the public and attacked his rival.
Both he and (especially) Sarah Palin seemed to use every available opportunity to speak to their public in base terms, employing verbiage of the lowest common denominator rather than properly addressing the relevant issues. In the debates, for example, McCain’s speech was peppered with platitudes; he preceded almost every statement with the words “My friends”, inserted the words “America” and “this great country” repeatedly into sentences where they really had no place, and pinned the addendum “I can fix this problem” onto many points – without having delineated just how he was going to fix that problem.
Sarah Palin’s contentions were even more base; she simply echoed all of the above (adding in “Doggone it” and “Say it ain’t so, Joe!”) while propagating her image as an all-American hockey mom. The lowest point in her debate with Senator Biden had to be when she did a “shout-out” to all the kids in Gladys Wood Elementary school:
f
f
This type of coarse appeal to middle-America had no place in the current political climate, where international crises like the war in Iraq and the global economic meltdown need to be dealt with effectively.
It seemed to me that this approach was a callous ploy on the part of Republican party. They knew, 100%, that a electoral campaign based on honest debate on economic and foreign policy issues was virtually unwinnable. After all, it was eight years of Dubya and GOP policies that had brought America to its knees and added 4 Trillion dollars to the national debt – almost doubling it in just two Presidential terms (In fact, the National Debt Clock in Manhattan recently had have another digit added to it to accommodate the new 10 Trillion figure).
f
f
So, the Republicans decided to argue their case using as little actual data as possible and as many rabble-rousing cliches and platitudes as they could. Also, though they denied playing “the race card”, it’s obvious that it was in fact played many times over, though tacitly so. Pointing out Obama’s highly tenuous link to ex-radical Bill Ayers, the Republicans seized the opportunity to use the word “terrorist” and associate it repeatedly with their rival. This played right into the hands of the many less-informed people who, astonishingly, actually believed that Obama may secretly have been a Muslim.
Soon after that, Obama made the mistake of explaining to supposed everyman Joe the Plumber that he would “spread the wealth around”:
f
f
While this may seem an ostensibly innocuous statement (and even praiseworthy, considering the massive divide between affluence and poverty in Western economies), the Republicans took it and ran with it. Obama was now a Communist Muslim (It brought to mind that episode of the Simpsons where McBain has to defend America from the Commie Nazis). In fact, the highlight of the entire electoral campaign for me was Vice-President elect Joe Biden’s reaction when a right-wing interviewer accused Obama of Marxism outright:
f
f
The thing is, all of these silly attacks and lowbrow wooing of the Bible-Belt seemed to come as second nature to Sarah Palin; she dove into slandering her rivals with aplomb. But McCain never looked entirely comfortable with this approach. During the debates he appeared tense and uptight, and rarely did he achieve the verbal ease of the man onstage with him. He seemed like a fish out of water.
And indeed, even a cursory glance at the man’s record appears to confirm that he may not have been at all suited to the party line he was pushing. A few weeks ago, I watched two excellent documentaries: Taxi To The Dark Side and Shut Up And Sing. Both films looked at contemporary US issues; the former, imprisonment and torture of terrorist suspects and the latter, censorship in the media. Incredibly, John McCain featured in both of them. Even more incredibly, he was a hero in both films. In particular, in Shut Up And Sing, he attacked the the monopoly of radio stations who had refused to play the Dixie Chicks’ music after they had famously spoken out against George W Bush.
In doing so, he seemed to be railing against the mindless, reactionary intolerance that yet exists within certain American cultural strata; people who would go out and actually destroy the artistic work of (and in a few cases, threaten to kill) anyone who dared question a war that seemed to have no valid basis – or the President who had instigated it.
This was the true Maverick John McCain; defender of free speech.
So where did that guy go?
It seems to me that for the duration of the electoral campaign at least, he was railroaded by the pressures of the Republican party. He had to put his most honest convictions aside and take the path of least resistance in order to garner votes. He had to play up the mores and vapid adages of the Middlest of Middle America. He had to play the numbers game. But I’m not sure his heart was in it.
The warmth, humility and compassion of his concession speech showed that McCain is nothing like the frustrated old man we saw in the debates. He is an intelligent and highly skilled man, and probably would have made a good President. But America (and the world) wanted change – which is precisely what the Democratic campaign promised. And based on Obama’s stunning intellectual ability and keen awareness of global issues, I think it’s safe to say that he will be, at the very least, an extremely capable leader.
But the other great thing about Obama’s victory is that it demonstrates that America does not make its decisions based solely on trashy axioms and insults. The bible-bashing, “I can kill ‘cos in God I trust” brigade will not always win out, in spite of pandering to their huge numbers in the most shameless fashion. All of the cries of Muslim, Terrorist, Communist etc, seemed to have little or no impact; if anything, they were perceived as invidious by most and actually hurt the McCain/Palin ticket. The exploitation of ignorance and fear is an incredibly powerful political tool – but in this election, even its extensive use has proven ultimately futile.
And in terms of milestones for the new century, that’s almost up there with the election of the first African-American to the White House.
