Rambling Musings on the Midterm Elections

Recently, in my English class, a key subject of discussion has been the role that narratives and/or myths play in our lives, and how these stories affect the world around us. I’ll be slightly tweaking the subject of my blog to address this subject a little more in the future, starting with this post. From now on, this blog will primarily address narratives that shape noteworthy events in the news. It’s only a slight change, but hopefully it will improve the overall quality of my blog. If not, I sincerely apologize to you, my legions of followers.

Anyway, this week I would like to talk about politics, specifically the midterm Congressional elections. An emerging narrative is largely shaping these elections, and it is one characterized by a mistrust and dislike of candidates who embody the “political establishment”. It’s not difficult to see where all this anger comes from; the economy is in bad shape, the U.S. is mired in two seemingly unwinnable wars, Obama’s healthcare plan has not been well-received, and many other problems abound. This frustration has, in many cases, been channeled through the Tea Party, and its upstart candidates. There have been many examples of this narrative playing out during these elections, and no example has been in the news more than Delaware candidate Christine O’Donnell.

O’Donnell was a complete unknown before the primaries for the open Senate seat in Delaware, having run for office twice before in relative anonymity. She played off voter frustration to defeat career politician Mike Castle, formerly the governor of Delaware and a member of the House of Representatives, in the Republican primaries. As she now steps into the spotlight preceding the general election, a lot of her views have become increasingly known around the country. I won’t waste time going through her position on each issue, but suffice to say that many of her beliefs could be described as “ill-informed”, like her refusal to acknowledge evolution and climate change, and her statement that being gay is an “identity disorder”. Most importantly, though, O’Donnell seems blatantly unqualified to serve in Congress, having never been in an important decision-making position before.

This last aspect of her candidacy addresses the root of the problem with the narrative. Somehow, paradoxically, lack of experience is now a positive thing in many voters’ eyes. O’Donnell’s latest campaign ad has been widely lampooned for its opening line, addressing a clip of her admitting that she “dabbled in witchcraft” as a teenager. To me, this is a non-issue (but funny nonetheless). What is much scarier is what she says seconds later: “I’m you”. That’s terrific, but the problem is that I’m woefully unqualified to be a member of the Senate. I have no expertise in important matters like the economy and military strategy. There’s no way that I would vote for myself in a Senate election. Nor would I vote for the vast majority of Americans, who simply are not knowledgeable or experienced enough to effectively run the country. I don’t want our elected officials to be me; I want them to be better than me. Increasingly, though, it seems as if I am in the minority on this issue. Many Americans vote for candidates like O’Donnell precisely because of their ignorance and inexperience, and spurn relatively moderate, reasonable candidates like Castle. Suddenly, being an “outsider” is more important in American politics, particularly the Tea Party movement, than being intelligent, qualified, or honest. Fortunately, it appears as if Christine O’Donnell will lose her Senate race. Even if she won, one person probably wouldn’t be able to single-handedly impact policy. However, it isn’t her that makes me apprehensive. Rather it is the narrative of mistrust and fear that has enabled her, and other similar candidates, to even come close to being elected. This is a narrative that is affecting our world in a very negative way, in my opinion, and it is one that needs to change sometime soon.