Then, last night, a commenter below pointed to the twits at Indymedia putting up the names, addresses, phone numbers, and hotels for RNC delegates -- and there's only one reason to do that: to spook or assault these people. I won't link to it so as not to be an accessory to this would-be crime.
Is character really an issue?
: It's accepted wisdom that character is an issue in elections, especially Presidential elections. Let's examine that assumption.
Sure, if you know with good evidence that a candidate is a lying, thieving, stealing, sliming, philadering, cheating, insane idiot and louse -- well, then, yes, character is an issue.
But when is any human being really so one-dimensionally flawed (and when -- since 1933 -- are every one of his backers so hypnotized or stupid or corrupt to allow him to get this far in life)?
Now I know what some of you are going to say: Aha! You have a problem with character because Kerry's character is being attacked and you're likely to vote for him; how friggin' convenient for you! Think what you will; you will anyway. I had the exact same problem with Michael Moore going after Bush's character and even went on CNN to defend Bush against Moore. I am equal-opportunity on this topic: I hate both sides' muck. So try to rise up out of the primordial ooze of political mud and mire for a moment and consider the question of the real value of debate over a candidate's -- any candidate's -- character.
I find that I have many problems with character as a campaign issue:
1. Character is not a measure of competence. And what I really want in a President is competence. Jimmy Carter had character; he was a terrible President. Jerry Ford was his Republican counterpart: good guy, nothing President. Bill Clinton ended up with a cracked character but I say he was a good President. Richard Nixon had the character of a cockroach, yet he was, in many ways, quite competent.
2. Character is used mostly as an excuse for good old-fashioned political mudslinging: Dig and sling some dirt at a candidate and then hide behind the oh-so-noble notion that you're just trying to reveal the candidate's character when all you're really doing is running a dirty campaign.
3. Character is the argument that will never end. If you don't like the candidate, you'll say he has crappy character. If you like the candidate, you'll defend his character and say that the other side is just a bunch of character assassins. Wheels spin, mud spurts, and we don't get anywhere. It's mean-spirited. It's unproductive.
4. Character cannot truly be measured until it is tested. You won't know whether someone has the character to face the Presidency until he or she faces it. You won't likely know whether they'll step up to the plate or steal it until you watch them faced with the choice.
5. Character is a distraction from the issues that really matter, the issues a President can influence that, in turn, affect our lives. Look at this campaign in many blogs and certainly on TV: We're not arguing the important issues that supposedly divide us; we're sniping instead. Once again, it's unproductive. Worse, it's divisive and destructive.
6. Character is a proxy for morality and morality is a proxy for religion and religion mixed with government always scares me. We hear candidates attacked because of their character and values and what that too often really means is that the snipers disagree with the candidate's stand on abortion or gay marriage or school voucher or even the environment and development. Slippery, that slope.
None of this is to say that we will not or should not vote on character. At the end of the day, unless a candidate has a stand or stands we simply abhor, each of us will inevitably end up judging whether to vote for candidates based on whether we trust or admire or like them. That's as it should be.
But when we start arguing over such intangible and personal criteria -- when we start yelling at other people that they should or should not trust or admire or like someone the way we do -- then the argument reaches often absurd and usually useless depths.
This election, its issues, and its choices are too important to let that happen.
Is character an issue or a distraction? Is character and issue or a weapon?
Testing blog mettle
: Think of the next 11 weeks until the election as a challenge: as a test of weblogs' real value:
When we wake up after the election, will we be able to point to the ways and posts in which this new medium contributed, or at least tried to contribute, to improving the coverage of the campaign and the policies of the candidates and the wisdom of the electorate? Will we have made a difference at all? Or will we have made it worse?
Did we push the coverage and the candidates in ways that mattered? Or did we wallow in mud?
Now is our opportunity to show what we can do. So what can we do?
I am blogs' biggest booster, blathering on to any who unfortunate enough to listen about the power of citizens' media.
But I also have to say that I've been a bit disheartened in recent days by the incessant gotchaism of some blogs and more commenters in our new medium.
OK, we're human. And we're independent. Bloggers have opinions and the means to share them. A blogger is under no obligation or expectation from anyone else to fix the world or do journalism's job or cure its ills or, Lord knows, to repair politics. You want to say -- and say again -- that you think Bush/Kerry is a liar or stupid or a flip-flopper or frightening or incompetent, great: Have at it. Pluck the low-hanging fruit of democracy.
But we also say that blogs gives us all an opportunity to present a new viewpoint and to bring together information from disparate sources and to turn news and campaigns and even government into conversations and to improve them.
So are we?
I'm not talking just about the Swifies or the Mooreites, so don't get mired in all that. And I'm certainly not trying to say that I'm any paragon of value or virtue myself, so spare us your sputting comments; I'm no expert in health care and that's why I wish wiser bloggers than me would illuminate the subject. And as I say in another post today, I also don't want to find this wallowing in another roundabout about character.
I hope that what we can contribute is better conversation and debate and information and questions about the issues that affect our lives and our world. I hope that we can contribute is a better gauge of what citizens are saying. I hope that what we can contribute is a push to improve campaigning and coverage of it.
So here's my challenge: As you see examples -- on the blogs you read or the blogs you write -- of posts that in any way improve this campaign, save them. When it's over, on the morning after, I'll ask again. And then let's assess our value.
We bloggers are all quick to judge mainstream media. Shouldn't we turn the same spotlight on ourselves?
...
