Political Opinions

Professional Opinions of Pundits Invite Amateurs to Stand and Speak

     Pundits on MSNBC or CNN – the others I do not watch -- tell me that this presidential campaign is the worst in history. They do not use words like “nasty”, “petty”, “attacks”, “demeaning”, “belittling”. They reach for but circumlocute “treasonous” with slanting condescension and phrases that linger: “compromises our national security.”

     That’s a tremendous personal insult to a sitting President of the United States. Looking back from George Washington to George W. Bush, I cannot recall such words ever having been said about a president, whether seeking a second term or not. Hackles twitch and begin to rise on my democratic neck, until I realize that the pundits are urging both candidates to raise the tone from wardheeling’s cacophony to the dignity reserved, deserved for the highest political office in this country, one of the finest in the world.

     I am also being told that my personal observations of the Republican candidate are offensive to some readers here, in such a way that no defense based on the freedom to utter my personal opinion can be allowed. And I see, easily, clearly, that we – those who complain about my being myself, as well as myself -- have splashed ourselves in the overspray of the worst presidential campaign, not so much in the sense of “follow the leader”, but in a silent pride of being American, privileged to vote, and worthy of having an opinion at all.
    

     Instead of brushing the complaint off, or even in acknowledging it was well merited, I stopped to ask myself: “Why do I dislike a candidate in the first place?” Particularly one who has been super-successful in almost every task to which he has loaned his enormous talents; most particularly, because of his immense success, rarely achieved by others, in the most difficult world of them all, high business finance.

     No ready answers came, probably because I have deliberately been an outsider to politics, and it made little difference as to which party held the office. During my adult life, little joy came from watching two presidents: Jimmy Carter and George W. Bush, while the rest didn’t give rise to opinions about them or their party. The realization came quickly: any opinion I had on any person, president or peasant, usually spurted from my reaction to an idiosyncrasy, so insignificant it had little to do with who and what he was.

     This insight came very suddenly for me, with the dare to say it out loud held back by an embarrassed sigh of relief. It didn’t seem professional that my opinion could possibly be as inane and stupid as an insignificant idiosyncrasy. Somehow, though, the urge to make such an admission is a dare to ask a reader: “Is your instinctive opinion of either candidate as silly as mine? “ Followed by, “Is that how we make up our minds to vote?”