If you read my title and immediately started singing to yourself – “Did you ever have to make up your mind? / And pick up one and leave the other behind? / It’s not often easy and not often kind. / Did you ever have to make up your mind?” – give yourself two points. Why two points, you might ask? Well, according to Lynn Vareck, a political scientist from UCLA (in a recent interview on NPR on the upcoming debate, and how likely we are to see significant shifts in voter’s perceptions), she said: “We’re really at the point in this election where shifts are going to be maybe a point, maybe if something really big happens, two points.” All of this, of course, is predicated on polls, which are notoriously biased and often wrong.
What spurred my memory for this particular song by The Lovin’ Spoonful, from the pen of John Sebastian, were two things. Firstly, it was a conversation I was having with my wife last night about the upcoming debate (she has to watch for educational reasons – yes, teachers have it tough!) and “undecided” voters. I, of course, am completely skeptical that, given what is at stake in this election, or at least what we are being told is at stake – ad nauseum – is that anyone could possibly be “undecided.” I mean, what are they waiting for, a sign? Really? From whom? Secondly, when I woke up this morning I picked up the latest New Yorker magazine (after playing all the online word games… enough said) and started to read an article by Tyler Foggatt for the magazine’s “Talk of the Town” feature, titled “The Pop-Culture Vote.” The article is, first and foremost, about celebrity endorsements of candidates, and “who” said what about “whom.” One of the biggest stars in the news these days is Taylor Swift, and it did not take very long into the article for her name to appear (second sentence in fact), and what followed was a commentary on the “Swifties for Trump” t-shirts seen at rallies. The second paragraph begins with the following:
Swift has not endorsed either Trump or Kamala Harris, but the question of whether she will has become a subplot in an election seemingly so tight that something as small as the right endorsement – or the wrong meme – threatens to shift the balance.
The article then goes on to discuss how important “coolness” has been in past elections, as it is in this one, and then postulates that if “coolness is the goal,” then the most “effective celebrity endorsements are arguably ones that speak to a candidate’s vibe” (emphasis added). An example of this, which made me laugh out loud when I read it, is when Johnny Rotten, of Sex Pistols fame, was seen wearing a MAGA t-shirt, “the message – which may have resonated more than any policy proposal – was that supporting Trump was punk.” Punk? More like punk-ass which, in the popular vernacular means: “Obnoxious, stupid or otherwise unworthy of respect.” So, yeah, definitely PUNK!
The debate, which airs tonight (Sept. 10, 2024) on ABC, will be relegated to another chapter in this election titled: “Oh, and Then That Happened,” by the time anyone reads this (I am open to be proven wrong!). I suspect it will be the largest chapter in what promises to be a flood of books hitting bookstores and e-readers come November 6th. Before I read any of the above, I was, and still am, very skeptical about what “important” take-aways we will have after the 90 minute “debate.” At this stage of the game, and I feel it has become just that, a “game,” what is the likelihood of there being any worthwhile commentary on, shall we say, policy? The whole point of a “debate,” which the dictionary informs us is “a formal discussion on a particular topic in a public meeting or legislative assembly, in which opposing arguments are put forward,” is the exchange of “viewpoints,” “positions,” “ideologies,” on an issue. What we are going to be subjected to is not going to resemble anything like that, at all. How can it? If opposing microphones are toggled off when one or the other is speaking, there really cannot be an effective dialogue between the two. If, as the rules of the debate stipulate, “Each candidate will be allotted two minutes to answer each question [from the two ABC moderators, David Muir, and Linsey Davis,] with a two-minute rebuttal, and an additional minute for a follow-up, clarification, or response,” what are we going to be able to evaluate? My response to this questions is one word: “Nothing.” Sure, while this format might work if both participants had the ability to make their positions on a particular issue clear and meaningful in two minutes, then having the microphones off might not matter that much. But that is not the case for this debate. When was the last time anyone has ever heard Trump say anything on anything clearly? One need only look to his most recent “rants” on his most ironically named blog in the history of blogs, to understand what awaits Harris and the viewing public tonight.
To be clear, Sebastian, in his song, was writing about having to choose between two girls, one described as having “big blue eyes,” and “cute as a bunny,” while the other is described as “mousy.” I am pretty certain that most of us would like to think that a country’s election should come down to more than what someone looks like… well, that might be asking far too much this time around, and possibly for the foreseeable future. And, if you remember your history, the first ever televised debate, which was between JFK and Nixon in 1960, did not bolster Nixon’s chances in the election because he was sweating profusely on camera, making him look rather unappealing. It has been said that those listening to the debate on the radio actually felt that Nixon had won the debate. That may be so, but he lost the election. Was it all because of a sweaty upper lip? However, in this election, we are not talking about “looks,” per se, we are talking about the ability to “attract the attention and admiration of others, and to be seen as a leader,” in a word, charisma. In Mark Leibovich’s Atlantic piece: “Hypocrisy, Spinelessness, and the Triumph of Donald Trump,” he discusses just that, Trump’s innate ability to “wow,” first starting with all his sworn enemies in his own “party.” Leibovich, writing about past interviews he has had with Trump about those sworn enemies within, writes:
They might speak badly about me now, but they won’t later, Trump said. They like to say they are ‘public servants,’ he added, his voice dripping with derision at the word servant. But they would eventually submit to him and fear him. They would ‘evolve,’ as they say in politics. ‘It will be very easy; I can make them evolve,’ Trump told me. ‘They will evolve.’
And so, they have. So, time will tell if the so-called “undecideds” will be swayed and “evolve,” one way or the other, by anything that is said at this debate. Or perhaps it really is going to take a slogan, or a meme, or a t-shirt, or an endorsement from Swift to tilt the scales. As the song’s last refrain informs us: “And then you bet you’d better finally decide. / And say yes to one and let the other one ride. / There’s so many changes and tears you must hide. / Did you ever have to finally decide?” Yes we do.
In the meantime, since stress levels about what is going on are at an all-time high, why don’t you sit back and listen while thinking about a t-shirt I’m thinking about designing?
Harris
or
Trump
Make Up Your Mind!
Feel free to sing along!
Los Angeles 2024
It sickens me on a daily basis that so many people – i.e. voters – still like and support a loathsome man like Donald Trump. For me, it says a lot, none of it good, about a huge chuck of the American people – my sister and her soon to be ex-husband included. My only conclusion is that it’s because he hates the same people and things they do.
It is absolutely baffling to me, and yet if you think about it in terms of a “cult” it makes perfect sense (more on that soon!). Trump’s supporters have been around for a lot longer than him, and they have been patiently (for the most part) waiting for their “messiah,” someone who has been able to flaunt his many flaws and use the “system” to thwart any attempts to silence him. He speaks their “language.” What I find even more reprehensible are the so-called “politicians” who have all rallied around him and are taking the art of being a sycophant to a whole new level. I have written before that he is just one man, but I feel that he has single-handedly used what is available to him to eradicate the “center’ of this country, and it may take years for the type of divisiveness that we are now seeing to dissipate, if it in fact can. To me, it’s frightening.
It certainly is, and I too share a special hatred for all the Republican Senators and Congresscritters who privately disparage Trump, but publicly kiss his ass to remain in his favor and keep their jobs.