Shockingly, my 15-year old son has recently become interested in politics. We’re not ready to take off the ski hat, cut our hair, pull up our pants, and don a coat and tie like Michael J. Fox in the 1980s sitcom “Family Ties,” but it’s a start.
Indeed, this emerging interest had me channeling Kenneth Branaugh in the remake of the movie Frankenstein, when said creature stirred for the first time and Branagh looked to the heavens and wailed, “It’s A-liiiiivvvvveeeeee!” Productive intellectual inquisitiveness in the teen male must always be encouraged, no matter how flickering the flame. Words must be chosen carefully so as to gently fan that flame, rather than put it out.
On primary nights, the lad has asked me to turn the television onto CNN “so we can watch the scores.” It’s not a logical leap from ESPN, I guess, and politics is the biggest spectator sport in this country, so I do nothing to disabuse him of the notion.
His comments with respect to Mrs. Clinton would sit well with her adversaries. He’s dumbstruck at how she can conceivably be trying to change the rules with respect to Michigan and Florida. “That sucks,” he says, “isn’t that cheating?”
Our discussion about Barack Obama struck me, however. He asked me if I liked Obama. I said that I did like his style and would be OK with him as our president. I said I worried about his foreign policy experience and how much his social programs would cost me in terms of increased taxes, but that I also think he would be refreshing.
He said he thought I liked McCain, and asked why I hadn’t asked his sibling to take the McCain sticker off the truck he drives. I told him that I do like McCain, and that I intend to vote for him.
This puzzled him. With his head cocked quizzically, like the image of the little dog staring into the Victrola horn that adorned the RCA logo, he asked, “But how can you like Obama if you are going to vote for McCain?”
I explained that it was OK to respect someone who held different political opinions than yours. I mentioned that Ted Kennedy and Orrin Hatch were fast friends. I then explained who Orrin Hatch was.
I reminded him that if I couldn’t respect people of differing viewpoints, I couldn’t stay married to his mother. He said he figured it was because I was cheap, and didn’t want to give up half of what I own.
And then it hit me. This kid was born in 1992. All he knows are the Clinton and W Bush years. All he’s heard about are Whitewater, perjury, sex scandal, impeachment proceedings, the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy, Stolen Elections, Swift Boating, Cutting and Running, and the fact that “Bush Lied and People Died.”
There hasn’t been civil political discourse in his lifetime. He’s seen nothing from our national leaders to suggest respect for differing viewpoints. I reminded him that the two incumbents I beat when I have run for selectman are people whom I still respect, noting that I have talked often with the most recent individual I beat and that we share common views on many local issues. I threw out the tired line that people can disagree without being disagreeable about it.
This past Sunday I sat down to watch Meet the Press where Obama second Senator Dick Durbin and Clinton second Senator Chuck Schumer postured over the role super delegates should hold in the Democratic National Convention, and whether or not the Michigan and Florida delegates should be recognized. Will this thing turn into a circular firing squad? Will it turn nasty, disillusioning the millions of young voters and nominally civic minded teens tuning into current events for the first time in their lives?
Young people questioning adults as to how they could like someone for whom they do not intend to vote is a symptom. It is the Geiger counter crackling in our ear, warning us of the excessive toxicity and radioactive nature of the posturing that has been oozing out of Washington, polluting our national political discourse for, essentially, an entire generation.
We need more young pups gathering around the RCA Victrola that is our political system.
Here’s hoping the political leaders keep the partisan attack dogs leashed, if not euthanized, so we do not scare the kids back to their video games and sports programs.
I would like to respond very quickly to some of the points made in the above post, first noting that in your third paragraph where you write, “it’s NOT a logical leap from ESPN” (capitalization added), I assume “not” should be deleted, i.e., that it actually IS a logical leap from ESPN. Otherwise I’m not sure why, in the context you presented, it’s not a logical leap.
It’s interesting that your son seems to assume that, in 2008, politicians should be counted on to remain ingenuous and high-minded, not only in their rhetoric but in the actual conduct of intraparty struggles, e.g., the issue of recognizing Michigan and Florida delegates. That probably speaks well of his political upbringing. But I myself took for granted, when I first voted in 1972, that any politician’s pretense of ingenuousness was either a clumsy way of lying or a sign of being a political cripple. I was then and remain now less concerned about whether politicians behave honorably while struggling to gain the White House than whether they will govern effectively if elected — although I note that Mitt Romney’s very explicit hypocrisy was probably a clue to his probable governing philosophy, since it was a sign that he probably did not consider himself in any way morally accountable to the voters.
But at any rate, it’s too much to expect Republicans to behave honorably before or after McCain is nominated. Already Peggy Noonan has published her Wall Street Journal column in which she deliberately misrepresents the wording of Michelle Obama’s “I am now really proud of America” (or something like that) speech, in order to further misrepresent both Barack and Michelle Obama as “cocooned” liberal elitists. In fact, the Obamas are liberal but they’ve never been cocooned. The problem for the GOP is that McCain will be effectively running on the record of George W. Bush, who is the most cocooned conservative that ever held office in this country. It will be more helpful for the GOP to drop the distortions and actually inform the voters about how Clinton or Obama would likely govern if elected. No Swiftboating, no cultural/racial hysteria, just tell the voters that, in domestic policy, Obama and Clinton are left-wing statists, just as George W. Bush is a right-wing statist, and that, given the foreign situation, Obama or Clinton would effectively govern as neocons even while repudiating the rhetoric of neoconservatism — whereas McCain, precisely because he already has lifelong credibility as a hawk, will have the political room to move away from neoconservatism and back toward a more realistic Mideast policy (cf. LBJ’s Vietnam disaster versus Nixon’s visit to China).
Sorry for the long post and long sentences. This was a quick writeup.