The Word: Presidential Election
Main Entry: char·ac·ter
Pronunciation: \ˈker-ik-tər, ˈka-rik-\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English caracter, from Latin character mark, distinctive quality, from Greek charaktēr, from charassein to scratch, engrave;
2 a: one of the attributes or features that make up and distinguish an individual c: the complex of mental and ethical traits marking and often individualizing a person, group, or nation
"The President we get is the country we get. With each new President the nation is conformed spiritually. He is the artificer of our malleable national soul. He proposes not only the laws but the kinds of lawlessness that govern our lives and invoke our responses. The people he appoints are cast in his image. The trouble they get into, and get us into, is his characterisitc trouble. Finally, the media amplify his character into our moral weather report. He becomes the face of our sky, the conditions that prevail...
That a President is inevitably put forward and elected by the forces of established wealth and power means usually that he will be indentured by the time he reaches office. But in fact he is the freest of men if he will have the courage to think so and, at least theoretically, could be so transported by the millions of people who have endorsed his candidacy as to want to do the best for them. He might come to solemn appreciation of the vote we cast, in all our multicolored and multigendered millions, as an act of trust, fingers crossed, a kind of prayer."
That was from an article written by E.L. Doctorow in 1992 following the election of Mr. Clinton. It is being typed into this web log as there a lot of chatter about a scandal whirling around John McCain. Well, he did mention recently that he was imperfect. At least, there may be some substance in this discussion if he did indeed do favours for a lobbyist as opposed to having an affair with her.
Doctorow's words are very poignant in the wake of Chris Matthews' arrogant postering over the non-response of an Obama supporter on the Senator's legislative record. Matthews doesn't seem to get that this election is not about all that. It's about character and not character that implies so-called moral superiority, but the kind that can "invoke our responses." A presidency is more than past accomplishments.
As was also noted in an editorial in that same issue of The Nation that it is up to the electorate to ratify the process. It's got to be more than that. The chatterboxes and talking heads make it about the process, but they diminish the process with silly and empty discussions about Michelle Obama's patriotism and Barack Obama's alleged palagiarism. Those who talked about those fake issues don't even understand the meaning of the word.
Chris Matthews and his kind would be providing a much better service to those who get to ratify the process by actually talking about Obama's history in order that it may become less about the process, but more about those who would endorse a candidacy.
Comments