STORY TOOLS

• E-mail story
• iPod friendly
• Printer friendly

More Columnists

• Martin Schram: Kennedy puts ’soul’ back into Democrats
• Brent Batten: Hillary surprises DNC by personally calling for Obama’s nomination
• Brent Batten: Hillary Clinton supports Obama

Share and Enjoy [?]

I don’t want to scare away any readers, but this column is political... sort of. Relax. Be assured my columns will continue to eschew the issues and personalities of the local and national campaigns. But I will not resist an occasional effort that focuses on the humor that democratic elections throw our way. In the spirit of fun, I will avoid all “names” — in order to staunch any flow of letters to the editor by upset partisans!

Much of the humor in the campaigns is in the flood of cliches that wash over us, largely without notice or, for that matter, definition. For example, I heard one major candidate this week say that he was running against the “Washington establishment,” which, I suspect, means “those who I want to move out so I can take my place there.” Whatever. Not unexpectedly, he followed that up immediately with the charge “they” were “out of touch” with — are you ready for this one? — “what the people in the heartland think.”

An Iraqi, interested in what Americans think, might look that up in his atlas and find his finger somewhere in the vicinity between Topeka, Kan., and Lincoln, Neb. He may also be puzzled that the map “states” were not prominently colored in either red or blue, so often cited by U.S. politicians. Indeed, these phrases are used so commonly by politicians so as to be trite and, arguably, without useful meaning.

There’s more here. The same candidate continued saying that his opponents were uninterested in “working American’” and “struggling middle-class” concerns. Of course, next expect his opponent will charge negative campaigning and hurl those back with additional cliches inserted.

Politicians love the adjective attack. They cannot leave a noun that has some common meaning without preceding it with an adjective that obfuscates its definition. For example above: “American” not alone, but must follow the adjective “working,” “middle-class” is preceded by “struggling” and “campaigning” is prefaced with “negative.” No trouble with the meaning of the nouns, but with those juicy attack adjectives attached, wouldn’t any reasonable person have a tough time defining what the combination means? Which “working American?” Driving a bus? In construction? Big Mac server? A CEO? (Few Americans, indeed, are not working!) And that “struggling middle-class?” What? Many in our working class (OK, use your definition!), we have come to accept, must struggle to move into the “middle.” Yet if they arrive, it is assumed only to find more struggling? A whole class? How can this be? Start defining and the meaning muddle becomes more dense!

And the oratorical spotlight is ever on negativity — “those negative ads,” “ that negative strategy,” “that negative position.” So? We have been told, incessantly, that voters do not like negative campaigning. Oh, really? The media rushes to opponents asking leading questions about an ad, fueling a merely harsh, creatively clever or humorous put-down ad into a blaze of TV spots framing it as a negative, dirty attack! Candidates must pay handsomely for air time for their positive ads — millions! Let that ad be labeled unfair or negative by opponents and it is on a free ride all over the 24/7 channels! Face it — a great portion of the serious business of choosing our government leaders become simply entertainment. Sad. But how many can deny that?

The political prefixes and adjectives that are more capable than many others at bringing me to audible laughter are those tied with “partisan.’’ For my amusement, I rank at the top “non-partisan.’’ A close second, “bi-partisan.’’ The former is a speech favorite that unctuously declares fidelity to issues that few can oppose. “I shall champion non-partisanship in defense of our nation’s freedom!!” (Standing applause here.) “I shall lead a bi-partisan coalition in solving the critical issue of Social Security solvency!” (Here, too.)

Am I off base? Are not individual voters in our great democracy encouraged to be partisan about important issues? It is called freedom of choice. We vote for leaders who we believe will be partisan to our needs. And bi-partisan is a code word or synonym for “getting along with everyone” or “all opposing views now in agreement.’’ (“Bi-partisan action” is a variant code phrase for “Everyone agreeing to do what I want them to do!”) Would one ever expect to hear “Vote for me and I will further widen the gap of partisan disagreement that exists in Washington today!” Of course not. Of course – yes, bi-partisanship! How achieved? “Thank you and God Bless America!”

And one final smile. The pol quoted throughout this column declared that his opponent was disinterested in the values that Americans discuss around the dinner table. Folksy, sure. Meaningful? How frequently, reader, are the American values and political views your family holds discussed around your dinner table?

- - -

Ted Beranis, of Bonita Springs, is a retired educator.