One of the
nice things about living outside the US, and mostly disconnected from the
internet, is that I’m well insulated from the presidential election season madness.
4 years ago, I was fully invested in the campaign, talking non-stop about the
most recent campaign gaffs or poll numbers, and if I was there now I’d be just
as annoying. Instead, it’s been more like watching the Tour de France, missing most
of the details but finding out about and game changing scandals. Since getting
on the internet involves so much effort, most of my campaign knowledge comes
from other, better connected people: my parents, sister, friends in the states,
fellow PC volunteers, and even neighbors and co-workers. No matter what the
piece of news, it comes through with all the biases and experiences of the
person doing the telling. This has made for some interesting comparisons.
After the
most recent presidential debate, I heard about it first from my parents. Of
course, they started with the standard but always meaningless ruling on the
debate’s victor, in this case Romney.
This turned into a commentary ranging from lamenting at Obama’s poor
performance to ridiculing positions that Romney seemed to have taken. For me,
it was a nice surprise to hear that he finally decided to own up to his record
as a governor. Having gone the whole campaign hiding from what I think is his
best asset; it was nice to see that governing experience finally won out over
party politics. Finally, we talked about when the next debate would be and our
hopes for a better showing by Obama.
This little
political conversation finally motivated me to fill in, photograph, and email
in my overseas ballot the next day. A couple days later, my completed ballot
was still on my desk when Juvencio came over to work on a new Scout’s grant
proposal. Seeing it, he commented on how there were so many candidates running,
10 in NJ, and how politics in the US are so different. He was most puzzled by
how presidential debates work. Why would Obama participate? His party was
already in power. Wouldn’t going face to face just help his opponent? Is he not
afraid that a televised debate would turn into a physical fight? After laughing
at the image of presidential candidates fighting each other on Jerry Springer, I realized that he meant an all out civil war and was silent for a little bit. Once i regained my composer, I explained that that though
the Democrats are in power, the US has a well-tuned non-violent political anger
machine. Any screw-up or error made by anyone in the public eye, president or
candidate, is shouted from so many channels that the best way to calm people
down is to have a moderated debate. Still holding firm that it would never happen in Mozambique, we got back to work and finished the grant proposal.
So for as
much stress as the presidential election season madness creates, I’d rather
have a maniacal, crazed, divisive, all-consuming $2 billion dollar a year argument than not at all.
