On duelling conference calls with the press today the Obama and Clinton campaigns competed to see who could be most offended by the other's supposedly negative attacks. My god but it's tedious, this incessant whining about the other side's tactics. Candidates and their teams seem to do little else, sometimes, except issue demands that the other candidate reject, retract, or denounce some or other comment made by somebody or other on the other side. Everyone is just dying to take offence.
I suppose, here in Britain, we're used to a fairly robust political discourse. I certainly have no problem the candidates roughing each other up. After all, a campaign which focused only on positive things would be pretty dull. So I say keep throwing mud, and stop crying foul.
Michael Kinsley suggests an alternative remedy, via a spoof declaration:
Basically, in the modern political campaign, there is no room for remarks of any sort on any subject which could be interpreted as giving offense to anyone, and that covers just about every subject there is. Therefore, my campaign will enter a cone of silence from now until I am sworn in as president next January. And I call upon my distinguished opponent and her campaign to do the same. The stakes in this election are much too high for anyone to say anything.
In Britain you don't have a black running to be PM. It makes a difference. Hidden and semi-hidden tensions come to the surface when the top prize is involved.
Also, the recent round of "offensive" remarks actually have been offensive. What Gerry Ferraro said was pretty gamy. What Jeremiah Wright had to say was guaranteed to outrage 95.5% of Americans. Funny as Kinsley's column was, it should have come out a month or so ago.
Posted by: Kyle | March 17, 2008 at 12:20 AM
See, right here is the problem. You say that Wright's speech was 'outrageous' according to most people's standards. I agree. But that's not the same as 'offensive'. The word offensive implies a personal insult. You can take it personally if you wish (as in, 'I am personally offended that he should say such things') or you can declare it to be wrong in no uncertain terms.
Unfortunately the line between what's offensive and what is simply wrong or unacceptable or outrageous has been blurred to the point of invisibility. And yes, it makes a difference: it personalises the whole discourse, gives that touchy, whiny flavour which is tediously apparent in these exchanges between the candidates.
Posted by: marbury | March 17, 2008 at 07:37 AM