Now that there are two presumptive nominees for the general election in November, I see the gauntlet has already been thrown. I’m not talking about Obama and McCain themselves; I’m talking about the language that will be used in the coming months to characterize the election. It will be fearsome.
Consider for a moment that I’ve heard these comments in the past two days: “The war in the battleground states has begun,” “The campaign is launched,” “The troops on the ground are ready.”
What are we doing here? Comparing the democratic process to a military engagement? Creating a metaphor of war when there is none? Losing our sensibilities and becoming hawks when both doves and hawks are inappropriate?
We pride ourselves on being a democracy (although the reality is that the Founding Fathers created a republic) that protects certain inalienable, God-given rights. With this in mind, we have worked for more than two hundred years to insure life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I don’t see where characterizing our political process in militaristic terms serves any of those rights. In fact, I find this tendency undermines the very fabric of our Constitution.
We’re not waging war; we’re engaging in the electoral process. We’re not rearranging the borders of the country according to red and blue states; we’re having an election. We’re not taking prisoners; we’re exercising our right to vote for the candidate of our choice.
So could someone tell the candidates and the media and the current administration that we would all be better served if they toned down their use of military comparisons? That they leave combative similes and aggressive metaphors behind because they are counter-productive? That they return to a civilized world where a campaign for president is just that and the process that insures the outcome is also just that?
I know it’s a stretch, but I sincerely believe it’s important.
Leave a Reply