WHAT IS “UNFAIR?”
Are we a bit more sensitive than usual in this year's presidential election concerning what is thought to be “fair” and what is to be seen as a “foul?”
Specific acts have been condemned by one party or the other concerning attitudes, prejudices, innuendo, or plainly spoken words uttered in haste, confusion or purposely planned. Some such derogatory references might easily inspire the he wild series of charges set forth to make the other party look seem less than tan good, and one has to wonder how many are said under the guise of “error” when deliberate forethought was he generative force behind hem.
Many people, I find, away back in the Democratic Primary phase, seemed to think that a leading candidate at the time - Governor Dean, of Vermont - was suddenly presented as being incapable after the “lost his cool” and succumbed to seemingly out-of-control screaming in a moment of stress. It seemed to suggest to some people that the man was mentally unprepared for Presidential tasks and associated pressures. Six months later in a fine, parody by Atom Films called “My Land” - one of the better pieces to come out of the campaign, I feel, lampooning both sides after the manner of a musical “roast” had buried within its complex body a single, unexplained scream which took me back to Dean-land. Early references to John Kerry's ability to acquire “Lavender Heart” decorations also fell flat, and logically so, because it was seen to be a reflection on the legitimacy of honestly merited Purple Heart decorations.
It was deemed unfair when John Kerry mentioned , as example,in the final presidential “debate” that Vice President Dick Cheney's daughter was a Lesbian. There was also some objection when it was said that he could, just as well, have mentioned his fellow legislative worker Barney Frank as a better known gay person.
John Kerry's wife just this past week of Laura Bush as an inexperienced home body who “had never held a job in her life”. A formal, staff-written “apology” was issued after the initial statement had been well distributed. Statistical studies have shown how few original readers or hearers ever see or hear retractions in an associative manner and the “error” goes uncorrected in many cases.
Many viewers were disturbed by the widow of Christopher Reeves doing a pitch supporting John Kerry so soon after her husband's death. The stem cell research she favored in her announcement was of special interest to Reeves and to her, I realize, but her purpose may have been better served had she urged both major candidates to support stem cell research on a grander basis rather than be critical of one for less excessive promises during an election campaign. Was her appeal in "poor taste"?
Obviously in these last weeks of the campaign we face some strong possibility of questionable ads when it is too late to refute charges made. A new series of TV ads of the “Swift Boat” style by Viet Nam veterans through Sinclair TV stations, and I am amazed that the G.O.P. has not yet mounted a campaign saying that our greatest danger in these final election days is – to make word-play on the term "Terrorism."
“Our greatest current danger: Kerryism!” It would center on theme of nothing new only “We can do it better.” Vague promises. Me-too-isms. Something for everyone or every group.
I wonder if a national “sense of fairness” has prevented such an attack, or will it happen in these last days?
A.L.M. October 21, 2004 [c598wds]
