When Debate Gets Dangerous

Tonight is the final Presidential debate between senators John McCain and Barack Obama.  Is it likely that we will witness a “game changing” moment?  Already, the polling numbers have opened up by a wide margin in favor of Obama, and everything has intensified.  In a variety of ways, we are reminded that there will be a resurrection of the same old issues that have flooded media in the past.  The amount of coverage is overwhelming, and the glut of misinformation is frustrating, at best.  To overcome weariness, I take comfort in knowing that the end of this contest is quickly approaching.

In my struggle to condense and absorb the jaw-dropping litany of falsehoods-yes, lies…I am at a loss.  Surely we can all see when statements don’t line up with reality-right?  Unfortunately, it’s not that simple.  If someone is exposed to only one side of an issue (through one news channel, for example), it can be very difficult to “reach” that person if the evidence contradicts their closely-held opinion.  That one source has framed their reality, and anything that goes against that accepted worldview is considered an aberration.  Too often, divergent thought is labeled an “abomination.” 

I was initially encouraged when Sen. McCain acknowledged to misinformed voters at two rallies (when addressing their fears of Obama), that Sen. Obama was, in fact, a “decent family man, a citizen that I just happen to have disagreements with…”  He said “I have to tell you, he is a decent person and a person that you do not have to be scared of as President of the United States.”

Now, that is straight from the candidate’s own mouth.  Everything else said or done by his campaign, his supporters-or himself, is an absolute contradiction to the truth as he has set forth, period.  So, if these statements are merely strategic in nature, in order to “save face” (i.e. not appear to be overtly inflammatory), then that is another issue, altogether.       

Upon hearing the initial report, something made me wait before responding with a post.  Why?  Let me see…I would say that I had to consider the crowd’s immediate response of booing McCain, and his hastily added caveat: “I don’t mean that has to reduce your ferocity…” Hmmm, that is an interesting choice of words.  According to Merriam Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, “ferocity” is defined as “the quality or sate of being ferocious.” The first definition of “ferocious” is “exhibiting or given to extreme fierceness and unrestrained violence and brutality.”  The second definition is “extremely intense” (emphasis mine). At most, wouldn’t the word “intensity” have been more appropriate, considering the precarious climate that has again yielded another unchecked “kill him” (during a Sarah Palin rally) as recently as yesterday?

Eyewitness accounts of escalating, palpable anger at these rallies, continue (including the infamous Obama monkey doll).  Such behavior has brought about impassioned commentary from both Democrats and Republicans, alike.   Skilled political “spin” may be the badge of a savvy politician, but there has to be an acute awareness that not only do words inspire hope, but at its worst, they can surely provoke violence.   

Oh, how I long for actual change rather than the mere perception of it!  A great illustration of “leading by example” occurred during Obama’s October 13th speech in Toledo, OH (while outlining his economic plan) where the audience started to boo at the mention of McCain’s name…

Senator Obama (in mid-sentence):  

“No, we don’t need to do that.  We just need to vote-that’s what we need to do…”