RJ Eskow, in a May 18 Huffington Post piece, used the term “selective outrage” in connection with Hillary Clinton’s tactics during this endless Democratic primary battle. While the accusation is ITSELF selective outrage, it is actually an accurate term for the way the spinners in our society disingenuously and selectively take note of some outrages at the expense of other outrages. Outrages abound in politics, and selective spinners on all sides focus only on those outrages that seem helpful to their own cause or candidate. I would, however, like to propose a different term that may be more useful in selecting our next President, or perhaps in analyzing how this should be done: PROPORTIONAL OUTRAGE. I touched on this idea in another context when talking about grief in my last post. I said that the “inoculation” effect of big time grief has helped me keep whatever trauma I’ve faced since the loss of my child in perspective. In other words, a strong sense of proportion keeps hysteria in check.
In the political arena, we unfortunately find an appalling lack of proportionality. Certainly one of the most disturbing bits of information to come down the pike in an era of disturbing information is that the latest polls show that a large proportion of Obama supporters say they won’t EVER support Hillary, and a similar percentage of Hillary supporters say they won’t EVER support Obama. Even scarier is the news that in certain quarters of Camp Hillary, they’re planning to actively work against Obama, should he be the candidate. I can only hope that this is all just talk in the heat of the moment, and that when the time comes, they will come to their senses.
To help them, I’d like to remind them that whatever offenses or outrages either or both of the Democratic candidates may have committed against one another, they are small potatoes compared to the big outrages committed by Republican George Bush and his outlaw Administration, outrages that with only few exceptions have been consistently seconded and supported by John McCain, who for all this talk of distancing, has agreed with George Bush 95% of the time. Taking this country to war under false pretenses, ruining our good name and reputation around the world, torturing people and holding them indefinitely without charges like the torturers all over the word do, squandering the good will we might have used to good purpose after September 11, 2001–these are some of the very BIG outrages of this (Republican) administration. These are outrages of policy. Outrages of tactics (which are used to greater and lesser degree on all sides) are ALWAYS small potatoes compared to outrages of policy. Tactical outrages affect only individuals, whereas policy outrages affect millions. Tactical outrages may be difficult for candidates to handle, or may upset their supporters, or arguably speak to character issues, but outrages of policy get people killed and maimed. And I haven’t even mentioned the Republican party’s ECONOMIC outrages of policy, which have ruined millions of lives.
This morning before the rain came, I got in a walk with my pooch, Molly, and was thrilled to run into some friends who have in the past self-identified as “staunch Republicans.” Surprise, surprise. They both told me that they will probably support Barack Obama in the general election. Asked their reasons, they both mentioned how impressive and smart Obama seems, and how he managed to keep mostly to the issues, rising above all the negative partisan attacks. One of also them said, “McCain is a war monger.” Yes. Indeed. In my view, this is the main reason to support the Democrat, whomever it may be. The policy differences between Hillary and Obama are miniscule. The policy differences between either Democrat and McCain/Bush are HUGE. l can only hope that Hillary and Obama supporters who claim they won’t support the other Democratic candidate will join with these two “staunch Republicans” and millions of other who understand proportional outrage, and will make the right choice for the country in the end–the Democrat, whomever it is.
We can all honor Senator McCain’s service to our country, but Senator McCain has learned the wrong lessons from his experiences. Senator McCain is a Bush clone, no matter how much lip service he pays to distancing himself from Bush. We saw this in stark relief during the recent, disgraceful “appeasement” episode. Winston Churchill said “It’s always better to jaw, jaw than to war, war.” Jaw, jawing, which involves having a dialogue, is NOT the same thing as appeasing, which involves substantive concessions, and it is proportionally OUTRAGEOUS that George Bush, whose own surrogates at this point are doing plenty of talking with whomever will talk to them, would equate the two in so sensitive a setting as the Israeli Knesset. It is OUTRAGEOUS that the so called straight-talking McCain would second such a misrepresentation, and further, try to distract the American public by calling Barack Obama naive for understanding the difference.
The Republican attack machine and its surrogates are already gearing up to throw everything they can dig up or make up at Obama, in an effort to distract Americans from the proportional outrage they should rightly feel at the Republican party for getting us into this mess, but with current polls showing that 81 per cent of the public believes the country is on the wrong track, and with McCain having sided with Bush 95% of the time, the country WILL make the right choice this time.