Last night, I watched the full presidential debate.
I know, I know. I was watching it almost a full day after everyone in the States had the privilege of seeing Secretary Clinton and Mr. Trump go at each other's throats live, so I had clearly already seen the late-night highlights and read ALL of the news dissecting their performances. (Also, the event was PACKED!)
I don't normally watch presidential debates--usually because I've always had some paper due, or some reading to finish, or because I've pretty much already decided who I plan to vote for, so watching an extended infomercial just seemed like a waste of time.
This election has been different though. When the Republican primary debates happened, I watched one or two. And when the Democratic debates happened, I think I also watched one of those.
Even when I was in Spain last summer, it felt different. That was when Trump declared his candidacy and said all of the ridiculous things at a time that people now look back on fondly as an age of innocence. We just didn't know how BADLY discourse would break down in this election (though, with hindsight being 20/20, we TOTALLY should have seen this coming).
And I use the word "felt" in the above paragraph intentionally. Elections in the US are always about feeling: both Bush and Obama won because they were the candidates that people wanted to have a beer with. Gut instinct trumps logic most of the time in US elections, and that's why this one has been so fascinating, perverse and scary for me. Because our gut instinct is a very powerful thing, but most people don't actually know how to understand what it's telling them.
To take an example:
My one criticism with Oliver here is that feelings ARE facts. However, Gingrich is not expressing feelings, he's expressing opinions. People don't feel that crime is up (even though it's not). People BELIEVE that crime is up. A feeling is embodied; it's a neurological and physiological reaction to specific circumstances. "Crime being up" is not something you can feel. People may be afraid. They may feel threatened. (Most likely because we live in a scary and violent world that has ALWAYS been scary and violent, and nostalgia does funny things with our minds and makes us forget that last part).
Those feelings are valid and need to be paid attention to. But they should not be played on, exaggerated, baited and manipulated. They should be confronted and resolved, as steadily and calmly as possible.
And so, watching this debate was difficult, mostly because I know that there are people who will vote against their own best interest, purely because their feelings are at play.
And yet, other aspects of the debate reminded me of this one:
And that makes me smile inside.
I know, I know. I was watching it almost a full day after everyone in the States had the privilege of seeing Secretary Clinton and Mr. Trump go at each other's throats live, so I had clearly already seen the late-night highlights and read ALL of the news dissecting their performances. (Also, the event was PACKED!)
I don't normally watch presidential debates--usually because I've always had some paper due, or some reading to finish, or because I've pretty much already decided who I plan to vote for, so watching an extended infomercial just seemed like a waste of time.
This election has been different though. When the Republican primary debates happened, I watched one or two. And when the Democratic debates happened, I think I also watched one of those.
Even when I was in Spain last summer, it felt different. That was when Trump declared his candidacy and said all of the ridiculous things at a time that people now look back on fondly as an age of innocence. We just didn't know how BADLY discourse would break down in this election (though, with hindsight being 20/20, we TOTALLY should have seen this coming).
And I use the word "felt" in the above paragraph intentionally. Elections in the US are always about feeling: both Bush and Obama won because they were the candidates that people wanted to have a beer with. Gut instinct trumps logic most of the time in US elections, and that's why this one has been so fascinating, perverse and scary for me. Because our gut instinct is a very powerful thing, but most people don't actually know how to understand what it's telling them.
To take an example:
My one criticism with Oliver here is that feelings ARE facts. However, Gingrich is not expressing feelings, he's expressing opinions. People don't feel that crime is up (even though it's not). People BELIEVE that crime is up. A feeling is embodied; it's a neurological and physiological reaction to specific circumstances. "Crime being up" is not something you can feel. People may be afraid. They may feel threatened. (Most likely because we live in a scary and violent world that has ALWAYS been scary and violent, and nostalgia does funny things with our minds and makes us forget that last part).
Those feelings are valid and need to be paid attention to. But they should not be played on, exaggerated, baited and manipulated. They should be confronted and resolved, as steadily and calmly as possible.
And so, watching this debate was difficult, mostly because I know that there are people who will vote against their own best interest, purely because their feelings are at play.
And yet, other aspects of the debate reminded me of this one:
With its great closing statement:
And that makes me smile inside.
No comments:
Post a Comment