Have you heard the latest phrase from the McCain-Palin stomp speech? It consists of two very powerful words. “I’m angry.” To place the statement in context, Palin has said, “There is anger about the dealings of insider lobbyists, anger about the greed of Wall Street, and there’s anger about the arrogance of the Washington elite, and there is anger about voter fraud.” McCain has himself said, "You're angry and I'm angry too."
However, the issue I have with the “angry” statement is this: What are all these angry people supposed to do with their anger? The election is not until November 4th. Until then, are folks to let their anger simmer until it boils over into something ugly? God forbid they actually lose the election—then what are they to do with their anger? Are they to do as some extremists in the McCain-Palin crowd have suggests when they shouted “Off with his head,” Kill him! Get him!?”
McCain may want to say that he is utterly appalled, and state that he totally rejects Congressman John Lewis’ reference to John Wallace, in his condemnation of McCain’s campaign rally etiquette. However, the fact is, if McCain refuses to fiercely and immediately— on-the-spot—denounce such statements that come from the crowd at his campaign rallies, he is inadvertently condoning them.
I believe that that Congressman John Lewis—in his statement that “McCain and Palin were sowing seeds of hatred and division”— was simply saying that to allow such unbridled anger and hatred to bubble up and fester is dangerous, and has the potential—if unchecked—to lead to violent acts on the part of some. The campaign has a responsibility to not incite it, allow it or condone it.
Instead of pulling back on the rhetoric that solicited very troubling outbursts at their rallies last week, McCain and Palin decided to step-up the intensity this week by launching a new “You’re angry and I’m angry too” campaign slogan. It’s an interesting approach, but is it the right approach?
I believe that how individuals conduct their campaign is an indication of how they’ll conduct their presidency. Since its inception, the tone and tenor of the Obama campaign has consistently been one of hope and inclusion—focusing on what unites us, not divides us. Yes, the Obama campaign is pushing back against the McCain attacks with attacks of their own. However, within the last few weeks, the entire tone and tenor of the McCain campaign has grown increasingly cynical and mean-spirited—even inciting the “angry mob” effect at its rallies.
Maybe McCain hopes history won’t repeat itself in his case—or perhaps he just doesn’t know— but historical precedence demonstrates that the “angry” candidate doesn’t win.
Six months ago, Obama referred to some small town Americans as “bitter.” As a result, he was lambasted, labeled an elitist and suffered a dip in the polls as a result. Now, McCain and Sarah Palin are stirring up their crowds by proudly proclaiming “You’re angry and I’m angry too.”
Hey, I understand. We all get angry. Judeo-Christian teaching instructs us to “be angry but sin not.” So fine—McCain, Palin and their audiences have every right to be angry—that’s fine. It’s the “sin not” part of the equation that worries me.
However, the issue I have with the “angry” statement is this: What are all these angry people supposed to do with their anger? The election is not until November 4th. Until then, are folks to let their anger simmer until it boils over into something ugly? God forbid they actually lose the election—then what are they to do with their anger? Are they to do as some extremists in the McCain-Palin crowd have suggests when they shouted “Off with his head,” Kill him! Get him!?”
McCain may want to say that he is utterly appalled, and state that he totally rejects Congressman John Lewis’ reference to John Wallace, in his condemnation of McCain’s campaign rally etiquette. However, the fact is, if McCain refuses to fiercely and immediately— on-the-spot—denounce such statements that come from the crowd at his campaign rallies, he is inadvertently condoning them.
I believe that that Congressman John Lewis—in his statement that “McCain and Palin were sowing seeds of hatred and division”— was simply saying that to allow such unbridled anger and hatred to bubble up and fester is dangerous, and has the potential—if unchecked—to lead to violent acts on the part of some. The campaign has a responsibility to not incite it, allow it or condone it.
Instead of pulling back on the rhetoric that solicited very troubling outbursts at their rallies last week, McCain and Palin decided to step-up the intensity this week by launching a new “You’re angry and I’m angry too” campaign slogan. It’s an interesting approach, but is it the right approach?
I believe that how individuals conduct their campaign is an indication of how they’ll conduct their presidency. Since its inception, the tone and tenor of the Obama campaign has consistently been one of hope and inclusion—focusing on what unites us, not divides us. Yes, the Obama campaign is pushing back against the McCain attacks with attacks of their own. However, within the last few weeks, the entire tone and tenor of the McCain campaign has grown increasingly cynical and mean-spirited—even inciting the “angry mob” effect at its rallies.
Maybe McCain hopes history won’t repeat itself in his case—or perhaps he just doesn’t know— but historical precedence demonstrates that the “angry” candidate doesn’t win.
Six months ago, Obama referred to some small town Americans as “bitter.” As a result, he was lambasted, labeled an elitist and suffered a dip in the polls as a result. Now, McCain and Sarah Palin are stirring up their crowds by proudly proclaiming “You’re angry and I’m angry too.”
Hey, I understand. We all get angry. Judeo-Christian teaching instructs us to “be angry but sin not.” So fine—McCain, Palin and their audiences have every right to be angry—that’s fine. It’s the “sin not” part of the equation that worries me.
No comments:
Post a Comment