the return of the undecided -- an exchange (part 2)

more from my email conversation with Cathy -- part 1 is here -- the student who is still undecided about the election: I wrote later still on 9/9/04:

not to pile things on, but I just thought of something else: a while back I looked at the two campaigns' websites. john kerry's had his name and picture and words plastered all over it. On George Bush's site, the names, pictures, and words were all of ... (drumroll) ... John Kerry.

That is: Bush, because he doesnt have a record of accomplishment to run on, is running as the "not-Kerry". That is why Cheney has to say a vote for Kerry is a vote for Osama. All they have left is the fear they can manufacture.

Just as we ask of Kerry that he present clearly his ideas and plans for the next four years, so should we ask Bush. And then we can examine whether they add up or make sense. In Bush's case we have the added benefit of being able to compare what he proposes with what he has done.

all for now.

Cathy replied on 9/10/04:

No I didn't think you were being dismissive, I found your comment rather funny(in a good way). First, I appreciate all of the information you are sending me and I agree with much of what you say about both Kerry and Bush. My biggest problem is I think they are both spoiled rich kids who haven't a clue about the the world most American live in. My other problem is trying to decide if I am democrat or republican; I believe in some of what each party stands for. I don't believe in big business and I don't believe in creating social programs that only mask a problem but do nothing to actually help it. I'm also not sure anymore where each party stands on the issues they have each seemed to drift somewhat in their thinking. It would be easy if I clearly felt one way or the other, then I could vote the party line and be done with it, but wouldn't that be a copout? And I truly believe anything on either candidates website is propaganda designed to get them elected.

Pursuing my education in history has done a couple of things: it has opened my eyes and brought to me many things I never learned in school and has made me more critical and discerning in what I read and has also left me more skeptical about the motives of our leaders. All good things to be sure, but it has left me feeling very isillusioned.

Anyway, continue to keep me informed I enjoy the reading, although I don't always agree. Maybe we could debate the issue again before election day?
Till next time,
CAthy

I replied later on 9/10/04:

I am sorry, Cathy, but it is just a copout to dismiss all political rhetoric as "propaganda." Of course, they are saying what they believe will get them elected. But it bears some resemblence to what they have done and what we can reasonably expect they will do. It is our job to decipher and decode that.

In this campaign we have not only two very different visions of the future of America, but we have two very different styles of presenting those visions. So even if both are "propaganda" they are not of the same type. So we can choose between them.

I am pushing harder on you with each email because I sense from you not an intellectual decision that you are having trouble with, but an emotional (for lack of a better word) one. Without being so presumptuous or rude as to get into your psychology, I would like to suggest an explanation for the problem you are facing. I will try to be clear, but it is complex and I am just starting to figure this out; and it is not just you I am thinking about, but many Americans.

Here goes: I think that we have been so bombarded by the right-wing media machine over the last decade (and I can give you several books to read that show how this works) that we really can't see through the bullshit. And I know you are quite intelligent. But we have been subjected to so many lies that we think everything is a lie, so we can just choose the lies we want to believe.

I recommend the book or the documentary film called The Hunting of the President. I know you are not a Clinton fan, but what the book and movie show is the unrelenting and well-financed campaign to destroy the Clinton presidency from before he even came into office.

I am sorry but it is just not equal right now, both dems and repubs as politician scum in it for the money, sex and power. Over the past 40 years the Republicans have built up a largely hidden machine for accruing power. Sure, democrats can be just as corrupt, sleazy, selfish etc. And sure Republicans can be well-meaning and trying to do good for the country. But those Republicans arent the ones who control things right now.

and here is my final point, before I finish my rant: they are not even conservative!!! It is not conservative to destroy the environment. It is not conservative to send the country into billions of dollars of debt while giving that money away to your already wealthy friends and sticking Cathy and Dewar's children with the bill (it was not a tax cut but a tax shift they enacted; someone has to pay for the spending increases). It is not conservative to shread the Consitution -- some examples: tell me where in the Constitution it says that the Supreme Court has ANY say in who the President is; their decision in 2000 went against not just the people's will, but also their own normal "strict constructionist" interpretation. Or how about the Patriot Act which allows the government to arrest American citizens indefinitely without charging them with a crime. Or the justice department memos that declared the President to be above the law and thus able to violate treaties to which the US is a signatory, including the Geneva Conventions.

I am not trying to pick on you or bludgeon you with my knowledge, but to honestly try to get at how you can be undecided. If you just havent been following closely enough, fine. There is still plenty of time to get up to speed and make a choice. But I sense there is something else at work here.

looking forward to your response. dewar.

I will let Cathy have the last word for now, with her response from 9/11/04:

I am not dismissing all political rhetoric as "propaganda" and I'm sorry if I gave you that impression. I will however agree that I do tend to make decisions more from an emotional stand; it's a character flaw I am working on. Unfortunetly for me, one of the things my paper on Nixon taught me is how easy it was for the press to be manipulated or how bias they can be, but it also taught me to be more discerning and skeptical.
As far as the 2000 election, it wasn't the only election where the President elect did not recieve the majority of the popular vote. And while we are on that subject, why didn't Florida take the necessary steps to fix thier problem before the 2004 election? And don't tell me it's because the govenor is the Presidents brother. There are certainly enough democrats in that state who could have lobbied to address the problem.
Yes, there are both evil and good politicians on both sides of the fence, but I think the reason I take the republican side so often is because I am surrounded by democrats who do nothing but bash them, so I look for reasons to defend them. A friend of mine once told me that my problem in life was that I thought there was could in everybody but I needed to realize there isn't good in anybody. I think that last part is a little harsh but I do happen to believe that there is good in everybody, including George Bush.