Have we lost the ability to think before we vote?

Yesterday I went to the hair dresser. I spoke with two women there about the election. Both said the same thing: they are leaning towards Obama, but haven’t made up their minds yet. One said that she felt there was a different vib at the Democratic Convention; there was joy and a genuine emotional connection with Obama among the delegates. She also noticed that who was at the Democratic Convention was very different from who was in St. Paul the next week. She wants to be methodical in her decision making this time around. She takes her voting seriously. This is a good thing. The process she has devised for informing herself starts with the vice presidential candidates. She began with the question: who do I like better.

The other woman at the hair salon is attracted to Palin, likes her chutzpah, likes that she is straight-talking, that she has bucked the “guy” system, that she has the confidence to deliver a punchline flawlessly. She finds Palin sexy, full of that frontier spirit. “I like strong women,” she said.

She asked me if I would ever vote for a Republican for president. I told her that it was difficult for me to ever support a Republican because of what their party platform says, especially this year when the platform is more extreme than ever. She hadn't gotten that far yet in her deliberations. Compare it with the Democratic Platform. They represent such different visions for America.

Looking at the post-television presidents, has the delivery of political messages in pseudo town meetings, YouTube videos, and living room interviews obscured the issues so that we vote for who we like instead of what they stand for? Is this how we have been manipulated into voting against our own self-interests?  Rick Davis, McCain's campaign manager, recently said, "This election is not about issues.  This election is about a composite view of what people take away from these candidates."

Would Abraham Lincoln ever get elected now, or would he be considered too intellectual, too tall, and just too ugly?

The first televised debate between presidential candidates was in 1960 between John F. Kennedy, Jr. and Richard M. Nixon. On the visuals, Kennedy won, but not on content. Clearly, no matter how much one disputed the principles of his career, Nixon certainly had more experience. Kennedy, like Obama, was intellectual, charming, and very telegenic.

Looking at the elections since 1960, the more photogenic candidate has not always won. Not at first. It took a few election cycles before the influence of television and advertising affected election outcomes, no matter what the platform or the pressing issues of the campaign.

1964, 1968, and 1972: those elections were fought and won as the Republican Party began its campaign to win the white southern vote through a deliberate, cynical, and racist strategy. Afterall, in the wake of massive civil rights marches and the assassination of JFK, Lyndon Johnson, a Democrat from Texas, had used his enormous power to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, two of the most effective pieces of legislation ever enacted.

Perhaps it began with Ronald Reagan, the first actor as president, the first modern president who personally didn’t have the intellect himself. Ronald Reagan became the spokesman for America as he had been for General Electric in the days before he entered politics. He knew how to deliver a speech that was written by someone far smarter than he was.

And then there was Bill Clinton, the ultimate seducer, the man who still knows how to create a sense of intimacy while speaking to 34 million people across satellite, cable, and antennae.

People didn’t vote for Al Gore because they thought he was too stiff. People didn’t vote for John Kerry because he was too wooden.

Will they vote for Obama because of his relaxed and conversational approach to explaining himself to America? He looks better on television than John McCain for sure.

What people say should be more important than how they say it, but the electronic age has made us more susceptible to underlying messages that yank at our emotions instead. Everything is framed to connect with our unthinking parts. How can we break through the fog? Democracy demands that we think before we vote. Can we sustain a democracy?

Procon.org has greatly expanded its coverage, and now includes a section that compares the views of the candidates, presidential (and all of them, including third party candidates) and by September 19th, vice presidential, too, on 65 topics. Pass on the link to folks who want to be informed but aren't sure how to get what they need to make a deliberate decision.