finding voice- David Meyerson

I found the examples in the Ritchie article fascinating in articulating the means of representing voices that cannot be heard.  In our political campaigns today, there seems to be a constant struggle for who can represent the "common American people".  The ubiquitous mention of a certain so-and-so in Middle America who has to struggle to keep their business afloat or put food on the table rubs me the wrong way, yet a campaign speech without this reference would be unthinkable.  While listening to NPR coverage of an Obama "jobs" speech in some state or another, he told of the "so-and-so" that was out of work.  It sounded so disingenuous. I am a lifelong Democrat and voted for the man, but his reference and purported sympathy in his stump speech was the equivalent of Mike Dukakis sitting in a tank.  I have no doubt that Barack Obama is concerned about jobs and is sympathetic to the plight of Middle America. Similarly, I have no doubt that Dukakis would have supported our military as president.  However (and it pains me to think about this), that doesn't matter.  Many politicos will try to tell you that this paradigm shift happened in 1960 when Kennedy and Nixon conducted the first televised debate.  (In case you're too young, Kennedy looked much better on camera because Nixon had been ill and refused a lot of makeup.- Radio listeners called the debate a draw or a Nixon win. I joke.  I'm too young, although Nixon was president when I was born.) I believe the shift, nowadays, is more drastic than looking good in front of the camera, although this clearly helps. Now, the viewing and voting public look for a genuine-ness exuded by the candidate.  The scary part is that this genuine-ness is, more often than not a front.  See my kinder opinions about Obama and Dukakis.  How others project you is the ultimate prize or downfall.  In Ritchie, it is not the aims of the pro-life or pro-choice movements that matter so much as how they project themselves or are projected.  We throw around the saying "perception is reality" too much.  Programmed perception is more like it. Whether a politician or his/her handlers is creating the image, this is the false front that will become truth if done right.  Sarah Palin is not the brightest bulb in the tree (?), nor do you become governor of Alaska by being dim-witted.  The handlers on the Right have done a better job projecting that part of her that seems most genuine.  She is a "Mama Bear" and does believe in family values.  That trumps pettiness in the name of ambition, or a lack of foreign policy book smarts. Where does this leave us?  Do we give up on the idea of reality in our political landscape?  To do this is to invite the kind of cynicism that hog-ties many more honest governments.  My wife articulates quite well how Israelis see their government- they expect them all to be corrupt and in it for the perks.  Cynicism in the name of honesty can be incredibly self-destructive.  The government can become paralyzed due to multiple competing interests.  I'm all for the idea of transparency in business and government and also the freedom to voice your complaints, but there is a place for dreams and fronts.  Imitation becomes reality.  As much as I cringe giving any credit to Ronald Reagan, he was a perfect example of imagining a truth in order to achieve ends.