Gripes

Give me a chance to "vent."

People who write columns should have (do have?) the right to grumble.  I forget which old-time writer, it could have been Sidney Harris or Andy Rooney, often seized the opportunity to share their pet irritants.  I hope you’ll forgive my indulgence with what has annoyed me during this election cycle. 

First, no one has the right to state as obvious and clear why someone did what they did, when there are reasonable alternative explanations.  We don’t have the right, let alone the ability, to “look inside” someone’s head. 

My case in point is the claim that Biden’s decision to withdraw from the election, and the pressure on him to do so, “proves” that he doesn’t have the mental capacity to be President either now or over the next four years.  And that therefore people in his administration, i.e. the Vice-President, are “traitors” to their country in not forcing his resignation now, if not in the past. 

The alternative would be that he believes, and most of his associates believe, that he is, and will be, able to do the job.  And further, that he was urged to drop out, and was persuaded to do so, by hard-nosed political professionals who believed he had not been able to convince enough Americans of his competence.  In other words, electoral candidacy is “hardball.”  If your opponent has been able to convince enough Americans (as shown in the polling) that you have a weakness that you and your strongest supporters believe you don’t have, you may need to bow out if there is a replacement with a better chance of winning the election.  Think of Lyndon Johnson. 

Now it may be true that Biden’s age was a risk for the country, and his “people” knew it, but there is a credible alternative explanation as to why he withdraw and we simply don’t actually know. 

Another frustration is the failure to distinguish between what a person would ideally favor and what that same person believes is the best that can be achieved.  This difference is often used as “proof” that candidates have changed their mind on an issue.   There is no inconsistency if one advocates the possible while still affirming the ideal.  And the possible does of course change with time and circumstance.  One of the skills of governing, of making choices for a group, is the ability to navigate reality. 

You don’t recommend a path through the mountain after an earthquake or avalanche has taken out a section.  And when you promise an outcome that does not happen, might it be that something that you couldn’t have foreseen changed.  Nailing inconsistencies in someone’s past writing or speech is usually a cheap shot and wrong.  And not just wrong but a misdirection.

And here is my final, for the time being, gripe.  You don’t slay the dragon by poking her with a stick. 

Candidates “get real” when they go to the heart of the most important and difficult of the issues confronting society.  This is the real world that we are talking about, not some kid’s game with wooden swords and skinned knees. The easy target is often the long-standing issue that is structurally imbedded in the system and cannot be “solved,” only managed. I remember a Bircher debating Robertt Kennedy who stood up on the informal TV set, took a defiant pose, and said “I am against wasteful government spending.” Kennedy replied with a smile, “you may be surprised to know that I and probably everyone in this room are against wasteful government spending. can we talk about the issues.”

Yes, can we talk about the issues. Surely the debates haven’t helped. Candidates do not directly answer questions. The better prepared they are, the more they have learned set pieces that don’t answer any question. That’s how it was planned. You win public approval by not losing it by a stray thought or word. In the past candidate have “lost” the debate, when they go off script.

And, of course, there is old fashion simple name calling, amusing when someone is deemed both a communist and a fascist in the same sentence.

It is a tactic that almost all of us left behind on the elementary school playground.

I call these “gripes,” because I do not plan to get “worked up” over any of them. They are what they are. And if they suggest an immaturity on the part of some of the people running for office, chalk it up to the fact that these are people who are actually running away from office, or at least my vote.