It’s such a truism that wherever you go in life, whatever you achieve, you will invariably meet a few people who are callous and sour, who seem to want to insult others for no good reason. Whether you’re in the dregs or the gods, someone is usually liable to start lobbing vitriol without cause.
I’m not referring simply to a lack of social tact, but to those who speak with the obvious intention of hurting another; that special brand of human that evidently derives pleasure from seeing another become upset.
In conversations relating to social interactions, one of the most difficult things to discuss without bias are these types of abusive people. It’s so easy to turn into a bitching session, because the easiest (and most satisfying) way to look at them and their comments is to simply demonize them.
Because, really, just how difficult is it to follow The Golden Rule? Yes, it’s a cliche but one that remains self-evident: Isn’t it just… easier to be good and polite to people? In a purely practical sense, doesn’t it lessen the burden of social responsibility, of being mindful of others? Doesn’t it make life simpler and more carefree?
Maybe these traits are just habits of thinking, or maybe there’s something more to it. When I discussed this with others, we found ourselves referring to those who have made kindness and compassion a habit as having “figured it out”. It’s not something that necessarily comes with age, either. I know teenagers who seem to have it “figured out” and people of middle-age and older who are very difficult to deal with.
So then, what is the point of putting someone down? Something happened recently that gave me a little perspective on it. Anyone who keeps an eye on the news will know that the world is going through a huge economic crisis. My native country, Ireland, which had been until recently been experiencing an unprecedented financial boom, is now officially entering a recession.
Hearing about this on the news, it does bring a sense of despondence; things are going to get a bit rough.
Recession
But at the same time, I found myself experiencing a definite feeling of satisfaction; a sense of, “Well, it’s about bloody time we copped on to ourselves and stopped wasting so much money”.
I realized that this thought was not so much an objective view; rather, it was a feeling that all these politicians and property tycoons who had spent so much money, all those people who had borrowed ridiculous amounts of cash to purchase huge new houses and cars, were getting their just desserts. I couldn’t help but feel vindicated that those of us who had had financial responsibility drilled into our heads since childhood had come up trumps.
And yet, that’s still a generous description. Because basically, all it boils down to is that satisfying feeling that more people have been brought to your level, that your social status is somehow more justified because more are now there with you.
And isn’t that type of thinking basically a more abstract version of insulting someone outright? It just remains contained rather than spoken. It’s still taking someone down a notch; not because you actually dislike them and feel that they deserve it, but because your own ego needs validation. It’s basically insecurity, and insecurity is very lonely. It causes us to seek out company. And which is the faster method of getting it – – working on oneself in order to remove any neuroses and foibles, or throwing a terrible insult at someone in order to make them feel insecure and lonely too? The personal development could take years, the insult, seconds.
So the person who casts that mean-spirited jibe is actually trying to bring the victim closer to themselves; Misery loves company. It can often be painful to witness the success or happiness of someone who was once in the same boat as you, while you’re still stuck in that boat. That’s why it’s often difficult to see someone you know get a promotion, go on a long trip abroad etc. It’s not because it affects you directly, though your ego may tell you so, but rather because the relationship between yourself and the person leaving has changed. And it’s always easier to leave than to be left behind.
If you look at any Internet chatroom that relates to a psychological condition, such as anxiety, bulimia etc, you will find that they are peopled almost entirely by people who seem to have the condition perpetually, rather than any who have recovered and want to offer help. Is this because people don’t want to help others once they’ve recuperated? No. It’s because the misery of these groups feed off themselves, love the company, and loathe the one who makes the move to leave the nest.
Those who say they are recovered are not immediately praised; in fact, they are regularly vilified and regarded as pariahs in the community. That person no longer meets the standards of sickness and misery necessary for acceptance, and are now considered a dangerous interloper.
Sponge
Indeed, the drive to surround oneself with peers with whom one feels equal is a basic animalistic trait; it even occurs on a cellular level. In his book The Lucifer Principle, author Howard Bloom describes how, when you run an aquatic sponge through a sieve, it will liquify into a muddy substance before its cells regroup . Run two of them into a bucket, and the cells from each will manage to recognise their own kind and reconstitute themselves into their original forms.
Similarly, if a person, dissatisfied with their selves or circumstances, finds themselves in amiable, happy company, they may feel desperately out of place. But who would up and leave their social stratum to seek out unhappier contemporaries? No; since they cannot recognise their kind around them, the abuse they hurl and misery they induce are an attempt to create their own kind.
Yes, it’s true that throwing insults at someone could be construed as little more than a socio-Darwinistic attempt to weaken others and drive them out of the social circle, gene pool, etc. But then, why do these exchanges happen so frequently between couples, siblings, people who should have no interest in gaining an evolutionary one-up on the other? Because to slight someone can have an alternate purpose. If the insulter feels troubled and insecure, the insult can create a similar state in the victim. In spite of all the drama and tears, at least both are back in the same boat.
It’s warped, but the most cutting aspersion can actually bring people together. And if disparity is so often the reason for the discharge of unwarranted malice, then, hopefully, maintaining one’s awareness of this fact can defuse its power completely.
Shaun O Connor 